What is communism?

[Soviet Steve]

Would you care to explain this? As of my understanding the monopolization of power by the vanguard party always results in an autocracy as the absence of an economic incentive to perform well leads to shortages which the government is unable to respond to by other means than violence and terror.

Which is why you can't get to communism by a vanguard. It has to involve everyone. Or at least the majority of people.

The original question was "What is communism?" - Violent imposition by the vanguard party (and later simply by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or China) is the only method by which countries have become communist. To me, what it has been in practice is a far more relevant answer than "What does specific sections in the ivory towers feel it should have been if only they had been in charge."

Communism in today's practice is an outdated and inefficient form of autocracy, and if it was intended to be our natural development at this stage then we would have developed into it by default, instead communist states languish in poverty and misery on the sidelines, whining and pleading for unconditional handouts.

 

[Soviet Steve]

sorry my mistake changed it to indebted. Don't know why I wrote poorest ><

I wouldn't say that, according to IMF estimates the US is at just about 100% of GDP, which while very high is not the highest its ever been (post-WW2 was at 120% if my memory serves me correctly), and far from the highest in the world, that "honour" goes to Japan at 234%

Pardon the long link below but I would still like to indicate my source, if someone could PM how to put it in spoiler tags that'd be appreciated!

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2010/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2009&ey=2011&ssm=1&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=50&pr1.y=11&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C122%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513%2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C686%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558%2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C716%2C321%2C456%2C243%2C722%2C248%2C942%2C469%2C718%2C253%2C724%2C642%2C576%2C643%2C936%2C939%2C961%2C644%2C813%2C819%2C199%2C172%2C184%2C132%2C524%2C646%2C361%2C648%2C362%2C915%2C364%2C134%2C732%2C652%2C366%2C174%2C734%2C328%2C144%2C258%2C146%2C656%2C463%2C654%2C528%2C336%2C923%2C263%2C738%2C268%2C578%2C532%2C537%2C944%2C742%2C176%2C866%2C534%2C369%2C536%2C744%2C429%2C186%2C433%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C916%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C967%2C474%2C443%2C754%2C917%2C698%2C544&s=GGXWDG_NGDP&grp=0&a=

 

[oktalist]

Which is why you can't get to communism by a vanguard. It has to involve everyone. Or at least the majority of people.

The original question was "What is communism?" - Violent imposition by the vanguard party (and later simply by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or China) is the only method by which countries have become communist.

No country has yet become communist (see below).

To me, what it has been in practice is a far more relevant answer than "What does specific sections in the ivory towers feel it should have been if only they had been in charge."

This is what I mean when I say it's pointless to argue about the meaning of the word communism. I use it to mean the theoretical system, you use it to mean the system imposed in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. Neither of us is going to switch, and the two uses are COMPLETELY OPPOSITE. It's unfortunate, and maybe we could do with some different words. "Theoretical communism" and "fake communism" perhaps. Because they have almost nothing in common.

For a theoretical communist the USSR has far more in common with capitalism. The means of production were still owned by a minority, who used that ownership as an instrument of power over the workers.

and if it was intended to be our natural development at this stage

Implies you think there is a God-given plan for the progression of human society.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Communism is a system of government in theory based on the economic policy of Socialism focusing on mutual ownership and distribution based on need. In practice, Communism often gives too little civilian control over the government. The Soviet Union, the most famous example of Communism fell apart at the seams because of corruption and the arms race. The fact that billionaires existed in a nation that was supposed to have a system based on fair distribution gives you an idea that the government wasn't practicing what they preach. Plus, a few other details of Communism mostly associated with the Soviet Union was actually based on a rather severe misinterpretation of Marxism, with one of the more notorious examples being the Soviet Union's atheistic policies when Marx never openly opposed religion.

