This is what I mean by human nature. Let’s do a thought experiment. We have two hunter gatherer clans. Let’s call them Mountain Clan and Valley Clan. They meet up one day and notice that each clan has some unique items that the othe clan wants. Being peaceful, they don’f fight. Two scenarios can be envisioned:
Scenario 1: Mountain suggest to Valley that they trade some things. They talk and decide how many flint scrapers are worth how many leather satchels. It takes some time and there is a little haggling, but in the end they agree and go on their way.
Scenario 2: Mountain suggests to Valley that they trade some things. They decide the best way to do this is to put all their items in a big heap and elect two people (one from each clan) to distribute the items from the heap according to what the leader thinks the various people need.
Now, which scenario seems “natural” and which one seems “contrived”. You made your decision based on what you think human nature is Bonus points: In which scenario do you think the various clan members went away happiest?
I use hunter gatherers here just to eliminate any huge societal issues. There are no “immoral capitalist bosses” and no “evil communist dictators”.
Which clan is driving cars? Which is using a representative parliament? Which is vaccinating for polio? Those things seem terribly unnatural… contrived even. They must be outlawed!
The underlying assumption in this debate, and one that hasn’t yet been adequately explored in any thread on the subject, is that the countries mentioned - primarily Russia before 1991, China, and Cuba - are either socialist or communist. Socialism and communism are two sequential phases of society linked by one common feature - total control of the means of production by the working class to produce for human need and not financial profit.
Marx and Engels, almost from the very beginning of their political careers, emphasized that
(see the preface to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto). A serious, critical determination of whether these three countries were in fact either socialist or communist must rest on this question: To what extent was the working class involved in these countries’ revolutions? To answer this, I’ll be relying on three works: State Capitalism in Russia by Tony Cliff, Cuba, Castro, and Socialism by Peter Binns and Mike Gonzalez, and China: Whose Revolution? by Charlie Hore.
First up - Cuba. (All quotes in this section, except where noted, are from Binns and Gonzalez.)
Fidel Castro, who returned from exile in Mexico in 1956 aboard the Granma, had established two guerrilla fronts in the Sierra Maestra mountains and Escambray by 1957.
There were two general strikes against the Bautista regime in 1957 and 1958 (oddly enough, Bautista had stood as a Communist Party candidate in the 1940 elections). The first strike was a spontaneous one and very successful. The second strike was a result of Castro’s 26th July movement trying to build its struggle in the cities.
Compare this with Marx’ and Engels’ statement in the Manifesto:
It quickly becomes obvious that Castro certainly wasn’t socialist. However - was there a revolutionary Cuban working-class movement to support?
Toppling a dictator is a political revolution at best - moreover, the working class expended no effort in organizing to achieve it. The situation didn’t change much after Castro walked into power after Bautista’s fall:
Compare this with a similar situation in Chile, which had an organized and fighting working class, twelve years later:
To sum up: there were no real working-class struggles, even around toppling Bautista, in 1959 and the organization that replaced him had no interest whatsoever in involving itself with the working class.
Now, what about China? (All quotes in this section from Hore.)
We have to look further back than 1949 - the year of the Chinese Revolution - to see how things evolved. There was a working-class struggle in China between 1925 and 1927:
The rulers - both native and foreign - fought back quite viciously, and the Guomindang (or KMT), which had originally supported the struggles as long as they were against the imperialist powers, sided with the Chinese landlords and capitalists when the struggles turned in that direction. The KMT’s entry into Shanghai offers a chilling illustration:
The Chinese Communist Party - under orders from Stalin, who believed the Chinese revolution could only be nationalist - had allied itself with the KMT and worked to stop the struggles against the native landlords. This drastically reduced their support as members and fellow-travelers became demoralized and left the party, which in turn made it easier for the KMT to increase its butchery. After Shanghai, however, Stalin ordered the CCP to engage in the “Autumn Harvest Uprisings” - a suicidal piece of lunacy which resulted in and army of less than 2,000 Communists, commanded by Mao Zedong, hiding out in the mountains between the Hunan and Jiangxi provinces. The only reason they survived was that they had disobeyed orders and fled.
It was at this point - late 1927, early 1928 - that Mao turned from trying to rebuild the CCP’s influence among workers in the cities to building a guerilla army composed of peasants and led by intellectuals such as himself. Though they were harried by the KMT government as it re-asserted its strength in the rural provinces (ending in the horrific Long March of 1934-1935), they managed to build their base of support among the peasants by keeping the power of the landlords in check (where they were able to hold political power - the “Soviet areas”) and organizing armed resistance to the Japanese occupation that began in 1931. A nationalist students’ rebellion and the CCP’s demand for a united front with the KMT against the occupation helped Mao’s organization to stabilize.
It was this nationalism - and only this nationalism - which enabled the CCP to grow during World War II and to successfully challenge the KMT for political power in 1949. At no time during this period did the CCP seek to regain influence among the industrial working class in the cities, but continued to depend on its support from the peasants in the rural areas by presenting itself as a force opposed to the landlords.
This is not to say that the working class in China was as quiet as the Cubans had been in 1959. From the end of the war until 1949, workers had increased their struggle for a decent standard of living against the hyper-inflation plaguing the country. However:
The revolution in China, like the one in Cuba, was a political revolution only. It was not a social revolution - the prerequisite element for building a socialist society. The CCP did not seek to overthrow capitalism, but to create
In other words, on behalf of the workers and peasants - not by them.
I’d like to end this section with a quote that sheds some light on the situation in Russia as well:
Now, we need to examine Russia - of all the examples held up as socialist (beyond the three countries examined here), this one has the strongest claim to actually living up to the label. But, as we’ll see, circumstances beyond the control of the Bolsheviks led to that revolution being deflected as well. (All quotes in this section are from Cliff.)
The two revolutions of 1917 had a mass working-class base under them - the February revolution that toppled the tsar had its starts in Moscow bread riots, and the revolution that overthrew the Provisional Government stemmed from general anger over their refusal to pull out of the First World War, which was ruining Russia socially and economically. The October revolution was led by a party that had sought for over twenty years to sink deep roots into the working class and had done so very successfully - October would not have been possible without it. In contrast to China and Cuba, the working class had fought for - and won - the position of ruling class, overthrowing the old political and economic systems. To help them achieve that goal, they had consciously chosen to place the Bolsheviks at the head of the movement and then elevated them to the positions of leaders of the new state.
Almost immediately, however, major problems set in. The revolutionary wave across Europe, in which the Bolsheviks placed their hopes for the success of establishing socialism in general, collapsed without any further successes. Additionally, the Russian Civil War and intervention by fourteen other countries (the US included) decimated both Russia and the working class that had made the revolution. The Bolsheviks became completely isolated from the class that had put them in power while at the same time becoming more and more responsible for directing the productive activities of the state - a role they had specifically acknowledged as that of the working class. The Communist Party had the role of ruling class thrust upon it through objective circumstances. This was fertile soil for the transition back from the first steps of socialism towards capitalism:
Was the Bolshevik Party really a class by 1928? A quote from Engels’ Origin of Family, Private Property, and the State on the origins of the merchant class under capitalism sheds some light on the subject:
A description that fits the Communist Parties under Stalin and Mao - and Castro’s barbudo organization - to a T. Now, as I quoted earlier, the Soviet Union found itself by 1928 in a “hostile and competitive world economy”, and its economic priorities were thus dictated by the need to hold its own in economic competition with the rest of the world. Therefore rapid and intensive industrial development, rather than producing consumer goods for need, became the priority, with all the results people rightly point out with horror. Let’s not forget, though, that the same horrors were visited upon the working class in Europe and America during their phases of industrial development. (The works of Dickens and the existence of slavery in the US give more than ample evidence of that.)
