Dictatorships

[qasdert]

I have been studying communism for a few years now. I hold an extreme amout of respect for the ideals that communism holds. However, only recently people have asked me questions about how communism COULD work. I'm finding it harder and harder to stand up for it. No matter how hard I try theres always a problem I dont have an answer to. I really don't want to become a doubter, but my question is as follows. Can a communist country be figureheaded by soemone other than a dictator? The Soviet Union under Vladimir Lenin's control was not, and it was Joseph Stalin that converted Russia into a Totalitarianism state. Wouldn't it be best NOT to have a dictatorship? As much as I respect Joseph Stalin, I do believe that he (for lack of a better word).....ruined The U.S.S.R. Couldn't there be a Democratic solution to improve Communism? Instead of ordering people around, shouldnt they be allowed to make they're own decisions? Or at least have a majority say?

An answer to this question would be greatly appreciated to inhance my understanding.
Thank you.

[which doctor]

Communism is democratic. Communism has no dictators or even any rulers. It's democracy in it's purest form. People are free to do as they choose (within reason of course).

[qasdert]

I understand the idea that communism is democratic, but from the examples that have already played out it doesnt seem that way. It's one thing to talk about communism being "democracy in it's purest form" (don't mean to mock you of course), but is there any physical evidence that communism (PURE communism) has any chance at all of working? Those who have power abuse it. What is there from stopping "pure communism" from slipping into a dictatorship? In reality someone has to lead the people, and so far the biggest example of a communist leader is a dictator.

[which doctor]

I understand the idea that communism is democratic, but from the examples that have already played out it doesnt seem that way. I wouldn't really call them examples of communism. Call them examples of marxism-leninism or maoism.


It's one thing to talk about communism being "democracy in it's purest form" (don't mean to mock you of course), but is there any physical evidence that communism (PURE communism) has any chance at all of working?
No, there is no evidence that it will work. Most of what we talk about here is purely hypothetical. But many people seem to think that communism can and will work.


Those who have power abuse it. What is there from stopping "pure communism" from slipping into a dictatorship? In reality someone has to lead the people, and so far the biggest example of a communist leader is a dictator.
The people will lead the people. That is communism. No one has power over another person.

[Hiero]

Democracy in socialism is how much the proletarait have control over the state, how well the party and the proletariat connect and how the leaders, central commitee, regional commitees, Politburo etc are voted in.

[leftist resistance]

You mean socialism? I think it should be headed by a council that comprise of representatives of the ppl.it is headed by a group of 'leaders' who take the votes rather than call the shots.this ensure that there are no power abuses.

[patrick]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 20 2006, 11:23 PM
Communism is democratic. Communism has no dictators or even any rulers. It's democracy in it's purest form. People are free to do as they choose (within reason of course).
Within reason? What do you mean by within reason? I thought the whole idea was you could do whatever you want... no exceptions..
"Within reason" implies to me that somewhere along the lines someone or something has to draw the lines if things get out of control (undoubtedly it would), which essentially would have to mean authority or governing of some sorts.. which then is the antithesis of your beliefs of a communist society which you said has no ruler or any leader of a sort, or in fact a governing person or body.
Communism is mind have you a false utopianism based on slave labour

[which doctor]

Originally posted by patrick+Jan 21 2006, 09:02 AM--> (patrick @ Jan 21 2006, 09:02 AM)
Fist of [email protected] 20 2006, 11:23 PM
Communism is democratic. Communism has no dictators or even any rulers. It's democracy in it's purest form. People are free to do as they choose (within reason of course).
Within reason? What do you mean by within reason? I thought the whole idea was you could do whatever you want... no exceptions..
"Within reason" implies to me that somewhere along the lines someone or something has to draw the lines if things get out of control (undoubtedly it would), which essentially would have to mean authority or governing of some sorts.. which then is the antithesis of your beliefs of a communist society which you said has no ruler or any leader of a sort, or in fact a governing person or body.
Communism is mind have you a false utopianism based on slave labour [/b]
Let's just say that someone wanted to kill somebody. I don't think he should be allowed to do that. That is what I mean be "within reason"

