A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless,[3][4][5][6] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[7][8]
That was not the case. It was state owned, as the transition from whatever system was there before to socialism plans. Communism is supposed to be something different.
I am not arguing that it would be good or better than anything we have today but am saying that we never saw communism in the modern world.
The following communist states were socialist states committed to communism. Some were short-lived and preceded the widespread adoption of Marxism–Leninism by most communist states.
Same argument though for socialism. They are a capitalist country that calls itself something else. You don’t seriously believe they are socialist In any other way than their name.
China is Socialist, in that it maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and is progressing towards full Socialization of the economy. The Dengist liberal reforms occured after Mao’s Great Leap Forward backfired, Mao put too strong of an emphasis on the idea of Class Struggle. As Engels puts it in Principles of Communism:
"Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society. In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.”
Xu Hongzhi and Qin Xuan elaborate on the decisions made in implementing liberal reforms as a part of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” specifically with respect to errors made under Mao in trying to “skip ahead to Communism:”
“Due to the hasty and early entry into socialism, we didn’t accumulate enough experience to enable us to have a very clear understanding on the issues of social development. Throughout the ‘Great Leap Forward’ and the People’s Commune Movement in 1958, there had occurred a blind optimism of targeting ‘the realization of communism in our country, which is no longer a distant future’, and thus made a serious and erroneous estimation on the development stages of socialism…. As Deng Xiaoping pointed out: As early as the second half of 1957 we began to make ‘Left’ mistakes. To put it briefly, we pursued a closed-door policy in foreign affairs and took class struggle as the central task at home no attempt was made to expand the productive forces, and the policies we formulated were too ambitious for the primary stage of socialism. After the 3rd Plenary Session of the Party, after the comparison of our both positive and negative experiences, the Chinese Communist Party has gradually made a scientific conclusion that China is in and will be in the Primary stage of socialism.”
Whether or not the CPC has their bourgeois class reigned in or not, whether the Bourgeoisie in China is in control or the people via the CPC, these are genuine concerns that we can have, but the central idea that “having Capitalism means the entire system within context is Capitalist” is wrong. What matters is trajectory and control.
too many threads to keep track of. so if anything gets mixed up …
regarding engels: yes its a process, i agree. that didnt transfer for me into what we call the phase (or state) that the country was in. i am rethinking this right now, as it makes sense to keep the expressed goal (communism) not only in mind while going through (the troubles) socialism and power struggles. since i never saw the next step i never made that connection. still not sure about it, but i am willing to learn.
regarding china i have a different perception than you. coming back to trajectory matters and control over the direction a country and its society is taking it the communist idea doesnt fit the china of the last 20 years.
the “great leap” criticism is all fine. they are taking a step back and dont try to jump ahead. that, for me, doesnt manifest itself in the economic doctrine (yeah, economic system and political system are not the same, i know). in the case of china the economic impact of the production and trade with the rest of the world seems to be so all consuming that its hard for me not to see it as a capitalist system.
in control are a political class, most of them akin to oligarchs (and the US equivalent) in wealth and power. the trajectory seems to be there just to be able to say something positive to the people while they die for the capital (in the original sense). that remindes me of every capitalist country i know.
an example came to me:
a startup has an idea, tries to realize it into a product. gets money from investors but isnt profitable yet. the cant seem to finish the protoype and start to run into walls. i wouldnt listen to these people regarding the protoype or sound business advice just because they set out to change something for the better.
I think you need to do more research on the trends, structures, and systems in place in China. The idea of “oligarchs” running everything is ill-founded, the Chinese Democratic system requires politicians to work their way up from the very bottom and continue to be elected, as an example. Safety nets are expanding and large, public infrastructure projects are happening without being privitized.
a startup has an idea, tries to realize it into a product. gets money from investors but isnt profitable yet. the cant seem to finish the protoype and start to run into walls. i wouldnt listen to these people regarding the protoype or sound business advice just because they set out to change something for the better.
This is what I mean. Communism isn’t an “idea to be realized,” but a process of development along historical modes of production. Mao tried to create Communism now through fiat, something impossible. The characteristics of developed Capitalism allow Socialism to emerge from it, ie Lower-Stage Communism.
