It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we've seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can't apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn't do it, China didn't do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there's no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract "I don't like capitalism so let's try something different" approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name 'anarchist communism' in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well... So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It's how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it's Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx's mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don't bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin's Russian form of Capitalism with US's imperialism and French Revolution's early capitalism together doesn't make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I'd focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I'd talk about his socialism in one country theory
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L'Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I've got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one "true" communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what "true" communism even is.
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
Nah, that's just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole "Sounds great but won't work" rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
More like: People on the internet being critical of the current system, Americans on the internet saying "COMMUNISM BAD" as if USSR style state capitalism is the only other possible option.
How else would it work? You need some power structure that actively forbids a free market and private ownership. And that power will sooner or later be abused.
You can't just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.
The core tenant of every form of Communism, regardless of if said party or organisation follows it, is as follows: that the means of production should belong to the workers who work them. If the means of production are not in the hands of the workers, then they are not communist. If they are in the hands of a CEO or a corporation, you have private capitalism or market capitalis like the US. If you put them in the hands of a state, they are in the state, you get state capitalism ala China or the USSR.
The power structure of the state protects an upper class, be it billionaires or "the party". If you abolish the state, but not capitalism, capitalism will rebuild the state (which is why Anarcho capitalism fails every time) and vice versa (which is what happens with Marxist Leninism).
For a Communist or communalist society to work it needs to be Anarchist or classically Libertarian (aka like Bakunin or Kropotkin proposed, not "money first"). It needs to have a horizontal and democratic decision making process that is decentralised, federated, and involves all the members of the community or communities effected. If there is to be a state, it should be to facilitate the colaboration of communities in a bottom up manner. These are the features of almost every single effective or successful Anarchist or Socialist movements from Rojava or the Zapatistas, as well as non-political movements like the Open Source Movement, railway preservatiion movement, and even the early RNLI.
The power structure thant would forbid a free market would be the collective weight of everyone else rather than a state that, sooner or later, becomes the jackboot of capital.
The US political spectrum is leaning so far to the right. A US left is a France center or moderate right. So what Americans consider communism is merely what French consider moderate leftist.
Sure, but the meme refers to the communities on the internet that unironically go full tankie, praising Stalin and Mao.
Worst of all, tankies tend to inflitrate sane leftist spaces and slowly transform them. I've witnessed it many times, and that just makes me think that Marxists-Leninists are just the most dominant form of leftism on the internet, which is horrible.
For what it's worth, Stalin is a monster, and the state of China right now is repugnant.
Mao didn't intentionally lead tens of millions of people to starve in the same way Stalin did. Mao was trying to revolutionise agriculture (The Great Leap Forward) but didn't understand the ecological and logistic principles required.
I'm convinced his intentions were good, he just wasn't educated enough to implement something like this.
The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn't mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.
Is true Communism even possible if it's being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn't matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.
Fuck Communism and fuck unchecked capitalism. People deserve basic human rights. Free heallthcare, education, insurance and liveable basic income is a must. It doesn't make your society full of freeloaders instead it gives all the people a chance to become what they want in the society.
I hope that people can see this basic difference and we can work towards for a better future as humanity instead of whatever country title.
Didn't the USSR just do state capitalism, and not actual communism or socialism? And weren't they also totalitarian & also not a democracy? Are people actually asking for what was happening in astern Europe or something else?
In Germany the left leaning parties want that shit.
It sucks.
They side with Russia atm as well and a lot of them just have this odd nostalgia for the time
Reflecting back on the breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the breakup. Georgians are divided.
A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country's economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country's switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary's integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.
The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.
Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an "illegitimate state." In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.
Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.
The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.
The above memes are almost always made by Americans, whose brains are riddled with red scare brainworms and are completely devoid of any knowledge or understand of what the left thinks in Europe because Americans do not have a left.
Hungarian here. We had ten good years, then the same ruling class started to do the same shit they did back then but under a different name. But at least nowadays you can leave the country, which many do since -- the frequent attempts to do so were an important cultural touchstone here in the 45 years of soviet occupation.
Trust me, no one wants the same shit back, that's just a political talking point propping up Orbán's pro-russian bullshit.
Of course nobody wants the same shit, I don't want the same shit either, I know for sure that the hard left of mszp sit around where I am. Things can be so much better.