[qasdert]

I really do appreciate the feedback from everyone. However, as much as you have all cleared my original question, this only raises further questions for me. It just seems that everything in the communist system seems to contradict itself. it would be impossible to have a country without a leader, even if you do elect a comitty to represent the people, or count votes, someone (possibly from this comitty) would decide that someone would be needed to govern the comitty itself. This is only hypothetical, and i can assume this would happen, because as ive said before, those who have power, abuse it. And then we no longer have pure communism, its now a dictatorship.

Somebody PLEASE clear this up for me!!!!! :(

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 08:52 PM
I really do appreciate the feedback from everyone. However, as much as you have all cleared my original question, this only raises further questions for me. It just seems that everything in the communist system seems to contradict itself. it would be impossible to have a country without a leader, even if you do elect a comitty to represent the people, or count votes, someone (possibly from this comitty) would decide that someone would be needed to govern the comitty itself. This is only hypothetical, and i can assume this would happen, because as ive said before, those who have power, abuse it. And then we no longer have pure communism, its now a dictatorship.

Somebody PLEASE clear this up for me!!!!! :(
Oh dear, I think we need RedStar at the very least to explain if you're going to ask about how to alter human nature in a Communist society.

[MysticArcher]

I think we need RedStar at the very least to explain if you're going to ask about how to alter human nature in a Communist society.

Well the whole "human nature" thing is quite a debate in and of itself, since what humans do varies by time and place and doesn't necessarily reflect their "nature"

I do love reading RedStar's posts though


it would be impossible to have a country without a leader

What function would a leader have that couldn't be done by the people themselves?

Resource allocation would simply be done by those producing the resources, local decisions would be a matter of local people meeting and making a decision (and remember since there'd be no set work hours scheduling meetings to include everyone would be fairly easy)

And short of war or large scale plague there shouldn't really be any need for large national conferencing, if an area needs something (such as local famine caused by poor weather) it simply calls neighboring areas (there'd be no massive bureaucracy of red tape, so a quick phone conversation to other towns/areas would solve the problem)

RedStar2000's written on some ideas:
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083345239&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Clarksist]

Those who have power abuse it. What is there from stopping "pure communism" from slipping into a dictatorship

This is such a simple answer, but it takes a while to fully comprehend it.

To keep people from abusing their power... don't give anybody more power then anybody else.

Bada-bing, bada-boom, no dictators.

[Forward Union]

All you really need to do is understand that Communism is practically identical to Anarchism.

I strongly reccoment reading this;


What type of society does Anarchism/Communism advocate?

Anarchism sees to create a society in which individuals can live independently from government and all top-down structures. We believe in mutual aid and cooperation. Anarchists believe in anti-authoritarian decision making, such as direct democracy. Direct democracy works off of consensus and more involves people expressing their ideas, opinions, concerns, criticism and suggestions about certain issues that effect that group of people. This is what makes direct democracy different than representative democracy. It eliminates all top-down hierarchical means of decision making. Many believe using consensus is naturally how humans work. For example, when you go out to see a movie with your friends you work on consensus.. You make a proposal by asking everyone, "what do you want to see?", and everyone decides. If there's a conflicting decision people usually talk about it. That's direct democracy. We do the same thing when we want to go out and eat for example. All these decisions effect us directly thus we engage in a format of a consensus decision making process so the decision can best fit our needs without excluding anyone's opinion or concerns from the group. This insures that everybody's voice is heard. Direct democracy also eliminates the top-down hierarchical in decision making format. People usually don't like it when another has the authority to make all decisions and boss everyone else around, therefore we naturally engage in consensus. Many anarchists believe that such behavior indicates that deep down inside we are all anarchists. Our behavior is so naturally anarchistic, that we don't even realize it.

