Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

What went wrong with communism?

Bolshevism.

Google "Gulag"!

Yes, I already commented on this:

I was always confused about the USSR and China, in the latter half of the 20th century. They called themselves "communists", but that seemed to me to be propaganda of the worst kind. They looked to me, from the outside, and at some distance, like state dictatorships. Communism is (in theory!) about the community, a thoroughly social thing.

The second observation I like to make about communism is that it can only work at its best if the individual is nurtured, within the communist community. If the individual is stifled, we end up with something little different from an ant-nest or bee-hive. And, for all that ants and bees are social animals, we are social animals who operate (socially and otherwise) quite differently. Mindless following of the hive-queen's commands is not for us. The individual is secondary to the community, if only through force of numbers, but nevertheless is necessary for any successful human civilisation. It's all about compromise, and finding the right balance. IMO, of course.

The problem with communism that the two of you highlight is what I have called "state dictatorship". The extremes of communist thought embrace an over-authoritarian stance, just as the extremes of right-wing political thinking do too. Not that that puts either side 'in the right'; how could it? Extremism never benefited anyone, that I know of, regardless of the detailed nature of the extremism (Bolshevism, Fascism, etc).

So my question is: is it reasonable to condemn communism because its extreme manifestations are unacceptable? After all, the same objections could (and should) be made concerning, as another example, unconstrained free-market American Capitalism, an extreme form of right-wing politics.

[Pattern-chaser]

It does seem strange how all these Christian colonial powers would find the concept of Communism not inline with their Christianity, anti-intuitive to say the least.

Yes, this observation has always bothered me too. Why have Christians always opposed communism, when the two seem so obviously compatible?

[mystery]

It does seem strange how all these Christian colonial powers would find the concept of Communism not inline with their Christianity, anti-intuitive to say the least.

Yes, this observation has always bothered me too. Why have Christians always opposed communism, when the two seem so obviously compatible?

perhaps it is considered competition. Often times Christian groups don't even support Christian groups of slightly different ideas or different leadership.

[Count Lucanor]

In any case, what is wrong with China's communism?

"Authorities control citizens’ internet use by blocking social media sites and restricting news publications. Any news reporting that “slanders the country’s political system” is typically shut down...

The government only allows five officially recognized religions in approved religious sites. In February 2018, a revised Regulations on Religious Affairs was established. The revision invests all control over religious activities to the government, including finances, personnel appointments and publications...

Although labor laws allow trade union organization and elections of trade union committees, the government still controls these rights. Workers cannot vote for trade unions while the right to strike usually goes unacknowledged...

Uighurs, Tibet and Tibetan-populated areas endure higher poverty rates, displacement, discrimination and crucial human rights issues...

About 500,000 individuals are currently detained without trial, charge or access to legal aid. The government uses Re-education through Labour (RTL) to arrest individuals without a trial. Usual targets of RTL include petitioners, protestors and those practicing an unrecognized religion. “Black jails” and mental health institutions are types of illegal detention that are utilized by authorities...

China is currently the leading executioner in the world..."

https://borgenproject.org/human-rights- ... tems...%20

Don't want to get into whataboutism, but most, if not all of the problems listed are things we see everywhere, and don't seem to be a particular feature of communism, although they certainly fit into the category of state capitalism, which would explain the government bureaucracy controlling workers organizations and citizen bodies in general, something that runs contrary to the principles of communism.

Wikipedia - State Capitalism

[...]"a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production.[2] This designation applies regardless of the political aims of the state, even if the state is nominally socialist.[3] Many scholars agree that the economy of the Soviet Union and of the Eastern Bloc countries modeled after it, including Maoist China, were state capitalist systems, and that the current economy of China also constitutes a form of state capitalism."

In any case, whether China's state capitalism passes or not as real communism in practice, the point is that it doesn't look that bad when compared with non-communists countries, both in economic performance as well as standard of living of its citizens. What is projected to be the most advanced economy in the world was, a century ago, a medieval agrarian state. With all its flaws, doesn't seem right now like the best example of "things gone wrong". That, of course, is something very unlikely to be featured in the state-sponsored propaganda of the enemy states.

[Tegularius]

So my question is: is it reasonable to condemn communism because its extreme manifestations are unacceptable? After all, the same objections could (and should) be made concerning, as another example, unconstrained free-market American Capitalism, an extreme form of right-wing politics.

I think so too. A more balanced society IMO would be an amalgam of Capitalism and Communism. One constrains the other and allows for individuality. It's usually the fate of a political and social idea like communism to be mutilated or at least redefined to serve politicians.

[Sy Borg]

I think that history supports Nick A's claim that communism is impossible, although I would say that unsullied democracy is also impossible, and for the same reason. As soon as an institution is set up, be it a political system or religion, those at the top will work to cement their positions and create a gap between themselves and ordinary people.

