4 ms·

I think you need to distinguish between "communist folk" and the people who inevitably end up being in charge in communist governments. Show me a communist cou

I think you need to distinguish between "communist folk" and the people who inevitably end up being in charge in communist governments. Show me a communist country where the leaders don't profess to be "for the people" but live lives of luxury while "the people" live lives of struggle and servitude.

socialismisok 4y ago
Is that a reasonable bar? How does Trump live? Biden? Truss? Trudeau? The UK is starting people for signs that say "not my king", the US incarcerates whole integer percentages of their population, and Canada continues to do terrible things to their indigenous population. Put more succinctly, I do believe that the US leadership lives like royals while the average worker is scraping by. I'm happy to chat, but the bar should be set equally.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  Except none of those people, to my understanding, are communists and none of the countries they lead are communist countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a central tenet of communism the equality of outcome for all citizens? So how does having an elite Inner Party (which there always is) that has special privilege (which they always do) translate into equality of outcomes? Last time I checked, no capitalist/free market country promised such a thing. So Trump having billions of dollars doesn't go against the very principle of the U.S. economic or social structure. To the contrary, it aligns precisely with our economic structure.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Not quite, equality of outcome isn't necessarily the target. The most common axiom is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone. Some communities focus on workers and profit distribution - the company's profit should be directed by the workers, reinvested or paid out at their discretion (rather than collecting in the pocket of "owners"). Some focus on equality of outcome. Some are built of gift economies similar to the economies of some indigenous tribes. What most people think of as communist is the Stalinist model of the Soviet Union - an authoritarian, single party, fairly corrupt institution. The Soviets pushed their brand of communism onto other countries, which is why you see so many built on that model. (The Soviets actually attacked other communist states that were more libertarian and democratic.) I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe. There's a reason I disparage Stalinists by calling them "Tankies" and do my best not to associate with them.
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      > "Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone." Ok, well show me the communist country that lives up to even those ideals and doesn't have an elite ruling class that has privilege and benefits above the working class and poor. > "I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe." Well, yeah. That's pretty much the only type of communism that exists. You can't choose to not live by communism in a communist country. It's by its very nature authoritarian. Because if they were, say, to allow real deviation from that economic and societal system (not the "managed" deviation you see in places like China), their system would quickly fall apart. If today I decided to go and live on a commune in Washington that functions locally under the principles of communism or socialism, I would be able to do so. Nobody could say boo. You can't decide to go and live by the principles of free markets/capitalism (again, real capitalism) in China or any other communist country.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        I'd say to take a look at Israeli Kibbutzim, but you'll tell me they aren't technically communist. I'd tell you to look at indigenous pre industrial economies, but you'd probably say they aren't still around (and again, not self identified as communist). I'd tell you to look at Mondragon, but that's a large democratic worker co-op making billions of dollars, not a communist country. That's fair. So let's talk about Portugal post carnation revolution. Portuguese politics is dominated by the socialist party, the social Democratic party, the communist party, and the green party. The State owns many major businesses and many more companies through trust in the public interest. You might say they aren't a communist country, I might say they aren't a Stalinist communist country. But they self identify as socialist country. I'd encourage you to read up on Ujamaa and the Arusha Declaration, prime minister Julius Nyerere's plan to lift Tanzania out of poverty in the 70s. It unfortunately failed due to world events. But seriously, consider reading up on it. It wasn't perfect, maybe it would have gone autocratic. More broadly I could spend days writing comments about African Socialism. You can look at the Spanish revolution and the communists who fought against the Stalinists and the Soviet Union. Eventually they were militarily crushed, but they were worker led, libertarian socialist economies with millions of people, eventually stomped out by Stalinists. I don't think I met the bar of your question, but I hope that I dispelled the idea that there is only one kind of communism. I also hope I provided at least some interesting things to go dive into on Wikipedia. At the very least I hope I'm providing some novel intellectual stimulation. There is a hugely rich variety of models, and not all of them require a unitary authority or harsh anti democratic laws. There's a very interesting historical and modern discussion around many, many other models, and not engaging with it (or saying that all these models are the same as the Soviet model) is ignoring a lot of well thought out theory and practice.
int_19h 4y ago
For starters, you need to distinguish between authoritarian and libertarian forms of any ideology that permits that distinction. Bolsheviks weren't just communists - they were authoritarian communists, and they exterminated basically every other competing variety in the process of coming to power. Naturally, they backed political factions with similar views in other countries where possible, and otherwise pressured the groups that they did back to adopt the ideology.

