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

Political Philosophy
21

A couple of observations:

The Black Flag article you cite uses the same arguments Lenin put forward in State and Revolution.

The Poverty of Philosophy shows a Marx who was on board with violence. The last few paragraphs:

In the meantime, the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is a struggle between class and class, a struggle which, carried to its highest expression is a complete revolution. Would it, moreover be matter of astonishment if a society, based upon the antagonism of classes, should lead ultimately to a brutal conflict, to a hand-to-hand struggle as its final dénoument?

Do not say that the social movement excludes the political movement. There has never been a political movement which was not at the same time social.

It is only in an order of things in which there will be no longer classes or class antagonism that social evolutions will cease to be political revolutions. Until then, on the eve of each general reconstruction of society, the last word of social science will ever be:----

“Le combat ou la mort; la lutte sanguinaire ou le nĂ©ant. C’est ainsi que la question est inviciblement posĂ©e*”
George Sand

*Combat or death; bloody struggle or extinction. It is thus the question is irresistably put.

22

There actually are members that are not anti-communists and at least in the old PF there was extensive discussion of Marxism with many defending the ideology / school of philosophy.

But notice that people here usually are intelligent and think about issues. Some might have a good word Marxism, but I’ve never seen anyone here praising or even defending Marxism-Leninism. Those older members that were leftists during the Cold War when Marxism-Leninism was alive an kicking, weren’t actually so fond of that reality even then. And btw people on the forum don’t think that China is at all Marxist anymore (which even I would agree with, even if one could see it as Western hubris in that official China declares their economic growth is thanks to Marxism and the true, workable form of Marxism).

23

While useful to know the forum has seen some pass through its halls they are clearly not here in this thread and you are speaking for them and again giving an anti-communist flavour of what they would say.

Also if you are making the argument that people who lived under xyz dictator are the best spokespeople for communism and even they denounce it then one can argue the dictator they were under was not proper communism. You even put yourself in the last reply that China is not communist yet is the modern western example of communism’s failure so it seems you want cherry pick when a country is called communist and isn’t? It either will or will not be as to whichever will make communism look like most of a failure. Loads of people suffered and killed? Yep that was communism alright! Burgeoning wealth? Not communist! = china.

24

Capitalism is a very well-defined thing. Communism cum Marxism is not. Marx was not a Marxist. He believed in dialectical materialism.

We should look to Karl Marx’s intent, and inform our search for solutions to the problems of capitalism without becoming embroiled in ideological histrionics.

25

All I’m saying that, just like in reality, leftists and Marxists in the West seldom praise Soviet Union and the Soviet system 
and for obvious reasons.

Slavoj ĆœiĆŸek is a perfect example of this as he surely knows from personal experience being born and having lived in Yugoslavia.

Of course there indeed were those praising the Soviet system or the Maoist Cultural Revolution in the West when they were happening and were not yet historical events. But Communism and Marxism-Leninism isn’t something as fresh as it was in the 1920’s with people pinning hopes on it as then.

People can find Marxism interesting, but many aren’t willing to join a cult like Trump’s MAGA and praise an ideology that doesn’t actually exist in reality.

Well, just ask yourself: Is modern China with it’s hundreds of billionaires and economic system truly Marxist? Or how would you describe it?

Do you believe in an ideology or do you believe in just what people in power say they stand for and not take that critically, not look at what they actually do?

26

I don’t think there’s any problem looking back and noticing that communism has been an oppressive force wherever it’s been instantiated large-scale.

That’s probably hte biggest critique of communism: It doesn’t work for large groups. That seems obvious from the thousand years or so of organised government we’re able to draw on in terms of competing systems, rather htan simply developing systems.

I would say it is for the communist to found a communist system which works, before it is for anyone else to stop calling it out for its continuous failure to deliver what either it promises, or what humans can actually bear.

When it comes to human nature, i think you’re just on bad footing. THe best research across multiple analyses shows that humans have mixed motivations: We are sometimes (or, some of us, depending on what context you’re reading for) self-interested - we are then sometimes other-interested. Often for no pay-off. So there’s a little communist in all of us, but when push comes to shove we protect ourselves and our own. As we should. Survival instincts are there for a reason.

So overall, I don’t think the arguments you’ve put to the capitalist is much more than straw-man type accusations. Not that I’ve never seen those arguments, but most people who critique these things in any serious way have both historical understanding, and semantic caution when discussing the failures of communism.

I also think it’s just true (and, this isn’t the objection) that capitalism, while “bad” in many respects, is much better in practice than all other systems.
The objection is that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with “Getting on with it” as such, if this is the view. I understand it’s not yours, i’m just saying that disagreement does not lead to a moral disparity without much more context, more premises and more connections between them.

Further, I understand that the strongest, and best-taken critiques of communism strike at its core claims: A non-market system cannot rationally allocate resources as there is nothing to benchmark allocation. There is no information on which a central planning authority could make decisions.
This is why corruption is inevitable - there is literally no formal way to avoid arbitrary economic disbursement - and once its arbitrary, as I’m sure any communist leader in power finds out in short order - there is no moral barrier to allocating resources as one sees fit. This seems to be what actually happens in practice too. Not becuase humans are mean (or, not just because of that - certainly, those vying for power of a communist state must have some dark innner work going on). Mayek and Mises developed these ideas, best I know - so I would look to them for better explications.

1 Like
27

In the bronze age people would bring their produce into the temple and the priests would distribute it to the population as needed. As a species, we’ve already done socialism. It disappeared because of social breakdown that happened around the 12th century BC.

I think the main obstacle to returning to it is that such a return would have to be global. No socialist country can withstand the boom/bust capitalist cycle happening beyond their borders

28

I’m not convinced of this at all. Largely because those same sorts of systems were in place as recently as 1000AD like Zakat and the Benedictine Order.

A population with differing values or economic motivations. I think this is the human nature argument that cannot really be faulted. Socialism requires agreement among everyone, lest it turn into a true police state to retain the air of agreement. If not, it’s just an internally unstable state (as we have largely seen).

29

Consent can be created in a variety of ways, though. You don’t have to beat their heads in. Just give them enough food and shelter to get by and they’ll happy accept their slavery. They’ll even justify it for you.

30

Why I reject true Communism, and also why, in essence, no true communist societies have existed except by name (I.e., the Soviet Union was technically “Communist”), is because Communism is an incoherent and naive concept, in practice, and even in theory.

Communism, in a most brevid sense, is the full abolition of all private property in a society, which necessitates that the Government has complete unilateral control and ownership over all currently obtained private property, so that, in theory, the government is expected to evenly distribute the property, in accordance with need, across all of the citizens in the society. So for the first part, and why no Communist societies, as they should exist in theory, actually exist, is because the Government first must control all private property in a society, including land, resources, equipment to manufacture more goods and services, military equipment, and all of that remaining jazz. Given this, it is easy to see why recent societies which attempted to carry out the process of true Communism, turned instead into some of the most iron-fisted, and oppressive, Dictatorships in human history. So, this is why carrying out the first stage of Communism, in practice, is foolhardy.

But even if we granted that one Communist Government, which tries again, does obtain all private property, and then faithfully carries out their obligation to distribute the property, commonly, among the people according to need. With this, further problems shall arise, because on top of Communist societies demanding equal distributions of property among citizens, it also calls for equal social status among citizens, including ones related to law and military enforcement. Therefore, once Communist governments evenly distribute goods among the people, they are expected to dissolve themselves, and then those who work in government, including the congressmen who carried out the process of communism, soldiers in the military, policemen, and everyone else who possesses a unique social status in relation to other members of the society, are expected to relinquish their status, and so completely forfeit their legal authority over the commonwealth. Therefore, under true Communism, no laws exist, and no enforcement arm exists to enforce laws as well. In Communist societies, everyone is of perfectly equal wealth and status as one another, and if they are not, and any laws, and any unique social statuses which exist between citizens exist, then it is not a true Communist society.

This presents serious problems, because when society is reduced to this state of absolute equality, then such societies rely on the assumption that everyone will mutually agree not to attempt to seize further power for themselves than they already own, which can only be prevented, if such people exist, if an enforcement arm, such as police, or even the members of a specific tribe who agree, infallibly, to prevent such people from springing up, exist to stop such people from springing up. But if police exist to prevent such people from springing up, then such societies are not communist, and if common people exist to agree to prevent such people from springing up, then the strength of agreement is fully dependent on the motive for why such agreements are established, and if the people who spring up, who want more to themselves, can negotiate better deals to the common people than what they’ve initially agreed to, then you will risk the establishment of factionalism in a Communist society, or else groups of people who stand in opposition to the Communist order, and so, then, in this position, Communist societies would be prone to civil war, between those who enjoy the communist life, and those who want more than simple equality among themselves. This leads to a society where groups of people will schism apart from one another, leading to irreparable social discord in the society and so to, as what Hobbes or Locke may term, a state of war, and so essentially a form of anarchy. And so this is why, even if Communist Governments carry through the establishment of Communist Societies, Communist Societies will not last long, and will eventually devolve into anarchy.

So, this is the double-pronged dilemma that follows from what Communism is: A road towards Totalitarianism, or else a road towards Anarchy, depending on what stage that Communism, as theorized, reaches.

1 Like
31

It sounds like you are not onboard with the transitional quality ascribed to the justifications of central power.

You bring a definition to “Communist society” that the proponents failed to do. Are you looking at a particular set of writings? For instance, when you speak of “stages” are you referencing a particular writer?

32

How so?

In what way?

Those of Marx and Lenin themselves, who did distinguish the transition from capitalism into Communism into two distinct stages, most notably in Marx’s essay, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), where in it, the common people would gradually fully control the government and economy, but still need to pay themselves in accordance with how much and how hard they worked (So, given that the Government and Economy would be owned by one collective body from the people, it would essentially be a Socialist economy), and in the second would be the full transition towards Communism, where the people-controlled government would be expected to redistribute all private property to everyone in accordance with need, and so also forge a society lacking class divisions and without a government to rule over it, and so move from a form of socialism into a state of true communism. So, the first stage would result in the prong of Totalitarianism (Because a body of the people would have centralized control over the government and the economy), and the second prong, if ever accomplished in practice, would lead to anarchy (When everyone attains complete material and social equality with one another, according to need, in accord with my last argument). So, the consequences of Communism would follow from how Communism is defined by the people who conceived Communism themselves.

33

I follow your line of reasoning.

Are there any of these thinkers who use anarchy to describe the final condition as you have done? Many seem to have hoped for an order not framed in the politics of struggle.

34

Probably not the original proponents of Communism, but to ask whether they thought of the possibility that a full transition to Communism would entail, in the long run, anarchy, would be irrelevant if, granting the conditions that would be necessary for a Communist society to exist, those conditions, carried out logically, lead to inevitable, or at least very probable, negative consequences, such as anarchy resulting from the establishment of a truly, economically and socially, egalitarianist society, with no class distinctions, not even that of, in the language of primitive cultures, a head of a tribe, and people serving under the head of the tribe. Every society, even those which are the closest to egalitarianism, are not truly egalitarian, in the same sense as Communism sets out to be, because if no one even has the social authority to correct simple wrongdoing without invoking a might makes right doctrine, then it is completely reasonable to argue that true Communism leads towards Anarchy, civil war, and all of that jazz which I’ve argued for before. Marx and Lenin, as I made clear in the middle of my first argument, essentially rest on the assumption that people, once fully equal with one another, will be fully contented with their situation, and so seek nothing more, which seems like a deeply naive view of human nature, humanity’s propensity towards greed and pride (Both of which would drive people to want to obtain more, either by desire, or even as a matter of sport in some cases), and contingencies within the Communist society in the future which could drive people into anarchy (Say, a drought goes around, and all of the communally owned goods such as food which we have, are dwindled to such an extent that the people in this society will need, or at least be very strongly inclined, towards stealing food from others by force, and so forcing them to starve to death). Since this assumption of mutual goodwill seems deeply unrealistic, given certain facts about us, and that this assumption is essentially necessary for communist societies to exist, then it seems deeply naive to ever try to establish a truly communist society, successfully.

35

Thanks for your comments. I think I can summarise your main points, correct me if I am wrong, that A. It has failed historically in the ‘survival of the fittest’ of economic systems and so must be a failure in toto. B. The appeal to nature again that humans are more naturally leaning towards a selfish bent which is why capitalism is such a success.

Again, I do not profess expertise in this, I think this is part of the problem that under a capitlist system then that knowledge/indoctrination is going to be most easily accessible, while rivalling ideas are going to be suppressed and hard to access. I am not saying it as an excuse or that it is very difficult to find cogent data on communism but just that capitalism being our system which is in place is going to be the most ready to hand, hence why it is easy for those to argue against communism, but harder for me to argue in its favour, as I am in the minority.

I don’t really have an answer to why it has failed, but I do not automatically accept that it is doomed to fail. Let us just say that I am agnostic on that and these are questions I am trying to find out. I do have belief that it can work and I would say the criticisms that it must fail and become a cult of personality/dictatorship or whatnot are unfair slander. As I previously stated there are plenty of cases of tyrants in capitalism so why isn’t that deemed as evil to the core? Maybe because currently it has some kind of uneasy equilibrium but this equilibrium we enjoy now is drenched in blood; Imperialism being the most notable example within the last few generations.

So I think to say how great capitalism is discredits how much suffering has gone into creating the wealth we enjoy today. That is not to suggest that I advocate more bloodshed with a communist revolution as being fair game - that is another question as to whether a communist revolution must come at the barrel of a gun, a question I asked in my previous thread - but just that to ‘whitewash’ capitalism as being the ‘best’ system just because it is a success ignores all the evil it has done as well, probably on par, or worse that what communism has done in the latter’s shorts bursts.

For B. I would defer to @Frank on that one. I can say from my own experience, which is partly what got me believing in communism as a more ‘natural’ way to live is that I have always bristled at the callous and soulless feeling of growing up in a capitalist society. I have never understood how most people appear perfectly contented with vacuous materialist goals and their interactions, even among friends, being mostly transactional’; engaging with one another mostly just to show off what ‘stuff’ they have and trying to get more and on and on.

One of the few times I felt relief from this was when I did voluteer work, something which I had planned to do but always ‘didn’t have time for’. Interactions felt so different when you knew that the people weren’t there just for a paycheck and I found we had a natural openness to share information with each other and grew strong friendships around working for a common goal. This I would posit is what community would have been like before capitalism and what is mostly lost in modern society.

The sense of community I think is exceptional today while it would have been normal before capitalism. I don’t have the answer of how that kind of community would be kept on a state level but I am trying to find out and I disagree it is impossible, it just hasn’t been tried for hard enough as the capitalist model doesn’t want you to believe it is possible as it threatens their system of the top 1% hoarding all the wealth. They control the media channels so they will continue to disseminate propaganda that communism is doomed to fail and to stick with capitalism as the one and true system.

This point ties well into my recent other posts, you may recall, about capitalism being a cult. That is what I meant, that they will keep up the propaganda that their way is the one and true way while all others are failures and to not bother to look to anything else. This is what I take issue with and question. I don’t not accept as ‘self evident fact’ that capitalism is the only system that can work. I can’t give a strong rebuttal as to why yet but I am questioning the accepted dogma and seeking elsewhere.

36

I’ve asked this before, and I’m going to ask it again:

You have made several references to “capitalism”, as though it were some monolithic, heterogenous system, yet when I ask what the definition of capitalism is I get no answer.

The most common answer is: “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production (factories, mines, businesses) and their operation for profit.”

The problem with this definition is that many of the most problematic examples of so-called “capitalism” - large corporations - are not privately owned at all - they are public enterprises that are authorized by states, and anybody is free to invest in (and thus become a shareholder of).

And often times, what makes them especially problematic is not the fact that they are owned by a collection of private individuals, but exactly that governments allow these corporations lobbying power that essentially lets them instrumentalize central power to gain privileges.

So what the modern communist is rallying against in effect has little to do with things like the free market and private enterprise.

1 Like
37

I don’t see the issue here.

The top 1% of megacorps have huge influence over politicians, who make the laws, with all the funding they give to interest groups or whatever it is called.

Are you trying to say that companies like Google or Amazon or Tesla are in fact owned in the majority by the government? like a nationalised company would be run? I only use those 3 as they are examples I know which are in the public light. I know there are loads more than don’t get so much attention like the oil based ones.

1 Like
38

No, but they are not merely privately-owned either, and derive their power in large part from their access to central power via lobbying.

Therefore, and this is what I’ve been meaning to get at since I started participating in this discussion, they are not representatives of the free market or of private enterprise, and in fact often use their lobbying power to curtail these things.

I see many problems with mega-corporations, so we agree there, but the modern communist’s diagnosis - it’s a problem of “free market capitalism” - seems to me at best a gross oversimplification that stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how these corporations function.

1 Like
39

I have never read/heard a communist state that. It sounds more like a social democrat’s argument to reign in unchecked capitalism while keeping the existing system mostly intact rather than abolishing it completely.

It is also news to me that the government owns large parts of these companies. Small parts, isn’t it inevitable, for companies shared on the stock market? of course lots of different interested parties with different agendas are going to own parts of the company. Owning 1% of the stock is different than over 50% majority share.

Lots of times organisations would not even know they owned stock in a particular company as they outsource the buying of individual stocks to investment firms. So I don’t see it as some kind of ‘gotcha’ that governments own shares in some large companies.

1 Like
40

I have been listening to this podcast this morning which answers most of the attacks railed against communism in this thread so far, particularly @amadeusD and earlier, and the usual, attack that communism will only lead to dictatorships, in the podcast, the first answer and somewhere midway through, respectively: https://marxist.com/podcast-communist-answers-the-web-s-most-searched-questions.htm

For the dictatorship one they follow my points, that true communism has not been achieved and those like Stalin were not it and to read The Revolution Betrayed by Lenin for his critique of Stalin’s activities. They also answer the usual follow up ‘communism can’t work’ somewhere but I can’t be bothered to go through with a fine toothcomb and find the exact timestamps for everything; suffice to say these are very common questions and they answer them better than I could.

1 Like