I think the founding fathers were really on to something with the checks and balances, and with laying down the bill of rights. But, they laid down broad ideas which would do the job if people followed them in spirit. However, perhaps they underestimated people's ability to follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit. Of course, they also counted on an informed and engaged electorate. Possibly the system could work if the rules were laid down more explicitly, in stone, from the beginning, with many more checks and balances to stop people from torturing the rules to further their own ends. The same might be said about communism. Since we've never seen either system run well without being corrupted or coopted, it is still not clear which is a better match for 'human nature'.

I am not sure that any system is better or worse suited to "human nature" as such. It doesn't make sense for China to have the same system as, say, a community on a small island. That would metaphorically be cracking a walnut with a sledgehammer. The logistics of dealing with many people naturally brings extra controls. As the world populates ever more, and populations are still rising ever faster numerically (not percentage-wise) so we can expect freedoms to erode ever more quickly.

I expect the controls to become so extreme in time that there will be a split between those in the system and those who cannot deal with it, perhaps playing out a little like Orwell's 1984 - those of the Party and the Proles living in two different systems.

[subatomic]

In my opinion, here's what went wrong with communism and the Communist Manifesto:

I don’t get why it thinks so badly of hierarchical structures? Hierarchical existed long before capitalism came into existence, and it’s just part of human nature (survival of the fittest), you can’t exist without it. And the manifesto is also assuming that every hierarchy is bad and that every hierarchy is caused by capitalism - you have to have some hierarchy to maintain law and order, and not all hierarchies are unjust, I don’t it’s really fair to assume that it’s all bad. In fact, hierarchies can actually very efficiently distribute things and create equality.

Another thing is - it narrates all human problems as economic or financial problems. I’m pretty sure just giving everyone enough food and equity won’t solve all their problems...

Also, what’s so bad with wealth and profit? Sure, there are corrupt companies, but general profit is good and stimulates the economy?

Also, Marx thinks that the proletariat should rule the state...what gives them the qualification? What prevents them from becoming capitalist dictators like the last three times we tried it?

Karl Marx also writes his book as if everything is binary, and that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie have a clear division line, whereas in reality there isn’t, the proletariats aren’t all saints and the bourgeoisie aren’t all devils, and the thing is people can have more than one identity and it will turn into identity politics.

Lastly, I would like to point out: how would you motivate people in this communist system? How could prevent a huge economic collapse like the Soviet Union?

[Pattern-chaser]

In my opinion, here's what went wrong with communism and the Communist Manifesto:

I don’t get why it thinks so badly of hierarchical structures?

I think the antipathy toward hierarchies is mostly directed toward the class hierarchy, the structure of command and control that enforces the (non-communist) status quo, often brutally as well as unfairly.

Also, what’s so bad with wealth and profit? Sure, there are corrupt companies, but general profit is good and stimulates the economy?

What is "the economy" for, except to generate profit for those already rich? If we "stimulate the economy", what will be the result? More profit for the rich. True, "the economy" is how we describe how we work together to produce the things we all need. But that hardly figures in this conversation. For our purposes here, stimulating the economy is a synonym for making more profit for the rich. Those who do the work hardly benefit from their own labour; the rich do.

Also, Marx thinks that the proletariat should rule the state...what gives them the qualification?

What gives anyone the right to rule? In a democracy, we choose our rulers by voting for them. Other systems are different. But those who rule, however they got there, have no more "qualifications" to rule than anyone else. This being the case, why not adopt a system that puts the vast majority of people in control? Surely this is the least unfair way of doing it?

[chewybrian]

Don't want to get into whataboutism, but most, if not all of the problems listed are things we see everywhere, and don't seem to be a particular feature of communism, although they certainly fit into the category of state capitalism, which would explain the government bureaucracy controlling workers organizations and citizen bodies in general, something that runs contrary to the principles of communism.

It's fair to say that a lot of similar outcomes occur from the Chinese and American systems. People are people, and they will try to take power just to have it, they will act selfishly and cruelly in many cases. The key difference is the possibility of recourse built in to the American system. You won't see a Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks emerge and bring about change within China on behalf of the Uighurs, or of Tibet or Taiwan. If they did, they would be silenced before they could have the same impact. If China went to war with Taiwan, you could not have the public backlash within China that took place in America which eventually ended the Vietnam war. If it existed...



It took me a while to find this image. It was taken down from yahoo. It did not rise to the top in google images, either. I found it in a reference from a discussion on Reddit about it being removed and reinstated. The censorship of the Chinese government extends far beyond their own borders, as they threaten economic backlash against people who speak uncomfortable truths. I didn't have trouble finding this image...



So, we can engage in whataboutism and find abuses all around. But, the checks and balances and human rights written into law here are pretty important. I can be represented by a lawyer, even if I cannot afford one. I can speak my mind, assemble peaceably in public, worship (or not) as I please. These protections don't stop people from being people, both the tyrants and the gullible ones who follow them. They don't create an environment where justice reigns. But, they allow the possibility for justice to win out in the end.

Is it state capitalism or pure communism in China? It is probably closer to the former. But, you asked what was wrong with China's communism. My answer is not that it is not economically productive (although the profits are distributed very unevenly and unfairly, just as they are in the U.S.). My answer is that they are missing important protections that are present in many other places in the world. I would rather forgo the extra profit and keep the rights, if that is the choice. In the end, the rights matter more.

[LuckyR]

Don't want to get into whataboutism, but most, if not all of the problems listed are things we see everywhere, and don't seem to be a particular feature of communism, although they certainly fit into the category of state capitalism, which would explain the government bureaucracy controlling workers organizations and citizen bodies in general, something that runs contrary to the principles of communism.

It's fair to say that a lot of similar outcomes occur from the Chinese and American systems. People are people, and they will try to take power just to have it, they will act selfishly and cruelly in many cases. The key difference is the possibility of recourse built in to the American system. You won't see a Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks emerge and bring about change within China on behalf of the Uighurs, or of Tibet or Taiwan. If they did, they would be silenced before they could have the same impact. If China went to war with Taiwan, you could not have the public backlash within China that took place in America which eventually ended the Vietnam war. If it existed...



It took me a while to find this image. It was taken down from yahoo. It did not rise to the top in google images, either. I found it in a reference from a discussion on Reddit about it being removed and reinstated. The censorship of the Chinese government extends far beyond their own borders, as they threaten economic backlash against people who speak uncomfortable truths. I didn't have trouble finding this image...



So, we can engage in whataboutism and find abuses all around. But, the checks and balances and human rights written into law here are pretty important. I can be represented by a lawyer, even if I cannot afford one. I can speak my mind, assemble peaceably in public, worship (or not) as I please. These protections don't stop people from being people, both the tyrants and the gullible ones who follow them. They don't create an environment where justice reigns. But, they allow the possibility for justice to win out in the end.

Is it state capitalism or pure communism in China? It is probably closer to the former. But, you asked what was wrong with China's communism. My answer is not that it is not economically productive (although the profits are distributed very unevenly and unfairly, just as they are in the U.S.). My answer is that they are missing important protections that are present in many other places in the world. I would rather forgo the extra profit and keep the rights, if that is the choice. In the end, the rights matter more.

Good point. One of the problems with Communism is that there are almost no examples of it. China is certainly not a Communist system.

[Terrapin Station]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialise, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

That's why my system would be designed to capitalize on competitiveness/greed, but so that the way to satiate those drives is via helping other people/doing more to provide the things that other people want/need. I don't think any attempts at communism had that built into the system--they didn't have ways to encourage and exploit competitiveness or greed.

[Pattern-chaser]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialise, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

That's why my system would be designed to capitalize on competitiveness/greed, but so that the way to satiate those drives is via helping other people/doing more to provide the things that other people want/need. I don't think any attempts at communism had that built into the system--they didn't have ways to encourage and exploit competitiveness or greed.

Hmm. I see your point - you are, after all, expanding on the point I made. But will you promote your system of peace with promises of war? I know we're not talking specifically about peace or war here, but you can see my point, yes? Will you encourage altruism by appealing to selfishness? It doesn't look to me like an obviously successful strategy....

[Terrapin Station]

Will you encourage altruism by appealing to selfishness? It doesn't look to me like an obviously successful strategy....

The way to do it is simply to reward access to scarcer resources to the people who do the most, via some balance of hard work and ingenuity, to satisfy what other people want/need, without taking anything away from other people in the process.

[Pattern-chaser]

Will you encourage altruism by appealing to selfishness? It doesn't look to me like an obviously successful strategy....

The way to do it is simply to reward access to scarcer resources to the people who do the most, via some balance of hard work and ingenuity, to satisfy what other people want/need, without taking anything away from other people in the process.

But surely the point about scarce ("scarcer") resources is that demand exceeds supply? So if you give them to me, someone else who wants them has to miss out, yes?

[Terrapin Station]

Will you encourage altruism by appealing to selfishness? It doesn't look to me like an obviously successful strategy....

The way to do it is simply to reward access to scarcer resources to the people who do the most, via some balance of hard work and ingenuity, to satisfy what other people want/need, without taking anything away from other people in the process.

But surely the point about scarce ("scarcer") resources is that demand exceeds supply? So if you give them to me, someone else who wants them has to miss out, yes?

Yes, hence how we'd be exploiting competitiveness.