If Communism is so great why did it fail every time?

[Comrade Mitja]

Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.



Just asking,no troll replays

[TheGodlessUtopian]

What Communism?... seriously.

[Eagle_Syr]

But it was never proven that socialism (since only socialism has ever been realized) cannot work.

Indeed, history demonstrates the efficacy of socialism. If you consider the state of Russia in 1917, and later under the USSR, the rapid industrialization, increased food production, improved education, and improved living conditions of the Russian people indicate a successful implementation, to some extent, of socialism.

And while it is true that there were shortages and rations, you must also take into consideration the extreme destruction and loss of life the USSR suffered in war-fare (WW2), and the continued harassment by the United States during the Cold War. Consumer goods would have been better had it not been for these things.

The USSR achieved many great scientific, medical, educational, and industrial feats. After all, the USSR was the first to put a man in space; first to send a satellite into space, et cetera


The same can be said of Cuba pre and post-Batista

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Who proved this when? I must have missed the memo.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

People have diferent views towards the faliure of socialism some (the anarchists) claim it was because of the existance of a state, others (left communists) claim it was because the revolution did not go international, there are of course more views, but I will let others explain.

So, you decide why socialism failed.:)

[DasFapital]

it wasn't communism that failed but rather personality cults and state capitalism.

[Comrade Mitja]

But it was never proven that socialism (since only socialism has ever been realized) cannot work.

Indeed, history demonstrates the efficacy of socialism. If you consider the state of Russia in 1917, and later under the USSR, the rapid industrialization, increased food production, improved education, and improved living conditions of the Russian people indicate a successful implementation, to some extent, of socialism.

And while it is true that there were shortages and rations, you must also take into consideration the extreme destruction and loss of life the USSR suffered in war-fare (WW2), and the continued harassment by the United States during the Cold War. Consumer goods would have been better had it not been for these things.

The USSR achieved many great scientific, medical, educational, and industrial feats. After all, the USSR was the first to put a man in space; first to send a satellite into space, et cetera


The same can be said of Cuba pre and post-Batista

look at russia and UK,who has more develop technologies?
Also you forgot to mention how many inocent people died cuz of so called communist
Those communist leaders always put to power people who followed their program,those who had their own mind never got the chance to lead ussr
Look who came to power freaking stalin,worst kind of human there is imaginable
so why did the ussr collapsed? if it was so great,also yugoslavia,and other "communist" countries

etc etc

[TrotskistMarx]

From my own personal opinion of why many leaders of socialist labor parties, apply a state-capitalism to large corporations. And neoliberal-capitalism to the medium and smaller corporations of the respective countries where socialism has failed, has many many many causes. One of the major causes are the scientific causes of it. That socialism in 1, 2, 3 or 4 countries, while other countries have neoliberal-capitalism or state-capitalist systems or mixed neoliberalism and state capitalist system at the same, while using military force or political force to terrorize those new socialist experiments (example Cuba, Korea Venezuela etc. which are terrorized by big capitalist nations)

The other causes are that all humans right-wingers, centrists-wingers and left-wingers are too egocentric, too narcissist, too selfish. That inability of humans to evolve toward more altruist, less narcissist, less egocentrical people, is what leads many many many leaders of socialist parties and even members of socialist parties to behave in an unfriendly, unloving manner. And when they get to government power to steal money and to apply capitalist economic models backed by IMF, World Bank and corporations so that the leaders of the socialist marxist parties can see more personal wealth for themselves, their families and their friends.

The book The Prince by Machiavelli talks about the selfish nature of humans. And we have clear-cut examples of how socialist workers parties, when they win elections, they become right-wingers neoliberals, pro-IMF. (Because in IMF neoliberalism is where socialist marxist presidents can become rich, they quit their marxist ideology, and give in to the temptations, pleasures and joys of wealth, luxuries and the high levels of comfortable lifestyle that they get with lots of money, compared with their former older lifestyle of lack of money.

