4 ms·

China is still kinda like that. To make an internet company you need a license (not allowed without state permission) and that company is still in reality owned

China is still kinda like that. To make an internet company you need a license (not allowed without state permission) and that company is still in reality owned by the state. It may do whatever it likes to it at any moment, like insisting party members sit in the officers and control decisions ... and does. It will often also be literally owned by a state bank too. Yes, China has less economic planning than the USSR did, that's true. But communism isn't defined by that, trying it out is just a natural consequence of Communist beliefs. Indeed Marx laid out almost nothing of how actual communist states were meant to operate. Communism is ultimately about building a totalitarian system in which the ruling classes must be loyal devotees of Marxist social theory. China certainly qualified.

ajuc 7y ago
> But communism isn't defined by that [central planning] > Communism is ultimately about building a totalitarian system I really don't want to be advocate of communism, but it seems to me you're cherry-picking the defining characteristics of communism to suit you. After all: > Indeed Marx laid out almost nothing of how actual communist states were meant to operate So why demand it must be totalitarian? Also > Communism is ultimately about building a totalitarian system in which the ruling classes must be loyal devotees of Marxist social theory Communist party in Poland at least certainly wasn't that. They were the first to become devote capitalists in 1989.
- repolfx 7y ago
  Marx didn't specify many details about how a communist society was meant to be run, but he did specify quite clearly how it was meant to be created. See the numbered list at the bottom of the Communist Manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... Observe that he prescribed: 1. Abolition of private property 4. Confiscation of property of all rebels and emigrants 5. Centralisation of all credit in the hands of the state 6. Centralisation of all communication and transport in the hands of the state 9. Forced mass population transfers out of cities into the countryside How can anyone implement such drastic policies? Marx was under no illusions about this and spelled it out quite clearly, which is why the fact he's not perceived as being as evil as Hitler is an unfortunate stain on our society: Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads ... So he literally stated in his manifesto that creating a communist state would require despotism, or in more modern language, totalitarianism. That was just one of many calls Marx made for violent revolution rather than democratic means. Given this starting point it's not a huge surprise the Soviets tried to implement a fully planned economy. Marx didn't specify that as an end state per se, but he specified very similar things as a means to get to communism. China still has a largely planned economy despite successfully whitewashing itself as "capitalist", hence all the stories about staggering piles of non-performing debt, zombie banks kept alive by government fiat (centralise all credit in the hands of the state), and massive overproduction of things like steel. As for Poland in the late 80s, yes, by the end of the 20th century a lot of committed communists had realised how foolish they had been. But did they really understand the true root cause of the problems? Or did they mistakenly conclude the root cause was central planning? Sometimes when I look at the behaviour of the eastern European states I have to wonder.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    > So he literally stated in his manifesto that creating a communist state would require despotism, or in more modern language, totalitarianism Your whole argument hangs on equating despotism with totalitarianism. But it's not the same, these 2 characteristics are orthogonal. For example European absolute monarchies were despotic but not totalitarian (mostly because there was no technology to exert absolute control over the society). > That was just one of many calls Marx made for violent revolution rather than democratic means. Again, violent revolution doesn't mean the state is totalitarian. Many democracies started with violent revolutions, many totalitarian states started with democratic elections. > Marx didn't specify that as an end state per se Thank you, that's my point. You're defining what is characteristic and accidental in communism arbitrarily.
    - repolfx 7y ago
      I don't really recognise a significant difference between a (real) monarchy and a totalitarian dictatorship, to be honest. Words change over time - North Korea isn't normally described as a monarchy but it has hereditary leaders with total power. China doesn't have hereditary leaders but the way power is passed between leaders is still pretty incestuous. The USSR selected rulers through various court intrigues and assassinations, much like many monarchies did. You seem to draw a distinction based on how much power the ruler had: "absolute" control or less than that. But all despotic rulers exercise as much power as they possibly can. Modern tech arguably makes it easier to exercise more and more power (probably ... I haven't really thought about it). But if Henry VIII had the ability to censor information by flicking some switches he'd have certainly done it. My point about violent revolution was that if you build an organisation capable of doing all the things Marx said was necessary, you've built a totalitarian state. Yes, in theory a violent revolution which centralises all power in the hands of the revolutionaries could work out great and turn itself into a democracy, but in practice this never actually happens. Instead the state sticks around and stays despotic, it doesn't go "right! job done!" and dissolve itself like Marx imagined it would. Given Marx's preconditions for creating communism, eternal totalitarian rule is the only plausible outcome. People don't just give up total power once they killed people to obtain it.

ajuc 7y ago

> But communism isn't defined by that [central planning] > Communism is ultimately about building a totalitarian system I really don't want to be advocate of communism, but it seems to me you're cherry-picking the defining characteristics of communism to suit you. After all: > Indeed Marx laid out almost nothing of how actual communist states were meant to operate So why demand it must be totalitarian? Also > Communism is ultimately about building a totalitarian system in which the ruling classes must be loyal devotees of Marxist social theory Communist party in Poland at least certainly wasn't that. They were the first to become devote capitalists in 1989.

repolfx 7y ago
Marx didn't specify many details about how a communist society was meant to be run, but he did specify quite clearly how it was meant to be created. See the numbered list at the bottom of the Communist Manifesto: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m... Observe that he prescribed: 1. Abolition of private property 4. Confiscation of property of all rebels and emigrants 5. Centralisation of all credit in the hands of the state 6. Centralisation of all communication and transport in the hands of the state 9. Forced mass population transfers out of cities into the countryside How can anyone implement such drastic policies? Marx was under no illusions about this and spelled it out quite clearly, which is why the fact he's not perceived as being as evil as Hitler is an unfortunate stain on our society: Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads ... So he literally stated in his manifesto that creating a communist state would require despotism, or in more modern language, totalitarianism. That was just one of many calls Marx made for violent revolution rather than democratic means. Given this starting point it's not a huge surprise the Soviets tried to implement a fully planned economy. Marx didn't specify that as an end state per se, but he specified very similar things as a means to get to communism. China still has a largely planned economy despite successfully whitewashing itself as "capitalist", hence all the stories about staggering piles of non-performing debt, zombie banks kept alive by government fiat (centralise all credit in the hands of the state), and massive overproduction of things like steel. As for Poland in the late 80s, yes, by the end of the 20th century a lot of committed communists had realised how foolish they had been. But did they really understand the true root cause of the problems? Or did they mistakenly conclude the root cause was central planning? Sometimes when I look at the behaviour of the eastern European states I have to wonder.
- ajuc 7y ago
  > So he literally stated in his manifesto that creating a communist state would require despotism, or in more modern language, totalitarianism Your whole argument hangs on equating despotism with totalitarianism. But it's not the same, these 2 characteristics are orthogonal. For example European absolute monarchies were despotic but not totalitarian (mostly because there was no technology to exert absolute control over the society). > That was just one of many calls Marx made for violent revolution rather than democratic means. Again, violent revolution doesn't mean the state is totalitarian. Many democracies started with violent revolutions, many totalitarian states started with democratic elections. > Marx didn't specify that as an end state per se Thank you, that's my point. You're defining what is characteristic and accidental in communism arbitrarily.
  - repolfx 7y ago
    I don't really recognise a significant difference between a (real) monarchy and a totalitarian dictatorship, to be honest. Words change over time - North Korea isn't normally described as a monarchy but it has hereditary leaders with total power. China doesn't have hereditary leaders but the way power is passed between leaders is still pretty incestuous. The USSR selected rulers through various court intrigues and assassinations, much like many monarchies did. You seem to draw a distinction based on how much power the ruler had: "absolute" control or less than that. But all despotic rulers exercise as much power as they possibly can. Modern tech arguably makes it easier to exercise more and more power (probably ... I haven't really thought about it). But if Henry VIII had the ability to censor information by flicking some switches he'd have certainly done it. My point about violent revolution was that if you build an organisation capable of doing all the things Marx said was necessary, you've built a totalitarian state. Yes, in theory a violent revolution which centralises all power in the hands of the revolutionaries could work out great and turn itself into a democracy, but in practice this never actually happens. Instead the state sticks around and stays despotic, it doesn't go "right! job done!" and dissolve itself like Marx imagined it would. Given Marx's preconditions for creating communism, eternal totalitarian rule is the only plausible outcome. People don't just give up total power once they killed people to obtain it.