The trial of communism?

I don't want to blame Russia for the 50 years of occupation of the Eastern Europe countries, Germany send Lenin in Russia, but is or isn't necessary to dismiss communist ideology. We, the humanity, will try again such thing?

The goals of communism were good: self-autonomy, democracy, and just benefits of workers.

The means by which historical Marxist Communism attempted to reach those goals were terrible and repugnant.

Real communism has already been tried by history. It has found it guilty of immoral treatment of its citizens and inefficient in creating wealth for its society.

However, I don�t believe that the ideas are solely responsible for the crimes and deficiencies of historical Communism. They were only partially responsible in that they lent themselves into being religiously worshipped by their followers. This is the same problem that actual religions have.

The real problem is zealot�s pursuing of a utopian paradise. Other historical attempts of bringing utopian paradises included the French Revolution, Nazism, and fascism. Our modern versions are mostly neo-theocratic movements, like the radical Jihadists in the Muslim world and Christian extremists in the U.S.

It is probable that the pursuit of the utopian paradise goes back further in the past, to religious wars. I cannot make this claim because I lack enough knowledge to make it, although I find it an interest idea to pursue.

Let me describe the dangerous process, which is what we must watch out for. It all begins with an ideology. This ideology promotes high moral values and it inspires people with the goal of creating paradise on earth. This ideology can be religious or not. Then followers of the ideology develop a plan to reach political power to impose their ideology on the rest of the population. At a more advance stage, the urgency to get to power takes over the ideology, to the point of undermining the original values that attracted the followers in the first place. The principal �the goals justify the means� gets establishes in the leadership. This is the point at which we must stop these people.

If the group successfully becomes the rulers of a nation, horrible deeds follow. They normally will reach power during a political crisis or by exploiting political structural weaknesses. Attempts to bring a democratic nation fail since our utopians are not interested in other opinions. A dictatorship may follow. Non-believers in the ideology become heretics and nuisances that must be dealt with, often with death. The specifics of the ideological plan become ossified as gospel. If the plan fails to produce the expected result, it must be that non-believers are sabotaging the plans; the plans can never fail.

The host nation is doomed to fail because it lacks pragmatists that can keep the system going. However, the fall of the nations have been so varied that it is hard to keep generalizing at this point.

The Soviet Union is the greatest example of all of them. It was the most successful and probably the one that lived for the longest. It also caused great pain. We should never forget and always be vigilant to utopian groups.

Paul,

I think that from the context it is quite obvious that we are talking about Marxist Communism as it was implemented in nations, not in small communities.

I have nothing against the Kibbutz. I actually like the idea a lot. Also the Hutturites have been running a communist community for several centuries.

If you read again my post, you will see that I am talking about zealot implementations of utopian/religious ideas at a national level.

I tried to made a distintion between the ideas and implementation.

Originally posted by hugoestr Paul, I think that from the context it is quite obvious that we are talking about Marxist Communism as it was implemented in nations, not in small communities. I have nothing against the Kibbutz. I actually like the idea a lot. Also the Hutturites have been running a communist community for several centuries. If you read again my post, you will see that I am talking about zealot implementations of utopian/religious ideas at a national level. I tried to made a distintion between the ideas and implementation.

But facetious is my middle name. I couldn't let you get away with calling Soviet Communism 'real' Communism. Please use State Controlled Socialised Capitalism in future....

Originally posted by Richard XIII We, the humanity, will try again such thing?

The question in surely not "if", but when?

I'm not talking about the state-capitalist experiments in Stalinist SU etc., but about Communism as the idea that the wealth of a society, be it a national or a global one ,should actually equally benefit those who produce it.
As this is not the case in a capitalist society, that is based on the political rule of few over many, and on the economical exploitation of many by few, the idea of a Communist society that will abolish all class and national antagonisms, will not disappear.
Marxist Communism was only one expression of this age-old demands, and after its discreditation by the Stalinist in the 20th century, and through its many short-comings in analysing the development of modern Capitalism, might not be the predominant form of socialist/communist theory in the future.
However, as global capitalism by its own nature can not reform itself, and will continue economical and political exploitation, and even might through its own inherent laws endanger the future of the whole planet, somebody, sometime will come up with new and modified Communist theory, and somebody, somewhere will try to implement it.
The question is, where and when?

Originally posted by hugoestr The question is not when or where, but how? Most groups that have run successful communist ventures are very homogeneous, are linked by religious or ethnic identity, and are very disciplined in their behavior. It seems that communism tends to run against personal liberties and a pluralistic society. It boils down to the prisoner dilemma: if everyone puts in the same about of work, everyone will benefit, but if a group of people don't do their share and reap the rewards, the whole system slides towards failure. Soviet-styled state-controlled monopolistic capitalism was the natural attempt at preventing this problem. It was responsible of great human right violations, and it tanked its economy. None of these things were supposed to happen. So far, the best practical model seems to be the Northern European one. This model is not perfect, but it is the best we have. Maybe the solution is to fine tune this model. I am open to hear other practical solutions.

But that's already the next question!
I didn't say that the next attempt to realise a socialist/communist theory will be any more successful, I just believe there is a certain inevitabilty that it will happen.
However, it will not become any easier to fianally solve the conundrum.
As you rightly said, the very few halfway successful attempts were made either in very small isolated communities, some communist farms somewhere in the country, or they happened under exceptional circumstances, usually in the middle of a war, like the Paris Commune in 1871, or the Anarchist controlled Free Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War.
The fewer people involved, the greater the chances are and with the unstoppable globalisation of capitalism, the probability that one country or group of countries will be able to leave and exist outside the global capitalist market, decreases by the minute.

So I'm not terribly optimistic either, but there seems to be no alternative, as your's doesn't work either:

The Northern-European model, and I'm not sure if you included Germany here, has over the last decade shown its limitations.
Germany, the UK and the Netherlands, ( I'm not so familiar with the Scandinavian countries), all countries where capitalism supposedly was tamed and could show its social responsibility, has over the last decade seen a slowly but steady erosion of all those achievements that could have made it more acceptable. The decline of the public sector, the dismantling of the social welfare system, the demise of free education, the abolition of a regulated and controlled labour market etc,, all this has demonstrated that although capitalism is able to grant concessions if it is in a period of stability and growth, if things start to go wrong however, it can also take these rights away, and hit those that are most vulnerable.

Not that I wish it upon us, but someday, somewhere a far deeper crisis of global capitalism will arise, be it for economic, political or ecological reasons or any combination of these, to which our current problems will seem like a sunday school picnic,...and then Communism will raise it's pretty head again, and will appear as not such a bad idea after all. If it's workable, is another question.




Edited by Komnenos

I don't know which western nations you're talking about, but the western nations I know are currently breaking down social security and leaving more and more to the free market.

Edited by Mixcoatl

Originally posted by Komnenos I don't know where you get this from. If you show me that somewhere in Marx' and Engels works it says that everybody in a Communist society will run around in a one-size-fits-all blue overall and live a standartised existence, I would be grateful. On the contrary, one of the most well known of Marx's quotes is: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!" , thus describing one of the aims of Communist society.

The basic principle of collectivism is that everyone works for everyone else. Their "pay" is received by a common fund, from which the needs of all can be fulfilled. I am not saying that everyone will be the same socially, but rather that the rich will lose money and the poor gain, thus causing a (to use a favorite phrase of communists and socialists alike) redistribution of wealth. This causes the reduction or, ideallistically, elimination of all people at the extremes of the economic spectrum, garanteeing that most people will be at the mean, living at the human average.

The statement, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" proves my point. Communism demands that a person surrender to the state all that he is capable of earning in return for a government garantee for the provision of what he needs. What do you think is the determinant of what one needs? Does anyone need a car, a television, a front lawn; no. All humans, essentially, need the same thing, outside of medical expenses, perhaps. After the government takes whatever it needs for beaurocratic expenses (which we are asuming are legitimate) all the money received will be devided equally, thus each person will live on just under the average of the earnings of his countrymen.

This is my objection. the upper/middle classes are essentially paying for the poor. In a communist state, employment is regulated, so those individuals who could be big earners due to their talents might not be. So, we must say that the potentially rich are still paying for the potentially poor.

Initially a communist state makes the actually rich pay for social justice, and then the potentially rich, once it is in operation. This is not justice, but the inherent flaw of communism.

If by the Marxian quote you mentioned, you are stating that some people have greater "needs" than others, in the realm outside of neccessity, then you are essentailly doing what capitalism does, raising certain individuals above their fellows. The difference would be that you are doing it arbitrarily, innefficiently, and unjustly.

 

Edited by Herodotus

I actually think collectivism is what leads to the failure of Communism/Socialism. people are individualistic and should be treated as such.

Education is an interesting topic. It's one the great ironies that I think all first world capitalist countries have fully communist education systems up to the age of 16/18. Some of course have private options available alongside to a minority.

In the UK higher education is one of the major issues of the day. Up till the mid eighties higher education course fees were free to all, on top of that the government payed (mandatory grant) a salary to all students attending university in the form of payments of several thousand pound three times a year.

However in the eighties the government phased out the grant to be replaced by a loans scheme and recently started asking student to pay course fees back too.

 

The issue isn't so cut and dried.

Critics of the changes obviously ask how will poor people afford university, it will damage the country as a skills crisis especially in the sciences emerges.

But on the other hand many people point out even when higher education was free, the majority of students were middle class and the majority of the taxes in the country are paid by the working class. So effectively it was the children of the middle classes getting a free ride at the working class's expense. To end up in a job earning twice what the people who paid for their ride are earning.

So here's the question, what should be done about higher education?