Are most/all of the common negatives railed at communism just capitalist propaganda?

Political Philosophy
1

The usual couple off the top of my head are:

-communism killed 100/x million people.
-communism will inevitably become corrupt when a single or several dictators/bureaucrats take over power.

I have been listening to a communist podcast (the spectre of communism) which easily refutes these but I am also putting it to a wider audience for comment as of course their opinion is going to be biased however I am very convinced by their arguments.

To the first one they say that yes communism killed however many but capitalism has killed far more spanning the course of history and capitalism is killing more day by day by hoarding wealth and is not the utopian system that pro capitalists make it out to be.

Another argument is that people like Stalin bastardised communism where it was no longer communism and so communism should not have to answer for the crimes of individuals. They stated that Lenin, who espoused the true school of communism, was against Stalin and tried to get him out of power before his death.

To the second point, the capitalists love to shoot this one out - that human nature is greedy and if you give anyone power then they will inevitably become corrupt. Again in the podcast they show examples that human nature is far more in line with communism than capitalism; the latter having developed only recently since fuedalism and private ownership. They give examples how before this in our past history ownership was communal among the tribe and also more recent examples of the native americans with example stories from the europeans (so not biased towards communism) who wrote about how the natives were basically living a communist way of life and extended that to the white strangers too until of course the natives got bitten badly by that.

Also it seems the idea of one or a few people in power hoarding all the power is a fallacy, from what they said. I am still learning about it but what they are saying is that under true communism (not stalin or such) then every field will have an elected bureaucrat but they will not earn any more than the workers they represent and they can be voted out at any time. So they say under true communism this single dictator phenomenon should not happen.

I had previously written I veered towards anarchism because of my concerns about this centralisation of power under communism. In their explanation though it sounds very similar to what had been explained to me in my previous thread on communism vs. anarchism, of how anarchism is organised. So if that is the case, that in fact real communism should not centralise power among the few then I see no cause to look further than communism.

They also explained that since the proletariat would be the ruling class, and since they are the majority in society, that would protect against power of the few, due to the above, that the few who are elected are not given higher wages or special privileges and can be voted out by the ruling proletariat if they aren’t doing a good job of representing the latter’s interests.

I don’t know enough about communism to say one way or the other on those points but very interesting and seems that what is usually bandied around the internet as communism is just a capitalist’s tarring of it and not real communism.

2

Welcome to the forum!

How is this a refutation?

The narrative of “If only it would have been Lenin… and not Stalin” is a common one that I’ve heard many times, but actually here the role of Stalin should be looked at more carefully. Stephen Kotkin, who has written his biography, argues that actually Stalin was very crucial for the Soviet system as a top bureaucrat, that otherwise the whole Soviet system might have fallen far more earlier. A huge socialist centralized planning system built on a large, de facto colonial empire and not a nation state, is a colossal undertaking.

Also what should be taken into account that in China, there was chairman Mao. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh. Basically every successful Marxist-Leninist revolution has brought in the end a cult of personality. In my view this is simply a result of the revolutionary form of the regime and that there aren’t any safety valves to the “dictatorship of the Proletariat”. That Marx talks about a violent class struggle and class enemies is something that puts firmly the Marxist to attach a bayonet into his rifle.

And anyway, if you think that the criticism towards communism comes only from “capitalists”, then I urge you to study the beliefs of the communists that still are in power and have been successful, namely the Chinese Communist Party. How they look at this can be seen from the speech that Xi Jingping gave on the 200th birthday of Karl Marx, official Chinese link: Marx’s theory still shines with truth, transcript here

Xi Jingping writes:

Engels once made the profound point that, “Marx’s whole way of thinking is not so much a doctrine as a method. It provides not so much readymade dogmas, as aids to further investigation and the method for such investigation.” [27] Engels also noted that theories “[are] a historical product, which at different times assumes very different forms and, therewith, very different contents.” [28] The basic principles of scientific socialism cannot be discarded; once discarded it would cease to be socialism. Likewise, scientific socialism is not an immutable dogma. I once said that China’s great social transformation is not a masterplate from which we simply continue our history and culture, nor a pattern from which we mechanically apply the ideas of classic Marxist authors, nor a reprint of the practice of socialism in other countries, nor a duplicate of modernization from abroad. There is no orthodox, immutable version of socialism.It is only by closely linking the basic principles of scientific socialism with a country’s specific realities, history, cultural traditions, and contemporary needs, and by continually conducting inquiries and reviews in the practice of socialism, that a blueprint can become a bright reality.

