Communism and Socialism megathread

[New Werpland]

Says who?

communists

*insert burn meme here

[The New Sea Territory]

State Capitalist sounds quite ironic, as Capitalism is the anthesis of the state undertaking commercial activity

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

State Capitalism is not market capitalism.

State Capitalism

Regardless, I get what you mean, you mean that the Yugoslavian government had for-profit commercial activity, which I actually doubt, as far as I have read, that government has been mainly focused on non-for profit state-run industries. Sure, a new ruling class emerged, but that doesn't necessitate Capitalism.

The SFRY Economy was a strange mixture of central planning, market socialism and state capitalism

You mean it weren't poor workers who revolted against the KMT and created a new government. Both Mao and Kim were from very poor backgrounds. Even so, China had collective farms, and NK still does, and China had them, and we must realize that the state itself, is a public, collective organization, and if it owns something, it might as well mean public, collective ownership, thus Communism.

...no. Poor Workers didn't rebel, a professional army did. The Chinese Civil War was not a popular uprising, but a vanguardist one.

"Born the son of a wealthy farmer in Shaoshan, Hunan, Mao adopted a Chinese nationalist and anti-imperialist outlook in early life, particularly influenced by the events of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 and May Fourth Movement of 1919." (Source) For this one, you are just plain wrong.

"The exact history of Kim's family is somewhat obscure. According to Kim himself the family was neither very poor nor comfortably well-off, but was always a step away from poverty." (Source) For Kim, you are also wrong, since we have no real accurate story of his family.

The state is a monopoly on the initiation of force. There is nothing inherently public or private about that. The state is, in no way, inherently a public institution. Collective farms =/= Communism. Communism lacks a state, by definition, so no, state managed economies are not communism, you just made that up.

[The New Sea Territory]

Firstly, I'm sure that in a Communist society, people always want more, and new demands.

In any society, people want more. This is relevant...how?

I have relatives who have lived through Communist regimes,

You have relatives who lived through state capitalist or state socialist regimes. "Degenerated Workers' States" at best, but I would argue that Vanguard regimes should not even be discussed, as they did not even attempt to abolish class society. They merely replaced it.

and even they wanted more during the time, and they didn't want to have the same, they wanted more. Whenever they can get an extra apple, or when they can get something more than the usual, they are very happy, and would prefer that to be the case.

...which is why communism distributes goods according to need. So everyone can get the apple they need, and not have a system where one man has seven apples and the other has one.

North Korea and China, in the beginning, had proletarian governments. Working class people ran everything, and former landlords were killed, or ostracized by the working class.

As demonstrated in the post above, Mao was not working class, he was wealthy. Secondly, China didn't even have a proletariat, as the vast majority of the population were peasants. Korea was very similar. Lastly, killing landlords doesn't automatically make the state run by the proletariat. It could be run by the political class, or the "Nomenklatura".

Even if it was to fit some bureaucratic goal, does it mean that it isn't a centrally planned economy?

Not responding here. I disagree with your criticisms of central planning, but I also disagree with Shi's defense of central planning.

[The New Sea Territory]

It's how I became a Marxist.

Personally my epiphany for Marxism was Orwell's 'Homage To Catalonia'

So, you sided with the guys who screwed over Catalonia, not the ones that actually gave power to the workers (the anarchists)?

[The New Sea Territory]

The state is the cause of recession and a volatile economy, not the free-market.

Well, of course, because the free market is inherently individualist and anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on hierarchy and exploitation, not individual liberty and free markets.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The state is the cause of recession and a volatile economy, not the free-market.

Well, of course, because the free market is inherently individualist and anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on hierarchy and exploitation, not individual liberty and free markets.

May you explain how free-markets can function without capitalism? Capitalism=trade and industry controlled by for-profit private owners, and a free-market is an economy determined by unrestricted competition between private businesses.

[Republic of Coldwater]

State Capitalist sounds quite ironic, as Capitalism is the anthesis of the state undertaking commercial activity

an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

State Capitalism is not market capitalism.

