The Myth of True Communism

[Dean]

There is a lot of talk in OI about "true" communism, as opposed to "false" or "deformed" communism, as seen in China, N. Korea and the USSR. The argument goes a few ways... that "communism is unattainable" due to these examples, that a constant rephrasing and narrowing of the definition can result in an ever elusive state, etc., etc.; and that, since communism is some fantastic ideal, that it will never be attainable even in hyper-progressive systems.

TomK and some other libertarians are even known to apply what they sometimes view as similar logic to their own ideologies. The concept here is that capitalism is either a completely free market, or a market system with heavy controls to maintain competition.

There are a number of problems with both of these sentiments.

Libertarian / Capitalist society as compared to the "Communist" myth

1. Capitalism, by definition, is an organization of economic controls meant to gain profit, or capital. This means that capital is procured from a business and reinvested. This implies, but does not mean, that a free-market is present. You have a different definition of the term, fine, but this is widely applicable and applied. China is not communist because it is not worker-controlled, for one. But it is capitalist because it has a free-market, profit-motivated system, and of course the Western media describes it as such.

2. Corporatism is capitalist, because it is almost universally characterized by profit-motive as a status quo, and because the corporations that exist as part of this system are free-market bodies. King Leopold II's reign over the Congo was capitalist, plainly.

3. Capitalism is verbally and politically embraced in nearly every nation that has a capitalist system. This is true when we talk specifically of free-marketism or when we talk about profit motive. It's quite simple: they are capitalist, and they accept that.

4. Your definition is wrong or you're applying it wrong. If you have some grand concept of what it means to be capitalist or a free-marketeer, good for you, but don't tell me that I'm misusing the term. As with communism, there are very specific historical, political and linguistic standards dictating the use of the term. Just because you like the profit motive doesn't mean you support Pinochet, but it doesn't make him any less of a capitalist either.


Unattainable true 'communism'

1. The usage of the term in subject states is suspect, firstly. Very few leaders of "communist states," as the West calls them even call their own nation or society 'communist.' The government is sometimes referred to as communist, however this almost always refers to the Party administration - just as the Republican administration is used to describe the policies or government as they execute them. When the term is applied, it refers to the philosophy and policies of a communist party or leader, not some values or policies which are themselves communist, which leads into my next point:

2. Rhetoric versus reality - this is very simple. It is the difference between believing in what a leader or clique says about their party or governance, and objectively describing it. Very few would rationally describe China as it existed under Mao as 'capitalist.' And today, one would be hard-pressed to find any Chinese bureaucrat or politician willing to call the nation 'capitalist.' And yet, the media particularly in the West has almost unanimously declared China capitalist, both de facto and de jure. Simply put, the material fact of these nations called 'communist' is that they are or have been capitalist (of the market or state variety), bureaucracies or otherwise centralized forms of social and economic organization.

3. What is 'communist' is whatever fits the definition, as Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin and Trostky saw it, but particularly as the dominant leftist tendancies do as well. These thinkers and groups, insofar as I have experienced it, unanimously agree on a few things:
a. Communism is a classless society, which means firstly that all the one-man dictatorships, cliques and bureaucratic states cannot be described as 'communist.' Stalin killed X number of people? Too bad, even he never called his nation 'communist.'
b. Communism is stateless - so the federalist republics of the USSR or China? By definition, not communist, and claims of socialism are quite dubious.
c. Communism is characterized by hyper-decentralization. Quite simply, if the workers do in fact control the means of production, then there can be no place for any centralization of these controls.

[Robert]

Communism is characterized by hyper-decentralization. Quite simply, if the workers do in fact control the means of production, then there can be no place for any centralization of these controls.Simply? Well, I'll agree it looks good on paper.

But here's a theory question: one of your comrades in arms, Red Sentinel I think, explained to the esteemed gentleman from Florida (that would be TomK), that "in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free."

Do you agree with this? If so, what you are describing above is not communism, right?

But more generally, Dean, every counterrevolutionary here acknowledges that North Korea is not your ideal paradigm for worker liberation. What we think you (collectively) are missing is that the reasons North Korea and Cuba "have th[ose] one-man dictatorships, cliques and bureaucratic states" is because people have and will develop their selfish, entrepreneural spirit if left free to their own devices. Yes, even the workers. Maybe especially the workers.