To sum up - in all three cases examined here (as well as everyplace else that have either been labeled or called themselves communist) the party that made the revolution was a class that stood above society. This is in direct contrast to Marx’ and Engels’ own assertion that a communist party must be involved in the struggles of the working class, which in turn is the only class capable of building genuine socialism. In Russia the party was transformed from a class organization into a class in and of itself through objective circumstances that were inimical to the original project; in China and Cuba, this was the nature of the party from its very inception.
In short, the excesses that came from Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, and Castro’s Cuba cannot be ascribed as the logical outcomes of implementing the theories and philosophy of communism. The revolutions were either not communist in the first place, or became deflected from that goal because of circumstances beyond the party’s - or the working class’ - control.
FYI, driving cars (ie, tool making) and vaccinating for diseases (ie, practicing medicine) are very natural behaviors for humans. But you know that. You just found it easier to make a silly comment than to actually engage in a real debate.
I also mentioned democracy. The first literate civilizations were monarchical, so according to your view monarchies, which are more “natural”, are better than democracies. Is that right?
Also do you find it easier to quibble over minor details rather than address Olentzero rather conclusive elaboration on themes I’ve been trying to foward (with not as much success). Or would you prefer to stick to your guns and assume communism is intrinsically unnatural and evil and should be avoided like the plague?
Hey I hit 1000 and I didn’t even notice it… happy 1000 post day to me? Please note my favorite cookie is oatmeal raisin, and my favorite medal is the Pulitzer.
It’s interesting you mention hunter-gatherer bands, because a number of Communists, including most notably Engels, considered them to practice a sort of primitive communism. Hunter-gatherer bands are, for the most part, classless societies. There is a chief, but he is chief by the consent of the band, and doesn’t have any special advantages over anyone else. He still has to do his share of the band’s work. Everyone contributes to the collection of food, and food is shared equally by the band.
This is what I get for typing quickly and neglecting proofreading.
One summer during my undergraduate days I had a job at a federal records center which involved reading the names of thousands upon thousands of former servicemen. To help pass the time my fellow summer interns and I assembled a list of the more interesting names. Some of them, including “Smellie” have stuck in my memory ever since. I offer this as an explanation rather than as an excuse.
Like the proverbial stopped clock which is right twice a day, Communists have, from time-to-time, seem to have been dead-on in their claims about evil rich Capitalists and their conspiracies. An excellent example involves Butler.
In the 1930s Butler testified before Congress that members of the Dupont Family, the Chairman of General Motors and some of their friends had approached him with a proposal: they wanted to make him dictator of the U.S. via a bloodless coup, in exchange for his promise to put an end to the New Deal, return to the gold standard, and otherwise act to fatten the wallets of the very, very rich. He also testified that the head of the American Legion was on their list of prospective dictators/puppets, a claim which the head of the AL confirmed. The third man on the list, however, denied all knowledge of a conspiracy. He was Douglas MacArthur.
i think in the perfect world communism is a good form of foverment, but then you get that little thing called greed, and it becomes a not so perfect form of goverment.
Greed is merely the desire to better your position in society. Without greed, you have cattle. With greed, you have intelligent omnivores capable of producing the Declaration of Independence and the Sistine Chapel. Social striving is a form of conflict, and conflict is evolution’s engine of change.
Greed does not mean mindless consumption and acquisition any more than competition means violence and bloodshed. I am, to some extent, greedy for the attention of Dopers. So I compete with my fellows in consistently producing posts that are intelligent, insightful, and perhaps funny when I can’t get anything else. That intellectual striving is greed’s highest expression.
Greed can be suppressed. So can the natural reaction to pain and the urge to help one’s fellow man. Certain religious groups that teach asceticism and austerity have succeeded in producing members who exhibit rather little greed. The monastic sects of Buddhism and, possibly, the Amish sects of the Mennonite Christians would fall under this rubric. They practice a successful, small-scale communism because they are filled with people who chose to be there. Pol Pot’s attempt to enforce essentially what the Amish sects practice, communal farming arrangements and holy poverty, on a nation of unwilling people met with predictable violence and bloodshed.