How familiar are you with Dialectical and Historical Materialism?
This is a semantic matter. No socialist state has ever claimed to have reached the stage of communism, including China. But some socialist states—including China—have been/are run by communist governments/parties, which claim to be working toward reaching that stage.
Communism isn’t about ideological purity. The USSR never made it to the global, total, Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society Marx describes as Upper Stage Communism, but the Soviets never argued that they had. What the Soviets did, was begin the process of working towards that.
Thanks for a proper response. More than others in this thread are capable of.
The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.
And yes it was their expressed and I believe trat they were truthful about that to create a communist state. But there were power struggles and the clear ideas became unclear and what remained (intentionally or not) was the name of the goal justifying all the horrible things.
Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.
The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.
This is a bit confused. The USSR did eventually form a Beaurocratic section over time, especially towards the 80s until its dissolution, but to call it a “class” is not quite accurate. In The State and Revolution, Lenin does a good job of explaining what even constitutes a State, in explaining the economic basis for the “withering away of the State.” The Soviet model functioned like this graphic:
Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.
Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.
Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.
sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)
i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment.
i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.
sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)
There were a multitude of factors that led to collapse. Generally, WWII was fought with the blood of the Soviet people, it thoroughly destroyed them, and in the process of building back beaurocracy snuck in and allowed the USSR to be killed from the inside.
i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment.
i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.
My problem with your point is that it’s a common misconception by leftists who haven’t usually studied theory much, they just know that Communism as a status is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. The issue with that outlook is that it entirely ignores the theory of development that is core to Marxism, Communism as a status is not the goal because it sounds good, but because it’s the natural progression beyond Capitalism and Socialism.
Put another way, Communism isn’t an idea that you build, that’s Utopianism. If you drop a bunch of future Communists off onto a planet with nothing else, they will still go through primitive communism, feudalism, Capitalism, and back to Socialism and then Communism! That’s the point I am trying to get across, you can’t skip stages because the next is born from the previous!
Great argument. What do you base this on?
It’s like china calling itself communist right now.
Yes there was rhetoric in the USSR that suggested they were but it was an instrument to legitimate the horrible things that they did to their people.
From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
That was not the case. It was state owned, as the transition from whatever system was there before to socialism plans. Communism is supposed to be something different.
I am not arguing that it would be good or better than anything we have today but am saying that we never saw communism in the modern world.
Change my mind with arguments and not down votes.
Okay lets use wiki as a source… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_states
The following communist states were socialist states committed to communism. Some were short-lived and preceded the widespread adoption of Marxism–Leninism by most communist states.
Would you look at that…
China doesn’t call itself communist. It’s Socialist with Chinese characteristics.
You are right, I mixed something up
Same argument though for socialism. They are a capitalist country that calls itself something else. You don’t seriously believe they are socialist In any other way than their name.
China is Socialist, in that it maintains a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and is progressing towards full Socialization of the economy. The Dengist liberal reforms occured after Mao’s Great Leap Forward backfired, Mao put too strong of an emphasis on the idea of Class Struggle. As Engels puts it in Principles of Communism:
Xu Hongzhi and Qin Xuan elaborate on the decisions made in implementing liberal reforms as a part of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” specifically with respect to errors made under Mao in trying to “skip ahead to Communism:”
Whether or not the CPC has their bourgeois class reigned in or not, whether the Bourgeoisie in China is in control or the people via the CPC, these are genuine concerns that we can have, but the central idea that “having Capitalism means the entire system within context is Capitalist” is wrong. What matters is trajectory and control.
too many threads to keep track of. so if anything gets mixed up …
regarding engels: yes its a process, i agree. that didnt transfer for me into what we call the phase (or state) that the country was in. i am rethinking this right now, as it makes sense to keep the expressed goal (communism) not only in mind while going through (the troubles) socialism and power struggles. since i never saw the next step i never made that connection. still not sure about it, but i am willing to learn.
regarding china i have a different perception than you. coming back to trajectory matters and control over the direction a country and its society is taking it the communist idea doesnt fit the china of the last 20 years.
the “great leap” criticism is all fine. they are taking a step back and dont try to jump ahead. that, for me, doesnt manifest itself in the economic doctrine (yeah, economic system and political system are not the same, i know). in the case of china the economic impact of the production and trade with the rest of the world seems to be so all consuming that its hard for me not to see it as a capitalist system. in control are a political class, most of them akin to oligarchs (and the US equivalent) in wealth and power. the trajectory seems to be there just to be able to say something positive to the people while they die for the capital (in the original sense). that remindes me of every capitalist country i know.
an example came to me:
a startup has an idea, tries to realize it into a product. gets money from investors but isnt profitable yet. the cant seem to finish the protoype and start to run into walls. i wouldnt listen to these people regarding the protoype or sound business advice just because they set out to change something for the better.
I think you need to do more research on the trends, structures, and systems in place in China. The idea of “oligarchs” running everything is ill-founded, the Chinese Democratic system requires politicians to work their way up from the very bottom and continue to be elected, as an example. Safety nets are expanding and large, public infrastructure projects are happening without being privitized.
This is what I mean. Communism isn’t an “idea to be realized,” but a process of development along historical modes of production. Mao tried to create Communism now through fiat, something impossible. The characteristics of developed Capitalism allow Socialism to emerge from it, ie Lower-Stage Communism.
How familiar are you with Dialectical and Historical Materialism?
This is a semantic matter. No socialist state has ever claimed to have reached the stage of communism, including China. But some socialist states—including China—have been/are run by communist governments/parties, which claim to be working toward reaching that stage.
Communism isn’t about ideological purity. The USSR never made it to the global, total, Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society Marx describes as Upper Stage Communism, but the Soviets never argued that they had. What the Soviets did, was begin the process of working towards that.
Thanks for a proper response. More than others in this thread are capable of.
The clear distinction is hard, I accept that point. The phases at least how I learned it are clear. First state owned then truly society owned as a goal. They never got anywhere near that. Nor a classless society. It wasn’t the old classes from before 1900 but classes as in power structures were very much present.
And yes it was their expressed and I believe trat they were truthful about that to create a communist state. But there were power struggles and the clear ideas became unclear and what remained (intentionally or not) was the name of the goal justifying all the horrible things.
Again, I am not arguing against or for communism, just making the argument that there was never a communist country as in the sense they reached something resembling the idea of the word. Keeping in mind that there is not a clear line of demarcation, this much is clear to me.
This is a bit confused. The USSR did eventually form a Beaurocratic section over time, especially towards the 80s until its dissolution, but to call it a “class” is not quite accurate. In The State and Revolution, Lenin does a good job of explaining what even constitutes a State, in explaining the economic basis for the “withering away of the State.” The Soviet model functioned like this graphic:
Again, though, this isn’t what people are saying. The doctrine of the USSR was Communist. They were working towards Communism. The fact that they did not reach that point does not mean their ideology was not Communist.
sidenote: if they didnt reach this point not due to time constraints but because they took a turn along the way, does it still count? ;)
i think what annoyed me about the whole thread and got me on the path about “the real communism” (until it got decent, thanks again!) was this comment. i made something out of it that wasnt the point of the whole debate.
There were a multitude of factors that led to collapse. Generally, WWII was fought with the blood of the Soviet people, it thoroughly destroyed them, and in the process of building back beaurocracy snuck in and allowed the USSR to be killed from the inside.
My problem with your point is that it’s a common misconception by leftists who haven’t usually studied theory much, they just know that Communism as a status is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. The issue with that outlook is that it entirely ignores the theory of development that is core to Marxism, Communism as a status is not the goal because it sounds good, but because it’s the natural progression beyond Capitalism and Socialism.
Put another way, Communism isn’t an idea that you build, that’s Utopianism. If you drop a bunch of future Communists off onto a planet with nothing else, they will still go through primitive communism, feudalism, Capitalism, and back to Socialism and then Communism! That’s the point I am trying to get across, you can’t skip stages because the next is born from the previous!