Therefore, you have to somehow enforce the rules eliminating property and money and speculation and exploitation and all the rest of it. If you free the workers, they'll be free to start looking around for a leader. Enter Fidel. You won't deny the post-liberation workers the right to choose a leader, will you? You know, to "quite simply" keep the trains running on time and the capitalists down?

[Lynx]

But here's a theory question: one of your comrades in arms, Red Sentinel I think, explained to the esteemed gentleman from Florida (that would be TomK), that "in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free."

Do you agree with this? If so, what you are describing above is not communism, right?
This is the communist or gift economy, an end stage where the need for formal reciprocity (ie. paychecks) has withered away. Another example of this is described by Technocracy advocates.

[Robert]

an end stage where the need for formal reciprocity (ie. paychecks) has withered away.

Okay. Thanks. But do the Fidels and the Kim Jungs wither away too? I'm not trolling, I am really curious as to whether you guys see this gift economy arising and enduring with no enforcement.

I recognize that you (Lynx) didn't exactly subscribe in your post to the inevitability of the gift economy.

[Zurdito]

Simply? Well, I'll agree it looks good on paper.

But here's a theory question: one of your comrades in arms, Red Sentinel I think, explained to the esteemed gentleman from Florida (that would be TomK), that "in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free."

Do you agree with this? If so, what you are describing above is not communism, right?

But more generally, Dean, every counterrevolutionary here acknowledges that North Korea is not your ideal paradigm for worker liberation. What we think you (collectively) are missing is that the reasons North Korea and Cuba "have th[ose] one-man dictatorships, cliques and bureaucratic states" is because people have and will develop their selfish, entrepreneural spirit if left free to their own devices. Yes, even the workers. Maybe especially the workers.

Therefore, you have to somehow enforce the rules eliminating property and money and speculation and exploitation and all the rest of it. If you free the workers, they'll be free to start looking around for a leader. Enter Fidel. You won't deny the post-liberation workers the right to choose a leader, will you? You know, to "quite simply" keep the trains running on time and the capitalists down?

I agree that marxists must deal with the legacy of Stalinism and be prepared to answer questions as to why the abolition of private property in Cuba and N.Korea led to these regimes, and I also think your question is not aq bad one, but you cannot honestly tell me that this is historically what happened in Cuba or North Korea? The workers themselves never put in power those leaderships democratically, and the means of production were certainly not under the workers control when those leaderships came to power. In fact Cuba did not even declare itself socialist until 1961.

Regarding your question about a tyrant coming to pwoer in a communsit soceity, well firstly the idea of communists as opposed to anarchists is that a workers state and socialsit economy is needed in order to create the material conditions for communism, and that only once society is at a sufficient level of advancement, will the state ecome redundant and communism be possible. Whether this will work, obviously, is up tot he people who live in a communit society. All I say to you is this, that you quite probably are a civilised individual, capable of working with other people at taking decisions rationally and co-operatively, without resorting to brute force, backing someone else in doing so, or accepting the right of someone else to do so against you. Therefore, given the same material comfort, education and security as yourself, why couldn't the vast majority of people also be as civilised? And why would they allow a tiny minority of would-be tyrants, if such a thing were to arise, to take power, any more than you would allow this amongst a group of friends?

Personally I believe that tyrants arise form having others dependent on them. If the material means exist for each person to be independent, then tyranny will also be redundant.

Of course, none of those conditions applied or apply to Cuba or North Korea.

Regarding Stalinisms legacy within marxism in general, simple, I believe it is the last resort of the counter-revolution, and that the state of seige enforced from the outside on post-revoltuion societies only strengthens such regimes against their own people.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

But do the Fidels and the Kim Jungs wither away too? I'm not trolling, I am really curious as to whether you guys see this gift economy arising and enduring with no enforcement.

Who is arguing for Fidels in the first place?

And what better enforcement than the people themselves? Do you think the majority of the planet needs someone to rule over them?

[Lynx]

Okay. Thanks. But do the Fidels and the Kim Jungs wither away too? I'm not trolling, I am really curious as to whether you guys see this gift economy arising and enduring with no enforcement.
A gift economy requires trust. The need for leadership would be relegated to advocacy of day to day challenges and global challenges. Technocrats view government as being purely functional, optimized to accomplish x,y,z without any politics at all.


I recognize that you (Lynx) didn't exactly subscribe in your post to the inevitability of the gift economy.
I believe a gift economy requires a state of abundance.