I actually am in favor of Socialist policies despite being an American and from a country that seems to be aimed more at Ayn Rand than Karl Marx, but i honestly oppose Communism. The people should have freedoms and rights that can protect them from government corruption, but most Communist nations wound up going rather censor-crazy.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I'll try to explain it as non-bias as possible, and in a list format because I don't want to structure a paragraph--or multiple paragraph (I've written a 6 page term paper on Communism, and the Communist Manifesto).
*First off, on a one-dimentional political spectrum it is the extreme left, as opposed to fascism on the far right. On a two dimentional plain, its as far left, and as far Statist as it gets.
*It is the polar opposite of capitalism. Meaning, where people are free to own and manage businesses and have businesses compete, Communism has a single state run business. If capitalism is a store that sells Oreo's and Keedler's, Communism would be a store that sells only store-brand cookies.
*Often associated with totalitarianism, because of Statism
*The key idea behind it is that the government controls all business and distributes all wealth evenly, so no-class system.
*Created by Karl Marx
*Often said that it's only practical in a country that has no prior industrialization
*No true form of Communism has ever existed, due to the difficultly in acually evenly distributing wealth

I think that all I can think of right now.

 

[Biosophilogical]

Its a system that will never work because most people are to stupid to see that it could work.

Rather ironic.

Would you care to explain this? As of my understanding the monopolization of power by the vanguard party always results in an autocracy as the absence of an economic incentive to perform well leads to shortages which the government is unable to respond to by other means than violence and terror.

I think he means that if people pulled their fingers out, it would work, but to get people to pull their finger out, they actually need to realise why they should pull their fingers out.

OT: I'm more of a fan of anarcho-communism (sometimes called pure communism). But I don't see it as a direct goal, or something to aspire to. I see it as an example of what humans might be capable of, and go "Oh, well for this to work, people need to be *insert personality traits here*, which I think are fairly good traits to have, so I think that I should encourage (in a series of tiny steps) myself and others to be more *traits*".

If you force communism on a society, is it really communism? If you view communism as complete social equality, then having someone in a position of political power (such that they may force communism on a society) is not equality. To me, communism is a pure democracy with complete social equality, where people contribute to the best of their abilities to the common social good (if you have medical knowledge, you may help people with illnesses, or teach other people about medicine, but you may also have good people skills, and act as a third-party mediator for disputes (if they want one), or you may be good with your hands, so you'd occasionally partake in carpentry) and receive what they need from a common resource pool. There are a few extra things that make it more ideal, but that's the general framework of what I understand as communism.

 

[Soviet Steve]

No country has yet become communist (see below).

I'm sure, but to the layperson the most relevant bits of information is how its been implemented thus far, and I clearly distinguished the ideology from the practical application in my first post on the first page. You did read the first page, didn't you?

This is what I mean when I say it's pointless to argue about the meaning of the word communism. I use it to mean the theoretical system, you use it to mean the system imposed in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc. Neither of us is going to switch, and the two uses are COMPLETELY OPPOSITE. It's unfortunate, and maybe we could do with some different words. "Theoretical communism" and "fake communism" perhaps. Because they have almost nothing in common

Or perhaps you could read the third post on the first page which started all this and take note that I've already distinguished between communism the ideology and communism the implemented system of government. If we are distinguishing between theory and practice it would also seem the most logical to use the labels "Theoretical communism" and "Real communism"

For a theoretical communist the USSR has far more in common with capitalism. The means of production were still owned by a minority, who used that ownership as an instrument of power over the workers.

Capitalism emphasises individual ownership, while the communist states of the USSR and China emphasise collective ownership.

and if it was intended to be our natural development at this stage

Implies you think there is a God-given plan for the progression of human society.

Survival of the fittest is at work amongst human collectives just as it is amongst everything else in nature. The ones who are best to adapt to change will displace those who are too slow. Communism dies while capitalism continues its steady ascend. I don't feel that there is necessarily a God who has put this in place, it is simply what we observe in nature.

 

[RemuValtrez]

I see communism as a theory for a perfect world. The only problem with it is that it will never be possible. As you would have to put total power in one person, and they would have to not be greedy/power hungry, and the same goes for all of the citizens. Face it, people like being able to own things, and show that they are growing in wealth and such.

 

[SonicKoala]

snip

I'm a leftist myself and I don't have strong emotions on this subject. In my view communism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism, but it occurs through technological development. Capitalism works to increase efficiency and decrease cost, once this process has been completed it renders the motivating factors of survival and greed completely irrelevant as we will have infinite food, goods and services while requiring no effort to produce them.

At that point communism, that everyone is equal, is the natural result of our development. So while I don't put faith in its application today, I envy the people who will actually get to experience it.

What about money? How would that get evenly distributed? Are you saying that one we reach this theoretical point of having infinite food, goods, and services, these will all be free? That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, are you saying governments and corporations (themselves being institutions which foster inequality) are simply going to vanish? This doesn't sound like something you've really thought through.

 

[Soviet Steve]

What about money? How would that get evenly distributed? Are you saying that one we reach this theoretical point of having infinite food, goods, and services, these will all be free? That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, are you saying governments and corporations (themselves being institutions which foster inequality) are simply going to vanish? This doesn't sound like something you've really thought through.

When all needs can be automatically tended to by machines and we have an infinite pool of resources and space in the shape of a colonial empire beyond the solar system then money will cease to have any function. Because no goods or services have any value there wont be anything to gain by individuals in distributing them. Corporations, whose sole function is to generate a profit out of delivering goods or services, will be irrelevant as profits are no longer possible, and government will not be required as everyone has everything. Machines and computers can take care of gradual expansion of mining, industrial and garden worlds.

Capitalism is all about developing towards the point where this becomes possible. By its drive towards increased wealth, its success is going to make it obsolete, and at that point a communist utopia becomes the natural evolution of capitalism. How we are going to structure capitalism is a different debate altogether.

 

[A.A.K]

Honestly, I like the idea of marxism, communism sounds alright. I don't like capitalism either, but at least capitalism works. Communism gets corrupted too easy. Capitalism gets corrupted too - but at least it isn't obvious and I can still do whatever the hell I want.

 

[The Rainmaker]

The best political idea ever. In practise though, it's a whole different story. Communism basically depends on that someone is willing to work hard so that their neighbour can get food. Also, people won't do better work if they'll get paid the same amount anyway because humans are naturally lazy.

 

[oktalist]

No country has yet become communist (see below).

I'm sure, but to the layperson the most relevant bits of information is how its been implemented thus far

If the layperson thinks that the USSR was a genuine attempt to implement communism then the layperson is very wrong about a very important fact of recent history and should be corrected.

and I clearly distinguished the ideology from the practical application in my first post on the first page.

If the practical application differs so radically from the ideology as to be completely unrecognisable as an example of that ideology, then it seems to me complete nonsense to refer to it by the name of the ideology. It's like calling Iran a democracy just because they have presidential elections, and hence concluding that democracy has failed.

You did read the first page, didn't you?

Yes, but I didn't make a note of every single thing that every contributor posted. Did you read all of my first post, the one you originally replied to? We are both having to go over ground we've already covered.

In practice it was an extension of Soviet authority around the world at first, and then later a broad anti-liberal movement encompassing many varieties. (Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism etc.)

The Communist Party was an extension of Soviet foreign policy. The ideology of communism was not.

The party was not just anti-liberal but also anti-revolutionary, anti-freedom, anti-communist and pro-bourgeois. Any place where a communist revolution sprang up, they moved in to "offer support" when in reality they were violently crushing the revolution and replacing it with their own brand of "communism" which was just state-controlled capitalism.

For a theoretical communist the USSR has far more in common with capitalism. The means of production were still owned by a minority, who used that ownership as an instrument of power over the workers.

Capitalism emphasises individual ownership, while the communist states of the USSR and China emphasise collective ownership.

Capitalism emphasises private ownership (first by individuals, then by companies). Communism emphasises collective ownership. The USSR and so on emphasised private ownership by the state. State ownership is not collective ownership, as I've already said. I find it very ignorant to claim that the USSR emphasised collective ownership, when it quite plainly did not.

Survival of the fittest is at work amongst human collectives just as it is amongst everything else in nature. The ones who are best to adapt to change will displace those who are too slow. Communism dies while capitalism continues its steady ascend. I don't feel that there is necessarily a God who has put this in place, it is simply what we observe in nature.

By that argument we should all just sit back and let whatever happens happen and not get involved in politics at all.

Communism can't have died because it hasn't even been born yet.

