Thoughts on former Communist states

[Redhead]

What are peoples thoughts on earlier attempts to apply communism? I mean, look at China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.. Most, if not all have ended in dictatorship, which is the opposit of what communists want. What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?

[Bostana]

That question is contradicting, as there is no such thing as a communist state. Communism calls for the end of borders and government. And when it comes to the question of the soviet union, china, north korea, etc. All are or were Stalinist states that were in no way advancing communism and were actually just state cpitalist.

[Redhead]

I am aware that these countries wasnt communist, but all of them started as an attempt to get communism. My point is, how do we know the exact thing wont happen in a new attempt?

[Slavic]

I am aware that these countries wasnt communist, but all of them started as an attempt to get communism. My point is, how do we know the exact thing wont happen in a new attempt?

You dont but that should not deter any attempts.

[Bostana]

I am aware that these countries wasnt communist, but all of them started as an attempt to get communism. My point is, how do we know the exact thing wont happen in a new attempt?

No none of them started with that intent. And excuse me if I repeat myself but I don't think you understand. A single country cannot achieve communism that is what I'm interpreting from what you said but perhaps not. Anyways, after Stalin took over Russia he just used his influence as head of a super power to establish different authoritarian countries thought the world.

So to say that there were plenty of attempts and they all failed would be simply wrong. It was just a matter of the USSR funding the right groups and the KGB getting involved in the right wars

[Fourth Internationalist]

In the case of the Soviet Union, it was for a period of time what Marxists call a "workers' state" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Proletariat is a term meaning the working class, and is the class in opposition to the "bourgeoisie", aka capitalists. Because Marxists view states as organs of class rule, all states can be called the " dictatorship of the [insert ruling class name here]". For Marx and Marxists, the transition from a capitalist society to a classless, stateless society of material abundance aka communism, there must be a transitional period where workers become the ruling class. Hence the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". In that time, the workers state will take control of production, assist in the world revolution, etc. in trying to move towards communism.

In the case of the Soviet Union, the world revolution failed and at the end of Lenin's life, a bureaucracy formed. Called the "Stalinist bureaucracy", it was headed by Joseph Stalin. Stalinism was heading the Soviet Union towards capitalism, to put it briefly, by destroying aspects of a healthy working class state. It's counter revolutionary nature affected other revolutions.

Now, many other people on here will correctly point out that all these other " communist states" were Stalinist and state capitalist. They didn't become that way because there were workers' revolutions that established such regimes. Stalinists had a large presence in the creation of all the "bad" "communist states". In China, workers were mislead by Stalinist leaders, which caused their defeat. Later on, the Maoist revolution had no proletarian aspect to it, to be brief. Only proletarian revolutions can create a proletarian state. In Eastern Europe after World War 2, workers revolutions were beginning. However, Stalinists came in and crushed all the revolutionary potential and established Stalinist states instead of supporting the workers in the creation of workers' states in Eastern Europe. This was a part of the division of Germany and Eastern Europe between the Allied Powers after World War 2.

Workers revolutions were a threat to the parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy and, after the late 1930's, the ruling Stalinist capitalist class. So in short, all those "socialist" states were not created by socialist revolution, but rather they were created by Stalinist by crushing socialist revolutions and the masses of workers.

Edit: If you have any questions, please, ask. :)

[Loony Le Fist]

What are peoples thoughts on earlier attempts to apply communism? I mean, look at China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.. Most, if not all have ended in dictatorship, which is the opposit of what communists want. What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?

This is because the well known communist societies have been borne of insurgencies; essentially one set of oligarchs replacing another set. A functioning communist movement must be populist and have broad public support. A trickle-up democracy where societal decisions are made collectively and directly. It must come at a time and place when elites (foreign or domestic) will not be in a position to oppose their creation. What remains to be seen is if whether elites will be put into that position through some revolutionary action or some other means.

A good counterexample to this was syndicalist Spain in the 1930's. For a short time, you had a system that by many leftists, myself included, consider optimal. Sadly, the movement was destroyed by the fascists. If we look at any potentially good examples of working communism, it is a near certainty that the US was involved to somehow thwart the attempt.

Most existing systems that are referred to as communist fail to adequately meet the needs of their respective societies. This can be due to a number of factors, but one of the major ones is the way capitalist democracies shy away from trading with, or actively work to thwart those economies that differ.

[exeexe]

What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?
What the communist party did was they took over the state. Then when they had the state they defended it against the people. And they made a war against people. Once people had submitted to the state, the state could do whatever it want since it was constituted by only one party.

What you should do is say fuck to all political parties and get some unions organised and do some insurgency. In short, everything you do which leads to the desired society, should have nothing to do with the state. Then, as soon as its possible you get rid of the state.

Once this goal has been achieved the road is open to whatever society you want and then you just go and make it.

Political power shouldnt belong to a select group of individuals but should be spread out so everyone has their equal fair share of it.

[tuwix]

What are peoples thoughts on earlier attempts to apply communism? I mean, look at China, Cuba, North Korea, etc..


IMHO they completely failed because they didn't apply basic Marx's principles. Besides they were based on Leninist idea that failed.



Most, if not all have ended in dictatorship, which is the opposit of what communists want. What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?

It's an effect taking a pattern from Leninism. Lenin has created model of oppression and it was repeated in so-called 'socialist' or 'communist' countries. Lenin thought that people are too stupid to build socialism and started to build it by oppression. He has created a secret political police and censorship. And those patterns were copied in all so-called 'socialist' states.

And I remember it very well because I'm a former citizen of such state.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

the reality is that the conditions were never right in these states. none of them had the developed industry and infrastructure necessary for the proletariat to take over and run themselves. these states had to create the infrastructure (read: industrialise) and this is a part of the reason they became such brutal dictatorships.

marxists often miss the economic reality that led to stalin's 5-year plans and what not. it is more likely, in the west at least, that socialism could be built given that the means of production are there to be taken. this wasn't the case in russia, china, korea, any of the eastern european states or even in cuba. it was the case in germany but it became a soviet satellite state and, due to the place being completely war-torn and after suffering years of fascism, there was no confident working class movement which would resist the soviets or try and subvert them with a true socialist agenda. if there was, there was the stasi to answer to.

i think that these revolutions essentially paved the way for the capitalistic free-for-all that occurs in the ex-soviet states today. they transitioned from feudalism to capitalism in the space of the soviet union, thanks to a state-capitalist programme of industrialization and the creation of the proletariat which only existed in minorities in places like russia and china (still largely the case in parts of china).

obviously what these places needed in 1989 was a socialist revolution, but of course the term had been bastardized, not only by the western liberal propaganda machine but also because their regime described themselves as thus also. they thought liberal capitalism was the way and look at it now... human trafficking, drugs, the sex industry, the exploitation and trafficking of children etc. eastern europe is a hot-spot for this and these are black-market, unregulated capitalistic industries which liaise with western capitalists.

thus the great tenants of the "victory" of capitalism.

[Red Economist]

What are peoples thoughts on earlier attempts to apply communism? I mean, look at China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.. Most, if not all have ended in dictatorship, which is the opposite of what communists want.

I'm not going to get drawn into the 'technicalities' of the class character of the USSR etc, as these are complicated and fairly detailed discussions which other people on this forum are better qualified to answer.

I would however want to add that I suspect a lot of the problems were made by 'irrational' behavior through unconscious conflicts caused by abuses of capitalist societies which were then given 'free reign' under socialism in both revolutionary and dictatorial contexts. This might help explain why they were so destructive and why the gap between theory and reality was so big, but it cannot do so on it's own as the argument descends pretty quickly into 'idealist' theories of the moral incapacity of the proletariat for self-governance and human nature attacks of communism. This is more of an amendment to a theory than a theory in it's own right.


What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?

honestly, don't know. But we have to keep in mind that Communist did want a dictatorship of the proletariat in some form.

[Thirsty Crow]

What would stop a new attempt for a communist society from ending as a dictatorship?
The first thing is to make explicit the difference between the historical dictatorships of a newly composed ruling class, centered on the state with its planning of accumulation of capital, and class dictatorship of the working class.

As for what would act as a counterweight to such developments, there are really no guarantees and easy solutions. Though, I think it is correct to assume that probably the most important counterweight would be world revolution, as opposed to isolation within a world of hostile capitalist states, invariably forcing a specific development path which I described above as a new ruling class dictatorship.


the reality is that the conditions were never right in these states.
The conditions are never right in any state or territory when observed on its own, as detached from the rest of the world. I think there's a real analytical necessity of observing the capitalist world, as opposed to focusing on things like productivity levels of a single nation-state.

[reedwolf]

In my view the simplest solution against dictatorship is a accountable government: If the government would be getting more authoritarian, then the people would be able to replace the members via a voting. The extra benefit is the economy would shift towards communism in a much faster pace, as there wouldn't be a constant ruling class. However , as stated before me , capitalist states are a great threat to any form of proletariat ruling.

[Max]

All of these socialist states failed because they where dictatorships that where ruled by a upper class that oppressed the workers and denied them rights. Real socialism allows for democratic processes and no upper class that controls everything.

[Killer Enigma]

To the OP:

Before you say that socialist states never existed or that all of them failed, read up on all of them before reaching a verdict. Most people want to know how workers' democracy works under socialism, so here's an article about trade unions in socialist countries (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/the-trade-unions-actually-existing-socialism-a-point-of-comparison-for-the-american-worker/). If you want to know about China (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/china-market-socialism-a-question-of-state-revolution/), Vietnam (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/actually-existing-socialism-in-vietnam/) or the DPRK (http://return2source.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/korea-resilient-socialism-in-democratic-korea/), check out the links. If you want to know how workers democracy works in Cuba, I'd recommend Linda Fuller's Work and Democracy in Socialist Cuba (http://www.yukbooks.org/PDF-Books-5293493.html), which evidently is available for free as a PDF online now (big news!). To round it all out, if you want to know about socialism in Laos, Grant Evans' Lao Peasants Under Socialism (http://www.amazon.com/Peasants-under-Socialism-Grant-Evans/dp/0300045980) is the definitive English-language work. It's too bad too, because I think Evans is missing a lot in his analysis. Nevertheless, we'll have to wait until his next book comes out for something better.

Look, you're gonna have a lot of people on here saying there's no such thing as a socialist country. Everyone loves to drop their 50-cent line that "there are no communist countries because it's a contradiction in terms," as if that's really addressing what you're asking. Before you just write off more than a century of social practice from working people and revolutionaries around the world as "state capitalist" or something, read up and decide for yourself. It's not that these places are perfect. They're called 'actually existing socialism' because this is what it looks like, the huge successes and the big flaws, when the ideas people wax on about on here get put into practice.

[exeexe]

You would need federation not power that flows from the top to the buttom

[Left Voice]

I would argue that the 20th century demonstrates the inherent contradiction of a top-down vanguardist approach to proletarian revolution. Far from resulting in a 'withering away of the state', the state is maintained and strengthened in the name of 'protecting the revolution', gradually degenerating as the proletariat loses its democratic input within the state.

It is quite easy to claim that such mistakes would not be repeated and that the vangardist model of state appropriation in the name of the working class is indeed possible, but one look at the nature of current communist parties suggests otherwise. A significant number of existing communist/socialist parties have developed elite Central Committees who nominally support the direct participation of the members, but channel this participation along a narrative formulated by the Central Committee. Once again, we can hold up the SWP as demonstrative of this. If comrades are still unable to overcome such problems even today in the 21st century, what basis do we have to believe that these mistakes will not be repeated in the context of a proletariat revolution?

History demonstrates that a purely bottom-up horizontally-structured society adhering to direct democracy would be the best way to avoid repeating the mistakes of the previous century.

[BolshevikBabe]

I think this thread demonstrates a lot of the problems w/ the left today, because one of the reasons we're not moving forward right now is because our analysis of the past and how to move on from it is often so defective. There is literally no distinguishing a lot of "libertarian" left discourse about the old USSR, China, the DPRK etc. from the likes of Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes and so on - they're all obsessed with this spectre of "Stalinism" which seems to apparently haunt every revolution and inevitably bureaucratize and ruin it. They assign the sort of powers to Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. that the "cults of personality" around them did, except they obviously see it in an inverted sense, as "authoritarian" personalities wielding their might for the sake of some abstract lust for power. This is the absolute height of idealism and voluntarism. I'm not saying bureaucratic classes can't form - in fact, they very much did eventually in the USSR, and they served an emerging petit-bourgeois class that rose out of the black market economy from Khrushchev onwards - but they need to properly identifiable. Stalin took a ruthless approach to bureaucracy - especially in the 1930s - and has been criticized for it before, while simultaneously being criticized for apparently serving this bureaucracy.

Anyway, to address your question, it's not as simple as flattening all states claiming to be socialist into "Stalinism" or "state capitalism". The latter term does have a practical use - indeed I'd say it reflects what China currently is - while the former I think needs to be retired altogether because its become an insult to lob at Marxist-Leninists (even M-Ls who don't particularly revere Stalin, such as Mao). If we're talking about dictatorship, I don't know what that means when isolated from class terms, because I don't believe one individual can ever wield complete power. I believe class dictatorship exists, but to realize which class is ruling I think one has to analyze things materially based on who benefits and who seems to wield actual control in the last instance. It's not enough to reduce this to operating the means of production, which is what a lot of left-communists do, because that doesn't actually tell us which class is in control overall - the fact a power elite exists doesn't necessarily separate them from the class in question in terms of ideology, though that's obviously a concern.

What I'm saying is, this uncritical criticism needs to come to an end, we need to be ruthless in terms of the terminology we use, because if we begin deploying liberal concepts based on a state-centric model - such as "totalitarianism", "cult of personality", or, when not substantiated, "bureaucracy", then we risk reproducing liberal discourse and that's not going to get us any closer to our ultimate goals.

If you want an objective analysis of the USSR, I'd recommend Is The Red Flag Flying? by Albert Szymanski. If you want to know more about why it collapsed, Socialism Betrayed by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny