Rusting Car Bumper

Q: Why hasn't communism worked?

A: because people get involed.

DC

August Spies

Hitler claimed his system was a democracy. Stalin as well claimed the USSR was democratic.

People claim a lot of things.

You can define communism however you want I guess. Hell 99 percent has defined subjectivism as objectivism so his ideas sound better.

But here is the deal: none of those examples follow Marx's view of communism. They do not follow the standard view. Marx wanted a "dictatorship of the proletariat" he pointed to the Paris commune as an example of communism in action.

Stalin and Mao are dictatorships OVER the proletariat. If you study things like the russian revolution you will notice that EVEN LENIN AND THE BOLSHEVIKS realized they were not following Marx. Lenin himself said that the USSR would first have to enter a period of STATE CAPITALISM. All the exmaples you mention are state capitialist systems.

Krieger

Exactly!

August Spies

I find it similar to people who call themselves Christians but when confronted with Xtian history will say "well, those weren't REAL Christians".

Well I guess Stalin and Hitler are good examples of democracy then.

Really this analogy does not work. Here is why:
Communism is a political idea. As it was originally defined it meaned X. Let us say Stalin practiced Y. We can look at the original definition and the Stalin definition and notice big differences.

To be a communist you have a specific set of ideas.(just like to be a monarchist, or a democrat)

To be a christian you only have to blieve in jesus. From there on it is debatable what makes someone a "real christian"

So here is the deal Lamma:
If you want to agure that communism can mean X AND Y, this is fine. However, it is just semantics. It does not get us anywhere. If you are asking why did Y fail, I think we all know and I don't think anyone on this board is defending Y. If you are asking why X failed, we have told you, it has not really been tried.

I guess you other option is to prove X and Y are two sides of the same coin or something. But dont' get caught on semantics. please.

EDIT: look, like I said im not a communist. I just hate debates that end up being about semantics.

Godbert

Another, so far empirically confirmed, option is to say that every time X is tried it ends up as Y, thus explaining why X does not work.

August Spies

Godbert, ah that is true. YOu could perhaps argue that, at least with russia. Im not sure it really applies to Pol Pot or Mao

thefugitivesaint

Lamma,
What one "calls" oneself or ones "group" means very little. One has to address the "actions" of the claimant not the claim itself.

Marx himself was not a Marxist. He did not want his ideas to be ossified into an "ism" but he could not abide the only other political ideal that really challanged his hypothetical of "communism" which was Anarchism. So, he addressed the need for structure and a coherent, consistant theory of social life without it being so constricting that people couldn't alter what was required in that theory or add to that theory where specific needs arouse which were not originally addressed. Marx did not see what he was doing as a science like Engels did but he did think he was attempting to create a form of "social science." He believed he was addressing real points formally ignored by other commentators of social life. Marx basically created "sociology" which functions as an analytical method of approaching social questions but it still suffers from the inherent difficulties of not having a fixed method.

Anyway, communism is a greatly misunderstood political stance and i am not going to go into details about here. Mao did call himself a "Communist" but his political theories were derived from Leninism more so than the works of Marx. Mao also added on a bit of his own ideas furthur removing himself from the works of Marx.

Now, as i stated Marx did not leave a set body of work definitively stating what communism was and would be. He had a plan, made an outline and tried to flesh it all out but he died before he could complete his train of thought. Adding to his work was what he envisioned but some fo the principles added to this body of work ended up contradicting the goals originally intended by Marx. Under Mao, China went from the mixed economics of the New Democracy period to the agrarian peoples communes of the Great Leap Forward, with China now fully committed to "market socialism." This method adopted by Mao would not have sat well with Marx who did not disparage Capitalism per se but did dislike the obvious social inequalities arising from the use of "social" resources for "private" benefit.

Socialism is the socialization, not the nationalization of the means of production, a distinction that would take a great deal of time here to explain and one most people get wrong. This "collective" ownership of the "means of production" was supposed to be an effective way of getting people to address their own private needs through social interaction in a way that was distinctively different than it is in Capitalism. The problem was that the governments who have come to power have used that power to reproduce the very strcutures they claimed to stand opposed to. The bolshivks created "State Capitalism" or "Capitalism without the Capitalists" but this turned out to be a horrible failure. It merely became a Capitalism of a different color so to speak.

Marx considered the working class's self-emancipation of itself as a class to be simultaneously the self-abolition of itself as a class. The elimination of wage labor went hand in hand with the reduction of socially necessary labor-the labor required to keep society functioning-to a bare minimum according to Marx. But, Lenin and all who followed him did all they could to prevent the very conditions that would have done this, according to Marx, by reproducing the very social structures the revolution gave birth to.

I know i seem to be rambling here but i tend to do that when posting from work. Time constrants and all.

Communism has not worked because the followers of Marx are just that--Followers. Marx did not wish to set up a new religion. He was dealing with the social environment he found himself in with the intention of changing that structure for the benefit of all. I don't follow Marx blindly, nor do I apologize for the absurdities that many Marxists have made of Marx. I've been known to revise and reject aspects of Marxism, such as historical progress and transitional stages, that are simply untenable. I've balanced my Marxism with a wide range of other political sources-left, right and center-as I've balanced my life with a healthy sense of humor and the absurd.

I think that one of the central problems of Marxism or communism is that it downplays the importance of the individual while claiming to exault it. Capitalism does the same but uses the individual to ignore the social while claiming that the importance and primacy of the one (individuals) indirectly addresses the second (social). I think the two get much right but i haven't been able to find the balance of individual needs and social needs to any satisfaction. I wouldn't claim to change the world from my vantage point. I don't know enough to make such a sweeping generalization but i do know that the present state of things will not last and does not benefit enough of us to justify its continuation (how is that for a generalization?).