EDIT:

In my view communism is the inevitable outcome of capitalism

Huh. Well whaddya know, I agree. I just think that it's the inevitable collapse of capitalism that will naturally lead to communism, while you think that the success of capitalism will inevitably lead to communism.

We agree that the USSR and so on were terrible failures, but my point is that they were never seriously intending to implement communism in the first place.

 

[oktalist]

people won't do better work if they'll get paid the same amount

People don't do better work if they get paid more for it, either. In fact, people who are paid more perform less well.

 

[Soviet Steve]

If the layperson thinks that the USSR was a genuine attempt to implement communism then the layperson is very wrong about a very important fact of recent history and should be corrected.

It is the first and most prominent point of a successful coup by Marxist militants. Under the broad banner of communist ideology the Soviet Union was the most important and relevant player in the past century, and therefore its prominence in debates regarding communism and socialism is the only rational outcome of its influence.

If the practical application differs so radically from the ideology as to be completely unrecognisable as an example of that ideology, then it seems to me complete nonsense to refer to it by the name of the ideology. It's like calling Iran a democracy just because they have presidential elections, and hence concluding that democracy has failed.

No but democracy is applied in many ways. Iran's system is referred to by both allies and opponents as an Islamic Republic, and while I am no expert on the internal affairs of Iran I would say they adhere to it fairly strictly. It makes sense to make a distinction here because they are not the only nation on the planet which in some way is democratic, whereas the Soviet Union and its satellite states were the only relevant powers within communism.

In practice it was an extension of Soviet authority around the world at first, and then later a broad anti-liberal movement encompassing many varieties. (Stalinism, Maoism, Titoism etc.)

The Communist Party was an extension of Soviet foreign policy. The ideology of communism was not.

The party was not just anti-liberal but also anti-revolutionary, anti-freedom, anti-communist and pro-bourgeois. Any place where a communist revolution sprang up, they moved in to "offer support" when in reality they were violently crushing the revolution and replacing it with their own brand of "communism" which was just state-controlled capitalism.

Nonetheless their brand of communism was the only one which had the strength to gain power anywhere in the world, thus making it the most prominent and relevant form of communism. The idea with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and billions of people behind it may not be ones preferred, but it has an undeniable relevance as an object of study compared to the idea of a few students and professors from college and university campuses around the west.

Capitalism emphasises private ownership (first by individuals, then by companies). Communism emphasises collective ownership. The USSR and so on emphasised private ownership by the state. State ownership is not collective ownership, as I've already said. I find it very ignorant to claim that the USSR emphasised collective ownership, when it quite plainly did not.

The state is not an individual however, but the manager of the collective strength of the people. Something owned by the state is thus indirectly owned by the people. The USSR after the NEP was quite enthusiastic about ownership by the state, and therefore it is completely sensible to note their adherence to collective ownership.

By that argument we should all just sit back and let whatever happens happen and not get involved in politics at all.

The vast majority of people do just this. Workers and peasants generally don't wish for more than a stable, dignified existence with improving outlooks. This is why the ancient regime was able to endure for so long until the general populace was made militant in the late 1700s by mismanagement, and in the mid-late 1800s by the rapid move from traditional agricultural villages to industrial cities.

Communism can't have died because it hasn't even been born yet.

Communism is a range of ideas. Ideas don't die, they simply vary in relevance.

Huh. Well whaddya know, I agree. I just think that it's the inevitable collapse of capitalism that will naturally lead to communism, while you think that the success of capitalism will inevitably lead to communism.

We agree that the USSR and so on were terrible failures, but my point is that they were never seriously intending to implement communism in the first place.

Only the future will tell which of us is correct, though for obvious reasons we will sadly not be around to check if I'm correct.

I will restate my point of earlier for this one: Communism isn't a specific set of rules. It is a broad range of ideologies whose main unifying point is their belief in collective ownership. After the new economic policy was cancelled in the USSR, collective ownership was viewed solely as ownership by the state, which was a policy they were keen on maintaining up until Gorbachov. They identified themselves as being communist, and they defined communism on the world stage for a century, so in this regard it still seems quite rational to define them as communist.