State Capitalism

Regardless, I get what you mean, you mean that the Yugoslavian government had for-profit commercial activity, which I actually doubt, as far as I have read, that government has been mainly focused on non-for profit state-run industries. Sure, a new ruling class emerged, but that doesn't necessitate Capitalism.

The SFRY Economy was a strange mixture of central planning, market socialism and state capitalism

You mean it weren't poor workers who revolted against the KMT and created a new government. Both Mao and Kim were from very poor backgrounds. Even so, China had collective farms, and NK still does, and China had them, and we must realize that the state itself, is a public, collective organization, and if it owns something, it might as well mean public, collective ownership, thus Communism.

...no. Poor Workers didn't rebel, a professional army did. The Chinese Civil War was not a popular uprising, but a vanguardist one.

"Born the son of a wealthy farmer in Shaoshan, Hunan, Mao adopted a Chinese nationalist and anti-imperialist outlook in early life, particularly influenced by the events of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 and May Fourth Movement of 1919." (Source) For this one, you are just plain wrong.

"The exact history of Kim's family is somewhat obscure. According to Kim himself the family was neither very poor nor comfortably well-off, but was always a step away from poverty." (Source) For Kim, you are also wrong, since we have no real accurate story of his family.

The state is a monopoly on the initiation of force. There is nothing inherently public or private about that. The state is, in no way, inherently a public institution. Collective farms =/= Communism. Communism lacks a state, by definition, so no, state managed economies are not communism, you just made that up.

I understand what it means, but I have never understood how the term itself makes any logical sense.

Fair enough, it did have some elements of Capitalism in it, but it was still very centrally planned and controlled by the state.

Fair enough on the history of Kim and Mao, but neither were they very wealthy. Being a wealthy farmer doesn't make you a government official, or the owner of one of the largest enterprises in Shanghai, you may be wealthy for a farmer, but you are still very poor in comparison. Both Kim and Mao were generally poor, as they were farmers, and were in the lower echelons of society. Although they may not be in the lowest, they were neither very high up.

Good point on the state, but places like the USSR all aimed for Communism, and eventually wanted the collectivization of labor (if I'm not mistaken, is one of the cornerstones to Communism), and used the state as a means to ensure that labor was collectivized, in the form of collective factories, collective farms and other collectivizations of labor.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Firstly, I'm sure that in a Communist society, people always want more, and new demands.

In any society, people want more. This is relevant...how?

I have relatives who have lived through Communist regimes,

You have relatives who lived through state capitalist or state socialist regimes. "Degenerated Workers' States" at best, but I would argue that Vanguard regimes should not even be discussed, as they did not even attempt to abolish class society. They merely replaced it.

and even they wanted more during the time, and they didn't want to have the same, they wanted more. Whenever they can get an extra apple, or when they can get something more than the usual, they are very happy, and would prefer that to be the case.

...which is why communism distributes goods according to need. So everyone can get the apple they need, and not have a system where one man has seven apples and the other has one.

North Korea and China, in the beginning, had proletarian governments. Working class people ran everything, and former landlords were killed, or ostracized by the working class.

As demonstrated in the post above, Mao was not working class, he was wealthy. Secondly, China didn't even have a proletariat, as the vast majority of the population were peasants. Korea was very similar. Lastly, killing landlords doesn't automatically make the state run by the proletariat. It could be run by the political class, or the "Nomenklatura".

Even if it was to fit some bureaucratic goal, does it mean that it isn't a centrally planned economy?

Not responding here. I disagree with your criticisms of central planning, but I also disagree with Shi's defense of central planning.

You will have unlimited wants, but limited resources in any society, so it is impossible to ameliorate scarcity in a Communist state, it is not going to happen.

I don't know how much of a class structure was there in the USSR for example. You no longer had the same feudal structure you had in Russia, and you basically replaced it with the people, and the state. These vanguard regimes, did, however, collectivize labor through the coercion of the state, which is a key component of Communism, and tried to make the means of production commonly owned, which was Communist.

So you basically take away the opportunity to get more apples, to grow more apples, and to be wealthier if you want to, and also take the ability away from people to give others apples in exchange for something else, such as their labor, or for oranges. Great incentives for work you have there!

He was wealthy, for a farmer, but he still lived in rural areas, which are quite poor in comparison to the cities, and was miles away from the ruling aristocracy of government officials, landlords and owners of large enterprises.

[The New Sea Territory]

Well, of course, because the free market is inherently individualist and anti-capitalist. Capitalism is based on hierarchy and exploitation, not individual liberty and free markets.

May you explain how free-markets can function without capitalism? Capitalism=trade and industry controlled by for-profit private owners, and a free-market is an economy determined by unrestricted competition between private businesses.

Markets, not capitalism.

The point is not to say that the definition of "free-market" you use is incorrect, but that the name "free" market is misleading. A capitalist market is not free. Capitalism requires exploitation of lower classes for the benefit of upper classes. Private ownership of the MoP allows such exploitation. A genuine free market is one freed from capitalism, where the control of wages, the means of production and, thus, the market are turned over to the workers.

You can think of it like a mixture of communism and capitalism. Proudhon said that mutualism was "the synthesis of communism and property", and American anarchist Benjamin Tucker said "Monopoly and privilege must be destroyed, opportunity afforded, and competition encouraged."

[The New Sea Territory]

I understand what it means, but I have never understood how the term itself makes any logical sense.

State management of businesses in a capitalist market, basically. I think it's stupid and counter-productive.

Fair enough, it did have some elements of [state] Capitalism in it, but it was still very centrally planned and controlled by the state.

It was, until towards the end of Yugoslavia.

Fair enough on the history of Kim and Mao, but neither were they very wealthy. Being a wealthy farmer doesn't make you a government official, or the owner of one of the largest enterprises in Shanghai, you may be wealthy for a farmer, but you are still very poor in comparison. Both Kim and Mao were generally poor, as they were farmers, and were in the lower echelons of society. Although they may not be in the lowest, they were neither very high up.

Considering, in pre-Revolution China, no one was high up, being a wealthy farmer was one of the highest positions one could have.

Good point on the state, but places like the USSR all aimed for Communism, and eventually wanted the collectivization of labor (if I'm not mistaken, is one of the cornerstones to Communism), and used the state as a means to ensure that labor was collectivized, in the form of collective factories, collective farms and other collectivizations of labor.

Yes, Marxist regimes aimed for communism, but none of them ever actually achieved it. Most derailed in the state capitalist or state socialist stages.

Communism would have democratic management over the means of production. So, yes, collective farms and self-managed factories, but the Soviet Union's collectivization was done in a centrally planned way, which is not communist, but state socialist.

[The New Sea Territory]

You will have unlimited wants, but limited resources in any society, so it is impossible to ameliorate scarcity in a Communist state, it is not going to happen.

Post-Scarcity is achievable for many things. I doubt that it will be reached in our lifetime, or that the everything would be post-scare, but things like food could be post-scarce.

That being said, communism doesn't require post-scarcity, the post-scarcity would inevitably lead to communism.

I don't know how much of a class structure was there in the USSR for example. You no longer had the same feudal structure you had in Russia, and you basically replaced it with the people, and the state. These vanguard regimes, did, however, collectivize labor through the coercion of the state, which is a key component of Communism, and tried to make the means of production commonly owned, which was Communist.

The Soviet Union's class structure was basically between party leaders and the common people. The administrators were called the "Nomenklatura"

A key component of communism is the abolition of the state. Forced collectivization is strictly an authoritarian socialist proposal. Even many Marxists would disagree with Stalin's means of collectivization.

Actually, no. I'm not aware of any vanguard regime making the means of production commonly owned. I know that Yugoslavia allowed them to be democratically managed, but the MoP were never owned by their workers. As stated before, state ownership =/= common ownership. "Trying" to do something, without making any direct attempts to do so, is meaningless.

So you basically take away the opportunity to get more apples, to grow more apples, and to be wealthier if you want to, and also take the ability away from people to give others apples in exchange for something else, such as their labor, or for oranges. Great incentives for work you have there!

This is why anarcho-syndicalism, collectivism and mutualism are all better stateless alternatives to communism, as they have some structure to them and create incentives. Anarcho-syndicalism and collectivism go by the mantra "to each according to his labor", where anything besides basic needs must be attained through labor, and mutualism allows for a market economy based on competing worker cooperatives.

He was wealthy, for a farmer, but he still lived in rural areas, which are quite poor in comparison to the cities, and was miles away from the ruling aristocracy of government officials, landlords and owners of large enterprises.

That still doesn't make him a "proletarian", nor does it make the "People's" "Republic" of China a proletarian state.

[Republic of Coldwater]

You will have unlimited wants, but limited resources in any society, so it is impossible to ameliorate scarcity in a Communist state, it is not going to happen.

Post-Scarcity is achievable for many things. I doubt that it will be reached in our lifetime, or that the everything would be post-scare, but things like food could be post-scarce.

That being said, communism doesn't require post-scarcity, the post-scarcity would inevitably lead to communism.

I don't know how much of a class structure was there in the USSR for example. You no longer had the same feudal structure you had in Russia, and you basically replaced it with the people, and the state. These vanguard regimes, did, however, collectivize labor through the coercion of the state, which is a key component of Communism, and tried to make the means of production commonly owned, which was Communist.

The Soviet Union's class structure was basically between party leaders and the common people. The administrators were called the "Nomenklatura"

A key component of communism is the abolition of the state. Forced collectivization is strictly an authoritarian socialist proposal. Even many Marxists would disagree with Stalin's means of collectivization.

Actually, no. I'm not aware of any vanguard regime making the means of production commonly owned. I know that Yugoslavia allowed them to be democratically managed, but the MoP were never owned by their workers. As stated before, state ownership =/= common ownership. "Trying" to do something, without making any direct attempts to do so, is meaningless.

So you basically take away the opportunity to get more apples, to grow more apples, and to be wealthier if you want to, and also take the ability away from people to give others apples in exchange for something else, such as their labor, or for oranges. Great incentives for work you have there!

This is why anarcho-syndicalism, collectivism and mutualism are all better stateless alternatives to communism, as they have some structure to them and create incentives. Anarcho-syndicalism and collectivism go by the mantra "to each according to his labor", where anything besides basic needs must be attained through labor, and mutualism allows for a market economy based on competing worker cooperatives.

He was wealthy, for a farmer, but he still lived in rural areas, which are quite poor in comparison to the cities, and was miles away from the ruling aristocracy of government officials, landlords and owners of large enterprises.

That still doesn't make him a "proletarian", nor does it make the "People's" "Republic" of China a proletarian state.

For one second, sure, and then they have new demands for a limited food resource, and we have this all over again.

That was about it, they made an effort to weaken the class system. There is no doubt that there were the administrators, and the government officials, but the class structure was weakened, and less evident then they were under feudal Russia.

Collectivization happened all over Communist "Vanguard" States, including the USSR, China and A whole load of other places

Are they as big as the almighty dollar in Capitalism, in which those who start enterprises can end up very wealthy, or are they as effective as hard, cold, monetary instruments that can be exchanged for goods for their survival, pleasure and happiness.

Fair enough, he wasn't a very poor person, but he isn't the only member in the CPC. There were many other Communists who came from very poor backgrounds, and would qualify as a "proletarian"

[The New Sea Territory]

For one second, sure, and then they have new demands for a limited food resource, and we have this all over again.

...which completely missed the point being made. Food is not scarce, as in, there is more than enough to meet the demand for food. If food were distributed correctly, people would not starve. However, due to modern crony capitalism, there is a third world that is labors and starves, and a first world that consumes.

That was about it, they made an effort to weaken the class system. There is no doubt that there were the administrators, and the government officials, but the class structure was weakened, and less evident then they were under feudal Russia.

They weakened the class system by making a more authoritarian one? Sure, it was less evident because the hierarchy was simplified. You were either a worker or a member of the political class. The point being that the Soviet Union failed to abolish class society, thus, did not achieve communism and made little effort to do so.

Collectivization happened all over Communist "Vanguard" States, including the USSR, China and A whole load of other places

Yet again, the point is missed. Collectivization =/= communism. The vanguard central planning did not allow for any common ownership or worker management, with the exception of Yugoslavia, thus, their forced collectivization was more of a nationalization than expropriation. The state managed production and owned the MoP, not the workers.

Are they as big as the almighty dollar in Capitalism, in which those who start enterprises can end up very wealthy, or are they as effective as hard, cold, monetary instruments that can be exchanged for goods for their survival, pleasure and happiness.

I don't understand what you are trying to respond to here.

However, those who start enterprises do so through exploitation of those who have no private property. This is not an example of a free market, but a market designed to perpetuate exploitative hierarchy. The workers labor away, the owner keeps most of the profits and sells the labors the products they made.

A free market, or a "freed market", one liberated from capitalism, allows for market competition between worker-managed enterprises, where the means of production are not privately owned, but "possessed".

Fair enough, he wasn't a very poor person, but he isn't the only member in the CPC. There were many other Communists who came from very poor backgrounds, and would qualify as a "proletarian"

"Proletarian" refers usually to an industrial worker. It is defined as "the class of wage-earners (especially industrial workers) in a capitalist society whose only possession of significant material value is their labour-power (their ability to work)" (Source). Considering China, at the time of the Revolution, wasn't really industrialized and didn't practice capitalism, it has a peasantry, not a proletariat.

[Vashtanaraada]

Personally my epiphany for Marxism was Orwell's 'Homage To Catalonia'

So, you sided with the guys who screwed over Catalonia, not the ones that actually gave power to the workers (the anarchists)?

No....... I liked the concept of the Popular Front and it made me decide between a lot of leftist ideologies present within that faction; bear in mind I'm a libertarian socialist. Look, I liked the CNT; but even as industrial workers within a syndicalist organization; there were also many peasants that could not be represented by such organisations. That's where the POUM, the Communists etc got most of their support.

At the end of the day, Spain was a mess. Everyone should've just kept things simply, the Republicans were all workers. The fascists were the capitalists, the military elite and the clergy. I loathe both the CNT who snubbed many Trotskyists and many left-communists because of Kronstadt and what happened in the Russian Civil War; and the Stalinists who didn't give anyone else resources or particularly useful support, in order to co-ordinate maximum anti-fascism.


The two organisations that represented the main bodies of anti-fascism outside the government - foreign support and the working class of Spain - both made errors, and that is what Orwell highlights to an extent. Of course, he and indeed I would've preferred the CNT, especially because they were renowned fighters, but the way they took no notice of government intelligence or advice as acts of statist control were just unnecessary.

THM's a puppet of mine

[Proletarian Anarchists]

So, you sided with the guys who screwed over Catalonia, not the ones that actually gave power to the workers (the anarchists)?

No....... I liked the concept of the Popular Front and it made me decide between a lot of leftist ideologies present within that faction; bear in mind I'm a libertarian socialist. Look, I liked the CNT; but even as industrial workers within a syndicalist organization; there were also many peasants that could not be represented by such organisations. That's where the POUM, the Communists etc got most of their support.

At the end of the day, Spain was a mess. Everyone should've just kept things simply, the Republicans were all workers. The fascists were the capitalists, the military elite and the clergy. I loathe both the CNT who snubbed many Trotskyists and many left-communists because of Kronstadt and what happened in the Russian Civil War; and the Stalinists who didn't give anyone else resources or particularly useful support, in order to co-ordinate maximum anti-fascism.


The two organisations that represented the main bodies of anti-fascism outside the government - foreign support and the working class of Spain - both made errors, and that is what Orwell highlights to an extent. Of course, he and indeed I would've preferred the CNT, especially because they were renowned fighters, but the way they took no notice of government intelligence or advice as acts of statist control were just unnecessary.

THM's a puppet of mine

Wouldn't that make you a Libertarian Marxist, rather then a libertarian socialist?

[Lytenburgh]

And now for something copmletely different.

Which country's socialist-realism art you like the most?

1) USSR

2) China.

3) North Korea.

4) Vietnam.

5) Cuba.

6) Albania.

1, 2.

[Jinwoy]

I'm partial to Soviet, Chinese and North Korean socialist realism... more so Chinese than the others.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I've always been a fan of some of the DPRK's art, Chinese and Soviet aren't bad either.

[United Marxist Nations]

Soviet art is the best in my opinion; here are some personal favorites of mine:

[Constantinopolis]

It's hard to choose between Soviet and Chinese, but I'll have to go with Soviet socialist realism as my favourite.

You know, on a related note, I wonder if future generations will consider the art, architecture and general style of Marxist-Leninist states to be emblematic of the 20th century. Several hundred years into the future, when people will hear the term "20th century", what will be the first thing to come to mind? It may well be something related to Marxism-Leninism, since it was arguably the defining political movement of the 20th century.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's hard to choose between Soviet and Chinese, but I'll have to go with Soviet socialist realism as my favourite.

You know, on a related note, I wonder if future generations will consider the art, architecture and general style of Marxist-Leninist states to be emblematic of the 20th century. Several hundred years into the future, when people will hear the term "20th century", what will be the first thing to come to mind? It may well be something related to Marxism-Leninism, since it was arguably the defining political movement of the 20th century.

They'll probably think of WW1 and 2 before anything else.

[Lytenburgh]

You know, on a related note, I wonder if future generations will consider the art, architecture and general style of Marxist-Leninist states to be emblematic of the 20th century. Several hundred years into the future, when people will hear the term "20th century", what will be the first thing to come to mind? It may well be something related to Marxism-Leninism, since it was arguably the defining political movement of the 20th century.

That's very good (and hard) question.

You know the old adage, that "the beauty is in the eye of beholder".

Really, what will (and what should) be viewd as the epitome of XX centry's art?

This


this:



or something in between? LIke - capitalistic realism?

[United Marxist Nations]

Man, fuck Andy Warhol.

[Arkolon]

It's hard to choose between Soviet and Chinese, but I'll have to go with Soviet socialist realism as my favourite.

You know, on a related note, I wonder if future generations will consider the art, architecture and general style of Marxist-Leninist states to be emblematic of the 20th century. Several hundred years into the future, when people will hear the term "20th century", what will be the first thing to come to mind? It may well be something related to Marxism-Leninism, since it was arguably the defining political movement of the 20th century.

They'll probably think of WW1 and 2 before anything else.

My thoughts exactly. There's also the founding of the modern European Union, the 1960s cultural revolution, the insane amount of music genres and cultures that saw the light of day, first man on the moon. . . I mean the only way I could see M-L being relevant in a history book 100 years from today is a small subsection on a 'Did You Know?' side-column on the Cold War.

[Constantinopolis]

They'll probably think of WW1 and 2 before anything else.

My thoughts exactly. There's also the founding of the modern European Union, the 1960s cultural revolution, the insane amount of music genres and cultures that saw the light of day, first man on the moon. . . I mean the only way I could see M-L being relevant in a history book 100 years from today is a small subsection on a 'Did You Know?' side-column on the Cold War.

You... think that the largest political movement of the century is less important than music genres? Because, after all, when talking about the 18th century we totally devote more attention to Haydn and Mozart than to the American and French revolutions, right? Oh wait...

I'm also curious about how you imagine that history books can cover the aftermath of WW1, the Chinese Civil War, WW2 and the Cold War without mentioning M-L.