No Communist nation has ever fully answered this question: How does the system work when most people aren’t interested in asceticism or a renunciation of greed?
Cambodians under Pol Pot, Chinese under Mao, Russians under Stalin, or Cubans under Castro. What’s the independent variable? It’s not greed, which I agree is common in all cultures (again with differing relevancy). So was laziness, and so is happiness, and love and all the other things that motivate us. But there is no universal human nature. Every culture has its own makeup of motivating factors.
The common trait in those examples is autocracy, a single person forcibly determining the ideology of a nation. To answer your last question, there are levels of greed. Cambodians were greedy for political freedoms and food. Americans are greedy for excess and decadence. A middle ground simply must exist. Communism is still a good idea with horrible execution, and technology may be precisely the force that rectifies the problem by alleviating some of our greediness.
The United States of Bob is a very large, progressive nation, notable for its punitive income tax rates. Its compassionate population of 105 million enjoy extensive civil rights and enjoy a level social equality free of the usual accompanying government corruption. They tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.
It is difficult to tell where the large, socially-minded government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Social Equality. The average income tax rate is 52%, but much higher for the wealthy.
Voting is voluntary, the government’s religious works are headed by a New Age guru who views all major religions as extensions of basic spirituality, and political parties are banned from advertising on television and receiving corporate donations. Marijuana is legal in the privacy of your own home. Crime is almost totally unknown. Bob’s national animal is the bear, which frolics freely in the nation’s many lush forests, and its currency is the dollar.
Stage 2: 2031
The United People of Bob is a very large nation, notable for its complete lack of any form of currency. Every citizen is supplied with basic necessities including food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and education. Individuals within the community can work for greater rewards by making themselves more valuable to the community. Training and a good reputation are the most valuable commodities in Bob. An extremely socially-progressive constitution protects the tenets of UPB, and law and order is backed by a police force and judiciary which is less and less necessary.
A growing upper class of scientists, scholars, entrepreneurs, and artists makes up 40 percent of the population, a shrinking middle class represents another 40 percent, and 20 percent of the population is voluntarily subsisting on the adequate but austere state minimum. In international trade the World Bank acts as proxy and brokers the compensation for all UPB exports. Foreign currency is channeled to a fund for the purchase of products or services from capitalist nations. Domestic trade in the traditional sense is non-existent. Individuals all have a profile tagged to their biometric data, those who have been deemed by the community to qualify for a three-story house pay with their name.
It is difficult to tell where the socially-minded government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Social Equality. Naturally, there is no taxation of any kind. Civil rights are strong upheld, voting is voluntary but strongly encouraged, and a New Age guru who views all major religions as extensions of basic spirituality heads the government’s religious works. Political parties are banned from advertising on television, and marijuana is legal in public but strongly regulated, tobacco is illegal. Bob’s national animal is the bear, which frolics freely in the nation’s many lush forests.
Poli sci/fi right now, but it’s still floating around in the realm of possibility. Stalin was evil, Mao was evil, communism is not evil.
"Individuals all have a profile tagged to their biometric data, those who have been deemed by the community to qualify for a three-story house pay with their name. "
I’m guessing they would be more equal than other people.
You forget Stage 3: 2033. One group of individuals decide they can quietly manipulate the community for their own ends. It starts simple, with campaigns for better trash collection, but soon thugs are making midnight visits to the homes of citizens who, they claim, are not loyal citizens of Bob. A number of people are killed or forced into exile and the group, now calling itself “The Bob Association of STandardization And Nomalization Department (BASTARD)” slowly grows in power and influence and eventually takes control of the country “for the good of the citizens.” Fifty years later, after many mass killings and general misery, the nation of Bob ceases to exist, abandoned to the dustbin of history.
Stage 4: 2120. High school students are told about Bob in their history class. Many of them tune the lecturer out, since it’s not going to be on the test, anyway.
That intellectual striving is greed’s highest expression.