Communism: still relevant?

[Finland SSR]

Social democracy is a step towards communism.

How? It preserves property rights. In Scandinavia, it is increasingly pro business. I am not a social democrat, but your statement has no factual backing.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is

A socioeconomic philosophy structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.
A social, political, and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

How are people supporting this system more in the West?

You don't have to go exactly for that system to be pro-communist or pro-socialist.
Socialism embodies economical equality and egalitarianism. Nordic model countries are definitely closer to that objective than most countries.

[United Russian Soviet States]

Social democracy is a step towards communism.

How? It preserves property rights. In Scandinavia, it is increasingly pro business. I am not a social democrat, but your statement has no factual backing.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is

A socioeconomic philosophy structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.
A social, political, and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.

How are people supporting this system more in the West?

Social democracy is socialism. More people are supporting a path to communism by supporting social democracy.

[Kelinfort]

How? It preserves property rights. In Scandinavia, it is increasingly pro business. I am not a social democrat, but your statement has no factual backing.



How are people supporting this system more in the West?

Social democracy is socialism. More people are supporting a path to communism by supporting social democracy.

Is this socialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Low barriers to free trade. This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.

[Socialist Tera]

How? It preserves property rights. In Scandinavia, it is increasingly pro business. I am not a social democrat, but your statement has no factual backing.



How are people supporting this system more in the West?

Social democracy is socialism. More people are supporting a path to communism by supporting social democracy.

Hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahah fuck no! Social democracy is a capitalist system. It is a bandaid on a gashing wound.
Communism is still relevant in the third world where millions starve to death every day!

[Jaxukuk]

You see, the problem with forums is that people come from all over the place.

I know nothing about the working class in the US, but here in the UK, I most definitely feel that there isn't a 'proletariat' class that is mercilessly ruled over by the richer members of society anymore - not as Marx described, anyway.

"Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way." - Marx, the Communist Manifesto
That, if anything, is proof that capitalism started to get greedy because of the industrial revelation.

It's interesting to hear the differing views of different societies.

[New Skaaneland]

Communism is a form of evil and evil is often relevant, although it can be quite nice not to have certein forms of it around.

[Dremovia]

I can't tell one ahole government from another anymore...... I think they all suketh!

[Threlizdun]

My question to you, NationStates, is this: in today's modern world, is communism still a viable ideology that makes sense?

Of course

When was the last time you heard someone complain about poor working conditions (outside China, of course - oh, the irony...)?

Yesterday

You see, capitalism has evolved to become a fairer, more moral system. Communists still stick to the same old beliefs.

Wrong on both accounts. Capitalism has evolved to ensure its survival by offering concessions to the workers, transferring the proletariat to middle class positions and establishing post-industrial economies where labor is extracted through neoliberal domination of developing nations. It has gotten better in states where it first developed, though much of the world has been trapped in the horrors we saw in the industrial revolution, except they are not being offered a way out.

Should the manifesto be changed?

The manifesto was a political pamphlet. It wasn't meant to be anything else. It literally is the least important work Marx ever published. Of course the manifesto doesn't apply to the modern world; it was written to reflect the concerns of the time.

Should communism, as described by Marx, its 'father', be changed?

Marx is hardly the "father" of communism. The concerns of communists will be slightly different in every society, as every society is different. It's a constantly changing ideology, as it should be. Ideological rigidity only leads to stagnation and a failure to adapt.

Perhaps a new form of equality needs to be promoted: one that just opposes consumerism, is committed to reducing pressing issues such as climate change, stands up for equal rights for everybody. I would happily be part of a new enviro-communist society which is anti-consumerist.

That isn't anything new. People have been pointing out the parallels between ecological destruction and economic oppression for centuries now. The two certainly are connected, and failing to recognize this ensures that any potential movement won't be able to truly accomplish anything worth noting.

tl;dr: The class system isn't as defined as it was. What does this mean for the existing communist ideals?

Nothing, there are still oppressors and the oppressed, and the oppressors still need to be overthrown so that all may be free.

[Caracasus]

Honestly? It's as relevant as any other political ideology. The chief argument against it, that it looks fine on paper but doesn't work so well in practise is one that could be applied to capitalism with ease. The fact is that those who criticize communism rarely criticize their own economic models with such scrutiny. It also really depends on what you mean by relevant.

Communism as a method of critiquing our current economic models is very relevant, and remains so. There are serious problems with capitalism that communism can highlight and of course provide alternatives to. Capitalism physically cannot, for example, solve the massive problem of world poverty. It will take approximately a century for the world's poorest to earn $1.25 a day. http://www.theguardian.com/global-devel ... -125-a-day

Capitalism also struggles with balancing a fragile environment. Whilst the trend in western states is to improve upon the carbon footprint, this is insignificant as heavy manufacturing, mining and other environmentally damaging industries are simply moved overseas. At best, the current model provides a sticking-plaster solution, at worst it simply sweeps the problems under the carpet.

