Is communism a spent force?

Most people tend to write off communism and socialist ideology following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

(I hasten to add that I don’t have a left wing personal ideology.)

The surviving communist regimes in the world are either not really communist at all (China) or are in dire straits (North Korea and Cuba).

Some posters here even have fallen into the trap of dismissing a cite out of hand simply because it is sourced from a left wing or socialist organisation.

There are two points to be debated:

  1. is there any aspect of socialist or communist ideology which was ever sound? Or is it simply a perspective on society and culture, which like most perspectives is neither wrong nor right? My own view on this, looking at times at which Marxism started, is that this perspective was a necessary one given the terrible working conditions of workers at the time; and

  2. further to that, with the increased shifting of production to cheap labour countries like the Phillipines and Indonesia by large multinational corporations, is communism or socialism likely to spread throughout those countries? I am halfway through Naomi Klein’s book No Logo, which details the sort of conditions that workers suffered in Victorian England currently existing in numerous third world countries. Companies like Nike etc are able to say that they contract out this work to independent factories, and are not responsible. The horrible conditions described in this book make me think that a few Tagalog copies of Das Kapital would spark a workers’ revolution. I’ve spent a little time in the Philippines, and I think that those people are exploited, and could easily turn to Marxism as salvation against oppressive capitalism.

Well, I think Marxism was never made much sense from a real-world perspective, but then I tend to think the same thing about extreme, unregulated capitalism. These kinds of ideologies tend towards abstract extremes with their own unbreachable internal logic, and when it comes to applying them in the real world, they become horribly deformed, and their adherents give up on them and just concentrate on keeping power, no matter what the hypocrisy.

Still, I think in a world without Marx, there still would have been some kind of rvolution – and I suspect that in the third world, there will be some kind of revolution. The human race simply can’t live like that. It may be a Marxist revolution, a religious revolution, or a revolution under some charismatic leader. But anything’s better than the factories.

Is a Marxist view automatically a failure? I have a soft spot for Marxists. I’ve always been left-wing, and I used to be one. And every once in a while, they do make sense.

But they’re usually slaves to the logic of their ideology, and like most ideologues, they don’t often see that the same set of rules don’t apply equally to any context.

But dismissing them out of hand is unfair. It at least demands a better reason than “that idea is Marxist.” It’s an easy argument for someone to make who doesn’t have a better idea.

Sorry, that last one was Hamish, not me.

**1. is there any aspect of socialist or communist ideology which was ever sound? Or is it simply a perspective on society and culture, which like most perspectives is neither wrong nor right? My own view on this, looking at times at which Marxism started, is that this perspective was a necessary one given the terrible working conditions of workers at the time;

Well, basing the practicallity of communism on the global reach of Marxist writings, his concepts of labour and capital were and are still applicable today. Remember that you, by even having access to a computer, are well above the vast majority of the world’s populous in terms os standing and ‘value’, Marx’s labour class still exists within the lower nations. Squalor and famine still run rampant and the ‘Bourgeoisie’ Capitalists are still exploiting the workers as harshly as before. His basic fundaments are still quite sound.

**2. further to that, with the increased shifting of production to cheap labour countries like the Phillipines and Indonesia by large multinational corporations, is communism or socialism likely to spread throughout those countries? I am halfway through Naomi Klein’s book No Logo, which details the sort of conditions that workers suffered in Victorian England currently existing in numerous third world countries. Companies like Nike etc are able to say that they contract out this work to independent factories, and are not responsible. The horrible conditions described in this book make me think that a few Tagalog copies of Das Kapital would spark a workers’ revolution. I’ve spent a little time in the Philippines, and I think that those people are exploited, and could easily turn to Marxism as salvation against oppressive capitalism. **

It is possible that a worker uprising could occur in these countires but i see it as unlikely due to democratic intervention in the global economic market, a communist country has no standing with which to trade nor support itself in the increasingly Capitalist structure of modern times. Their uprising could very well lead to far worse results. As of now, thier best hope lies in intervention, which isn’t overly likely for a time as the companies exploiting said peoples are also quite entrenched in the global power structure.

Communism was a beautiful plan with but one fatal flaw:

It was used by humans.

I am not sure if this is a hijack or not, but we’ve tried going over the labor theory of value before. I, at least, can’t make any sense of it. Can you explain how it makes sense at all?

Perhaps you would think that anything not socialist is therefor capitalist. We capitalists, on the other hand, like to distance ourselves from fascism. Mind you, it isn’t that I don’t feel people may be getting exploited, it is simply that I do not feel capitalism is as prevalent as said exploitation. Maybe that’s just MHO but I didn’t think capitalist economics were really that spread out.

To the OP

And the rest of them will tell you the Soviet Union wasn’t “true” communism! :stuck_out_tongue:

Which, to some people, is no suprise. Some people feel that economies must progress through stages for the different models to be properly implemented. Marx was one of them, no doubt about it. But more objective persons like to note that these horrible conditions are, in fact, an improvement, materially speaking, over the previous era and the alternative which is starvation. So yes, they are horrible conditions. Yes, most economists would tell you that they are likely to stay horrible conditions die to market failure. Where one goes from there is another issue. That China is becoming more capitalist is interesting, I think. Communism itself spawns from an idea about—well, all sorts of things, I suppose, one of which is the inherent instability of class organization. The world Marx knew, however, wasn’t one in which there was literal fluidity between the classes. Though I have my own reasons why Communism can be inevitable my thinking has nothing to do with class struggles.

Perhaps, but I don’t think it is just the fault of capitalism. Rather, there are several issues at play of which economic structure is only one element (and, IMO, not a relevant one). It is possible, of course, that people may cling to the Communist ideology because of hope for some mystical cure-all (which I don’t think any social structure can be). That question is far more interesting, but it is more a theory of revolution rather than just economics and social organization.

Not that it is any real secret, but I abhor the thought of Communism, so I cannot claim that the above is some account which is stripped of my personal prejudice.

point #1–Several of the South American Indian civilizations used an economic system similar to Communism.

point #2-- It doesn’t matter if it can work…do people believe it can work? How long will it take for people to forget? In 25 years, somebody will try it again. Without Stalin, without Russian political/social/cultural influences, it may work better than before. Or at least be less bloody.

#3—At least one of the republics in the Commonwealth of Independent States is still Communist. If they start a Comintern program, things will start changing fast.

What does that have to do with anything? There are plenty of plans started by humans that actually do work.

Why Marxism? Western capitalist workers in general have always been better off than their communist counterparts. I would think that unions would be more effective tool for the philipinos than communism.

Hmm. Most unionists and union movements I have encountered have been socialist.

Well, I know next to nothing about classical economic/political theory and less about philosophy, but that wont stop me from babbling here. And as I interpret the OP’s post, there is, indeed, soundness in socialist theory in that it presents an opposite end to a spectrum. It represents the digging in of heels against the excesses of capitalism, which are pretty ugly. That an entire society should care enough for the have-nots to make some sort of effort (policy) to redistribute some of the wealth, is counterpoint to the winner take all, competitive, greedy version we’re all familiar with. Too familiar.
I’d say that’s sound.

**CC - I have no difficulty with what you say, but those people who think that a government has no obligation to assist the have-nots might not…

Well, I’ll add my voice to those disagreeing with this, too. Medieval Village Europe was a fine example of working communism. The high degree of labour specialisation we see in modern society might mean that communism does not work, though, at least in the West.