And? Socialism does not mean not having a multiparty system. I get that you're trying to imply that approving of a multiparty system or a market economy is somehow evidence of being against socialism but both of those things exist under socialism. Yugoslavia was a market economy in eastern europe under socialism.
7 out of 11 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them
That's because USSR was designed intentionally so that its end would be a catastrophe. To prevent that end. However, since it was simply unable to exist further even on life support, what happened happened still.
End of USSR being bad doesn't mean USSR being good. It's just a choice between horrible end and horror without end.
Another hungarian here. Definitely before 1989 Hungary was probably known for having one of the best living conditions under the USSR's sphere. It went pretty good in terms of spending power (heavy censorship in media if not aligned with the regime's view, forced labor, government spying agents everywhere, couldn't talk about 1956, etc.) until the 70's when Kádár (the dictator of the country) realized that he can't keep up these living standards, except if he takes up debt. So he literally taken up debt to keep up this facade, which really hit to us when we replaced the regime, and since the people have been so used to this kind of populist leadership type, they have chosen Orbán (current president) several times, despite the horrendous amounts of corruption, stomping freedom of speech, fearmongering, spying on opponents phones etc, just because he is really good at continuing the populist ideology which Kádár has done.
EDIT: I'm not saying capitalism is good, I rather support a hybrid model which the EU does currently. Too much state intervention is bad, and too much freedom for corpos are also bad too. In my case my government happily accepts building factories in this country which 100% is better for agriculture, and these corpos doesn't have to pay much tax, can overtime workers and only pay them like 4 years later (yes this is legal).
boomers destroyed the earth beyond all belief, poisoned everyone with sketchy ass chemicals, destroyed the economy more than once (twice in my life), most of us will NEVER own a home because the housed your grand pappy paid 100k for is now worth 2.5 million and average yearly wage is less than 30,000... among a million other things. The greed and entitlement is baffling, mix that in with delusional red scare propaganda that a ton of people fall for and yall mfers spending time defending all this insane shit.
we effectively live in a corporate government where what the people want doesn't matter alongside the million other ways we are lied to and exploited. Billionaires and trillionaires run the world and they keep pushing for "the next thing" like the metaverse, blockchain and going mars while most of us cant even afford to fucking eat. Suck it. I guarantee that you cant even define communism and point out how it differs from social policies even on a very basic fundamental level. Fuck dude
And Soviet communism was... better how? Just as (if not more) destructive to the environment, and their "billionaires" were called "party members" instead. What an improvement! Now they can jail/deport political dissenters without even having to pretend to hold a fair trial.
Now of course this is where communists usually go No True Scotsman, but consider for just ONE MOMENT that the concept of wealth inequality is not, in fact, unique to capitalism. Any economic system is vulnerable to greed. And that the countries with arguably the strongest social welfare, highest human development, etc. are... the Nordics. Hardly capitalist, hardly hellholes.
This is why people say communists are angsty teenagers. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, but all of what you just pointed to is, in fact, not unique to capitalism. That's just Americana. Pointing to the U.S. as a reason why "capitalism bad" is just as silly as pointing to N.K. as a reason why "communism bad".
Typical American with a viewpoint so narrow you can't see further than your nose. I've had lots of interesting discussions with French communists, and I agree with some of their viewpoints, but to start with you have to realize that capitalism is not the root of ALL evil, only of some specific systemic issues, which are only a small part of what's wrong with the US.
Lenin was a counterrevolutionary that brutally suppressed any dissent and directly placed Stalin (being well aware of what a person he was) in a position that would make his later takeover possible.
Kinda has a stench of "the wealthy get taxed too much 😢"
The IRS doesn't get that money. The IRS processes that money and prevents your lottery-ticket-buying-ass from hoarding it all, and redistributes some of that unnecessary wealth to the utilities and services were all invested in together as a society.
You're showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker's councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker's councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
It's so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they're hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform...
No, I'm just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian "communists".
Unless you're an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
That's objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn't be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.
They didn't fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can't even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of "tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM"
Communism doesn't include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
So-called "dictatorship of proletariat" was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren't compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn't even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad.
I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor's kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn't get education because they were "children of the enemy of the people". Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were "pests" or "enemies of the people", so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
programming.dev
Älteste(r)