socialismisok 4y ago

Is that a reasonable bar? How does Trump live? Biden? Truss? Trudeau? The UK is starting people for signs that say "not my king", the US incarcerates whole integer percentages of their population, and Canada continues to do terrible things to their indigenous population. Put more succinctly, I do believe that the US leadership lives like royals while the average worker is scraping by. I'm happy to chat, but the bar should be set equally.

illuminerdy 4y ago
Except none of those people, to my understanding, are communists and none of the countries they lead are communist countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a central tenet of communism the equality of outcome for all citizens? So how does having an elite Inner Party (which there always is) that has special privilege (which they always do) translate into equality of outcomes? Last time I checked, no capitalist/free market country promised such a thing. So Trump having billions of dollars doesn't go against the very principle of the U.S. economic or social structure. To the contrary, it aligns precisely with our economic structure.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Not quite, equality of outcome isn't necessarily the target. The most common axiom is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone. Some communities focus on workers and profit distribution - the company's profit should be directed by the workers, reinvested or paid out at their discretion (rather than collecting in the pocket of "owners"). Some focus on equality of outcome. Some are built of gift economies similar to the economies of some indigenous tribes. What most people think of as communist is the Stalinist model of the Soviet Union - an authoritarian, single party, fairly corrupt institution. The Soviets pushed their brand of communism onto other countries, which is why you see so many built on that model. (The Soviets actually attacked other communist states that were more libertarian and democratic.) I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe. There's a reason I disparage Stalinists by calling them "Tankies" and do my best not to associate with them.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    > "Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone." Ok, well show me the communist country that lives up to even those ideals and doesn't have an elite ruling class that has privilege and benefits above the working class and poor. > "I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe." Well, yeah. That's pretty much the only type of communism that exists. You can't choose to not live by communism in a communist country. It's by its very nature authoritarian. Because if they were, say, to allow real deviation from that economic and societal system (not the "managed" deviation you see in places like China), their system would quickly fall apart. If today I decided to go and live on a commune in Washington that functions locally under the principles of communism or socialism, I would be able to do so. Nobody could say boo. You can't decide to go and live by the principles of free markets/capitalism (again, real capitalism) in China or any other communist country.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      I'd say to take a look at Israeli Kibbutzim, but you'll tell me they aren't technically communist. I'd tell you to look at indigenous pre industrial economies, but you'd probably say they aren't still around (and again, not self identified as communist). I'd tell you to look at Mondragon, but that's a large democratic worker co-op making billions of dollars, not a communist country. That's fair. So let's talk about Portugal post carnation revolution. Portuguese politics is dominated by the socialist party, the social Democratic party, the communist party, and the green party. The State owns many major businesses and many more companies through trust in the public interest. You might say they aren't a communist country, I might say they aren't a Stalinist communist country. But they self identify as socialist country. I'd encourage you to read up on Ujamaa and the Arusha Declaration, prime minister Julius Nyerere's plan to lift Tanzania out of poverty in the 70s. It unfortunately failed due to world events. But seriously, consider reading up on it. It wasn't perfect, maybe it would have gone autocratic. More broadly I could spend days writing comments about African Socialism. You can look at the Spanish revolution and the communists who fought against the Stalinists and the Soviet Union. Eventually they were militarily crushed, but they were worker led, libertarian socialist economies with millions of people, eventually stomped out by Stalinists. I don't think I met the bar of your question, but I hope that I dispelled the idea that there is only one kind of communism. I also hope I provided at least some interesting things to go dive into on Wikipedia. At the very least I hope I'm providing some novel intellectual stimulation. There is a hugely rich variety of models, and not all of them require a unitary authority or harsh anti democratic laws. There's a very interesting historical and modern discussion around many, many other models, and not engaging with it (or saying that all these models are the same as the Soviet model) is ignoring a lot of well thought out theory and practice.

int_19h 4y ago

For starters, you need to distinguish between authoritarian and libertarian forms of any ideology that permits that distinction. Bolsheviks weren't just communists - they were authoritarian communists, and they exterminated basically every other competing variety in the process of coming to power. Naturally, they backed political factions with similar views in other countries where possible, and otherwise pressured the groups that they did back to adopt the ideology.