So you see politics, societies are not exact science, humans are not predictable, many marxists get corrupt in power like Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Lula Dasilva of Brazil, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and even Tony Blair's party was supposed to a workers party (The Labor Party of UK)


.


Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.



Just asking,no troll replays

[Ostrinski]

Poor political programs on the behalf of organizations that did not see the necessity of arranging an education program based on empowering the working class to operate independently and efficiently with regard to the sustainability of the socialist economy, as well as the fact that the capitalists throw rockets at us whenever there is a social foundation for worker´s movements.

[Thirsty Crow]

Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.

The point is that communism is only possible on a world basis. Actual transcending of commodity production and the state can only be accomplished when (most) of the world working class establishes its political domination. That was, and still is, a basic tenet of communist political theory and practice.
So, the conclusion would be that an idea, a project, a possibility, is not proven false when its stated preconditions were lacking.

[Peoples' War]

This is what American's call a "softball".

First off, you aren't taking into consideration, the biggest thing, material conditions. As well, you are clearly not versed in Marxist theory.

If you did/were, you'd realize that the material conditions surrounding these places: China, Russia, etc. were NOT ripe for socialism proper.

Let's look at the example of Russia. After the Bolsheviks established a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, they were faced with the following hardships:

- Civil war
- Famine
- Invasion
- WWI
- Failure of the German Revolution, resulting in isolation.

[wsg1991]

the thing is once they have to adapt to their material conditions , they would call them revisionists

[revolt]

you are all very bad at dealing with the fact that people have an idea about what communism is that's not correct. question for everyone acting as if it is so obvious that communism has never been a social system in place: do you expect everyone to have researched the same politics as you have?

what is "every time"? all previous socialist (not authentically socialist, but thats something else) countries didn't exist in vacuums. there has only ever been two socialist blocs (Chinese allied countries and soviet allied countries). so "every time" is just two socialist blocs. it doesn't make sense to point to both the failure of the Soviet Union as well as the failure of East Germany as two entirely separate attempts. in reality they were both part of the same socialist project. that would be like saying that every Korean war failed because multiple countries were involved in the military effort.

the soviet bloc failed because of economic stagnation, domestic turmoil, etc. can you elaborate on how you think that this disproves the idea of socialism, what you mean by socialism, etc.? that way we can get more specific into answering your question.

[Questionable]

it wasn't communism that failed but rather personality cults and state capitalism.

If you're going to take this route, at least explain to the OP what you're talking about. This is the same as saying "Capitalism isn't failing, it's state-sponsored corporatism that is!"

Anyway, the fall of the USSR wasn't quite the liberating experience that Western historians make it out to be. All but one or two of the ex-Eastern Bloc countries have fallen on hard times ever since the fall. Many of Soviet Russia's neighbors fell to racial wars and bad economics after the collapse, and Russia itself isn't doing so well either. Yeltsin's policies in particular lead to widespread corruption, inflation, homelessness, and the massive concentration of wealth. Furthermore, there's dozens of statistics that show many ex-Soviet citizens miss the "old days." Whether you believe this is because life was actually better or because they're just nostalgic is up for debate, but the numbers are there.

The fall of the USSR may have been a victory for the West, but it was a failure for its citizens

[Deicide]

Yeltsin's policies in particular lead to widespread corruption

What? You think corruption was not wide spread in the USSR and its client states?

[Questionable]

What? You think these things didn't exist in the USSR and its client states?

Yes, the USSR was pretty much dead for the workers by then anyway, aside from a few social programs. I'm only trying to combat the idea that capitalism was a knight-in-shining-armor for the oppressed peoples of Eastern Europe. Regardless of which political philosophy "won," the workers lost.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Something that has never existed can not have failed.

However, there are many reasons why the transition to "true" communism has failed.
1) Foreign intervention (Russian civil war, US embargo of Cuba, Korean War)
2) Failure to spread the revolution internationally
3) Personality cults
4) Degeneration of the worker's states
5) Internal feuds between socialists
6) Totalitarianism

[seventeethdecember2016]

Since we don't have the material capabilities to achieve a classless stateless state yet. Socialism, which is the transition to Capitalism and Communism and is supposed to 'sow the seeds for a Communist society,' has to achieve it through slow and grueling progress. Perhaps with advanced technology such a system will be achieved.

