3 ms·

conflation between communism and USSR dictatorship. It's a simplification, but historically warranted, in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly wi

by mafribe 10y ago

conflation between communism and USSR dictatorship. It's a simplification, but historically warranted, in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society as described by Marx/Engels in the "Communist Manifesto", i.e., the ideal society where the "contradictions of capitalism" have disappeared. Moreover, the 10 points that the "Communist Manifesto" says (Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists) are required to bring about communism were all carried out in the Soviet Union and its satellites (and brought about not communism, but Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, not to mention an inability to feed the population). If you want to be more precise in your terminology, I suggest the following distinctions: Marxism is a theory. Typically 3 things are theorised. (1) How capitalism (re)produced inequality. (2) A theory of revolution as intrinsic part of the transition from contemporary society to communism via socialism. (3) A theory of post-revolutionary society. Socialism. This describes post-revolutionary, but pre-communist societies, in particular USSR and its satellites. Communism. The ideal society, post-revolution, where the "contradictions of capitalism" have disappeared.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society […] I'm not sure that's true. Granted, it was ostensibly, outwardly created for that purpose. But I'm not sure that was the actual intent of those who lead that charge. My History is quite dusty, so I wonder what exactly brought about the dictatorships you mentioned. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a revolution lead to (near) absolutism. The French revolution for instance lead to Napoleon. Given this, I wonder how representative governments were able to emerge at all. It doesn't make me very optimistic about the possibility for democracy either. (Yeah, for various reasons, representative governments are hardly democratic: elected leaders are very poor proxies for the will of the people.)
- mafribe 10y ago
  the actual intent We cannot look into people's head. We have to take into account what they say they do. Yes, we can question to what extent they were telling the truth, possibly even to themselves. wouldn't be the first time That's why revolutionary political movements continue having a bad name.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    > We cannot look into people's head. We have to take into account what they say they do. The latter often gives a pretty good insight about the former. The fact that USSR became a dictatorship so quickly makes the leaders of the movement look pretty bad.
fsloth 10y ago
"It's a simplification, but historically warranted, in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society as described by Marx/Engels..." IMO, it's not very fruitful to study the ideas of Marx/Engels together with the soviet union. Soviet union was a military dictatorship that used the communist story as the replacement theology for their domain. Sure, there were the true believers who ate up the dogma but I'm pretty sure most of the soviet leadership were pragmatic revolutionaries who just wanted power. They needed to replace "the story of the czar as a loving father" with the story of the communist agenda in peoples minds.
Someone 10y ago
"in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society" That startup failed almost immediately and pivoted as a dictatorship. Calling the USSR communist is like calling Nintendo a playing card company. Communism seems to work better for ants, bees, and termites. It also might, sort of, work for small groups of humans (extended families) I think that explains why all communist 'startups' with over, say, 1000 people fail very soon. Socialism has the same problem to a lesser extent. "Everybody has the right to get something" scales to larger populations than "everybody should get the same". Very few people would knowingly let their neighbors die of hunger, for example, but extending that to "come and have what we eat" is a step too far.

by mafribe 10y ago

loup-vaillant 10y ago

> the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society […] I'm not sure that's true. Granted, it was ostensibly, outwardly created for that purpose. But I'm not sure that was the actual intent of those who lead that charge. My History is quite dusty, so I wonder what exactly brought about the dictatorships you mentioned. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a revolution lead to (near) absolutism. The French revolution for instance lead to Napoleon. Given this, I wonder how representative governments were able to emerge at all. It doesn't make me very optimistic about the possibility for democracy either. (Yeah, for various reasons, representative governments are hardly democratic: elected leaders are very poor proxies for the will of the people.)

mafribe 10y ago
the actual intent We cannot look into people's head. We have to take into account what they say they do. Yes, we can question to what extent they were telling the truth, possibly even to themselves. wouldn't be the first time That's why revolutionary political movements continue having a bad name.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  > We cannot look into people's head. We have to take into account what they say they do. The latter often gives a pretty good insight about the former. The fact that USSR became a dictatorship so quickly makes the leaders of the movement look pretty bad.

fsloth 10y ago

"It's a simplification, but historically warranted, in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society as described by Marx/Engels..." IMO, it's not very fruitful to study the ideas of Marx/Engels together with the soviet union. Soviet union was a military dictatorship that used the communist story as the replacement theology for their domain. Sure, there were the true believers who ate up the dogma but I'm pretty sure most of the soviet leadership were pragmatic revolutionaries who just wanted power. They needed to replace "the story of the czar as a loving father" with the story of the communist agenda in peoples minds.

Someone 10y ago

"in the sense that the USSR was created explicitly with the end-goal of leading to a communist society" That startup failed almost immediately and pivoted as a dictatorship. Calling the USSR communist is like calling Nintendo a playing card company. Communism seems to work better for ants, bees, and termites. It also might, sort of, work for small groups of humans (extended families) I think that explains why all communist 'startups' with over, say, 1000 people fail very soon. Socialism has the same problem to a lesser extent. "Everybody has the right to get something" scales to larger populations than "everybody should get the same". Very few people would knowingly let their neighbors die of hunger, for example, but extending that to "come and have what we eat" is a step too far.