So what’s the criticism? Dogmatic and mechanical application of classic Marxist authors. And when we look at present China, many would argue indeed there’s no trace of Marxism-Leninism anymore. Well, official China differs from that as you can obviously see, if you read the whole speech. For them the purist Westerner in his or her Ivory tower is indeed looking for that orthodox, immutable version of socialism.

Hopefully my comments were beneficial to you.

3

It isn’t. I was just highlighting that capitalism is equal or worse in terms of death count. With their claiming communism killed x amount then it is a case of be careful of those who throw stones in glass houses.

You are conflating two different things. Not even his contemporaries denied he was great at bureaucracy and that is precisely why he became so powerful, probably because he was better at that than they were, as well as being cut-throat and all the rest of it. This has nothing to do with him being a good communist though.

Also what should be taken into account that in China, there was chairman Mao. In Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh. Basically every successful Marxist-Leninist revolution has brought in the end a cult of personality. In my view this is simply a result of the revolutionary form of the regime and that there aren’t any safety valves to the “dictatorship of the Proletariat”. That Marx talks about a violent class struggle and class enemies is something that puts firmly the Marxist to attach a bayonet into his rifle.

This is what I don’t have a strong opinion on either way as I don’t know enough to say whether is is inevitable or if it is an unfair judgement of communism itself. There have only been a few communism experiments but plenty of capitalism ones to hone that in to what is seen as a palatable system we know today. The history of capitalism is also soaked in blood, it has just had much longer to hone itself. Again I am not going to speak with authority on this point and hope those with more knowledge on communism will come to my aid here.

And anyway, if you think that the criticism towards communism comes only from “capitalists”,

I never wrote only capitalists criticise communism. That is a misrepresentation. I am well aware that communists themselves were often the most fierce critics of other communists, even among peers in Russia among Trotsky Lenin, Stalin and such. It was a nascent ideology and they were all finding their feet and often butting heads around the best way to do things.

It isn’t about whether other none capitalists do it or not it is whether the criticism by capitalists, or other enemies of communism generally, is unfair and propaganda which is what the central question is.

This isn’t unique to these two sides, but politics in general - you have one party blaming the opposing party for everything bad that happens. The question is about sorting the spin from the truth.

4

To answer the question in the title, I would say it is probably the case that a lot of common anti-communist rhetoric stems from ‘capitalist’ (US) propaganda.

I am no communist, but I think the death argument is pretty stupid even if we granted Stalin’s regime to be somewhat communist. To get any interesting conclusion, you’ll need way more premises, and those premises are the most important anyway, so the death count is pointless.

Same for the human nature thing: you need a lot more clarifications than just pointing towards some vague “human nature” for the argument to have any actual value, whether you use it in favor of or against communism.

every field will have an elected bureaucrat but they will not earn any more than the workers they represent and they can be voted out at any time. So they say under true communism this single dictator phenomenon should not happen.

And what do those bureaucrats do? If they don’t have any special privileges then why do you have them? What is this “representing others’ interests”?

You say “proletariat is the ruling class”, what does this ruling class do?

what is usually bandied around the internet as communism is just a capitalist’s tarring of it and not real communism.

That is probably the case for many ‘big’ ideologies. Not only will the detractors make straw men often, but even the proponents of the ideology themselves probably do not agree on many things about the ideology. I personally prefer not to think in terms of those big names and more about the concrete ideas.

5

As above, I don’t know enough about communism to speak with authority about it but as I understand it, of course they will do a specialist job of being spokespeople for their organisation; that doesn’t mean they will have inordinate power though. Like if you call out a plumber, he has specialist knowledge that you don’t, it doesn’t mean they will have incommensurate power to you or other citizens.

In the podcast they made the example it is just like labour union representatives. They are appointed by the workers, and have been workers themselves, and are chosen democratically by workers of a factory as someone who they believe will work in their interests.

I think the problem with politicians as we know them now is, as another poster made the point in another thread, they are bred from a class outside of the common stock of the working class and thus don’t actually represent the beliefs and wants of the working class but rather are working in the interests of their benefactors - the biggest funders, which would be the capitalist elites.

6

Like if you call out a plumber, he has specialist knowledge that you don’t, it doesn’t mean they will have incommensurate power to you or other citizens.

Yes but I don’t talk about plumbers to explain my political philosophy because it’s not important. I don’t call plumbers a ruling class too.

Labour unions can be many things but at least some of them don’t “rule” in any meaningful sense.

To be more direct, what do you think is the difference between anarchism and communism? I don’t think anarchists would necessarily be against plumbers or organisations in general

7

That is something I haven’t decided yet and am still trying to figure out. For the record I asked that very question as my 1st thread on the old forum which went to something like 7 pages or more and still I am not quite sure but to my understanding there is not much difference as they still have caplitalism as the main enemy just go about destroying it slightly differently.

I am not sure if the old forum is archived to get that old thread? I didn’t keep track of that information of what they intended to do with it.

Who said plumbers/the bureaucrats under communism are a ruling class? In communism the proletariat would be the ruling class and the elected beaurocrats would be the servants of the ruling class of the proletariat. Proletariat owns all the means of production so how would the beaurocrats have power then when they are not given special power over the majority of proletariats?

Again I am being careful with my words because I am not trying to say ‘this is what communism thinks’ as I don’t know confidently but that is my current understanding.

The problems with communism as I see it as it has gone already is they allowed the few to rule the many. I guess you will say it is inevitable if you give them beaurocratic jobs but I am not sure about that and communists will say no it isn’t but I cannot argue how because I don’t understand it well enough to say. That is why I am hoping someone with more knowledge of communism will come to my aide. Perhaps when the american comrades awake…we lost our most prominent anarchist/communism commentator Boethius who was a wealth of knowledge but sadly dropped off the radar.

I am not too hopeful though as apart from them I have not seen many other commie scholars here although others might have a better general understanding than I do from a historical standpoint.

8

That is something I haven’t decided yet and am still trying to figure out.

Well, I can’t help you. I don’t know about either anarchism or communism in enough detail, and there is anarcho-communism anyway, which seems to suggest both can be mixed. I saw the thread on the old site; it is archived under this link.

Who said plumbers/the bureaucrats under communism are a ruling class?

I inferred wrong then. It is common to hear that politicians today represent people or are their servants and politicians are definitely part of the ruling class.

1 Like
9

What exactly is capitalism, and how has mankind in recorded history meaningfully deviated from it with a prolonged positive effect?

10

In his book, The State and Revolution, Lenin argued that democracy cannot bring about the transition to a classless society because it cannot overcome the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave owners. Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation the modern wage-slaves are also so crushed by want and poverty that “they cannot be bothered with politics”; in the ordinary peaceful course if events the majority of the population is debarred from participating in social and political life.

Lenin also rejected anarchy because it would destroy means of production. So he called for a team of dedicated revolutionaries to seize power.

Once you develop a certain skill set, it is hard to stop practicing it.

1 Like
11

Is he discussing anarchy as the ideology espoused by those like Kropotkin and other anarchist thinkers? I don’t know about the timeline of things when anarchy became a known entity or if he was just using the term loosely as general disorder and unruliness? I have not tracked them to know when anarchy would have been acknowledged by others as its own thing and I know that it sprung from communism so wondering if Lenin’s comments were pre or post anarchy as an already formed ideology.

What is your last comment about skill set referring to? You mean those who gained power by the sword/gun/revolution as their skill set won’t be able to put them down?

12

One way to define the difference between socialists / social democrats and communists / Marxist-Leninists is that socialists / social democrats believed that the capitalist system can be transformed to socialism through the existing parliamentary system peacefully, while the communists believed it would happen as Marx defined it by a violent struggle, class warfare. Naturally if the rise to power would happen through elections, the communists would be fine with that. Yet usually it didn’t, and the rise of Marxist-Leninist parties into power happened through civil war or a military coup. Or then the Soviet Union installing the system on an occupied country.

I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that many Marxist-Leninist revolutions have then a “great leader”. There’s too many of them (Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Yugoslavia). With democracy, the “class enemy” would have a voice. How then would the dictatorship of the Proletariat avoid dictatorship? (If someone could even get a Marxist theory how to avoid this, I’d be happy)

Anyway, the schism between the actually very successful social democracy that blossoms even today and communism represented by Marxism-Leninism has lasted until today. Only Cuba, China and North Korea and perhaps Vietnam are what could be called communist. Even then, as I noted with Xi Jingping’s speech, the Marxist theory has developed in these countries too. So too has social democracy, as it doesn’t want to eradicate capitalism, but just curb it’s most flagrant excesses, I guess.

Yet the difference was there even during the Russian Revolution were you had Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, rival wings that had separated from the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903. Even if both wings could be said to be Marxist, the Bolsheviks favored an armed insurrection while the Mensheviks first thought that a “bourgeois-democratic” revolution was needed in Russia (sticking to the Marxist theory).