Another problem to address with your question is this: "what tendency are we discussing here?" Under communism (the small "c" is intentional) many different ideas have been expressed. For example we have--anarchism, council communism, libertarian Marxism and autonomism, as well as certain forms of democratic socialism and decentralized syndicalism in this process. I exclude the variety of left and post Trotskyist and Maoist tendencies because they are anything but communistic in their very nature; being authoritarian in every sense which Marx rebelled against.

I know none of this helps. I'll try to address this later if i find the time but i am off the next couple of days and i have no access to the internet outside of work right now. later.
-theSaint

IvanK

So, let's say the workers at Company X buy the company and run it themselves. They then "collectively" own the "means of production." Why does this have to be distinctively different from capitalism? In my book, it's not, nor does it need to be.

What's distinctively different is that, instead of working 40 or so hours and collecting a paycheck, everyone's working all the time because any relaxation could doom the company and with it everyone's means of livelihood. Under capitalism, some people -- owners -- assume the risks and responsibilities connected with owning the means of production, while others -- workers -- don't have to.

The main problem I see with communism, however variously defined, is its vain attempt to disconnect the benefits of owning the means of production and the risks and responsibilities of owning the means of production. ("The elimination of wage labor went hand in hand with the reduction of socially necessary labor-the labor required to keep society functioning-to a bare minimum according to Marx." Everyone's rich, everyone lives a life of ease.) And the reason that doesn't work should really be rather obvious.

What makes some needs "individual" and others "social?" If there's a need, doesn't there have to be an individual to have the need? Or are there some free-floating needs out there unattached to any specific individual or individuals?

Here's my working hypothesis: there are only individual needs. When enough individuals need enough of the same thing they usually get together and try to acquire it. I for one wouldn't be one whit happier if every "social need" in the world was being met, but my individual needs weren't.

thefugitivesaint

ok IvanK i'll quickly address the second question and save the 1st for later.

"Social needs" are needs that each of us shares as individuals such as clean water, clean air, access to basic necessities. Some of the logistics of how we maintain certain aspects of social life/community can only be met as a collective body. This is a point greatly misunderstood.

Let's say some hypothetical corporation exists in a small town and most of that town is dependent on this company for the jobs it provides (which equates money in the bank for each memeber of that community). Then, for whatever reason, that company decides to abandon production in that town for cheaper labor in a third world country. This decision then leaves the town in question without a direct means of support so each member of this town begins to suffer. People lose their homes, cars, are unable to afford health care, unable to afford to support their children in college, etc. The ramifications have a huge effect on all the peopl who spent many years of their lives loyally laboring for the hypothetical corporation. My question is this: what is the social responsibility held by the corporation? Is it tenable to abandon an entire town, ruin its inhabitants lives and create a vacuum for homelessness, drug use, destitution, etc. to fill just so this corporation can make more profits? Does the motivation to meet the profit line override the social aspects related to employement? These kind of questions cannot be fully addressed as simple individuals. These kinds of questions led to the formation of unions or "collective bargaining."

The other thread concerning "Libertarianism" addressed the notion of property rights. These notions outline the "rights" of individuals as to how they may utilize their "property" but the question ignores the wider social implications of how personal activites affect the community those individuals are a part of.

My thing is trying to find a balance between these supposedly competing spheres of existence. The "individual" and the "group" are two distinct things but the seperation of certain actions made by one and how it affects the other are not as neatly delinated as they could be. We exult the "individual" in our society but this particular "definition" is not a healthy entity. An "individual" that is disconnected from its living area, its fellow "individuals" (neighbors), and the environment in which it lives is not going to develop a healthy consideration for what and who is around it. The Marxist concept of "Alienation" was correct in that its presence would only grow and spread until it was the norm and thus fully accepted as the natural state of things.

In the development of Capitalism we can trace the legal and social ramifications of removing certain cultural and economic barriers to the emerging "market." The earliest Capitalists used all the power of the state to reshape the existing social sphere to meet their needs and make the "Market" a primary aspect of each "individuals" life. Where we once had a social structure that possessed a small "market" life that met the needs of people who could met these needs no other way we now have a "Market culture" where every existing need is mediated and met through that very "market" leaving very little alternatives to those who do not wish to participate. Contrary to most who support the "market" coercion did in fact play a great role in gaining the participation of those who resisted the new social order. The "market" is not the "free" exchange it is made out to be an its history attests to this.

Now, this is not simply some "leftist" rant about the evils of Capitalism. Even Marx recognized the positive aspects of Capitalism including its ability to "reshape the social life of man." But, his vision was one of shared wealth where the collected knowledge of humanity could express itself in general equality for all and the right to a decent way of life. Some would say this notion is subjective, idealistic and utopian. Maybe it is but what good is being part of a society if my existence is merely used to psuh along someone else's goals? Why can't we be individuals who share in the wealth we have all created?

The present system assumes "selfishness" as the prime form of motivation and then proceeds to reward behaviour of the same. This reinforces the myth that this is the only "realistic" social organization available. The FACT that we are also fundamentally SOCIAL animals is downplayed, ignored or suppressed so the prevailing myth may continue. This is not to deny the selfish aspect of nature in all its manifestations but to address the the equal importance of cooperation. The balance i seek is the needs of the individuals and the need for a functioning community that is not overlooked by the individuals who compose it. Ya dig?

Maybe i'll try to explain this later.
-theSaint

John Hancock

August Spies

About this :
To be a communist you have a specific set of ideas.(just like to be a monarchist, or a democrat)

Republicans & democrats posture alot but they are not Idealogical parties. They are what VO key called them "broker parties" meaning they are general umbrellas for aligned interest groups. My personal opion is that by and in what they are is dangerously corrupt.

Martin Buber