this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
352 points (81.7% liked)
Memes
45887 readers
1276 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
True communism in a country is impossible.
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.
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“.
It’s… complicated.
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.
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.
Bojler eladó
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
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.
Wish it was that simple. Left is fighting over it for decades, if not centuries. Even killing each other, instead of focusing that energy against the right. And yes, it's as stupid as it sounds.
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯
Aha, is that so?
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'm actually not. I think many approaches have their pros and cons. Anarchy sounds a lot better as a path to a classless system, I don't disagree with Trotsky's permanent revolution, though I am heavily against his 4th International (and to a big degree the 3rd one as well) and I think that socialism is the hardest way to make it work, but if it does, is probably the best since it prepares the populace to think in a different way.
But good for you for figuring me out when I haven't done that myself in over 20 years I'm in politics.
As for that dick contest about communists before Marx and their books, because it is a dick contest at this point, I never claimer Marx was the first to talk about communism, or use that word. Even the manifesto was commisioned by a pre existing party namely the Communist League. A party that existed before Marx and Engels came in contact with them.
But Marx was in fact the first to bring those ideas together, from philosophy to economy to politics etc and describe a full featured system that covered it all (for his time, times changing and things adapt), which is why is the one most well known and remembered with his name attached to it. Take it further, back to ancient Greek philosophers why don't you?
The original poster asked an ELI5 of communism. While what you say is not wrong, it's far from ELI5. Even for someone like me who spent years reading on all that, there were a couple of things you mentioned I didn't know about. At the end of it all there's a reason that if you look at the history of communism most will refer to Pre-Marx and after. And a simple answer to a simple question of "what be?" has to start somewhere. I chose Marx since it's probably the best entry point for someone who has no idea.
Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.
And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.
That's also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism. The fuck is that supposed to mean in the first place. For someone so intent on digging relics and using big words, you either can't read or refuse to do so. He asked what communism is, I mentioned Marx. Go ahead and mention Aristotle for all I care. Hell I didn't even mention Marx until you answered me.
As for the infighting you're the one with your knickers in a bunch because I answered Marx. I am not fighting anyone and the two people that disagreed with me, it was polite and we reached an understanding while in disagreement. You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting. I'm done with that charade. Have a good day.
And the fact that you don't consider communism partly an economic system is baffling. From Marx onwards the entire idea of socialism and communism is based on the Capital.
🥱
It’s rather baffling that you, considering orthodox Marxism „true communism“, would think that. What kind of „economic system“ did Marx promote? And where do I find that in the Manifest?
Are you referring to central planning? That’s a feature of Soviet style communism, it was invented at the beginning of the 20th century.
As a matter of fact, Marx actually had little to say about how a post-capitalist society should actually look like, besides some commonplace quotes like „production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production“, which is neither original nor chiefly communist.
Yeah, and do you know what the system Marx wrote about was? It was capitalist society. Marx was an analyst.
If you knew what Marx actually wrote and thought, you’d find that he was heavily influenced by classic economists like Adam Smith and was rather fond of free trade (as were his peers).
Also you’re completely wrong about:
Again, you would need to specify what exactly you mean, but there’s not much that hasn‘t existed short of taking full control of the market. Pre-neoliberal Europe was quite heavily invested in state owned companies and production, France had for most of the post-war era what can be classified as centrally planned economy.
Another mistake you make: I’m not infighting. I’m merely calling out the bullshit you hand out as „ELI5“, because quite frankly you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you call „base or true communism“ in the first place.
G‘day.
That only tells me that you're scouring Wikipedia and the Internet for surface reading to be feeding your imaginary conflict.
Marx supported free trade. That's true. Why? Because it would hasten the economic imbalance between the classes and help create a revolution. No, he was not Ben Shapiro of the 19th century. He thought that things must get worse before they get better and that free trade would make them worse.
You also mention how he was heavily influenced by Adam Smith. He critiqued him heavily in both Das Capital and the Theories of Surplus Value.
That's like saying Engels was a fan of Duhring because he wrote a doorstopper called Anti-Duhring. That's plain wrong and trying to murk the waters.
As for the central planning it was first established as a method from planned economy in social states by the Soviet Union, that's true. But its theoretical basis stems from Marx's work and words. “To my mind, the so-called ‘socialist society’ is not anything immutable… It’s crucial difference from the present order consists naturally in production organized on the basis of common ownership by the nation of all means of production.” that sounds familiar? Written in Marx's letters in 1890.
But no, I was not referring to central planning, but the abolishment of capitalist goals as surplus value, profit driven economy etc, that are most definitely based on his works. Yes, he was not the first to propose that "Oy, killing miners for scraps is bad and you're bad for doing it." but nobody before (to my knowledge) had done such an extensive work on the downfalls of capitalist economy and how something else could even be planned or work.
I'm getting tired of you using catchy article headlines and wiki skims to prove me wrong because you don't like Marx. In fact, I don't care if you do or not, or what type of communism you prefer. But stop spreading lies for the people that are not familiar with the subject.
In fact, I don't even care much about Marx. Of the big ones to speak on socialism/communism, I much prefer Engel's more philosophical approach than Marx's economic analysis. I find the analysis boring.
So, just to let you know before I block you utter , I was reading Marx when you were just a wet spot, and I actually do happen to „like“ him. But funny that you only now come quoting him, after I handed you half of the exact quote you’re giving. But I’m the one scouring Wikipedia 😂
Resorting to personal attacks. Typical. Way to come up on top in an argument. Attack the person, not the argument.
And I don't. Give me philosophy over economics any time. That doesn't mean I don't see his value. And how comes you're still confused after giving me the quote already?
What do you think is anarchy? Without searching engine please.
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.
Anarchist checking in, so, y'know, bias and all that. But I'd say it's just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I'm an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We've had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn't function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it's scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it's scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can't have a fully anarchist society until it's global.
Which all just means that I'm an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.