3 ms·

I think Animal Farm provides a nice answer to that. In my reading of the text, the problem was not necessarily with the revolution, it was the fact that the rev

by Gimpei 5y ago

I think Animal Farm provides a nice answer to that. In my reading of the text, the problem was not necessarily with the revolution, it was the fact that the revolution was perverted and in the end the pigs (communist cadre) simply replaced the bourgeoisie (farmers) preserving the system. Orwell was a socialist, believing in large scale redistribution, government involvement in the economy, etc. He just thought this be done in a democratic fashion and actually benefit the working classes. He looked at the Soviet Union and saw it as a totalitarian nightmare that didn't live up to its ideals.

anonymousiam 5y ago
I seem to be burning my Karma on this thread, but what the heck. One more question for the group. Can anyone name a communist country that did not devolve into (or begin as) a dictatorship? In the history of the world, has there ever been a truly communist government? I believe the answer is no, and that none will ever emerge because of human nature.
- int_19h 5y ago
  There was never a truly communist government anywhere, even if you ask the communists themselves. Don't forget: per Marx, communism was supposed to be the final stage, to be achieved after a period of socialism. USSR was thus the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics" (although in Soviet sci-fi, USCR would sometimes pop up in the future). If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas. If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared. The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.

by Gimpei 5y ago

anonymousiam 5y ago

I seem to be burning my Karma on this thread, but what the heck. One more question for the group. Can anyone name a communist country that did not devolve into (or begin as) a dictatorship? In the history of the world, has there ever been a truly communist government? I believe the answer is no, and that none will ever emerge because of human nature.

int_19h 5y ago
There was never a truly communist government anywhere, even if you ask the communists themselves. Don't forget: per Marx, communism was supposed to be the final stage, to be achieved after a period of socialism. USSR was thus the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", not "Communist Republics" (although in Soviet sci-fi, USCR would sometimes pop up in the future). If you rephrase the question as whether there's any socialist country that's not a dictatorship, the answer depends on your definition of "country". For example, Rojava is not internationally recognized as such, nor do they claim to be one, but they're a de facto independent polity that leans heavily socialist. For another example, the Zapatistas. If we look at history, there was never a shortage of revolutionary democratic socialists. The problem is that back when socialist revolutions became viable, socialism as a political ideology was generally violently suppressed in all its forms, and only the most ruthless, authoritarian strains could not only take power, but hold it long enough. Bolsheviks in Russia are the archetypal example, and it's worth noting that the first thing they did after the revolution was disbanding the Constituent Assembly, as soon as they found out that they don't have the majority in it (it was held by other socialist parties, most of them democratic). For comparison, consider the Luxembourgists in Germany, and how their revolution fared. The other problem is that there's a positive feedback loop there. Once Bolsheviks won in one country, they would sponsor socialist revolutionary movements in other countries - but any such aid would come with ideological strings attached. E.g. in Germany, the communist party was the one receiving funds from the Soviets, and the democratic socialists were labelled "social fascists"; and in Spain, Soviets even physically purged ideologically disagreeable people from the Republican ranks (Orwell has seen his share of that close up). Needless to say, well-funded movements are the ones that usually win, and so Soviet dominance ensured that authoritarian socialists would usually be the ones running the show everywhere else.