If Communism is so great why did it fail every time?

[Blake's Baby]

Come on, this is the learning forum (though perhaps the OP should be restricted to OI Leaning?) - we should at least attempt to explain why what s/he thinks is 'communism' is really state capitalism.

If you're going to take this route, at least explain to the OP what you're talking about. This is the same as saying "Capitalism isn't failing, it's state-sponsored corporatism that is!"...

Well, sort of, but not; because 'state sponsored corporatism' (or even 'state capitalism'?) is a form of capitalism, not a 'form' of communism.

They're right, state-sponsored corporatism is failing; it failed in the USSR, it's failing in the West, and that's because as a system, capitalism 9which in the epoch is increasingly manifested as state-sponsored corporatism) is a flawed system that naturally exhibits crises.

So, to the OP: communism is a worldwide system of prouction for need not profit, without states, borders, classes, or property; it was not communism that failed, it was a particularly inefficient form of capitalism. And now the rest of capitalism is catching up.

So, given that capitalism has demonstrably failed the world over, what's your beef with communism again?

[Thirsty Crow]

So, given that capitalism has demonstrably failed the world over, what's your beef with communism again?

I don't think this is the point.
It's a matter of recognizing that communist politics have indeed been practiced, and concluding from there that the very possibility of a fundamental change is completely lacking.
As I've stated, this represents a wrong take on the program and theory (ince OP clearly stated that he/she wishes to deal with the argument that the idea has been tested and failed) since it completely neglects the actual conditions of its implementation or practice.

But to insist on the fact that capitalism fails is to neglect that most of such arguments presuppose that capitalism actually doesn't fail since social reproduction on the basis of capital still persists. It seems that the criterion is whether a social, economic and political order manages to reproduce itself, and the situation with so called communism is that it failed in its reproduction. That's a fundamental reality we need to consider very seriously, and not by resorting to hand waving (not that I imply you're doing it, but I can't help but notice that many people resort to such "debating strategies").

[DasFapital]

If you're going to take this route, at least explain to the OP what you're talking about. This is the same as saying "Capitalism isn't failing, it's state-sponsored corporatism that is!"



The fall of the USSR may have been a victory for the West, but it was a failure for its citizens

Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted. Second, one of the main tenets of Marxism is a rejection of "false consciousness" (ie nationalism and religion) that the ruling class uses to subvert the proletariat. Once you start referring to "the Motherland" or declaring your dead leader "eternal Head of the Party" that whole concept flies out the window. That leads to the issue of the "vanguard party" establishes a new ruling class to oppress the workers of their native country. So right there we can see how little these socialist states had to do with Marxist theory.
Finally, I agree with you that a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Soviet Union, I never said they didn't. However, a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Roman Empire, that still doesn't justify its existence.

[Blake's Baby]

Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted...

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

[wsg1991]

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

so if socialist revolution conditions are available in one country , should we just wait ? perhaps for 40 years ?

[Blake's Baby]

So, if no aeroplanes are available, should we jump off a cliff?

[Questionable]

Well lets first begin with the fact that the Russian and Chinese revolutions occurred in feudal societies as opposed to the advanced capitalist societies that Marx predicted. Second, one of the main tenets of Marxism is a rejection of "false consciousness" (ie nationalism and religion) that the ruling class uses to subvert the proletariat. Once you start referring to "the Motherland" or declaring your dead leader "eternal Head of the Party" that whole concept flies out the window. That leads to the issue of the "vanguard party" establishes a new ruling class to oppress the workers of their native country. So right there we can see how little these socialist states had to do with Marxist theory.
Finally, I agree with you that a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Soviet Union, I never said they didn't. However, a lot of places went to shit after the fall of the Roman Empire, that still doesn't justify its existence.

But the revolution happened there, regardless of what Marx said. Things are different in the age of imperialism. Class consciousness and revolutionary activity in Western nations is much, much lower than in countries that are the victims of imperialist exploitation, such as Russia, China, or modern-day Greece. Marx's prediction was just that; a prediction. To hold dogmatically to it makes your complaints about the USSR's cult of personality seem ironic, and it also reveals nothing about the historical situation. You're basically saying that the Bolsheviks were wrong because they went against Marx's word.


Your reference to the Roman Empire also seems erratic. Aside from the fact that I don't know much about Roman history, are you saying it's completely fine that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc has lead to horrible economic lives, increased privatization, widespread organized crime, and a whole host of other social problems? Regardless of how degenerated the Soviet Union was by then, there were still many social safety nets in place from its earlier days. Are you honestly happy that the quality and length of life has fallen all across Eastern Europe just because it means you've somehow won the argument?

[wsg1991]

So, if no aeroplanes are available, should we jump off a cliff?

you can tell us what should this workers do ?

[Blake's Baby]

If you want to fly, building an aeroplane is better than jumping a cliff. You can't fly under your own power.

If you want to build a socialist society, you can't just decide to do it. The material conditions for it must exist. The material conditions don't exist in one country, even a big one.

Not even the cleverest bear can lay eggs.

But if you mean, what should the workers in a revolutionary territory do if the revolution fails to spread - as happened in the 1920s - then the answer is that all they can do is continue trying to promote the revolution worldwide while trying to hold on against the (inevitable) counter-revolutionary nature of the 'revolutionary' state.

But the fact is that long before 40 years is up the revolutionary territory will have gone back to being a strightforward capitalist state of some kind.

[DasFapital]

But the revolution happened there, regardless of what Marx said. Things are different in the age of imperialism. Class consciousness and revolutionary activity in Western nations is much, much lower than in countries that are the victims of imperialist exploitation, such as Russia, China, or modern-day Greece. Marx's prediction was just that; a prediction. To hold dogmatically to it makes your complaints about the USSR's cult of personality seem ironic, and it also reveals nothing about the historical situation. You're basically saying that the Bolsheviks were wrong because they went against Marx's word.


Your reference to the Roman Empire also seems erratic. Aside from the fact that I don't know much about Roman history, are you saying it's completely fine that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc has lead to horrible economic lives, increased privatization, widespread organized crime, and a whole host of other social problems? Regardless of how degenerated the Soviet Union was by then, there were still many social safety nets in place from its earlier days. Are you honestly happy that the quality and length of life has fallen all across Eastern Europe just because it means you've somehow won the argument?

Well Marx's prediction was an informed one, considering that the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries would have higher class conscious and be more educated than those in feudal societies, therefore less likely to fall prey to authoritarianism. It isn't so much holding dogmatically to Marx's word as seeing it as an informed observation. Just because there is more revolutionary activity in an oppressed country doesn't it will lead to anything progressive. Also, you're claiming imperialism didn't exist in the nineteenth century? I would beg to differ.
In regard to the collapse of the USSR, I do not think it should have collapsed into liberalism but rather the proletariat should have tried to take advantage of their situation to produce a more authentically socialist society.

[#FF0000]

The revolution failed, basically. The Germans were crushed and the Russians were absolutely gutted and isolated.

[Questionable]

Well Marx's prediction was an informed one, considering that the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries would have higher class conscious and be more educated than those in feudal societies, therefore less likely to fall prey to authoritarianism. It isn't so much holding dogmatically to Marx's word as seeing it as an informed observation. Just because there is more revolutionary activity in an oppressed country doesn't it will lead to anything progressive. Also, you're claiming imperialism didn't exist in the nineteenth century? I would beg to differ.
In regard to the collapse of the USSR, I do not think it should have collapsed into liberalism but rather the proletariat should have tried to take advantage of their situation to produce a more authentically socialist society.

Then Marx was incorrect on this one, as the state of affairs nowadays proves that the class consciousness of first-world nations are lower than in the rest of the world. Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy touches on this. And I never said imperialism didn't exist, but it was in its embryonic stages, and had not developed to the point it was at during the time of the Russian Revolution. There is a world market now, and things have changed. Marx understood this. He often went back and critiqued earlier works of his that no longer held relevance for the time period. Your claim that the revolution must happen in first-world countries has no basis in reality, and stinks of chauvinism. Do the silly, uneducated victims of Western imperialism need their more enlightened comrades to come save them, rather than taking revolutionary action into their own hands? It's like your implying that these people are too stupid to avoid taking the "wrong" path, therefore they need to sit around and wait for guidance. Lastly, why are you so opposed to authoritarianism? Marx was an authoritarian himself. Him and Engels wrote multiple works describing how the use of authority would be essential to establishing communism.

[Art Vandelay]

Then Marx was incorrect on this one, as the state of affairs nowadays proves that the class consciousness of first-world nations are lower than in the rest of the world. Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy touches on this. And I never said imperialism didn't exist, but it was in its embryonic stages, and had not developed to the point it was at during the time of the Russian Revolution. There is a world market now, and things have changed. Marx understood this. He often went back and critiqued earlier works of his that no longer held relevance for the time period. Your claim that the revolution must happen in first-world countries has no basis in reality, and stinks of chauvinism. Do the silly, uneducated victims of Western imperialism need their more enlightened comrades to come save them, rather than taking revolutionary action into their own hands? It's like your implying that these people are too stupid to avoid taking the "wrong" path, therefore they need to sit around and wait for guidance. Lastly, why are you so opposed to authoritarianism? Marx was an authoritarian himself. Him and Engels wrote multiple works describing how the use of authority would be essential to establishing communism.

I would warn you from falling into the traps of third worldism which seems to be lingering behind the surface of your post.

[Eagle_Syr]

I've never understood why you couldn't achieve socialism in one country.

I do understand that class war is global; that capitalism is a global system of exploitation; and that the ultimate ideal of communism calls for internationalism.

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?

[Art Vandelay]

I've never understood why you couldn't achieve socialism in one country.

I do understand that class war is global; that capitalism is a global system of exploitation; and that the ultimate ideal of communism calls for internationalism.

But why can't one territory achieve socialism, if it can achieve complete self-reliance?

I don't think complete self-reliance is possible for a highly industrialized state.

[Crux]

Just an question,why do you fight for an idea that was proven that it cant work.



Just asking,no troll replays

Actually I stopped doing that when I became a marxist. Like many people I believed, and believe, in some kind of basic human rights. And then you realize that human rights are apparently not for everyone that exploitation of monstrous proportion is going on all around you, not just in third-world countries but literally all around you. Capitalism response to this is generally either "this is just the natural state of things", "you have yourselves to blame, lift yourselves up by your bootstrap" or "I'll throw money on you to ease my bleeding conscience". So I came to the conclusion that basic human rights and capitalism are incompatible. I don't find that a difficult choice to make. The idea of a humanitarian capitalism is what has been proven to fail, and indeed not just humans but for the entire planet.

[Eagle_Syr]

I don't think complete self-reliance is possible for a highly industrialized state.

But why not?

And I ask because I genuinely want to learn, not to antagonize you.

[Questionable]

I would warn you from falling into the traps of third worldism which seems to be lingering behind the surface of your post.

I was merely ridiculing the idea that the people of third-world nations are too uneducated to be trusted with a revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

But why not?

And I ask because I genuinely want to learn, not to antagonize you.

Well it would not be possible for a highly industrialized country to have the necessary resources to be able to maintain a self sufficient socialist society, let alone a capitalist one. They would therefor be forced to trade with other states, opening themselves up to the global capitalist market. Capitalism is a global system and must be surpassed globally; basically if the revolution doesn't spread, were fucked. You can try to hold out for as long as you can and attempt to help spread the revolution, but not much else.

It is an absolute truth that without a German revolution we are doomed – perhaps not in Petrograd, not in Moscow, but in Vladivostock, in more remote places to which perhaps we shall have to retreat ... At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed.E]

Our backwardness has put us in the forefront, and we shall perish unless we are capable of holding out until we receive powerful support from workers who have risen in revolt in other countries.

We are now, as it were, in a besieged fortress, waiting for the other detachments of the world socialist revolution to come to our relief.

[A Marxist Historian]

Not exactly... Russia was the 5th most industrialised country in 1913. But even so, what of it? Socialism in one country is impossible, it doesn't make any difference if that country has 1 million peasants or 150 million. The relative industrialisation of one territory is utterly immaterial to the creation of socialism, it is the totality of capitalist development (a world system) and the reactions of the proletariat (a world class) to it that determine the course of the revolution, not the local specifics of where factories and fields are in one country. Even if the revolution had begun in Britain or Belgium or somewhere else more relatively industrialised, if it had remained isolated it would still have failed to produce 'socialism'.

All true, but Russia as the "5th most industrialized country" is a totally misleading factoid.

Russia also had the largest land mass on earth, and population-wise was one of the biggest countries too. So of course it would be up there in total numbers of widgets cranked out per year from Russian factories.

However, in a country of over a hundred million there were only about six million people who could reasonably be considered "proletarians." And the Tsarist Empire was famously socially backward, and had by far the lowest living standard in Europe. It was a peasant country, not an industrialized country, 90% of whose population lived on the land, and cursed with a Tsarist nobility that looked more like something out of the 15th century than the 20th.

Much more like say Mexico than any other European country. Even places like Spain and Portugal were ahead of Russia socially.

Heck, even Russia's European colonies like Poland and Finland and the Baltics were more industrially and socialiy developed than the Russian heartland, and with higher living standards too.

Blake's overall point is absolutely correct, but you have to understand the tremendous social backwardness of Tsarist Russia to grasp why the Stalin regime was so particularly bad and why Soviet Russia never really caught up with more advanced countries, despite its powerful military etc.

A not unimportant point with respect to the OP.

-M.H.-