3 ms·

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 num

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
    > I don't really recognise a significant difference between a (real) monarchy and a totalitarian dictatorship It's not my distinction, it's the definition of totalitarianism (as opposed to other authoritarian forms of power). > Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian regimes. The latter denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state [...] is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty". Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature". In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. [1] Absolute monarch doesn't care what peasants think, what ethnicity or race they are, and in general it leads to much less cleansings and pogroms than totalitarianism. > 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. why all power? Where did you get that all from? Again, I hate to play the devil's advocate, but I find myself pushed to do it - Marx wanted to change the ownership of means of production. It's not all the power, and it's not unprecedented. Most revolutions change the top dogs. In very few cases in history that change led to totalitarian state. Romania had a violent revolution. France had a violent revolution. USA had a violent revolution. Poland had violent revolutions every 20 years for over a century (BTW several of the Polish uprisings wanted to free the serfs and give them the land). All of them are now democracies :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

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
  > I don't really recognise a significant difference between a (real) monarchy and a totalitarian dictatorship It's not my distinction, it's the definition of totalitarianism (as opposed to other authoritarian forms of power). > Totalitarian regimes are different from other authoritarian regimes. The latter denotes a state in which the single power holder – an individual "dictator", a committee or a junta or an otherwise small group of political elite – monopolizes political power. "[The] authoritarian state [...] is only concerned with political power and as long as that is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty". Authoritarianism "does not attempt to change the world and human nature". In contrast, a totalitarian regime attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life and morals of citizens. [1] Absolute monarch doesn't care what peasants think, what ethnicity or race they are, and in general it leads to much less cleansings and pogroms than totalitarianism. > 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. why all power? Where did you get that all from? Again, I hate to play the devil's advocate, but I find myself pushed to do it - Marx wanted to change the ownership of means of production. It's not all the power, and it's not unprecedented. Most revolutions change the top dogs. In very few cases in history that change led to totalitarian state. Romania had a violent revolution. France had a violent revolution. USA had a violent revolution. Poland had violent revolutions every 20 years for over a century (BTW several of the Polish uprisings wanted to free the serfs and give them the land). All of them are now democracies :) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism