5 ms·

They had already been elected to the government in both Italy and France though, in a coalition with more centrist socialist parties. In both countries they al

by _vbnz 5y ago

They had already been elected to the government in both Italy and France though, in a coalition with more centrist socialist parties. In both countries they already held ministerial positions, so this just isn't true. In practice they'd likely end up becoming more moderate, like happened in San Marino, and eventually France too.

simonh 5y ago
I think 'communist regime', looking at what the comment says about the practical problems such as confiscating property, is the institution of an actual communist economic system. It's one thing to have communists in government, but quite another to actually implement communist policies.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  What is a communist policy? When Lenin invited foreign investment and allowed private property to facilitate it as part of his plan to build a communist society, was that not a communist policy? Or perhaps Lenin didn't want to implement communist policies?
  - simonh 5y ago
    Communist economics is Marxist economics. Of course there have been multiple waves of revisions of Marxism, but fundamentally it's based on Marx's theory of value as it's core axiom. In practice communists sometimes play the cards they are dealt in terms of the economy they start with and what's achievable, depending on how patient they are. Lenin viewed foreign investment as a necessary evil, a temporary measure while the economy was in a transitional state. Do you think Lenin viewed allowing foreign investment and private property as being long term, essential aspects of a well functioning, mature communist economy? Of course not. Stalin was a lot less patient on this and instituted forced mass collectivism, with catastrophic consequences.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      What do you mean by private property? Do you mean that word in a Marxian sense? Or do you mean it in a classical/neoclassical sense and thus projecting non-Marxist economics on Marxist economics? No one believes that foreign investment is anything more than a necessary evil - being reliant on foreign investment means that you can't mobilize your own capital. The idea that markets are necessary for some industries is not at all incompatible with Marxist economics. Lenin's side of Marxist economics would be fine with markets as long as the property was owned cooperatively, until a post-scarcity society. Stalin's turn towards state planning was out of perceived necessity, not because he was less patient. He, and others in the party, decided that it was acceptable to sacrifice overall economic development in order to develop the heavy industries necessary for war with capitalist countries, that he thought was inevitable if they were too weak. That, and he thought agricultural development was too slow. While it was a failure for agricultural output, it was objectively a massive success in its primary goal, and development of heavy industries at the speed of the NEP would have probably led to the USSR losing WW2.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> They had already been elected to the government in both Italy and France though, in a coalition with more centrist socialist parties. Sure, communists were elected to the government of the Czech republic up until the latest election. That only tells you that a share of the nation is radicals -- enough to elect some radical candidates to represent them. But to actually become a communist nation, you need to confiscate the means of production from the rest of the nation. First, you don't get that just by winning some seats. You don't even get that by winning a majority of seats. That's a constitutional rewrite situation, not a political party situation. Something like that requires seizing control of much of the organs of civil society -- you have to get courts to not honor private property, for instance. > In both countries they already held ministerial positions, so this just isn't true Holding a ministerial position does not correspond to being able to eliminate private ownership of capital. The two are rather different. > In practice they'd likely end up becoming more moderate, like happened in San Marino The Most Serene Republic of San Marino? The 10 square mile tourist trap? Now you've lost me. If your claim is that these communist ministers would realize that they can't actually make their nation communist and just keep the name of communism while advocating for vaguely social democratic reforms, then absolutely. But that does not make the nation a "moderately communist" nation, it makes it a social democracy. Or are you one of those people who thinks social security is "communism" and your definition of a "moderately communist" country is present-day France? Is that what you mean?
- _vbnz 5y ago
  It doesn't have to happen overnight, they could just provide greater support for trade unions and co-operatives. And nationalisation of "private property" and land reforms have happened outside of communist governments, e.g. in Nasser's Egypt, the Mexican oil reserves, Mossadegh and the Iranian oil reserves, the Shah's White Revolution, etc. My whole point is that communism and communist parties didn't need to be seen as some radical "other" system, but could have become more moderate as society gradually accepted strong trade unions, co-operatives, and nationalised resources without the Cold War (much like the transitions to parliamentary democracy). Unfortunately the Cold War polarised everything, and now we're stuck with a society where the existence of billionaire is sacrosant. I mentioned San Marino because they were governed by the communist party for 10 years, and weren't so extreme - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammarinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammarinese_Communist_Party

by _vbnz 5y ago

simonh 5y ago

I think 'communist regime', looking at what the comment says about the practical problems such as confiscating property, is the institution of an actual communist economic system. It's one thing to have communists in government, but quite another to actually implement communist policies.

sudosysgen 5y ago
What is a communist policy? When Lenin invited foreign investment and allowed private property to facilitate it as part of his plan to build a communist society, was that not a communist policy? Or perhaps Lenin didn't want to implement communist policies?
- simonh 5y ago
  Communist economics is Marxist economics. Of course there have been multiple waves of revisions of Marxism, but fundamentally it's based on Marx's theory of value as it's core axiom. In practice communists sometimes play the cards they are dealt in terms of the economy they start with and what's achievable, depending on how patient they are. Lenin viewed foreign investment as a necessary evil, a temporary measure while the economy was in a transitional state. Do you think Lenin viewed allowing foreign investment and private property as being long term, essential aspects of a well functioning, mature communist economy? Of course not. Stalin was a lot less patient on this and instituted forced mass collectivism, with catastrophic consequences.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    What do you mean by private property? Do you mean that word in a Marxian sense? Or do you mean it in a classical/neoclassical sense and thus projecting non-Marxist economics on Marxist economics? No one believes that foreign investment is anything more than a necessary evil - being reliant on foreign investment means that you can't mobilize your own capital. The idea that markets are necessary for some industries is not at all incompatible with Marxist economics. Lenin's side of Marxist economics would be fine with markets as long as the property was owned cooperatively, until a post-scarcity society. Stalin's turn towards state planning was out of perceived necessity, not because he was less patient. He, and others in the party, decided that it was acceptable to sacrifice overall economic development in order to develop the heavy industries necessary for war with capitalist countries, that he thought was inevitable if they were too weak. That, and he thought agricultural development was too slow. While it was a failure for agricultural output, it was objectively a massive success in its primary goal, and development of heavy industries at the speed of the NEP would have probably led to the USSR losing WW2.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> They had already been elected to the government in both Italy and France though, in a coalition with more centrist socialist parties. Sure, communists were elected to the government of the Czech republic up until the latest election. That only tells you that a share of the nation is radicals -- enough to elect some radical candidates to represent them. But to actually become a communist nation, you need to confiscate the means of production from the rest of the nation. First, you don't get that just by winning some seats. You don't even get that by winning a majority of seats. That's a constitutional rewrite situation, not a political party situation. Something like that requires seizing control of much of the organs of civil society -- you have to get courts to not honor private property, for instance. > In both countries they already held ministerial positions, so this just isn't true Holding a ministerial position does not correspond to being able to eliminate private ownership of capital. The two are rather different. > In practice they'd likely end up becoming more moderate, like happened in San Marino The Most Serene Republic of San Marino? The 10 square mile tourist trap? Now you've lost me. If your claim is that these communist ministers would realize that they can't actually make their nation communist and just keep the name of communism while advocating for vaguely social democratic reforms, then absolutely. But that does not make the nation a "moderately communist" nation, it makes it a social democracy. Or are you one of those people who thinks social security is "communism" and your definition of a "moderately communist" country is present-day France? Is that what you mean?

_vbnz 5y ago
It doesn't have to happen overnight, they could just provide greater support for trade unions and co-operatives. And nationalisation of "private property" and land reforms have happened outside of communist governments, e.g. in Nasser's Egypt, the Mexican oil reserves, Mossadegh and the Iranian oil reserves, the Shah's White Revolution, etc. My whole point is that communism and communist parties didn't need to be seen as some radical "other" system, but could have become more moderate as society gradually accepted strong trade unions, co-operatives, and nationalised resources without the Cold War (much like the transitions to parliamentary democracy). Unfortunately the Cold War polarised everything, and now we're stuck with a society where the existence of billionaire is sacrosant. I mentioned San Marino because they were governed by the communist party for 10 years, and weren't so extreme - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammarinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammarinese_Communist_Party