[redstar2000]

If it were really true that every attempt at communism would "inevitably" end up "like" Russia or China (or the countries that copied them), then I certainly couldn't blame anyone for not wanting to have anything to do with the whole idea.

We have a few people on this board who admire those regimes to one degree or another...but they are anachronisms. That is, no one takes them very seriously because of the verbal contortions they must go through to "justify" their position.

We are, for the most part, trying to figure out how a desirable communist society would work.

Think in terms of an engineer who designed a machine that didn't work...and all efforts to "make it work" failed. That's the whole story of 20th century Leninism (all versions).

So we are now back to the drawing board.

Not that we can literally "design" a new society. New societies emerge as a consequence of new material conditions and the reflection of those new conditions in the consciousness of millions and millions of people.

But it's not impossible that our speculations may be useful to future generations who find themselves in a revolutionary situation.

For example, if we constantly pound away on the theme NO GREAT LEADERS WANTED...we reduce the chances that a revolution will be pissed away because people got sucked in to that old con about "the necessity for revolutionary leadership".

There almost certainly will be a few people burning with ambition to be "top dog" -- it's the way some people psychologically cope with the existence of hierarchy. Our job is to do as much as we can to stop them from realizing their ambitions...by creating a political climate in which those ambitions are regarded as detestable.

Starting right now -- when we can't even really say that there "is" a communist "movement"...just a few people who might someday start one -- we want this understood from the very beginning.

By the time there really is a new communist movement again and as capitalism approaches its terminal crisis, we want everyone to know in their guts that we have a movement of equals and that is the only new kind of society that we will accept!

----------------------------

Communism does mean that you can do "anything you want within reason."

If you attempt to do something unreasonable, the reasonable people around you may stop you. If your unreasonable act actually threatens harm to another, they will stop you.

Not by "calling the police" (there aren't any), but by directly intervening in the situation themselves and stopping you.

On the basis of human behavior in existing society, you might be tempted to respond that "people wouldn't do that" because "they wouldn't want to get involved".

But that's not "human nature", it's a rational response to what "getting involved" means in a class society. No one wants to be involved with the legal system if they can possibly avoid it. They know that it's time-consuming, expensive, and dangerous.

Remember that "human nature" is not something abstract -- like a "soul".

It's how people make rational choices under specific conditions.

You'll notice that most people today do not go out and kill animals for food...even though humans did that for nearly 200,000 years! It's not "hunting" that's "human nature", it's eating meat. :lol:

People in the middle ages thought religious belief (of some sort) was "human nature". Now, we know better. The number of non-believers may be approaching one billion...and it continues to grow.

The "bad things" that people do under capitalism are "rational"...but they won't be rational in a communist society.

And since most people are rational, they won't do them.

Of course, there will be a few "greedy sods" in communism...just as today there are a few people who would rather consult a witch-doctor than a real one when they become ill. Today, consulting a witch-doctor is recognized as an irrational decision -- a sign of mental illness.

The "greedy" under communism will be treated for their mental illness...which is what it would be.

Or perhaps they could be fully immersed into a "virtual world" where they could be as "greedy" as they liked without disturbing anyone else. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

If it were really true that every attempt at communism would "inevitably" end up "like" Russia or China (or the countries that copied them), then I certainly couldn't blame anyone for not wanting to have anything to do with the whole idea.


Are you saying that you would rather live in the US than in the USSR of, let's say, 1960?

Free healthcare, guaranteed a job, guaranteeed a house, guaranteed a pension, guaranteed free education etc.

Are you kidding me?

[Social Greenman]

No he is not kidding. As the Alpha Male :redstar2000: on Rev Left he is looking for fresh meat to ridicule.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Are you saying that you would rather live in the US than in the USSR of, let's say, 1960?

Free healthcare, guaranteed a job, guaranteed a house, guaranteed a pension, guaranteed free education etc.

Are you kidding me?

Well, I did live in the U.S. of 1960 (I was 18 then).

When comparing class societies, what's really crucial is what class you are in.

My parents were both ordinary working people and, back then, were able to own both a house and a car. From what I've read of the USSR in that era, we might have ended up sharing an apartment with another family...and the bathroom would have been "down the hall". And, of course, a car would have been out of the question.

It's true I probably would have been eligible for a full college course in the USSR...unlike the U.S. where I had to leave after 2-1/2 years because I simply ran out of money.

But I was able to dodge the draft in the U.S. without any penalty...the draft in the USSR was (and still is!) a real horror. New conscripts were (and are!) bullied so badly that suicides were (and are!) routine. I think I would have been one of them.

Then there is another consideration. In 1952, I nearly died from pneumonia...and was saved by a massive dose of penicillin. Was penicillin even available to ordinary working people in the USSR of 1952?

In 1942, when I was born, much of the western USSR was under Nazi occupation and everything was in chaos...would I have even lived to the age of one? Lots of newborns there didn't!

So no, I'm not "kidding". It's practically certain as anything can be that the average worker in the U.S. of 1960 was substantially better off than his/her counterpart in the USSR at the same time.

In neither case does this really have anything to do with "freedom", of course. Both countries were and are despotisms. In both countries, we have to sell our labor power or die.

And often in the same way: dying on the street of exposure and malnutrition. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Social Greenman]

I am in awe that you responded in a civil manner...gasp Will those on Lost be found? Will the perils of Marlanna end on Days of Our Lives?" Stay tuned when Redstar 2000 says: "Shut your trap you wanker!" :P

[Ol' Dirty]

The "dictatorship of the proleteriat" ideology is simply a way for extremists to hold their high position in government. Power corupts... absolute power corrupts absoltely.

[Storming Heaven]

Those who have power abuse it. What is there from stopping "pure communism" from slipping into a dictatorship? In reality someone has to lead the people, and so far the biggest example of a communist leader is a dictator.

Shit!!! Whoever gave the mandate that we need leaders forgot to tell me!!! :ph34r:

Why do we need leaders? What leaders do our leaders need? And who are the leaders of leaders going to look to? To suggest that people need leaders is ridiculous.

People abuse power (that is, use power to exploit) because that is the whole reason power exists. What use is power if you can't use it to force some person to do some thing against their will? And why on earth would you want to go to all the trouble of doing this if you did not benefit from it?

I think that a communistic society cannot co-exist with any sort of authoritarianism, for it relys of everybody contributing and nobody exploiting (that is, taking without contributing), and as I have showed, exploitation is the very reason Authority exists.

I think that the reason the USSR, China etc. have failed to achieve a classless society free of exploitation is that they allowed Authority to continue, as a result of thinking too much along the lines of class. Assuming that their leaders were part of the working class, they believed the mandates of their leaders to be int their best interest. But in allowing their leaders to take power (rather than destroy it) they propelled their leadership into a new class - a ruling class, with different interests than the themselves.

There is really a simple ( :blink: ) solution to all this. Build a society where no person has power over another!

[Hiero]

Build a society where no person has power over another!

Not even Proletariat over Bourgeoisie?

[Led Zeppelin]

redstar2000 is using his usual tactic, and the tactic employed by most --if not all-- Kautskyites, he takes the worst situations from the USSR and compares them to the "normal" situations of the US, of course the US will look better when you compare the two.

But why do you not compare the worst situations of the US with the worst situations of the USSR? Because you are trying to fool the members of the board of course.

In the US when you have no job you basically die, it's that simple, you are not guaranteed a job, in the USSR you were guaranteeed a job, there was absolutely no way that you could die of poverty.

It is only when we compare the worst situations of workers in both countries when we can see which country was better in terms of living conditions, the USSR was obviously above the US in this respect.

[Seong]

I'm fairly new to this so bear with me. But I was just wondering if Socialist China and Russia implemented the capitalist system of commerce while they were trying to subvert the right? Maybe I am being naive, but wouldn't the Socialist state stand a better chance if money was stripped of all value? :unsure: