7 ms·
I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia,
by gedy 7y ago
I'm not versed enough in political theory to know myself, but why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been so riddled with purges, paranoia, and violence?
- RangerScience 7y agoI would hazard a guess that it has something to with most revolutions being riddle with purges, paranoia and violence, and then that most (AFAIK) modern revolutions are communist movements. In other words, AFAIK (which isn't far), it's a trait of revolutions, not of communist movements.
- zentropia 7y agoI think so. French Revolution had its Terror period.
- cm2187 7y agoEven though it is true, it is dwarfed in magnitude by the repression in the communist world. The French revolution was attempting to terrorise a political ellite. Communism was aiming at terrorising everyone.
- Koshkin 7y agoThe French revolution terrorized everyone, including its own leaders.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Even though it is true, it is dwarfed in magnitude by the repression in the communist world. From 1789 to the first Empire was only 15 years; to the Thermidorean Reaction even shorter. > The French revolution was attempting to terrorise a political ellite. That's a very generous interpretation. It's certainly what Robespierre would say, sure, but it's just as much what Lenin would say.
- cm2187 7y agoWe are talking about 4 orders of magnitude differences, of a third of the population in some country. It’s not a matter of a few years. I am not trying to defend the French revolution, which actions were the antithesis of the values it pretended to promote. But for all its horrors, the french revolution wasn’t in the business of mass slaughtering its own population.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago> But for all its horrors, the french revolution wasn’t in the business of mass slaughtering its own population. The French Revolution was strangled in its crib while it's mass killing was still accelerating, and it's leaders themselves killed en massé by counterrevolutionaries; it wasn't in business very long for that reason, a fact that future revolutionaries were keenly aware of and eager to avoid. The stated ideology of the 1790s Paris Commune might be more attractive to modern democratic capitalists than that of the Bolsheviks, et al.,, but the main reason that the former has less of a history of violence than the latter is that they lost very early on in their program of exterminating an ever-expanding list of perceived enemies of the revolution, not some greater humanitarianism.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- hpoe 7y agoAlthough genocide isn't usually a part of the revolution see the Holomdor.
- oh_sigh 7y agoWhy were those things notably absent in the US revolution?
- WaxProlix 7y agoFrom dragonwriter's post elsewhere in the comments: > Americans sometimes forget that what we call our “revolution” was not an anti-elite revolution but an elite-led regional separatist movement coordinated by the local governments acting in concert, and so avoided many of the challenges found in genuine revolutions.
- DubiousPusher 7y agoA big part is that it was not a social revolution. Nor did it seek much material restribution which is a feature of many revolts and rebellions. After the war, Americans ended up with a government and distribution of material wealth very similar to what they had before.
- paggle 7y agoBecause the American revolution was not a “revolution”, it was a split between the highest levels of management in the US and the higher level management in England. It was like PayPal spinning out of EBay.
- cheaprentalyeti 7y agoExcept that all communist countries as implemented not only started with revolution but follow a doctrine of the permanent revolution. Which is how they can be sixty or seventy years on and talking about the danger of counter-revolutionaries...
- Koshkin 7y agoThe danger is/was absolutely real. Counter-revolutionaries (both internal and external) in general and anti-communism in particular have always been a formidable force.
- nwallin 7y agoVenezuela? Chavez took power fair and square in an election, and then turned it into a communist authoritarian dictatorship later. The modern revolution in Czechoslovakia turned out fairly free of violence, at it was not communist.
- RangerScience 7y agoDid Chavez's revolution in Venezuela have all the paranoia and whatnot, as well? (I do not know, I am definitely just asking). Oh, that's neat about the Czech revolution. I know, oh hmm, literally nothing about it. <looks it up> - The "Velvet" revolution? This is super cool, had no idea something like this happened, thanks!
- RangerScience 7y agoSo like to be clear, I am not saying that this theory of mine is correct; I am saying that based on my extremely and knowingly limited knowledge, it looks reasonable. So like chill with the haterade, and bring forth the "well, this revolution doesn't fit that theory". Maybe it's that cultural revolutions are like this, and there's very, very few non-cultural revolutions - maybe only independence revolutions? I literally do not know so like if you know one, put forth the Wikipedia link?
- wait-a-minute 7y agoBecause communism is inherently a violent and paranoid ideology. It's blatantly obvious even in the foundational literature from Marx. Marx openly advocated violence and threatened violence against anyone who was opposed to the proletariat. Not only that, but he construed a framework in which anything opposing the proletariat, including "class antagonisms" that could be literally anything, should be opposed with force or the threat of force. Things like religion, private property, or anything that is not for the revolution is necessarily considered against the revolution. When the foundation of a worldview is steeped in violence and using violence to get your political way, it's no surprise that the implementation of that worldview results in bloodshed and power vacuums.
- weirdstuff 7y agoIt’s amazing how controversial Marx is 150 years later, and I’ve only ever met one actual “authority” on the matter outside Marx’s actual writings. (And I’m in economics!) Makes me think there’s something very lasting about his ideas, moral interpretations aside.
- cheaprentalyeti 7y agoIt's a very compelling religion of the modern age. That doesn't mean it can't be wrong.
- Sag0Sag0 7y agoGlad you have so much faith it is wrong! Stone the infidel! Capitalism is the one true faith!
- dang 7y agoWe've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
- 7y ago
- creato 7y agoPeople fight against taxes. Now imagine how much harder they would fight if the tax man wanted 100% of their income and wealth. Now imagine what it takes for the tax man to overcome that resistance. Purges, paranoia, and violence sounds like just the start.
- frank_nitti 7y agoThe "tax man" may actually represent the will of more individuals in your scenario, but those that are fighting against him are far more rich and powerful. When the rich and powerful unite against the tax man and the "proletariat", they always win. So, when you say "people fight against taxes", we should clarify what people we are talking about. Plenty of people supported the collectivist movements of the era, and they are also people.
- coldtea 7y agoThere are several reasons for the paranoia, but not "the taxman wanted 100%". That's more of an American liberal way of seeing it, and hardly what was going on for the masses at the time. Characteristic of the paranoia is that the worst purges after all were against party members and top party elites themselves. Not because any of them resisted the "tax man" (heck, they had wealth and preferential treatment), but because they could threaten Stalin or limit his control. Similar with Mao in China. The bloody cultural revolution wasn't some mass murder of people resisting the party rule or the "taxman", but party elites splitting the people into factions and using them as proxies to fight internal party power struggles.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoAll authoritarian movements and governments are. By their nature, they rule by power, not by "consent of the governed". Those at the top always are few, and rule through others. And they know that if those others stop obeying their orders, it's all over. They fear that someone - anyone - will cause people to stop obeying and instead turn against them. Thus purges, paranoia, and violence. As I said, it isn't just communism. The Nazis were the same. But the political theory question might be: Why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been authoritarian?
- dragonwriter 7y ago> But the political theory question might be: Why have seemingly all communist movements and governments been authoritarian? All communist governments (not all communist movements, and this is actually the source of many breaches between communist movements that aren't governments, particularly in the West, and communist governments and the movements aligned with them) are rooted in Leninist vanguardism, a specific and particularly authoritarian rewriting of Marxist theory to avoid the dependence on developed democratic capitalist society with broad proletarian class consciousness and grassroots leadership as prerequisite to communism. But the French Revolution, which was ideologically far from authoritarian, had a lot of the same practical problems; trying to run a state with active counterrevolutionary forces tends to make people authoritarians for what they see as temporary and pragmatic necessity as a means to achieving a more free end-state (and defenders of Leninist vanguardism would probably see it as just that!) Americans sometimes forget that what we call our “revolution” was not an anti-elite revolution but an elite-led regional separatist movement coordinated by the local governments acting in concert, and so avoided many of the challenges found in genuine revolutions.
- partialrecall 7y agoEven during the American Revolution, there were instances of loyalists being abused, sometimes even lynched, socially ostracized, and generally made to feel unwelcome. Many ended up fleeing to Canada. In fact, the very term 'lynch' likely comes from the name of an American revolutionary who organized anti-loyalist action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lynch_(judge) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lynch_(judge) That said, it's still a far cry from the scale and severity of violence seen in various later revolutions.
- DubiousPusher 7y agoThe premise and answer to your question depends on what you mean by "communist".
- DubiousPusher 7y agoI have no idea why this would be downvoted. The question at hand is one of the most contentious and important in the history of the 20th century and the answer largely redounds to what you do and don't consider communism. If you consider any wealth redistribution communism then you would have to consider most or all industrial states in part communist and the premise of the question itself becomes dubious. If you consider any kind of far left redistributive movement communist then again the merit of the question is dubious because there have been many such movements that remained peaceful. If you restrict the definition to only actors that call themselves communist even then the question is complicated by the fact that there have been many such actors that call themselves communist yet do not adhere to any communist doctrine. Just as there are many "Republics" which are not at all republics in reality.
- paggle 7y agoBecause communist governments (among others) exert high levels of control. You can not control without applying force and you cannot apply force without violence.
- Symmetry 7y agoNot at all, most democratic socialists like the Fabian society are willing to change their approach when they try something and it doesn't work. The result is mere inefficiency, not corpses piling up. If the SRs, say, had won the Russian Revolution things would probably have turned out basically all right. But it was the Bolsheviks with their plan of communism immediately, not in 20 years, who won. They treated their political philosophy as a millenarian sect with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" substituting for the kingdom of God. When the eschaton fails to properly immanentize it can only be due to the opposition of sin and the Devil, by which we mean kulaks, wreckers, and traitors. The problem isn't communism per say but a belief in having absolute truth and a vision of a perfect good that can justify any means.
- partialrecall 7y agoIs it fair to say that democratic socialists are communists? I've met more than a few self-described democratic socialists who would object to that characterization.
- southerntofu 7y agoSocialism, communism and anarchism are the very same thing. Some people are more comfortable with a label or the other because they have been appropriated by specific movements. Authoritarian communism (marxism) is a historically very tiny branch of socialism/communism, with anarchists being an overwhelming majority. This tiny marxist/bolshevik minority killed its way to the top, and was used by capitalist empires as a strawman example of what would happen with "communism". Both sides find advantages in confusing communism with marxism, while in practice, dictatorship of the proletariat has nothing to do with communism at all. Someone claiming one of the three labels without the two others, either has no clue about the history of communism, or just wants to avoid being assimilated with genocidal authoritarian communists.
- cptnapalm 7y agoDo I see Voeglin on HN?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoThe sort of people who might secretly incite and then stage a successful armed revolution and coup are probably expecting a coup, or at least a few revolutionaries in every party meeting. Not restricted to the left though. Stalin got there by being a violent thug, he would stay there by being a violent thug. Ditto Franco in Spain, for at least a decade or so after the end of the civil war. Repression of scientists, and minorities of all kinds? Difference of any kind from the party/dictator's view is to be mistrusted, thus purged, or at the very least repressed. See Saudi Arabia - which Franco's Spain resembled in its later years, with extreme repression of women and religious dogma.
- cbnotfromthere 7y ago"Not restricted to the left though" Actually it's definitely restricted to the left. The trick is declare some leftist/statist movements as "right-wing", despite worshiping the state and/or implementing socialism.
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoActually there were a lot of socialists and communists who were against the violent tactics Lenin and Stalin. Those people got murdered by the regimes they opposed. The communists you and I learn about in school were the authoritarian communists, and they were indeed bad because authoritarianism is bad. They were violent because they were authoritarian, not because they were communist. Now Marx did advocate for some violence I believe, but he had contemporary critics including Michael Bakunin.
- systematical 7y agoDo you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements? It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- TaylorAlexander 7y agoI don’t follow. What bad guys? A significant effort has been put out by the United States to undermine socialism and communism. In a lot of other places socialism has been effective.
- rangibaby 7y ago> Do you ever find it odd that the "bad guys" always seem to subvert these movements? I don’t think it’s odd at all. The murderous revolutionaries I can think of (Bolsheviks, Mao, Mugabe...) were won against regimes just as bloodthirsty as they were. The peaceful revolutions I can think of eg South Africa happened because both sides were willing to negotiate fairly. He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. > It seems to me that socialism has a 100% failure rate Adopting socialist policies while keeping a market economy has worked out ok for most developed nations. Communist USSR was able to educate its population and rapidly industrialize while fighting off two invasions by forces that, on paper, should have been able to beat them without much trouble, and emerge as one of the most powerful nations in the world. I’d consider that a success
- pasquinelli 7y agoBecause violence is power. Nice communists -- along with nice capitalists, nice anarchists, nice feudalists, etc. -- wind up purged.
- ian0 7y agoI think its more related to authoritarianism than communism, as same could be said for dictatorships. Authoritarianism gifts both a reason for dissent and the ability to purge it. Compare and contrast with a parlimentary democracy running a heavily capitalist economic system. While it gives plenty of reason for dissent it also provides little opportunity to purge. This give and take leads to less extremes and more stability in general.
- dang 7y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20934375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20934375 and marked it off-topic.