Another major issue is exactly what to do with the millions made economically useless by advancing technology. Even the service industries, typically used to boost employment following technologically created redundancies are becoming more efficient, loosing workers and jobs. Employers and businesses benefit from a lower wage bill at the expense of redundant workers, so this trend will continue as long as technological progress does. No rational person would advocate the forced removal of these now economically useless people, yet capitalism fails to present us with a decent solution.

Capitalism has also spectacularly failed to police itself. When the foundations of capitalism were laid, Adam Smith wrote that those who meet to form monopolies are essentially conspiring against society. Today we see vast corporations use their economic power to force smaller businesses out of the market. Karl Marx foresaw some aspects of this; he claimed that the petit bourgeoisie (small business owners etc.) would slowly find themselves pushed down to make way for larger, more powerful enterprises.

It is, of course, utterly up to the individual to decide weather they support communism, however as a means to critique the current system communist thought allows us to critique our current system and provide an alternative way of doing things.

[Laanvia]

abortion is gr8

There's no reason to post that. It's not relevant to the conversation.

[Caracasus]

There's no reason to post that. It's not relevant to the conversation.

so how would a commie vote on abortion

You'd really have to ask them. As a communist (more or less) myself I'd say that abortions are essentially necessary in many circumstances, and that women, wherever possible, should have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, as should men. It still doesn't make this a valid point though.

We are discussing weather or not communism is relevant. You are asking about how communists would feel about abortions. Strangely, your post manages to be the least relevant thing here.

[HMS Vanguard]

Communism is gone; it has essentially no supporters. The orthodox Marxist-Leninist core has dropped out of the belief system more or less entirely. The far left today is a collection of third world nationalist movements.

[Caracasus]

Communism is gone; it has essentially no supporters. The orthodox Marxist-Leninist core has dropped out of the belief system more or less entirely. The far left today is a collection of third world nationalist movements.

Even if we take your rather unfounded generalisation at face value, surely it still has relevance? After all, those third world countries are important - they tend to contribute the resources we need to make sure our economies function, not to mention act as a potential market.

[Mushet]

I believe the author as well as other participants hold the mistaken notion that Marxism is the be all, end all of Communism, which has never been the case.

He didn't come up with Communism he merely came up with the most well known strain.

[Jaxukuk]

I believe the author as well as other participants hold the mistaken notion that Marxism is the be all, end all of Communism, which has never been the case.

He didn't come up with Communism he merely came up with the most well known strain.

True. So maybe the correct question would be this:

Is Marxism-Leninism and all other strains of communism which focus on the uprising of the proletariat still relevant?

Or even better:

Are communism and Marxism beginning to become even more distinct from each other?

[HMS Vanguard]

Communism is gone; it has essentially no supporters. The orthodox Marxist-Leninist core has dropped out of the belief system more or less entirely. The far left today is a collection of third world nationalist movements.

Even if we take your rather unfounded generalisation at face value, surely it still has relevance? After all, those third world countries are important - they tend to contribute the resources we need to make sure our economies function, not to mention act as a potential market.

The point is not that third world countries are unimportant but that the left has lost any content other than acting as a repeater and amplifier for nationalist movements it perceives as underdogs. Marxism was first and foremost a theory of history based in and making predictions about changes in the organisation of production. This theory, and the organisational questions to which it was related, has largely disappeared. Today it is possible to be perceived as a far leftist without saying anything about class relations, collective ownership of the means of production, or even claiming any loyalty beyond one's own country or ethnic group.

Note, I am not interested here in whether either orthodox Marxism or the ideology that has replaced it are right or wrong, merely in the fact that they are very different, arguably even contradictory ideas.

[Brits n Tea]

No, it mainly died decades ago and the "supporters" today are usually edgy teens.

[The 93rd Coalition]

Not really. I seriously doubt that we're ever going to see a majority of the officials in the American political system declare themselves communist without a Kissinger-esque purge occurring.

[Caracasus]

Even if we take your rather unfounded generalisation at face value, surely it still has relevance? After all, those third world countries are important - they tend to contribute the resources we need to make sure our economies function, not to mention act as a potential market.

The point is not that third world countries are unimportant but that the left has lost any content other than acting as a repeater and amplifier for nationalist movements it perceives as underdogs. Marxism was first and foremost a theory of history based in and making predictions about changes in the organisation of production. This theory, and the organisational questions to which it was related, has largely disappeared. Today it is possible to be perceived as a far leftist without saying anything about class relations, collective ownership of the means of production, or even claiming any loyalty beyond one's own country or ethnic group.

Note, I am not interested here in whether either orthodox Marxism or the ideology that has replaced it are right or wrong, merely in the fact that they are very different, arguably even contradictory ideas.

In all honesty I think you are a little misinformed about the left in general. Apart from "The left" being about as useful a term to describe a huge group of people as "the right", there are many orgonisations that do work towards a more common goal. Communist/Marxist organisations will tend to support movements in other countries that share broadly left-wing principles as doing so furthers various aims. It is not so much that these movements are underdogs, it is more that they share enough of a particular philosophy. Similar movements were seen on the other side during the cold war - the CIA were pretty good at overthrowing various governments to replace them with those who were more amenable to the USA and the free market.

As for the theory of Marxism, the idea of changes in the organisation of means of production are key to Marxism and as with any theory, parts are discredited, built upon and so forth. To hold up the fact that left-wing communist thought focuses on something other than the means of production as an example of Communism being irrelavent seems a little unfair - all movements change and adapt. The central ideas of Marxism are still present and very much alive in various left-wing groups. I'm afraid I really have to take issue with your statement that you can be perceived as far left these days without dealing with class relations or ownership of the means of production. These concepts are firmly rooted.

[HMS Vanguard]

The point is not that third world countries are unimportant but that the left has lost any content other than acting as a repeater and amplifier for nationalist movements it perceives as underdogs. Marxism was first and foremost a theory of history based in and making predictions about changes in the organisation of production. This theory, and the organisational questions to which it was related, has largely disappeared. Today it is possible to be perceived as a far leftist without saying anything about class relations, collective ownership of the means of production, or even claiming any loyalty beyond one's own country or ethnic group.

Note, I am not interested here in whether either orthodox Marxism or the ideology that has replaced it are right or wrong, merely in the fact that they are very different, arguably even contradictory ideas.

In all honesty I think you are a little misinformed about the left in general. Apart from "The left" being about as useful a term to describe a huge group of people as "the right", there are many orgonisations that do work towards a more common goal. Communist/Marxist organisations will tend to support movements in other countries that share broadly left-wing principles as doing so furthers various aims. It is not so much that these movements are underdogs, it is more that they share enough of a particular philosophy. Similar movements were seen on the other side during the cold war - the CIA were pretty good at overthrowing various governments to replace them with those who were more amenable to the USA and the free market.

As for the theory of Marxism, the idea of changes in the organisation of means of production are key to Marxism and as with any theory, parts are discredited, built upon and so forth. To hold up the fact that left-wing communist thought focuses on something other than the means of production as an example of Communism being irrelavent seems a little unfair - all movements change and adapt. The central ideas of Marxism are still present and very much alive in various left-wing groups. I'm afraid I really have to take issue with your statement that you can be perceived as far left these days without dealing with class relations or ownership of the means of production. These concepts are firmly rooted.

The disappearance of the USSR is precisely the problem. The intellectual centre of mass of world communism disappeared. The intellectual fringe - the Soviet client states in the Third World - endured. The fringe therefore took over leadership of the movement. But this fringe never had any abstract universalist ideas; it was motivated much more by local self-interest and nationalism, using left ideas partly as a ploy for Soviet military aid, and partly for self-justification. The new far left talks in abstract about opposition to capitalism, but this is only because they perceive themselves as losers in an economic system that favours their ethno-nationalist enemies. They do not believe in Marxist historicism and have no interest in scientific organisation of industry by the state. Even nominally Marxist-Leninist states like the PRC are now willing to endorse free markets, giving nationalist justifications.

[Caracasus]

Interesting, I do see where you are coming from. However, I really wouldn't be so quick to dismiss all communist movements (and far left movements for that matter). There has, for example, been quite a left-wing shift in Latin America (though that's been happening for a few decades now really). I guess we'll see what happens. I certainly wouldn't write off communism just yet though, as I feel that it does have support and does answer some questions a lot better than other systems.

[United Russian Soviet States]

Social democracy is socialism. More people are supporting a path to communism by supporting social democracy.

Is this socialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Low barriers to free trade. This is combined with collective risk sharing (social programs, labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness.
Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings.

Flexicurity is somewhat socialist.

[Chartist Socialist Republics]

The number of incorrect assumptions and assertions in the OP is entirely consistent with the quality of debate on anything to do with this topic.

[Greater Hawthorne]

Human nature will never allow communism to exist in the perfect state that Marx described. Humans are too selfish and those that are higher in power (such as Stalin) will always abuse those below them out of greed.

Animal Farm is pretty accurate, actually.

To answer the question, communism has failed repeatedly, always with similar causes. The world has tried communism, and now they see that it can't work. So many have abandoned it.

[Valkalan]

The socialization of the means of production will only alienate production from those who are most inclined toward financial sustainability and technological innovation; the entrepreneur. Communist nations have always existed in a parasitic relationship with capitalist nations, surviving only through the imitation of capitalist production methods and the outright theft of foreign intellectual property, and still delivering only the most mediocre products and services. I doubt communism in its classic form will ever again be relevant. If however communism manages to once again gain influence in the world, its relevance will as that of an immanent plague, a specter looming over the horizon ready to plunder the wealth of nations and rob the youth of their futures.


No doubt some will argue that communism is stateless, but my reply is that it is laughable assume that the millions will simply lay down their arms and coexist peacefully without some from of authority to police them. You might as well argue that the earth is flat.