has communism worked?

[pat1069]

oppression is definately a major problem, especially for those in the third world. Imperialism is also wrong, but is communism the answer? All examples of communism in the past have just meant a different opressor, not actually solved the problem. Maybe it is time to think of aother possible solution

[bezdomni]

The first thing that needs to be clarified is vital to answering your question. Communism has not yet ever existed.

Communism is an historical phase in which the means of production are entirely collectively owned by all people and the state has completely withered away. Communism, in short, is the absence of class society.

Socialism, on the other hand, has existed and continues to exist today in various parts of the world. There is a lot of debate over whether or not the Soviet Union was actually socialist, and for how long it was socialist. The same goes for China, Cuba and any other place that has declared itself socialist.

You will find little agreement among the left about where socialism has existed and whether or not socialism is even necessary/good.

However, we can all agree that capitalism (and class society as a whole) is not sustainable and will inevitably result in classless society in one way or another.

That is, of course, unless we destroy ourselves before we get there.

Also, another thing that I think is important to point out is that you seem to be speaking of communism and imperialism in moralistic terms. This is incorrect. We don't advocate communism because it would look nice or because we think people should live a certain way. We advocate the overthrow of capitalism and the death of class society for two reasons:
1) It is an historic inevitablity that class society will end.
2) The overthrow of capitalism is within our material interests, and the material interests of the masses of people.

One last thing that I feel the need to address is that you also seem to buy into a lot of capitalist propaganda that socialism has always bred oppression. You have to understand that:

a) Oppression and freedom, in the political sense, are simply relative terms. There is no objective definition for oppression.
b) Historically, socialist countries (at least, countries I consider to be socialist) have been much more politically free than capitalist countries.

A good example of this would be in the Soviet Union, women's liberation occured much earlier than it did in the United States. During the revolution, women were given the right to vote in local worker's councils called Soviets (hence the name Soviet Union). Women were paid the same wage as men (something that STILL does not occur in the United States) and were given full access to reproductive rights.

[Unfortunately, reproductive rights took a blow in the Soviet Union for a period after world war two...but they were quickly won back.]

So...in the Soviet Union women's liberation occured immediately, whereas it took over 200 years in the "land of the free".

[KC]

Communism doesn't "work" or "not work"; it exists or doesn't exist.

[pat1069]

well when you say oppression hasnt been defined, how do you measure how well a communist/socialist government could work? Also dont you see the concept of socialism as being flawed as hard work wouldnt be recognised if everyone recieved the same benefits for doing jobs of varying difficulties?

[Labor Shall Rule]

No, socialism and communism have never existed because it was never truly implemented; that is not an evasion and a cover-up, an inability to deal with reality, but a stated fact.

An example is not needed -- I don't think that bourgeois intellectuals needed examples when they were forming their democratic-republic nation-states. Thomas Paine, Benjamen Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson didn't need to be persuaded by the argument, "hey, look, this state in Greece and Rome tried democracy and it worked". They didn't need a pre-concieved model, already perfectly worked out in their heads, before they decided to fight for a democratic republic.

They did it because it was the correct thing to do. Feudalism and absolutism had become completely irreconcilable with the demands and aspirations of the rising bourgeois, the property owners. It was on the basis of the expansion of the productive forces and the material wealth of society that the new ideas of liberty and equality finally found popular expression, and that there was finally a class that had risen to a high enough level that it could reorganize society in its own interests. In other words, although the bourgeoisie had "grown up" inside the old feudal system, they reached a point where their further growth was retarded within the leftover crust of feudal society. They had to smash it up and remake anew. The American Revolution and then the French Revolution were the heralds of this process.

Just as the productive forces developed to a level of creating revolution in their respective instances, we find it in the very conditions of modern capitalist society -- the concentration of wealth, the constant development of technology, production according to rational plan -- all of these phenomena will lead to the socialization of the productive forces. Just as the bourgeoisie no longer found the feudal system to suit to their historical and material needs, the proletariat will no longer find this system -- in which only 1% of the population owns 40% of the national wealth, while the bottom 80% owns only 16% -- as able to maintain their livelihood, and will create anew also.

[pat1069]

what country do u live in? capitalism isnt a bad thing the ideal situation is a large middle class as found in the likes of australia. Australia is an example of a country can do well without having large social devisions. Socialist thoughts started in areas where the workers were treated incredibly poorly, correct? that is the only area where communism will work because the people, usually uneducated, will have a dip at a revolution to try something else cause they are under the impression it will work wonders, but down the track theres no difference.

For example, cigars are a sign of the wealthy ruling class, and yet cuba a communist nation is well known for them as they were before they became communist.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:31 am
what country do u live in? capitalism isnt a bad thing the ideal situation is a large middle class as found in the likes of australia. Australia is an example of a country can do well without having large social devisions. Socialist thoughts started in areas where the workers were treated incredibly poorly, correct? that is the only area where communism will work because the people, usually uneducated, will have a dip at a revolution to try something else cause they are under the impression it will work wonders, but down the track theres no difference.

For example, cigars are a sign of the wealthy ruling class, and yet cuba a communist nation is well known for them as they were before they became communist.
To pat1069

"what country do u live in?"

The United States of America.

"capitalism isnt a bad thing the ideal situation is a large middle class as found in the likes of australia."

The 'ideal' doesn't matter -- this is a social system that is based upon exploitation, because it subordinates society to the profit interests of the few at the expense of the many, and because the rivalries between the largest capitalists on a world scale lead inevitably to world wars that threaten the very foundations of human civilization.

As for Australia, I think that you are misinformed. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4.9% of the entire country are unemployed, and with the 'conservative' policies in place, it is not known if they will be able to financially sustain themselves. Even more shocking, 72% of Australia's Aborigines are living in poverty. Believe it or not, that is larger than the percentage of the black population in the United States living in poverty. Most of the labor force, as a matter of fact, consists of part-time workers, and 37.9% of them are under the poverty line. The "magic of the market" threatens this large "middle class" anyway; there has been a 3.5% decrease of industrial production, which has sinked the standard of living to a new level of backwardness.

"Socialist thoughts started in areas where the workers were treated incredibly poorly, correct?"

They are naturally powerful, considering that these 'thoughts' are their own aspirations expressed through their frustrations caused from being treated as they are.

"that is the only area where communism will work because the people, usually uneducated, will have a dip at a revolution to try something else cause they are under the impression it will work wonders, but down the track theres no difference."

Well, I would agree. We can only go as far as providing the idea, but we can never create a solution -- that is the task of the working people themselves, and it will be accomplished eventually due to the lowering of the standard of living that is occuring on both an international and national scale as capital is trying to feast on the cheaper flesh of new workers.

"For example, cigars are a sign of the wealthy ruling class, and yet cuba a communist nation is well known for them as they were before they became communist."

Cuba is not communist.

[Bilan]

Wasn't the Paris Commune communist?

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Bite the [email protected] 18, 2007 06:33 am
Wasn't the Paris Commune communist?
No, it was a proto-socialist government that was composed mostly of people who were communists.

These sorts of questions are the result of not understanding the words "communist" and "communism" as a noun or an adjective.

[pat1069]

is that a serious comment about cuba not being communist? and just quietly although obviously that unemployment figure of aboriginal australians is a problem its still under 200,000 people unemployed out of a population of a little over 20 million. Also aboriginal australians recieve quite a few government handouts and although Australia is a little backward in terms of dealing with the indigenous population properly its getting better. Also you cant compare your figures to anything where a revolution has taken place, that is in situations with thousands starving and what not cause look thats just not gunna happen. go finish your arts degree.

[bezdomni]

is that a serious comment about cuba not being communist?
No, Cuba isn't communist. No country can be communist because the existence of a country requires the existence of a state..and the existence of a state is contrary to the exstence of communism.

Engels wrote in The Principles of Communism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm):




Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?


No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.

It will develop in each of the these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.

It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.



However, many leftists would argue that Cuba is socialist. Which is certainly theoretically possible.

[pat1069]

its pretty easy to say communism would work if given fair chance, but thats just not going to happen. obviously it is ideal but the fact is it could take just one person to cock it up so if the theory cant be implemented what is the point of believing in the theory in the first place?

[bezdomni]

well when you say oppression hasnt been defined, how do you measure how well a communist/socialist government could work?

Oppression is not something that can be objectively defined. It cannot be expressed as a quantity. There is no "unit" of oppression. One cannot measure it with any consistent standard.

Oppression can only be measured on relative terms. Are people more free under capitalism than they were under feudalism? Yes, in general. Are people in the United States more free than people in Iran? Generally, yes.

However, you cannot say that people in Cuba are "oppressed", because oppression doesn't objectively exist. Regardless, Cubans are more politically free than most other citizens of Latin American countries.


Also dont you see the concept of socialism as being flawed as hard work wouldnt be recognised if everyone recieved the same benefits for doing jobs of varying difficulties?

No, we certainly recognize the concept that an immediate equalization of wages would be economically disasterous. In fact, that is the basis of much of our argument.

The reason a doctor is more economically valuable than say, a janitor, is because of what Marxists call the Labor Theory of Value. To put it simply, it takes a lot of time and costs a lot of money to train a doctor. This is because it costs time and money for teachers to train to teach doctors, for books to be written for doctors, for lab materials to be set up, for research to be done...etc. Therefore, the labor of a doctor is very expensive. Some doctors who set up private practices exploit this fact and usually become small business owners.

Janitorial work and other menial physical labor takes much less time and money to create. The amount of capital that is invested in a janitor is much more easily exploited than the amount of capital that is invested in a doctor.

[bezdomni]

its pretty easy to say communism would work if given fair chance, but thats just not going to happen.

Why would it be easy to say if it's not going to happen? :blink:


obviously it is ideal
Yes, it is. But that is not the primary reason we advocate it.

It is ideal for the same reason it is inevitable. Humanity will not be free until class society is destroyed.


but the fact is it could take just one person to cock it up so if the theory cant be implemented what is the point of believing in the theory in the first place?
That's not the fact at all. What on Earth would make you think that?

[Bilan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:40 pm
These sorts of questions are the result of not understanding the words "communist" and "communism" as a noun or an adjective.
:(

[bezdomni]

I didn't mean that in any pejorative or insulting way. It is a mistake made by many people.

I mean...the Paris Commune was communist in the sense that most of the people who governed it were ideologically communists. However, the paris commune itself was socialist, not communist.

[Bilan]

Ah, my mistake.
I shall look into it futher.
Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[Black Cross]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:45 am
well when you say oppression hasnt been defined, how do you measure how well a communist/socialist government could work? Also dont you see the concept of socialism as being flawed as hard work wouldnt be recognised if everyone recieved the same benefits for doing jobs of varying difficulties?
Individualism must disappear. This was always the belief of Che, and I believe it as well. There is no way a just society, under any form of government, can be if the only reason people do their jobs, is for recognition and reward. That's what capitalism is supposedly based on. I say supposedly because the working class does far more work than they get paid for, and they get nothing in return. The bourgoise owns it all, and they don't do any of the work; it's backwards. If a system would collapse due to disproportionate labor to wages/rewards ratio, then capitalism would have fallen long ago.

And don't judge socialism and communism just because they don't make sense in theory, or because some of the people who executed them didn't have the right motives. Why would we abandon our communist ideals because it hasn't happened before? We are in enough of a state of discontent to, at least, try communism; we don't see any reason not to.

So pat, why did you come here to this site? While i appreciate the tactful manner in which you have presented your argument, i don't think you are going to convert any of the disgruntled people on this site over to capitalism, or anything else. We just don't think it works.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:31 am
what country do u live in? capitalism isnt a bad thing the ideal situation is a large middle class as found in the likes of australia. Australia is an example of a country can do well without having large social devisions. Socialist thoughts started in areas where the workers were treated incredibly poorly, correct? that is the only area where communism will work because the people, usually uneducated, will have a dip at a revolution to try something else cause they are under the impression it will work wonders, but down the track theres no difference.
The ideal? The ideal is not made by itself. It's not that obvious. I agree we have it better here than in let's say Africa. But we can live that way because (1) Africa, Asia and Latin-America don't because (2) we fought for our gains and because (3) the capitalists needed a rather stabel interior market because otherwise nobody would be able to buy the stuff we produce.

It's not evident that we are rich compared to our African brothers. The cappies made us this way so that we could consume. The reason why the rest of the world will never be as lucky as we are, is because cappies need cheap labour too!

No that capitalism is globalized, we can assume that the advantages we gained will be taken back. Because it isn't necessary to have a whole region of middle class people and well paid workers, as long as you have enough consumers there will be no problem. If you have 550 million consumers in Europe, Japan and America, a cappie can easily say: let's spread those millions around the globe!
The people in the West will fight back, but if you make it change slowly and keep doing it for a hundred years or longer, then the people will get tired.

[Janus]

Communism in the world? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60756&hl=+communism)

[Chicano Shamrock]

I don't think pat understands what communism is. Communism is a form of society without the state, classes, money, the market and so on...

Now what has been called Communism in the west was an attempt at Marxist theory of how to get to communism. The theory is that after the revolution you can set up a state where the working class is in control and eventually that state will wither away into a communist society.

I believe that this theory is wrong as has been shown by history. What I understand of it is that the leader in the new state gets too much power and will never let it go. But this doesn't mean I am not a communist. I am just a communist who doesn't believe that Marxism is the way to get to the society we want.

[Rawthentic]

The theory is that after the revolution you can set up a state where the working class is in control and eventually that state will wither away into a communist society.
Its not a purely theoretical question, as if it was even a serious one, but a practical question. The working class will set up its own system of repression against the expropriated bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie, it wont dance and sing all through the process. It will be based on worker's councils and neighborhood assemblies. I will call it a state, I make no bones about it because its using an objective analysis of class society and antagonisms. Its ridiculous utopianism to think that communism can be reached the morning after the revolution is won.


What I understand of it is that the leader in the new state gets too much power and will never let it go.
Wow. This doesn't even deserve a response beyond this sentence. Way to regurgitate bourgeois propaganda.


I am just a communist who doesn't believe that Marxism is the way to get to the society we want
Then you are not a communist and don't know how to get to the society "we want".

[Chicano Shamrock]

I make no bones about it because its using an objective analysis of class society and antagonisms.
Where is this objective analysis? You are not objective, Marx was not objective, Lenin was not objective. If you had any objective analysis you would notice that Marxist theory has been tried and it doesn't work. How cool was that workers state in the USSR?


Way to regurgitate bourgeois propaganda.
Are you suggesting that the vanguard will let go of the power? Do you have any "objective" proof to analyze?


Then you are not a communist and don't know how to get to the society "we want".
I don't really give a shit either way what you call me. You see I don't have the urge to ride the nut sack of a bunch of dead people and pander to what they told me to do.

[sh0t2]

Communsim worked for the Communist Party.

Everybody else was out of luck.

[Rawthentic]

Where is this objective analysis? You are not objective, Marx was not objective, Lenin was not objective. If you had any objective analysis you would notice that Marxist theory has been tried and it doesn't work. How cool was that workers state in the USSR?
The objective class analysis that all class societies are marked with a state, that repressive organ that reinforces class rule. That's objective. The worker's state in Russia was "cool" to use your idealist moralist objections up to the point of the bureaucratic counter-revolution, but I wouldn't expect you to be able to analyze.



Are you suggesting that the vanguard will let go of the power? Do you have any "objective" proof to analyze?
A vanguard is the class conscious section of the working class, nothing more. Stop using straw men.


I don't really give a shit either way what you call me. You see I don't have the urge to ride the nut sack of a bunch of dead people and pander to what they told me to do.
I have the urge to organize the working class and deal with real world issue now and after the revolution, which will include arming themselves to defend their state.

Yeah, and tell me how Marxism was put into practice, with quotes from Marx as well as explanations.


Communsim worked for the Communist Party.
Oh, so communism existed inside a Communist Party? :lol:

[Severian]

Originally posted by SovietPants+June 17, 2007 09:08 pm--> (SovietPants @ June 17, 2007 09:08 pm) The first thing that needs to be clarified is vital to answering your question. Communism has not yet ever existed. [/b]
Yeah, yeah. But terminology games don't really accomplish anything.

The question is: the spectre of communism has been haunting the world since 1848. Millions have fought, even died for the cause commonly called "communism". A number of governments have claimed to be guided by communist ideas.

So what's been accomplished?

It's a legitimate question. And deserves a better answer than terminology juggling.

Just to keep the post from being too long, and stick to the original posters' focus on places where self-described communists have held power....I'd suggest Cuba is a pretty positive example.

It's "worked" pretty well under the circumstances. Compare Cuba to other Latin American countries - and Cuba comes out looking pretty damn good.

Is this communism? No. It's a country where working people hold political power, have taken control of the economy away from the bosses. And where they've done as much to move towards communism as can be accomplished under the economic and international situation they are dealing with.

Some past threads on Cuba:
Statistics about Cuba (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39987)

A debate on which class rules in Cuba, with some useful facts about the country (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35695&st=40)

If I was going to draw up a balance sheet on the positive and negative results of, say, the Russian or Chinese Revolution, it'd be more complex. There are certainly major positive effects, some ways they "worked". Compare the health and education stats for China vs India to get some idea.

But clearly they didn't "work" in that a bunch of bureaucrats were able to take over and give themselves all kinds of privileges at the expense of working people. And carry out hideous, bloody repression against working people in order to keep those privileges.

Which brings us to another question, how can we do better than that next time....previously discussed in this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53454)


SovietPants
he Paris Commune was communist in the sense that most of the people who governed it were ideologically communists.

You are so, so mistaken about that.

Jacobins who didn't even claim to be any kind of socialist held a majority in the Paris Commune. The "socialist" minority in it were a motley crew of Blanquists, Proudhonists, and whatnot.

Details (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57262&#entry1292186431)

The Paris Commune, like every real thing in world history, was full of complexity and gray areas. People who have an idealized, perfect view of this remote historical event....may be blaming more recent revolutions for failing to measure up to that unreal perfection, and labelling them capitalist as a result?

Or maybe if these idealists knew about the Paris Commune's details and warts, they'd label that capitalist too....

[whoknows]

To see Marxism at work you can look at employee controlled production in Argentina. During the past five years there has been up to 180 factories with 10,000 employees who are producing and making money without capitalist ownership.
One good example is the Brukman Textile Factory. There are even web photos of the police trying to take back the factory for the 'owners' who had ran it into the ground and then threw the keys to the employees and dared them to do better. They are.
As communisim can not exist (according to Marx) until the grovenment and the people are the same, these workers are building communism more certainly than anyone ever did with a gun. Think of communism as a way of life rather than a party.

[Janus]

To see Marxism at work you can look at employee controlled production in Argentina. During the past five years there has been up to 180 factories with 10,000 employees who are producing and making money without capitalist ownership.
To take such actions and attach it solely to a specific ideology/doctrine misses the point to a degree particularly when that ideology was merely put forth as a tool to describe and interprete what was/is happening. I think these workers would be quite surprised if someone were to tell them that they were Marxists (one could just as well call them anarchists, socialists, collectivists,etc.) because of what they were doing when they were only acting based on natural and logical conclusions. Worker's self-management and democracy existed before Marx and no doubt existed after his death.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:48 am

To see Marxism at work you can look at employee controlled production in Argentina. During the past five years there has been up to 180 factories with 10,000 employees who are producing and making money without capitalist ownership.
I think these workers would be quite surprised if someone were to tell them that they were Marxists
no they wouldn't. one woman said the effort to take over a factory lead her and the other workers to discover Marx. Try to find something about this movement. The BBC did a little report part of which I've heard but can not find. And NPR did a sorry little piece. But there is info out there. It is practistianers who make theory fact.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To Chicano Shamrock:

"Where is this objective analysis? You are not objective, Marx was not objective, Lenin was not objective. If you had any objective analysis you would notice that Marxist theory has been tried and it doesn't work. How cool was that workers state in the USSR?"

Marx and Lenin attributed that unless the productive forces were developed to a high level of making scarcity impossible; in other words, unless it is an advanced capitalist country that went through decades of capital accumulation in which necessities are open for everyone, there would be a return to "the same old crap".
For in backwards countries, the Marxists predicted failure before any capitalist or anarchist commentator did so; for advanced countries, no revolution has yet occurred by which the criteria of Marxism can be judged.

"Are you suggesting that the vanguard will let go of the power? Do you have any "objective" proof to analyze?"

You most likely don't even know what the revolutionary vanguard is.

[RedArmyFaction]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:02 am
oppression is definately a major problem, especially for those in the third world. Imperialism is also wrong, but is communism the answer? All examples of communism in the past have just meant a different opressor, not actually solved the problem. Maybe it is time to think of aother possible solution
Actually, When China went through it's revolution, the leader Mao, use Marxist-Lennism to end oppression of the peasantry and that's what he did.

[Morello]

First off, Communism has never existed on a national scale.
Second, all politcal theories "work." You have to look at the word "work." in a politcal sense, "work" means able to be put into effect. A politcal system working does not mean it will work WELL. It just means it has ability to become the system of a nation. What happens aftwerwards has nothing to do with "working."
But as for Communism, it has never "worked" before because it was never put into effect as the system of a nation. Get it now?

[Janus]

one woman said the effort to take over a factory lead her and the other workers to discover Marx. Try to find something about this movement.
I have, I'm sure that there are some collectives that have probably had some type of Marxist or anarchist influence in some way but most of the information that I found merely pointed to syndicalist and autonomist traditions.
worker's self-management in Argentina (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10329)

Anyways, my point was that attempting to label these parties as Marxist, anarchist,etc. are misleading and misses the point of what these workers are actually trying to create which are autonomous collectives based around direct democracy and self-management/determination; something radically different from what many "Marxist" parties out there are trying to do.

[whoknows]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:47 pm
.
worker's self-management in Argentina (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10329)

Anyways, my point was that attempting to label these parties as Marxist, anarchist,etc. are misleading and misses the point of what these workers are actually trying to create which are autonomous collectives based around direct democracy and self-management/determination; something radically different from what many "Marxist" parties out there are trying to do.
I deeply appreciate those who offer productive links. Such contrabutions are laudable. Thankyou.

I'm not a lover of parties, and will offer no more to this thread.