[Regicollis]

Oh my God! - Communism has been tried!

I guess I wasn't at school the day they told us about that.

[Lanky Wanker]

Someone fetch my friggin' gun... I wanna shoot myself hearing this question for the 508540398943875849035th time.

[Blake's Baby]

Come on, this is the learning forum (though perhaps the OP should be restricted to OI Leaning?) - we should at least attempt to explain why what s/he thinks is 'communism' is really state capitalism.


If you're going to take this route, at least explain to the OP what you're talking about. This is the same as saying "Capitalism isn't failing, it's state-sponsored corporatism that is!"...

Well, sort of, but not; because 'state sponsored corporatism' (or even 'state capitalism'?) is a form of capitalism, not a 'form' of communism.

They're right, state-sponsored corporatism is failing; it failed in the USSR, it's failing in the West, and that's because as a system, capitalism 9which in the epoch is increasingly manifested as state-sponsored corporatism) is a flawed system that naturally exhibits crises.

So, to the OP: communism is a worldwide system of prouction for need not profit, without states, borders, classes, or property; it was not communism that failed, it was a particularly inefficient form of capitalism. And now the rest of capitalism is catching up.

So, given that capitalism has demonstrably failed the world over, what's your beef with communism again?

[Thirsty Crow]

So, given that capitalism has demonstrably failed the world over, what's your beef with communism again?
I don't think this is the point.
It's a matter of recognizing that communist politics have indeed been practiced, and concluding from there that the very possibility of a fundamental change is completely lacking.
As I've stated, this represents a wrong take on the program and theory (ince OP clearly stated that he/she wishes to deal with the argument that the idea has been tested and failed) since it completely neglects the actual conditions of its implementation or practice.

But to insist on the fact that capitalism fails is to neglect that most of such arguments presuppose that capitalism actually doesn't fail since social reproduction on the basis of capital still persists. It seems that the criterion is whether a social, economic and political order manages to reproduce itself, and the situation with so called communism is that it failed in its reproduction. That's a fundamental reality we need to consider very seriously, and not by resorting to hand waving (not that I imply you're doing it, but I can't help but notice that many people resort to such "debating strategies").

[DasFapital]

If you're going to take this route, at least explain to the OP what you're talking about. This is the same as saying "Capitalism isn't failing, it's state-sponsored corporatism that is!"



The fall of the USSR may have been a victory for the West, but it was a failure for its citizens
Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted. Second, one of the main tenets of Marxism is a rejection of "false consciousness" (ie nationalism and religion) that the ruling class uses to subvert the proletariat. Once you start referring to "the Motherland" or declaring your dead leader "eternal Head of the Party" that whole concept flies out the window. That leads to the issue of the "vanguard party" establishes a new ruling class to oppress the workers of their native country. So right there we can see how little these socialist states had to do with Marxist theory.
Finally, I agree with you that a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Soviet Union, I never said they didn't. However, a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Roman Empire, that still doesn't justify its existence.

[Blake's Baby]

Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted...

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

[wsg1991]

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

so if socialist revolution conditions are available in one country , should we just wait ? perhaps for 40 years ?

[Blake's Baby]

So, if no aeroplanes are available, should we jump off a cliff?

[Questionable]

Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted. Second, one of the main tenets of Marxism is a rejection of "false consciousness" (ie nationalism and religion) that the ruling class uses to subvert the proletariat. Once you start referring to "the Motherland" or declaring your dead leader "eternal Head of the Party" that whole concept flies out the window. That leads to the issue of the "vanguard party" establishes a new ruling class to oppress the workers of their native country. So right there we can see how little these socialist states had to do with Marxist theory.
Finally, I agree with you that a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Soviet Union, I never said they didn't. However, a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Roman Empire, that still doesn't justify its existence.

But the revolution happened there, regardless of what Marx said. Things are different in the age of imperialism. Class consciousness and revolutionary activity in Western nations is much, much lower than in countries that are the victims of imperialist exploitation, such as Russia, China, or modern-day Greece. Marx's prediction was just that; a prediction. To hold dogmatically to it makes your complaints about the USSR's cult of personality seem ironic, and it also reveals nothing about the historical situation. You're basically saying that the Bolsheviks were wrong because they went against Marx's word.


Your reference to the Roman Empire also seems erratic. Aside from the fact that I don't know much about Roman history, are you saying it's completely fine that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc has lead to horrible economic lives, increased privatization, widespread organized crime, and a whole host of other social problems? Regardless of how degenerated the Soviet Union was by then, there were still many social safety nets in place from its earlier days. Are you honestly happy that the quality and length of life has fallen all across Eastern Europe just because it means you've somehow won the argument?

[wsg1991]

So, if no aeroplanes are available, should we jump off a cliff?

you can tell us what should this workers do ?

[Blake's Baby]

If you want to fly, building an aeroplane is better than jumping a cliff. You can't fly under your own power.

If you want to build a socialist society, you can't just decide to do it. The material conditions for it must exist. The material conditions don't exist in one country, even a big one.

Not even the cleverest bear can lay eggs.

But if you mean, what should the workers in a revolutionary territory do if the revolution fails to spread - as happened in the 1920s - then the answer is that all they can do is continue trying to promote the revolution worldwide while trying to hold on against the (inevitable) counter-revolutionary nature of the 'revolutionary' state.

But the fact is that long before 40 years is up the revolutionary territory will have gone back to being a strightforward capitalist state of some kind.

[DasFapital]

But the revolution happened there, regardless of what Marx said. Things are different in the age of imperialism. Class consciousness and revolutionary activity in Western nations is much, much lower than in countries that are the victims of imperialist exploitation, such as Russia, China, or modern-day Greece. Marx's prediction was just that; a prediction. To hold dogmatically to it makes your complaints about the USSR's cult of personality seem ironic, and it also reveals nothing about the historical situation. You're basically saying that the Bolsheviks were wrong because they went against Marx's word.


Your reference to the Roman Empire also seems erratic. Aside from the fact that I don't know much about Roman history, are you saying it's completely fine that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc has lead to horrible economic lives, increased privatization, widespread organized crime, and a whole host of other social problems? Regardless of how degenerated the Soviet Union was by then, there were still many social safety nets in place from its earlier days. Are you honestly happy that the quality and length of life has fallen all across Eastern Europe just because it means you've somehow won the argument?
Well Marx's prediction was an informed one, considering that the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries would have higher class conscious and be more educated than those in feudal societies, therefore less likely to fall prey to authoritarianism. It isn't so much holding dogmatically to Marx's word as seeing it as an informed observation. Just because there is more revolutionary activity in an oppressed country doesn't it will lead to anything progressive. Also, you're claiming imperialism didn't exist in the nineteenth century? I would beg to differ.
In regard to the collapse of the USSR, I do not think it should have collapsed into liberalism but rather the proletariat should have tried to take advantage of their situation to produce a more authentically socialist society.

[#FF0000]

The revolution failed, basically. The Germans were crushed and the Russians were absolutely gutted and isolated.

[Questionable]

Well Marx's prediction was an informed one, considering that the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries would have higher class conscious and be more educated than those in feudal societies, therefore less likely to fall prey to authoritarianism. It isn't so much holding dogmatically to Marx's word as seeing it as an informed observation. Just because there is more revolutionary activity in an oppressed country doesn't it will lead to anything progressive. Also, you're claiming imperialism didn't exist in the nineteenth century? I would beg to differ.
In regard to the collapse of the USSR, I do not think it should have collapsed into liberalism but rather the proletariat should have tried to take advantage of their situation to produce a more authentically socialist society.

Then Marx was incorrect on this one, as the state of affairs nowadays proves that the class consciousness of first-world nations are lower than in the rest of the world. Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy touches on this. And I never said imperialism didn't exist, but it was in its embryonic stages, and had not developed to the point it was at during the time of the Russian Revolution. There is a world market now, and things have changed. Marx understood this. He often went back and critiqued earlier works of his that no longer held relevance for the time period. Your claim that the revolution must happen in first-world countries has no basis in reality, and stinks of chauvinism. Do the silly, uneducated victims of Western imperialism need their more enlightened comrades to come save them, rather than taking revolutionary action into their own hands? It's like your implying that these people are too stupid to avoid taking the "wrong" path, therefore they need to sit around and wait for guidance. Lastly, why are you so opposed to authoritarianism? Marx was an authoritarian himself. Him and Engels wrote multiple works describing how the use of authority would be essential to establishing communism.

[Art Vandelay]

Then Marx was incorrect on this one, as the state of affairs nowadays proves that the class consciousness of first-world nations are lower than in the rest of the world. Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy touches on this. And I never said imperialism didn't exist, but it was in its embryonic stages, and had not developed to the point it was at during the time of the Russian Revolution. There is a world market now, and things have changed. Marx understood this. He often went back and critiqued earlier works of his that no longer held relevance for the time period. Your claim that the revolution must happen in first-world countries has no basis in reality, and stinks of chauvinism. Do the silly, uneducated victims of Western imperialism need their more enlightened comrades to come save them, rather than taking revolutionary action into their own hands? It's like your implying that these people are too stupid to avoid taking the "wrong" path, therefore they need to sit around and wait for guidance. Lastly, why are you so opposed to authoritarianism? Marx was an authoritarian himself. Him and Engels wrote multiple works describing how the use of authority would be essential to establishing communism.

I would warn you from falling into the traps of third worldism which seems to be lingering behind the surface of your post.

[Eagle_Syr]

I've never understood why you couldn't achieve socialism in one country.

I do understand that class war is global; that capitalism is a global system of exploitation; and that the ultimate ideal of communism calls for internationalism.

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?

[Art Vandelay]

I've never understood why you couldn't achieve socialism in one country.

I do understand that class war is global; that capitalism is a global system of exploitation; and that the ultimate ideal of communism calls for internationalism.

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?

I don't think complete self-reliance is possible for a highly industrialized state.

[Crux]

Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.



Just asking,no troll replays
Actually I stopped doing that when I became a marxist. Like many people I believed, and believe, in some kind of basic human rights. And then you realize that human rights are apparently not for everyone that exploitation of monstrous proportion is going on all around you, not just in third-world countries but literally all around you. Capitalism response to this is generally either "this is just the natural state of things", "you have yourselves to blame, lift yourselves up by your bootstrap" or "I'll throw money on you to ease my bleeding conscience". So I came to the conclusion that basic human rights and capitalism are incompatible. I don't find that a difficult choice to make. The idea of a humanitarian capitalism is what has been proven to fail, and indeed not just humans but for the entire planet.

[Eagle_Syr]

I don't think complete self-reliance is possible for a highly industrialized state.

But why not?

And I ask because I genuinely want to learn, not to antagonize you.

[Questionable]

I would warn you from falling into the traps of third worldism which seems to be lingering behind the surface of your post.

I was merely ridiculing the idea that the people of third-world nations are too uneducated to be trusted with a revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

But why not?

And I ask because I genuinely want to learn, not to antagonize you.

Well it would not be possible for a highly industrialized country to have the necessary resources to be able to maintain a self sufficient socialist society, let alone a capitalist one. They would therefor be forced to trade with other states, opening themselves up to the global capitalist market. Capitalism is a global system and must be surpassed globally; basically if the revolution doesn't spread, were fucked. You can try to hold out for as long as you can and attempt to help spread the revolution, but not much else.


It is an absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed – perhaps not in Petrograd, not in Moscow, but in Vladivostock, in more remote places to which perhaps we shall have to retreat ... At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed.E]


Our backwardness has put us in the forefront, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries.


We are now, as it were, in a besieged fortress, waiting for the other detachments of the world socialist revolution to come to our relief.

[A Marxist Historian]

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

All true, but Russia as the "5th most industrialized country" is a totally misleading factoid.

Russia also had the largest land mass on earth, and population-wise was one of the biggest countries too. So of course it would be up there in total numbers of widgets cranked out per year from Russian factories.

However, in a country of over a hundred million there were only about six million people who could reasonably be considered "proletarians." And the Tsarist Empire was famously socially backward, and had by far the lowest living standard in Europe. It was a peasant country, not an industrialized country, 90% of whose population lived on the land, and cursed with a Tsarist nobility that looked more like something out of the 15th century than the 20th.

Much more like say Mexico than any other European country. Even places like Spain and Portugal were ahead of Russia socially.

Heck, even Russia's European colonies like Poland and Finland and the Baltics were more industrially and socialiy developed than the Russian heartland, and with higher living standards too.

Blake's overall point is absolutely correct, but you have to understand the tremendous social backwardness of Tsarist Russia to grasp why the Stalin regime was so particularly bad and why Soviet Russia never really caught up with more advanced countries, despite its powerful military etc.

A not unimportant point with respect to the OP.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

If you want to fly, building an aeroplane is better than jumping a cliff. You can't fly under your own power.

If you want to build a socialist society, you can't just decide to do it. The material conditions for it must exist. The material conditions don't exist in one country, even a big one.

Not even the cleverest bear can lay eggs.

But if you mean, what should the workers in a revolutionary territory do if the revolution fails to spread - as happened in the 1920s - then the answer is that all they can do is continue trying to promote the revolution worldwide while trying to hold on against the (inevitable) counter-revolutionary nature of the 'revolutionary' state.

But the fact is that long before 40 years is up the revolutionary territory will have gone back to being a strightforward capitalist state of some kind.

So then a state of the workers, created by the workers, a workers state, will just gradually turn into a capitalist state, without a counterrevolution. Just turn from one into the other.

If so, then why not the other way around? Why not go the other way, once you've got the material conditions necessary for world communism, and gradually turn the capitalist state into a workers state? Just elect some well-meaning, mild-mannered socialists into power, and they can do the job?

A lot easier than revolution, don't you think?

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I've never understood why you couldn't achieve socialism in one country.

I do understand that class war is global; that capitalism is a global system of exploitation; and that the ultimate ideal of communism calls for internationalism.

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?

Well, it's been tried over and over, and failed each time. That should tell you something.

Why? Because for socialism to work, you have to, first, overcome material scarcity, and have a society whose economic level, labor productivity, and economic functioning are, at bare minimum, superior to anything that exists in any capitalist societies. Or some folk will prefer capitalism...

And even beyond that, otherwise you'll have scarcity, rationing, and bureaucrats to decide who gets what, and, since they can, take the best stuff for themselves...

In short, as it was Marx I think who put it (or was it Trotsky?) "all the old shit comes back again."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

But why not?

And I ask because I genuinely want to learn, not to antagonize you.

Because we live in a global economy. Any economy cut off from the rest of the world will suffer tremendously. As almost any economist will tell you, it was the collapse of world trade and protectionism that was the final triggering factor for the Great Depression.

And that was then. Nowadays, an isolated economy would be even worse off.

When economic barriers were put up around Iraq by Clinton, a million and a half people starved to death.

-M.H.-

[W1N5T0N]

It failed because the system did not manage to purge three things:
1. concentration of power (political)
2. concentration of material goods in the hands of the "revolutionaries"
3. the allowing of egotistical bastards to rule and thrive.

basically, "marxism" in the 20th century was a fine example for "freedom fighters" fighting for the freedom to rule YOU.

[Workers]

Guys... when are you going to realise it's a troll? All the obvious red flags are there. He made this topic right after his 10th post, he said "you" instead of "we" (thereby subconsciously declaring that he's not a comrade of ours), and if you read his other posts, you can even see how he claims to be a devout communist, right before apparently turning around and deciding that communism was proven not to work.

Either that, or we misunderstood the topic, and he's talking to the capitalists. In that case, though, the thread should be moved to Opposing Ideologies, or the cappies will never be able to answer.

[Blake's Baby]

So then a state of the workers, created by the workers, a workers state, will just gradually turn into a capitalist state, without a counterrevolution. Just turn from one into the other...

What 'state created by the workers'? It won't 'turn into a capitalist state', it is a capitalist state. You seem to have a bizzarre idea that changing the personel of the state somehow transforms it into something other than what it is. If that's what you believe, I advise you to go and campaign for some lefties to get elected to power somewhere.


If so, then why not the other way around? Why not go the other way, once you've got the material conditions necessary for world communism, and gradually turn the capitalist state into a workers state? Just elect some well-meaning, mild-mannered socialists into power, and they can do the job?

A lot easier than revolution, don't you think?

-M.H.-

You might think so, but then again you are a very strange fellow with some very odd ideas.

The class of the people administering the state does not define the class character of the state. Sir Bosoneby Carrington-Trumpet, Duke of Northarglebargle, second cousin to the king, husband to the Countess of Mafflefaffle and heir to the vast Inversludgie estates, could be prime minister but that doesn't make the state a feudal aristocracy. Joe Munt, a train driver from a council estate near Spogg, West Crapshire, could be prime minister but that doesn't make the state a workers' republic.

The working class doesn't 'create' states, it destroys states. Did it destroy the Russian state? No. Did it destroy Germany, America, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Serbia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Japan, Austria? No.

It siezed the Russian state, then fought a bunch of others for it. It (or rather, by this time, 'the Bolsheviks' acting as they thought on behalf of the working class) then held and militarised that state. There was no ending/beginning, no that was capitalism/this is socialism, no tabula rasa. To claim there was, to believe that the political makeup of the state can mean the end of the state itself, is the rankest idealism. Material conditions are what is important. Russia never went beyond capitalism because capitalism can no more be superceded in one country (even a big one, conversely with as you point out a very large preponderance of peasants) than it can be in one city or one neighbourhood or one street or one house or one bedroom or one head.

Capitalists may have been expropriated; but this does not mean capitalism as a social relationship was done away with. Just as you can put all the poor in prison, but that doesn't mean you can abolish poverty.

The state is the state is the state is the state is the state. You don't abolish and recreate it every time you change the government, or the personel, or even the structures through which it's governed - unless of course you believe that the Queen of the UK needs to be abolished so we can have a proper bourgeois republic and then we can have socialism...

You destroy the state by getting rid of capitalism. The second didn't happen - look outside if you don't believe me - so only an idealist could believe that first did.

[Tim Finnegan]

Communism is immanent within capitalism, it is not something which is capable of failing, or, for that matter, succeeding. It merely is.

[Thirsty Crow]

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?Mainly becuase such self-reliance (autarky) is a fantasy if it doesn't include outright miltiarist expansion or control over resources which aren't immediately available.

[DasFapital]

Then Marx was incorrect on this one, as the state of affairs nowadays proves that the class consciousness of first-world nations are lower than in the rest of the world. Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy touches on this. And I never said imperialism didn't exist, but it was in its embryonic stages, and had not developed to the point it was at during the time of the Russian Revolution. There is a world market now, and things have changed. Marx understood this. He often went back and critiqued earlier works of his that no longer held relevance for the time period. Your claim that the revolution must happen in first-world countries has no basis in reality, and stinks of chauvinism. Do the silly, uneducated victims of Western imperialism need their more enlightened comrades to come save them, rather than taking revolutionary action into their own hands? It's like your implying that these people are too stupid to avoid taking the "wrong" path, therefore they need to sit around and wait for guidance. Lastly, why are you so opposed to authoritarianism? Marx was an authoritarian himself. Him and Engels wrote multiple works describing how the use of authority would be essential to establishing communism.
I am saying the material and cultural conditions are not always developed enough in the third world for revolutions to work. Also I would make a distinction between having some sort of authority and authoritarianism. Sure there could be some sort of government to maintain stability and order to ensure progress but I do not believe society should be ordered to the constant decrees of a state party.

[Peoples' War]

Communism is immanent within capitalism, it is not something which is capable of failing, or, for that matter, succeeding. It merely is.
What it sounds like your saying is that it will happen, and will just happen, that is the law of history.

Which I would argue against, based on the Engels' quote about socialism or barbarism.

Terry Eagleton makes a good point:


Did Marx see the victory of socialism as inevitable? He says so in The Communist Manifesto, though Hobsbawm denies that it is a deterministic document. Yet this is partly because he does not inquire into what kind of inevitability is at stake. Marx sometimes writes as if historical tendencies had the force of natural laws; but it is doubtful even so that this is why he saw socialism as the logical outcome of capitalism. If socialism is historically predestined, why bother with political struggle? It is rather that he expected capitalism to become more exploitative, while the working class grew in strength, numbers and experience; and these men and women, being moderately rational, would then have every reason to rise up against their oppressors. Rather as for Christianity the free actions of human beings are part of God’s preordained plan, so for Marx the tightening contradictions of capitalism will force men and women freely to overthrow it. Conscious human activity will bring revolution about, but the paradox is that this activity is itself in a sense scripted.

You cannot, however, speak of what free men and women are bound to do in certain circumstances, since if they are bound to do it they are not free. Capitalism may be teetering on the verge of ruin, but it may not be socialism that replaces it. It may be fascism, or barbarism. Hobsbawm reminds us of a small but significant phrase in The Communist Manifesto which has been well-nigh universally overlooked: capitalism, Marx writes ominously, might end ‘in the common ruin of the contending classes’. It is not out of the question that the only socialism we shall witness is one that we shall be forced into by material circumstance after a nuclear or ecological catastrophe. Like other 19th-century believers in progress, Marx did not foresee the possibility of the human race growing so technologically ingenious that it ends up wiping itself out. This is one of several ways in which socialism is not historically inevitable, and neither is anything else. Nor did Marx live to see how social democracy might buy off revolutionary passion.

[Ocean Seal]

Me personally its because I hate freedom and want to destroy the happy liberal utopia that is this world. I'm also an angsty teenager who listens to punk rawk which brainwashed me into not supporting our troops and joining the NWO-Islamist conspiracy. So that pretty much sums up the majority of the left.

[Deicide]

What you talking about OP nobody starved or lacked clothing during Comrade Stalin's time, it's only after he died and those nasty evil revisionists came in that Communism started to suck!!!!!!

[danyboy27]

Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.



Just asking,no troll replays

Beccause Marxism in itself make sense and does explain verry well the relationship between the mean of production, capitalists and worker?

[Tim Finnegan]

What it sounds like your saying is that it will happen, and will just happen, that is the law of history.
Well, I'm not. So... There you go? I guess? http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif

[Peoples' War]

Well, I'm not. So... There you go? I guess? http://www.v-strom.co.uk/phpBB3/images/smilies/smiley_shrug.gif
So you agree that people need to make it happen?

[Skyhilist]

OP, if you consider countries like China and North Korea and the late U.S.S.R. communist, you don't belong anywhere near politics.

[Art Vandelay]

OP, if you consider countries like China and North Korea and the late U.S.S.R. communist, you don't belong anywhere near politics.

So basically you're saying he'll fit right in?

[Tim Finnegan]

So you agree that people need to make it happen?
Yes, but I think that it emerges out of the antagonisms of capitalist social relations, rather than as something that is explicitly pursued. "Communism", in this sense, describes a potentiality which is immanent within capitalism, rather than a particular program or goal.