Revised Communism

[Everyday Anarchy]

Often times, I hear Communists argue that there has never been a Communist country. I accept that, and see that they're right. Communism may have never been implemented in any country, but it has been attempted. And failed.

I think we need to identify why these countries end up the way they are. Why they become "corrupt" or strict authoritarian and why they don't seem to progress from Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


Does anyone else see what I'm saying? I suggest we reform Communism to make it work. It's a wonderful idealogy that seems to have flaws.


P.S.
I put this in the Learning forum because I'm sure you guys will state things that I never knew about. Therefore, it's a learning experience.

[Forward Union]

Hmm well Anarchist-Communism is basically the idea it sounds like you thing communism should be reformed into.

You can read about Anarcho-Communism here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Often times, I hear Communists argue that there has never been a Communist country. I accept that, and see that they're right. Communism may have never been implemented in any country, but it has been attempted. And failed.

I think we need to identify why these countries end up the way they are. Why they become "corrupt" or strict authoritarian and why they don't seem to progress from Dictatorship of the Proletariat.


Does anyone else see what I'm saying? I suggest we reform Communism to make it work. It's a wonderful idealogy that seems to have flaws.


P.S.
I put this in the Learning forum because I'm sure you guys will state things that I never knew about. Therefore, it's a learning experience.
Well most communists agree that we need to identify why such a thing has happened.

I am somewhat of a trotskyist.
The trotskyist "community" has looked into the reason of the failure of for example (in particular) the Russian Revolution.
Part of the problem was that after years of destructive civil war the russian proletariat was partially wiped out, they had either fled to the countryside, or simply died while serving in the Red Army.
Because of this the soviets (councils) were also defunct, which lead to the need, or more precisely it could not be otherwise (people in here will dispute this, they might be right), that the communist party essentially took over. Ofcourse the communist party at that point was not like it was under stalin...stalin came in 1928...essentially it was no less than a full fledged counter revolution, everyone was wiped out or otherwise get rid of who did not fully agree with stalin.

China was more or less fucked to begin with, mao, an admirer of stalin, basicly emulated him (except for some theoretic stuff, and without 5-year plans, the terror was similar however).

Vietnam was under the influence of especially china.
Cuba under the influence of the USSR
etc
Smaller could-be countries fell before the influence of the larger "communist" countries. Communist Parties throughout the world were under USSR control....basicly...the revolution was fucked.

But now, the USSR has fallen, stalinism is dead, maoism is dead even in China...so...perhaps...the time we live could mark the birth of the greater movement, maybe even full fledged revolution in western nations.

[Sentinel]

In my opinion the world revolution is still a dream due to the complexity of the communist ideology, not flaws in it. Progress takes time, and requires patience.I don't see anything odd in the fact that something as awesome as a change to communism doesn't succeed with the first try, or even the 100th. The first aeroplanes didn't fly. :)
Let's not forget that feudalism didn't change to capitalism in one night either.
This said, obviously communist thinkers must keep their fingers on the pulse of time; communism must stay modern (without becoming something else)...

[Zingu]

You can't "reform" Communism. Its a stateless, classless society which is the result of the total development of productive forces.


Communism is not an ideology, it will be the inevitable result of material forces...man does not "mold" the world around him by will alone, but it prompted to do so by the material forces surrounding him.

It is not in our hands to do such a thing, its the will of masses that forge communism; material conditions...dammit, read Marx. Marxism is only an analysis of history and where it is going.

[Scars]

NewKindOfSoldier:

<<Part of the problem was that after years of destructive civil war the russian proletariat was partially wiped out, they had either fled to the countryside, or simply died while serving in the Red Army.>>

Most of the fighting and dying during the civil war on both sides was done by the peasants, not the proletariat. And fleeing to the countryside? This is news to me. During the RCW you were best NOT to flee to the countryside, as that was where 95% of teh fighting occured and as the fighting took place before wide scale bombing of cities and the like existed your bets bet was to do quite the opposite and flee to the cities and towns- which millions of peasants did.

<<Because of this the soviets (councils) were also defunct, which lead to the need, or more precisely it could not be otherwise (people in here will dispute this, they might be right), that the communist party essentially took over.>>

The Soviets were dissolved prior to the begining of the RCW in part because they did not wish to be dominated by the party and several other things which led to teh creation of the Workers Opposition within the party.

<<Ofcourse the communist party at that point was not like it was under stalin...stalin came in 1928...essentially it was no less than a full fledged counter revolution, everyone was wiped out or otherwise get rid of who did not fully agree with stalin.>>

People don&#39;t realise that Stalin created few things, he just used or reshaped things that already existed. The main difference was that Lenin used the Cheka to suppress his enemies, Stalin used the NKVD. And Stalin did not wipe out EVERYONE that did not agree with him. For instance Alexandra Kollontai, one of the most left &#39;Old Bolsheviks&#39;, was shoved to the side but was not killed. In fact she was promoted several times.

