"State Capitalism with a red flag"

[leftace53]

There is probably a thread about this somewhere, so I'm terribly sorry if its a repeat.

I was wondering why are the former "Communist" states called Communist? By that I mean, we've all established that to be a Communist 'state' is an oxymoron right, Communism means a classless, stateless society, so why does/did those states identify themselves as Commies?

From what I think the stateless part of Communism is like the social scale of it, I think they identified themselves as Commies because their economical scale lined up with the general left scale...can someone tell me if I'm right in thinking that?


-whoa, this is my first thread, and i just noticed the etching of Che in the reply box - wicked cool :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why are so many social democratic and liberal parties in Europe called "socialist"? Because they really were socialist at some point in the past, and they kept the name even after their ideology changed.

It's a similar issue with the former "Communist states" (or socialist states, as they are more appropriately called by their supporters). Their founders were in most cases genuine communists, who really wanted to create a socialist society.

People change their ideas and their habits faster than they change the labels they use to describe themselves. The Roman Empire was still called a republic long after the republic had ceased to exist.

[co-op]

Why are so many social democratic and liberal parties in Europe called "socialist"? Because they really were socialist at some point in the past, and they kept the name even after their ideology changed.


Why should the working class trust political parties then? Their ideology has changed to suit what is best for their interests, not whats best for the working class. Some politicians may start out with real indignation and a real desire to change things but the bourgeois democratic system co-opts them and they end up as careerists persuing ministerial posts etc. Where the aspirations and interests of the working class are concerned bourgeois democracy is a game that is pointless to participate in.


It's a similar issue with the former "Communist states" (or socialist states, as they are more appropriately called by their supporters). Their founders were in most cases genuine communists, who really wanted to create a socialist society.

Some no doubt thought they were doing the right thing others like Lenin were well aware that the Bolshevik seizure of power was in order to effect 'state capitalism' in Russia. The Bolsheviks clashed with the proletariat because neither state or private capitalism is in the interests of the proletariat. History will forever repeat itself until the proletariat act in spite of political parties and vanguards and not deferential to them.

[Marsella]

I was wondering why are the former "Communist" states called Communist? By that I mean, we've all established that to be a Communist 'state' is an oxymoron right, Communism means a classless, stateless society, so why does/did those states identify themselves as Commies?

Yes you are quite correct it is an oxymoron.

For example, the Chinese Communist Party - its a party comprised of the interests of the capitalist class. They are totally clear on their aims.

The reason why they still term themselves Communists is because typically there is a strict-line of following the party.

Even suggesting changing the party name would cause an outroar amongst the party faithful.

Now, the media uses the term 'communism' as synonomous with totalitarianism. And applied to the USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam such an analysis is correct; those states were/are totalitarian.

It would be good if the ruling parties of the mentioned countries had renamed themselves for what they were: Capitalist Pigs.

But some people might lose faith in the 'revolution!'

It's a great irony that the former communist parties have turned capitalist themselves.

Now, its a matter of debate whether we should rename ourselves. I haven't really read arguments one way or the other. Anti-capitalist is perhaps the modern day word. But it doesn't describe our aims the way the term 'communism' does.

Edit: @ co-op: I agree with most of your argument

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by co-[email protected] 24, 2007 12:21 pm
Others like Lenin were well aware that the Bolshevik seizure of power was in order to effect 'state capitalism' in Russia. The Bolsheviks clashed with the proletariat because neither state or private capitalism is in the interests of the proletariat. History will forever repeat itself until the proletariat act in spite of political parties and vanguards and not deferential to them.
First off, I do agree (as a "Leninist," mind you) that the "socialist republic" rhetoric was just that - rhetoric. The clashes between Bolsheviks and the proletariat occurred because the latter may have tragically bitten Trotsky's skip-historical-stages stuff.

Oh, and your second sentence is incorrect in terms of historical processes: in terms of emerging from feudalism, capitalism - and especially state capitalism with a revolutionary-democratic superstructure - is in the "short-term" interests of the emerging proletariat, especially with the "democratic rights."