Communism. Good or bad. What do you really know about Communism?

[Mosco Vito]

Communism is a very serious theme for discussion. Seems to me to solve this issue takes a lot of time and work of various scientists (politologists, historians, economists etc).

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

Communism is a very serious theme for discussion. Seems to me to solve this issue takes a lot of time and work of various scientists (politologists, historians, economists etc).

"Solve"?

What is there to solve?

Modern history has demonstrated that social democracy is possible, pleasant, efficient, productive and prosperous. Its also demonstrated that to push beyond social democracy to collectivization and the dictatorship of the proletariat/one party State -- that's disastrous.

There's no "scientist" with an answer to the question "When the Party has all the power, who guarantees your freedoms?"

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

"Solve"?

What is there to solve?

Modern history has demonstrated that social democracy is possible, pleasant, efficient, productive and prosperous. Its also demonstrated that to push beyond social democracy to collectivization and the dictatorship of the proletariat/one party State -- that's disastrous.

There's no "scientist" with an answer to the question "When the Party has all the power, who guarantees your freedoms?"

"Solve" means to answer the question of what role communism played in the history of this country.
　
If I understand you correctly, you repeat Fukuyama's thesis from his best-selling "The End of history," in which he declared Western-style democracy the end point of history. But even this apologist of democracy was forced to recognize the power of authoritarianism. For example, hostility to the West is widespread in Russia and Stalin is very popular here.
　
And what do you mean when you say " democracy prosperous"? Economic prosperity?
　
It may seem paradoxical, but many people do not need freedom. They need food, medicine, work and they will gladly give this abstraction (freedom) in exchange for these things.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

"Solve" means to answer the question of what role communism played in the history of this country.

This country? If you mean the United States-- communism played little role except as an enemy.

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

　
If I understand you correctly, you repeat Fukuyama's thesis from his best-selling "The End of history," in which he declared Western-style democracy the end point of history. But even this apologist of democracy was forced to recognize the power of authoritarianism.

My comment wasn't about Fukuyama. Social democracy is demonstrably the most agreeable form of government under which to live -- just take a look at how people vote with their feet. Very few Syrians speak Swedish, and the climate isn't remotely to their liking, but they get that its much nicer to live under Swedish law than Syrian. People want to live in Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Canada . . . all liberal social democracies. These are the political bargains that produce prosperity and human security . . . folks of many persuasions find that agreeable.

Doesn't mean that social democracy is inevitable or the end of history-- just that its the political bargain that works best. That's not "theory" or "philosophy" -- that's just observing how it works in the world. That doesn't mean that a tyrant won't rise in Gothenberg, but I think to say that if he did, that would be worse than what they have now.

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

This country? If you mean the United States-- communism played little role except as an enemy.



My comment wasn't about Fukuyama. Social democracy is demonstrably the most agreeable form of government under which to live -- just take a look at how people vote with their feet. Very few Syrians speak Swedish, and the climate isn't remotely to their liking, but they get that its much nicer to live under Swedish law than Syrian. People want to live in Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Canada . . . all liberal social democracies. These are the political bargains that produce prosperity and human security . . . folks of many persuasions find that agreeable.

Doesn't mean that social democracy is inevitable or the end of history-- just that its the political bargain that works best. That's not "theory" or "philosophy" -- that's just observing how it works in the world. That doesn't mean that a tyrant won't rise in Gothenberg, but I think to say that if he did, that would be worse than what they have now.

I'm sorry, it was a incorrect translation. Not "this" - "certain".

Immigrants in Western countries are a special topic. Yes, many of them go to the West, but do not fit into the life there, existing in closed ethnic communities. And probably that these immigrants play the role of a Trojan horse.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Mosco Vito

I'm sorry, it was a incorrect translation. Not "this" - "certain".

Immigrants in Western countries are a special topic. Yes, many of them go to the West, but do not fit into the life there, existing in closed ethnic communities. And probably that these immigrants play the role of a Trojan horse.

Funny about the translation, yes it makes a difference!

I think the history of communism is "the light that failed". That is, if you looked at smart people thinking about social issues at the beginning of the 20th century, many would have believed that Communism and ever increasing state control was the future.

Its hard to remember now, but in the 1950s, people in the West were genuinely afraid that Soviet Socialism might actually outperform the West economically and industrially. If you looked at Korea in 1960, North Korea was actually richer than South Korea, and American military planners worried that South Korea might revolt seeking socialism! (That's part of why you get the coup which brings General Park Chung-Hye to power).

But the second half of the 20th century was the epitaph for that kind of planned collectivized economy. Krushchev revealed Stalin's crimes. Mao's blundering starved millions, and he intentionally killed many more. China abandoned collectivism-- they still have a "Communist" Party, but there's no real "communism" there, either in theory or in practice.

The immigrants, at least in the US often are industrious and entrepreneurial and hate communism. Far from being a "Trojan Horse" introducing communism as you suggest-- Cubans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans-- these folks really hate communism. Its hard to find an immigrant community that leftist; they tend to be culturally conservative, and they don't like the dealings they had with the State where they came from. You have to go back a hundred years to Eastern Europeans to find a lot of communists.

So today, what's left? Some nutty guerillas in the Peruvian and Indian jungles, Venezuela, North Korea. . . . and that's about it . . . Oh, and I suppose Jeremy Corbyn's cap.

[Mosco Vito]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Funny about the translation, yes it makes a difference!

I think the history of communism is "the light that failed". That is, if you looked at smart people thinking about social issues at the beginning of the 20th century, many would have believed that Communism and ever increasing state control was the future.

Its hard to remember now, but in the 1950s, people in the West were genuinely afraid that Soviet Socialism might actually outperform the West economically and industrially. If you looked at Korea in 1960, North Korea was actually richer than South Korea, and American military planners worried that South Korea might revolt seeking socialism! (That's part of why you get the coup which brings General Park Chung-Hye to power).

But the second half of the 20th century was the epitaph for that kind of planned collectivized economy. Krushchev revealed Stalin's crimes. Mao's blundering starved millions, and he intentionally killed many more. China abandoned collectivism-- they still have a "Communist" Party, but there's no real "communism" there, either in theory or in practice.

The immigrants, at least in the US often are industrious and entrepreneurial and hate communism. Far from being a "Trojan Horse" introducing communism as you suggest-- Cubans, Vietnamese, Chinese, Koreans-- these folks really hate communism. Its hard to find an immigrant community that leftist; they tend to be culturally conservative, and they don't like the dealings they had with the State where they came from. You have to go back a hundred years to Eastern Europeans to find a lot of communists.

So today, what's left? Some nutty guerillas in the Peruvian and Indian jungles, Venezuela, North Korea. . . . and that's about it . . . Oh, and I suppose Jeremy Corbyn's cap.

You wrote about Syrians going to Sweden, and I thought you were talking about Muslim immigrants of today. That's what I meant when I used the term "Trojan horse." Khrushchev was an active participant in the bloody repression and his exposure of Stalin was only an instrument of intra-party struggle. The 50-80 years of the last century were the "Golden age" of Soviet communism, when the country, recovering from the consequences of the war, gave its citizens free education, medicine, work, low food prices and low taxes. Yes, today we can state an absolute collapse of the "true" communism, but I see that he was replaced by radical Islam. One of the Russian Islamic ideologist called Islam "the new Bolshevism". This is because capitalism is not able to give prosperity to all, many people around the world are deprived of its benefits. I read that in the United States, tens of millions of people do not have health insurance, millions are life-long debtors of banks. It seems to me the essence of capitalism and accompanying political system of the West understood the German director Werner Herzog in the film "Stroshek". Well, let's see what happens next...

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The question is how dogmatically do you take the argument. Marx was looking at the world of the middle of the 19th century, particularly industrial workers in his native Germany.

Could you tell me what are your references?
Because according quotes taken from das Kapital itself, Marx's theories are based on the industrial workers in England and analysis written by worldwide economists.

Here is the introduction of das Kapital. (In German and in English)

Was is in diesem Wekr zu erforschen habe, ist die kapitalitische Produktions-und Verkehrsverhältinsse. Ihre klassische Stätte is bis jetzt England. Dies der Grund, warum es zur Hauptillustration meiner theoretischen Entwicklung dient. Sollte jedoch der deutsche Leser pharisäisch die Achseln zucken über die Zustaände der englischen Industrie- une Ackerbauarbeiter oder sich optimistisch dabei beruhigen, dass in Deutschland die Sachen noch langer nicht so schlimm stehn, so muss ich ihm zurufen: De te fabula narratur!

What I have to examine in this work is the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and from of intercourse that correspond to it. Until now, their locus classicus has been England. This is the reason why England is used as the main illustration of the theoretical developments I make. If, however, the German reader pharisaically shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the English industrial and agricultural workers, or optimistically comforts himself with the thought that in Germany things are not nearly so bad, I must plainly tell him: De te fabula narrator!

Originally Posted by deepsepia

But as a historian, I find that Marx added a tremendous amount to how we understand a society. Before Marx, we really don't have a systematic analysis of societies based on "who owns what" . . .after Marx we do.

Not only "who owns what", but how the price of the goods are determined, why workers are not paid the correct wages, why working and goods are alienations, who are the reserve army of the capitalism.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The real failing of communism in power is the the problem of power itself; if the Party comes before the State, then its vulnerable to abuse without check.

You are not wrong, but I would like to know what are the checks of Capitalism today?
It would be interesting to know if you think, if it's possible or not to get a communist democracy?

Personally I share the Brianx's point of view thinking that democracy and communism are not incompatible.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I am not so sure that communism and democracy are incompatible. Even assuming that the state would "wither away" some decisions would need to be made. One would think most would be made by consensus at the local level.

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Funny about the translation, yes it makes a difference!

I think the history of communism is "the light that failed". That is, if you looked at smart people thinking about social issues at the beginning of the 20th century, many would have believed that Communism and ever increasing state control was the future.

From which smart people are you speaking?
Marx didn't believe in state control. He was a real anarchist, but thought that the revolution has to transit to a state control, to take away power from the ruling class, until that people would be educated to become real communists "in their souls" and then the state would have been disappeared by itself.

Be careful, do not retranscribe "non-anarchists" observations to theorician anarchists, that they never had.
Left anarchists are the people who defend the most, freedom on Earth, they want PURE liberty, but the ruling classes always commited crimes against them, because they wanted stooges to serve their own interests and never wanted to share their wealth.

I was very impressed to read comments on other forums from democrat people telling: "I always heard that Anarchism was chaos and violence, and now reading their philosophy, it's based on cooperation and respect."

[deepsepia]

A bit too many points to address in one post, so let me take just this one

Originally Posted by xyzde69

You are not wrong, but I would like to know what are the checks of Capitalism today?
It would be interesting to know if you think, if it's possible or not to get a communist democracy?

The power of money in market democracies is checked by elections and rule of law. Not always completely, but the mechanisms are there. An independent judiciary, elections where some competing candidate can win-- that checks power.

So its possible to have "social democracy" -- we have lots of them in fact.

But the way "Communism" is understood by Communist parties in the modern world -- they can't be democratic. They're inevitably one party states. No Communist Party with the power to prevent free elections has been willing to permit them, nor are they willing to accept any political party but their own.

That's the record. Whether you're talking about China or the Soviet Union, North Korea, Albania or Cuba . . . Communist Parties in power rapidly dissolve or grossly limit every other party.

So the question really is "Can a one party state be democratic"?

And the answer is "no".

It can, as in China today, be politically reasonably responsive to the public. The Chinese leadership really does care about public opinion, and takes it into account in setting policies. But woe to you if you actually were to say "The CCP is not fit to rule China and I am forming a 'Chinese Social Democrats' Party"

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The immigrants, at least in the US often are industrious and entrepreneurial and hate communism.

That is a rather nice description for largely isolationist Maffia structures whose intrinsic mortal enemy is any ethical imperative. Perhaps you would like to see the 'often industrious and entrepreneurial' spirit that hates 'communism' in the pretty shop window, possibly for your very own ideological reasons, but I can assure you that the real dough is 'earned' exclusively in the filthy back yard by extortion, trafficking, murder, drugtrade und (child) prostetution. And those are just the small crimes. The big ones are all legalized by buying the necessary political influence. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

This form of social cancer can flourish only in capitalism. Only there is a price tag attached to everyone and everything. Your right to exist is solely defined by the probability of being bought and sold as a market commodity, and that is it. Anything beyond that point is irrelevant.

The inevitable destiny of such a society is spiritual death, as MLK already correctly recognized. It is incapable of giving hope to man, and therefore vulgarizes man's existence to an act of of self-enslavement. Not to mention the suicidal tendency of a system that is fascist to the core and relies on utter irrationalities like eternal growth, unable to see our world as little more than its privatized pit latrine and theater of permanent war. With nukes.

Btw, I mentioned it several times before. State and communism as a purely theoretical ideal are mutually exclusive. So much for the theory of a 'communist party dictatorship'.