<<China was more or less fucked to begin with, mao, an admirer of stalin, basicly emulated him (except for some theoretic stuff, and without 5-year plans, the terror was similar however).>>

WHAT? Mao was a limited admirer of Stalin, however he was incredibly critical of him and on a personal level despised him for supporting the KMT, refusing to give ANY aid to the People&#39;s Republic when it was still in its infancy and forcing them to buy the weapons that they were using to fight in Korea with. The whole &#39;MAOISM = ASIAN STALINISM&#39; thing is utter ignorance.

&#39;Some theoretical stuff&#39;. Most theoretical stuff, actually. Mao became increasingly critical of Stalin after he died, as he COULD criticise him. When Stalin was alive criticising him would not be smart, as China was in ruins and biting the hand that feeds (even if you are expected to pay for the food) is not a smart thing to do.

&#39;the terror&#39;. Actually Mao did not use a secret police in the way that Stalin did. Generally he would criticise people and then they would be democratically removed from the party, or from their positions. Mao drew his power from support within the CCP and more important from his popularity with and support from the masses. Millions of peasants do not have portriats of Mao hanging in their front room today out of habit.

And China did, and still does, have 5 year plans.

<<Vietnam was under the influence of especially china.>>

No, Vietnam was under the infuence of the USSR- particularly after Ho Chi Minh&#39;s death. Ho wanted to keep Vietnam neutral and out of the Sino-Soviet conflict- he was a nationalist and thus his main concern was Vietnam, followed by the rest of Indochina. Laos was strongly supportive of the USSR to the extent that it purged the party of almost all pro-China members. Cambodia opposed Vietnam and the Soviets and thus found an ally in China (after Mao&#39;s death, for the record. Mao had nothing to do with China&#39;s support of Pol Pot)

<<Smaller could-be countries fell before the influence of the larger "communist" countries.>>

Not necessarily, Yugoslavia followed their own path from &#39;48 onwards, as did Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia, although they&#39;re not the best example of a Communist party in power). It was easier to follow a larger nation as they would give you stuff, or in the case of the Eastern Bloc- they had thousands of troops stationed in your country and would invade if you stopped following their line. The USSR were, as Peljidiyn Genden (head of the Mongolian People&#39;s Revolutionary Party) said in 1935, &#39;Red Imperialists&#39;. Countries were either bought off or blackmailed into following a path they did not necessarily want to take.

<<Communist Parties throughout the world were under USSR control....basicly...the revolution was fucked.>>

No, there was little central control after 1943 when the Comintern was dissolved and even less after the Sino-Soviet Split occured.

[Storming Heaven]

I put this in the Learning forum because I&#39;m sure you guys will state things that I never knew about. Therefore, it&#39;s a learning experience.

Bravo, bravo&#33; A willingness to be criticised, something leftists need. I think trying to &#39;reform&#39; communist theory is impossible to do, however. This is partly because many Communists are I think over dogmatic on the issue. They will resist almost any attempt to criticise their cherished beliefs and show that they alone are in possesion of the one true, correct and appliable road to freedom. This is a particular problem amoungst Marxists, I find. Indeed, the Marxist dialectic is formulated in such a way that criticism becomes impossible.

There is however, a reason beyond stubborn dogmatism why it is impossible to &#39;reform&#39; communism. There is no single communist theory, but rather a whole range of different (and perhaps more importantly, competing) communist doctrines. Although people usually have a vaguely similar idea of what a communist society would look like, they have very different ideas about the best way to acheive it.


I think we need to identify why these countries end up the way they are. Why they become "corrupt" or strict authoritarian and why they don&#39;t seem to progress from Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

My line of thinking exactly. I do not believe that we can turn the world communist overnight, but I do not think it is possible to implement this through any kind of authoritarian means, least of all a state. I call this view &#39;Libertarian Socialism&#39;, although I am fully aware this has often been used as a synonym for more orthodox anachism.

As for why DotP often becomes &#39;corrupt, I think it is because once people have power, they seldom want to let it go. It seems to me that the orthodox Marxist idea is that once the DotP state has outlived it&#39;s purpose, society will consist of one class only, and so states will necessarily cease to exist (there being no avalible contenders for position of &#39;ruling class&#39;). I believe this situation is highly improbable, because once someone is in government, they become the ruling class no matter what class they may originally herald from. Thus a new tyranny will arise, and with it a new exploitation - the very thing we were trying to rid ourselves of in the first place&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 10:29 PM
Communism may have never been implemented in any country, but it has been attempted. And failed.
I&#39;m sorry, but I have to make a "Socrates" approach to this remark and ask: in what way do you see it has been attempted and why did it fail?

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC
I&#39;m sorry, but I have to make a "Socrates" approach to this remark and ask: in what way do you see it has been attempted and why did it fail?
Well, I assumed that the USSR, China, and Cuba are all fine examples of attempted Communism. It seems they fail because they suppress any opponents from speaking against them. I see that freedom of speech is one thing leftists admire. Opposing ideas are necessary to compromise and progress.
I think that these "Communist" countries play it too hard. Too strong-arm "dictatorship-ish".

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:18 PM

Well, I assumed that the USSR, China, and Cuba are all fine examples of attempted Communism. It seems they fail because they suppress any opponents from speaking against them. I see that freedom of speech is one thing leftists admire. Opposing ideas are necessary to compromise and progress.
I think that these "Communist" countries play it too hard. Too strong-arm "dictatorship-ish".
I advise you start all over again from the beginning :)


In the view of Marxist theory, such countries were not &#39;communist&#39; nor &#39;socialist&#39;

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 12:59 AM
In the view of Marxist theory, such countries were not &#39;communist&#39; nor &#39;socialist&#39;
I understand that, but they were attempting to move toward Communism. Something obviously went wrong and they went &#39;off the Communist track.&#39;
I&#39;m saying that we need to identify why that happened and what it is that seems to be stopping these countries from progressing.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 10:18 PM
Well, I assumed that the USSR, China, and Cuba are all fine examples of attempted Communism.
Actually, they&#39;re examples of attempted dictatorships of the proletariat. They never even got close to attempting communism. And that&#39;s preciesely the problem: the supposidely transitional dictatorship never transitions into communism. If you do away with capitalism but still have a state then the state ends up using its power to establish itself as a new ruling class. The solution is to skip over the transitional dictatorship entirely and go straight to a stateless classless society.

[Zingu]

I understand that, but they were attempting to move toward Communism. Something obviously went wrong and they went &#39;off the Communist track.

They were never on that track in the first place....Historical Materialism will tell you that.


I&#39;m saying that we need to identify why that happened and what it is that seems to be stopping these countries from progressing.

Its obvious, such countries faced capitalist revolutions, the Russian Revolution was an other 1789, same with China, both threw off the vestages of a Feudal aristrocracy and developed an industrial base through state-capitalism.

[pharmer]

Originally posted by Morpheus+Jan 12 2006, 02:46 AM--> (Morpheus @ Jan 12 2006, 02:46 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 10:18 PM
Well, I assumed that the USSR, China, and Cuba are all fine examples of attempted Communism.
Actually, they&#39;re examples of attempted dictatorships of the proletariat. They never even got close to attempting communism. And that&#39;s preciesely the problem: the supposidely transitional dictatorship never transitions into communism. If you do away with capitalism but still have a state then the state ends up using its power to establish itself as a new ruling class. The solution is to skip over the transitional dictatorship entirely and go straight to a stateless classless society. [/b]
So the problem, or downfall, lies in the unwillingness of the proletariat to end it&#39;s dictatorship? It seems that a proletariat dictatorship is necessary to facilitate the transition to communism. My question is, how can this transition be successful? Many have tried but none have succeeded. During this transition someone must take control and facilitate the reorganization of the class system, but during this facilitation the reorganization falls apart. What are the problems that seem to be inherent to this transition and how can they be avoided?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:47 AM
So the problem, or downfall, lies in the unwillingness of the proletariat to end it&#39;s dictatorship? It seems that a proletariat dictatorship is necessary to facilitate the transition to communism. My question is, how can this transition be successful? Many have tried but none have succeeded. During this transition someone must take control and facilitate the reorganization of the class system, but during this facilitation the reorganization falls apart. What are the problems that seem to be inherent to this transition and how can they be avoided?
Ignore the anarchists ;)

The problem with past revolutions is that they have taken place in underdeveloped nations where the proletariat is not advanced enough to assume control. Now I&#39;m not one of those who argues that a successful revolution in these conditions is impossible, but it does bring with it a new set of challenges.

[Storming Heaven]

I advise you start all over again from the beginning


In the view of Marxist theory, such countries were not &#39;communist&#39; nor &#39;socialist&#39;


I understand that, but they were attempting to move toward Communism. Something obviously went wrong and they went &#39;off the Communist track.&#39;
I&#39;m saying that we need to identify why that happened and what it is that seems to be stopping these countries from progressing.

This is concerning. Here both the quoted authors (Zingu and Xero) maintian that China, the USSR etc. never acheived communism because they did not follow the correct path. Such a remark goes beyond ordinary criticism into the realms of authoritarian domination - they very thing they attempted to criticise. See the problem here?


So the problem, or downfall, lies in the unwillingness of the proletariat to end it&#39;s dictatorship? It seems that a proletariat dictatorship is necessary to facilitate the transition to communism. My question is, how can this transition be successful? Many have tried but none have succeeded. During this transition someone must take control and facilitate the reorganization of the class system, but during this facilitation the reorganization falls apart. What are the problems that seem to be inherent to this transition and how can they be avoided?

Aren&#39;t we trying to destroy the class system, not &#39;re-organise&#39; it? I realise that this cannot happen overnight, but to appoint someone to do so can only acheive re-organisation, because people - even those who were once proletarians - seldom let go of power. If you want to destroy the class system, you must destroy the power-relationships on which it is based.


Ignore the anarchists

F#@% off if you&#39;re not gonna listen. We might just have something good to say.

[ioncannon152]

Originally posted by Morpheus
Actually, they&#39;re examples of attempted dictatorships of the proletariat.
Actually, they&#39;re examples of attempts to build the economic base required for the dictatorship fo the proletariat.

They attempted this through state capitalism. This was best demonstrated by the USSR.

An attempted dictatorship of the proletariat would be the Paris Commune, which although worked(it got up and running), was ended in two months.