[Dean]

Simply? Well, I'll agree it looks good on paper.

But here's a theory question: one of your comrades in arms, Red Sentinel I think, explained to the esteemed gentleman from Florida (that would be TomK), that "in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free."

Do you agree with this? If so, what you are describing above is not communism, right?
Right, and I was aware of this when I posted it. The point is, if during the "proletocracy" there is extreme decentralization, then there is no place for "re-centralization" just because the dictatorship withers away. That wouldn't make sense. This isn't meant to be an argument for communism, but about the material fact of what it is. That's why i said "If X, then Y" where it seems quite evident that if the workers truly do control the economy, there can not be centralized power structures. If the latter did exist, the former would not.


But more generally, Dean, every counterrevolutionary here acknowledges that North Korea is not your ideal paradigm for worker liberation. What we think you (collectively) are missing is that the reasons North Korea and Cuba "have th[ose] one-man dictatorships, cliques and bureaucratic states" is because people have and will develop their selfish, entrepreneural spirit if left free to their own devices. Yes, even the workers. Maybe especially the workers.

Therefore, you have to somehow enforce the rules eliminating property and money and speculation and exploitation and all the rest of it. If you free the workers, they'll be free to start looking around for a leader. Enter Fidel. You won't deny the post-liberation workers the right to choose a leader, will you? You know, to "quite simply" keep the trains running on time and the capitalists down?Your theory rests on a very cynical sense of the human being, and it is quite a leap from what we see in humans today. If I can't believe that there is some intrinsic social character to humans which will promote such an associative system, why should you be able to believe that there are some intrinsic human characteristics concerned with a sense of profit - a much more complicated and presumptive theory, which really ascribes what are simply prevalent economic theories to be fundamentals of the human mind? If you free the workers, they will be free to start looking for a butcherer of humans or a lake to jump into - whether they will actually do so is a totally different issue,

In any case, I am trying to explain how totally false and misrepresentative the "communist regimes have failed" argument is. Quite simply, there is no basis in historical or political fact to use these oft-repeated arguments about "communism results in this or that." That have been hundreds of revolutions that have ended in some pretty nasty regimes, and the fact is that there have been a slew of different banners for these revolutions - the vast majority of which never used the term "communism" at all.

[spice756]

China does not believe in communism has after Mao they put profit in command than slowing allowing more and more private businesses over time.Than allowing the US to invest and and set up businesses in China.

There is very little state run businesses mostly of them in Beijing.The state run businesses or private businesses are all low pay and work hours 12 to 16 hours in a day.No sick pay or work compensation,If you had gets cut off you on the street no government support.The work places are very unsafe.


Both China and India are both like this.And the only think they like to do is call them self communism and have nice red flag.You can't even read communit books in China they are ban.

North Keora is not communism it is more federalism.

And the USSR I don't really know much about:( other than some high up communit ministers living a very privilege life and extracting surplus from the working class,And very little money going into the economy.

[spice756]

Simply? Well, I'll agree it looks good on paper.


The problem in the US is people fear the government and what I want to do is make laws and protocols so the government fears the people .Than a revolution can start.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Okay. Thanks. But do the Fidels and the Kim Jungs wither away too? I'm not trolling, I am really curious as to whether you guys see this gift economy arising and enduring with no enforcement.
What I don't understand about your argument is this: First you point out, quite correctly, that some kind of authority will be necessary to restructure society in the period immediately following the revolution (a period also known as "socialism"). But then you make a completely unjustified leap from "some authority" to "an all-powerful dictator". I'm sorry, but all governments, by definition, force some people to do things they don't want to do. That's what laws are for.

Yes, a socialist government will enforce laws on people who might not want to follow those laws. So what? Is a democratic, non-totalitarian government incapable of enforcing laws?

Or in other words, why should socialist laws be any more difficult to enforce than capitalist laws? After all, if people are inherently greedy, then people are inherently driven to steal other people's property, meaning that capitalism goes against human nature too.

[Robert]

But then you make a completely unjustified leap from "some authority" to "an all-powerful dictator".
I already explained why I think this is likely. You know there are several concrete historical examples of Marxist inspired revolution, call it communist or not, deteriorating into dictatorship.


I'm sorry, but all governments, by definition, force some people to do things they don't want to do. That's what laws are for.Sure, but I get the impression that some of you foresee a future including both this "gift economy" and a total absence of government.


Or in other words, why should socialist laws be any more difficult to enforce than capitalist laws? Well, maybe they won't, depending on the kind and degree of liberty they insure.


After all, if people are inherently greedy, then people are inherently driven to steal other people's property, meaning that capitalism goes against human nature too.Capitalism depends on property. Property is theft. People like to steal. Therefore people like property. And capitalism.

It's a mess, ain't it? I'm only half kidding.

Good post. Yours, I mean.

[JimmyJazz]

TomK is a libertarian? I thought he was just really bored. :lol:


Simply? Well, I'll agree it looks good on paper.

But here's a theory question: one of your comrades in arms, Red Sentinel I think, explained to the esteemed gentleman from Florida (that would be TomK), that "in a socialist system workers control the means of production, in a communist system there is no money, people work for free and goods are free."

Cut the crap about "your comrades in arms", you hypocrite. You would probably have a hernia if we treated libertarians as a homogenous group with one monolithic opinion about all things. And rightly so.

There are lots of people on this site who are socialists (according to Red Sentinel's definition) but think "communism" (again according to RS's quite accurate definition) is a totally utopian idea. I'm one of them. I wouldn't have any problem with communism, and I certainly wouldn't fight it if it was working, but I'm also beyond certain that it could not work for a society of several million people. Communism is only suited to small villages where everyone can hold everyone else accountable. Socialism, on the other hand, is not only suitable to modern nation-societies but is the only economic system suitable to them; such a vast and specialized division of labor, and such a degree of capital centralization as we now have, is not compatible with private ownership. At least, not if we sincerely hold any true democratic principles.

It's now been explained to you, so I know you will never make the mistake again of treating all non-OIers as though they share most of the same opinions!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I already explained why I think this is likely. You know there are several concrete historical examples of Marxist inspired revolution, call it communist or not, deteriorating into dictatorship.
True. However, if this was the year 1818 instead of 2008, recent historical evidence would give you very good reason to believe that liberal democracy will inevitably turn into one-man rule by a charismatic leader. And you would be wrong.

More to the point, yes, several Marxist revolutions deteriorated into dictatorship. And we know why: Because they placed far too much power in the hands of a centralized vanguard party with very weak accountability to the people. That was a mistake. We learned from it (well, most of us did) and we have no intention of repeating it. Next time we will insure that the revolutionary government allows factions rather than enforcing the will of a single party, and we will use separation of powers to prevent dangerous concentrations of authority. So what's the problem?

Marxism only leads to Stalin in the same way that liberal democracy leads to Napoleon or Hitler.


Sure, but I get the impression that some of you foresee a future including both this "gift economy" and a total absence of government.
Personally, I try to refrain from talking about the "absence of government" part, because I don't really know what kind of human organization counts as a "government." I know that a communist society will be run by direct democracy, but whether or not this represents a "government" depends on your definition of the term, I guess.


Well, maybe they won't, depending on the kind and degree of liberty they insure.
Generally, the ease of enforcing a law against a certain activity is directly proportional to the number of people involved in the activity. The more people involved, the easier it is to spot the illegal activity and enforce the law.

I bet that enforcing socialist laws will be easier than enforcing prohibition laws against marijuana.


Capitalism depends on property. Property is theft. People like to steal. Therefore people like property. And capitalism.

It's a mess, ain't it? I'm only half kidding.

Good post. Yours, I mean.
Why, thank you. :P

[mikelepore]

The betrayal by the rulers of the USSR wasn't an inability to live up to "some fantastic idea." The basics are very simple. Under capitalism, the stockholders elect the directors, one share one vote. If the post-revolutionary leaders were to adhere to Marxian concepts, they were supposed to have the workers elect the directors, one person one vote. The leaders refused to allow that, and instead installed a system of administration by the top-down appointees of appointees of appointees. When workers voiced suggestions for improvement, they were told to shut up, told that criticism is a form of disloyalty, shut up or you'll be arrested for treason. These were consciously adopted policies, not some gap that necessarily separates "reality" from a "ideal."

[spice756]

The betrayal by the rulers of the USSR wasn't an inability to live up to "some fantastic idea." The basics are very simple. Under capitalism, the stockholders elect the directors, one share one vote. If the post-revolutionary leaders were to adhere to Marxian concepts, they were supposed to have the workers elect the directors, one person one vote. The leaders refused to allow that, and instead installed a system of administration by the top-down appointees of appointees of appointees.


Any reading I have been doing is there was elections and workers council.Now just how it work or was implemented is other topic.

But you fail to understand high up communist party members and communist party ministers had a nice house and car not like the working class.Had more money and put profit in command.The money was not divided far and operated according to equity and fairness rather for profit.

And there was lack of money going into economy but in the hands of communist party members and communist party ministers who profit on it.

Has for if communist party ministers where allowed to privatize that is other topic.Most people here don't like to talk about the USSR.There may be some USSR supporters here who do not want to admit to it so just ignore it.

I admit to it I'm fan of the USSR but would not suuport that type of communism again .Has it was not true communism .

[Green Dragon]

Regarding your question about a tyrant coming to pwoer in a communsit soceity, well firstly the idea of communists as opposed to anarchists is that a workers state and socialsit economy is needed in order to create the material conditions for communism, and that only once society is at a sufficient level of advancement,

The "material conditions" will never come about.


will the state ecome redundant and communism be possible. Whether this will work, obviously, is up tot he people who live in a communit society.

Oh. So then who are you to say Cuba and N. Korea are not communist states? There have been no end to notes and threads on these boards as to the great popularity of the Cuban revolution amongst the Cuban people.


All I say to you is this, that you quite probably are a civilised individual, capable of working with other people at taking decisions rationally and co-operatively, without resorting to brute force, backing someone else in doing so, or accepting the right of someone else to do so against you. Therefore, given the same material comfort, education and security as yourself, why couldn't the vast majority of people also be as civilised?

But this begs the question: The socialist/communist/anarchist has to DESCRIBE how such relationships occur in a socialist/communist/anarchist system. The answer the OIers seem to run into at this point from the revlefters is 'nobody knows.' And that is because socialism develops differently in each commun ity.



And why would they allow a tiny minority of would-be tyrants, if such a thing were to arise, to take power, any more than you would allow this amongst a group of friends?



The "tyrants" never argue they are acting for their own benefit, but rather for the benefit of the people. The logic of the socialist structure established lets them get away with this fiction (even if it is sincere in belief).


Personally I believe that tyrants arise form having others dependent on them. If the material means exist for each person to be independent,

Well, in any sort of work environment, obviously that cannot be a realistic goal.




Regarding Stalinisms legacy within marxism in general, simple, I believe it is the last resort of the counter-revolution, and that the state of seige enforced from the outside on post-revoltuion societies only strengthens such regimes against their own people.
[/QUOTE]

This is the theme that Stalinist system was forced to be rotten because not all regions of the earth had a revolution. But such a sudden worldwide revolt is not realistic, and the revolutionary system has to be able to function in such a world.

[Green Dragon]

More to the point, yes, several Marxist revolutions deteriorated into dictatorship. And we know why: Because they placed far too much power in the hands of a centralized vanguard party with very weak accountability to the people. That was a mistake. We learned from it (well, most of us did) and we have no intention of repeating it. Next time we will insure that the revolutionary government allows factions rather than enforcing the will of a single party, and we will use separation of powers to prevent dangerous concentrations of authority. So what's the problem?


But WHY did those chain of events occur?
I would suggest because "factions" within a socialist commity causes problems for the socialist community.

Marxism only leads to Stalin in the same way that liberal democracy leads to Napoleon or Hitler.




Personally, I try to refrain from talking about the "absence of government" part, because I don't really know what kind of human organization counts as a "government." I know that a communist society will be run by direct democracy, but whether or not this represents a "government" depends on your definition of the term, I guess.


Yes. The "worker councils" represents a "government."

[Dean]

TomK is a libertarian? I thought he was just really bored. :lol:

I don't think he is, but I didn't want to say he was or wasn't, so my phrasing was kind've odd... it doesn't actually indicate that he is a libertarian, but it certainly implies it.

[mikelepore]

But you fail to understand high up communist party members and communist party ministers had a nice house and car not like the working class.Had more money and put profit in command.The money was not divided far and operated according to equity and fairness rather for profit.

Are you going to cite any evidence that I didn't know that the high up Communist Party members had nice houses and cars, or is your credibility gone?

[spice756]

Are you going to cite any evidence that I didn't know that the high up Communist Party members had nice houses and cars, or is your credibility gone?

What are you a capitalist ? oh ya capitalist believe the USSR was true communism :thumbup: