I’m not a communist. I was born in communism and I studied it both before and after its collapse in Eastern Europe. The idistinction between theoretical communism and the way it was put into practice is not a trick. It’s the overwhelming consensus among historians, political scientists, and sociologists.
The idea behind communism was that the workers should control the means of production. Government controlling the means of production is a middleman: It only works if the government is, in turn, controlled by the people. That’s why I said that democracy is an essential element of communism.
The Chinese system is pretty much the exact opposite of communism. Seriously, what is there communist, even vaguely at all, about China, beyond the word?
The trick is the comparison between real capitalism and hypothetical communism. If you compare theoretical communism to theoretical capitalism instead, or more practically, real capitalism to real communism, the equation is totally different.
No, it’s the idea that they should be communally owned. And indeed, the Chinese state controls over 70% of the country’s economy by GDP.
The state owns most of the means of production communally.
That doesn’t translate to the peasantry having much of a say, but under which communist system DID that happen?
Marx believed in spontaneous and inevitable communist revolution. Obviously, he was wrong about that. The only communists who actually took power in any state were vaguardists. That doesn’t make them not communists.
Any initially idealistic and egalitarian movement always seems to be co-opted by the more authoritarian if not cutthroat members.
There have been jokes in Chinese about “communism” in China since long before you or I were born.
Now, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China lays it out for you in black and white, right at the very beginning, that it is a one-party authoritarian regime and any dissent is prohibited. On the other hand, not that they are all saints, but do you know of any Communist Party in any democratic country that even suggests in their platform that they are against democracy? What they do advocate is… communism.
Unfortunately, yes.
Yes?
It may be confusing because often they are in coalitions. In France you have the New Popular Front , for example; in Kerala some of the Marxists are in the Left Democratic Front and some in the United Democratic Front, etc.
No, the trick is the way some people play with words.
A social project is a hypothetical situation. Before a social project or political ideology like communism is implemented, it exists purely as a thought experiment, a model, or a blueprint.
Again, the distinction between the way communism was put into practice and its theory (or its hypothetical framework) is the overwhelming consensus among historians, political scientists, and sociologists.
Communism was planned theoretically in the 19th century, mainly by Marx and Engels. This is what “hypothetical” means. Their project was completely hypothetical. They were analyzing the problems of capitalism and projecting a future social order. In this context, they came up with the idea of doing away with private ownership. This was their hypothesis. (If you’re into language, please notice the common stem in these two words: “hypothetical” and “hypothesis.”) Their hypothesis can be summarized as follows: “If society abolishes private ownership of the means of production, then social classes and exploitation will disappear.” Obviously, it was impossible for them to test a large-scale social project like this. So, until a historical event caused its application, this entire premise remained a “what if” scenario: a hypothetical situation.
There are concrete pro-worker measures being advocated, like raising the minimum wage (and imposing a maximum wage differential) and so on. It is not all 1) Vote for us 2) ??? 3) Profit!
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but the point that you seem to be missing is that without an authoritarian group to implement this social project, it is impossible to test the hypothesis. Hence, the idea of a Vanguard party. No communist project has existed without a vanguard party. Because Marx was wrong about dialectical materialism and the inevitable progression of society through the stages of feudalism, capitalism, and the communism, we will never see a communist project arise without an authoritarian vanguard party to implement it, and we will never see a communist project last beyond the point at which the vanguard party stops suppressing any alternative.
I often joke that in China communism is kind of like the monarchy in Britain. Respected by all but listened to by no one.
This is equivalent to those who insist that America isn’t a democracy, because it doesn’t cohere to the ideal Platonic definition of the word. Even the Pledge of Allegiance, written in 1892, reads “to the republic for which it stands.” Nevertheless, anyone paying attention to language today would see that the picture next to the definition of democracy in a dictionary is a silhouette of the U.S.
Same with Marxism and Communism. Technically, the word communism comes from the French communisme which predates Marx & Engel by a decade and the coinage of Marxism by four. People have claimed to be theoretical marxists for 150 years but in practice any government claimed to the communist has never been marxist. Words change meaning over time. Insisting that the only true and right definition was the “original” even though that seldom is etymologically true is more reactionary than the bosses Marx fought.
I’m saying that the overwhelming consensus you mention is correct and that communism is not marxism but is the thing that people live under. Rather than misstating that position I am emphatically insisting upon it.
I’m not missing anything. I’m addressing the idea that the distinction between theoretical communism and the way it was put into practice is some sort of trick. It’s not a trick. It’s a conceptual or categorical distinction.
Of course an authoritarian group was necessary to implement this social project. Marx himself included it in his project. An authoritarian group operated during the French Revolution as well. What does that have to do with the claim that the distinction between a theoretical social project and its application is a trick?
The trick is in pretending that if we just give the communists another chance, THIS TIME they will implement it right.
The flaws in practical communism derive from a flawed theory.
You have totally misunderstood what I was saying. People try to wriggle out from the failures of communism in practice by claiming that communism in practice is not real true original theoretical communism and therefore communism itself is a viable social theory that would work wonders if only implemented properly. ETA: I see @Babale understood the meaning.
That sheer rhetorical nonsense is the trick I referred to. My mistake was to phrase it as a reference to an old cartoon bit (from the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show) that someone not growing up in the U.S. probably would not be familiar with. (Bullwinkle would attempt the cliched magic trick of pulling a rabbit out of a hat but always failed.)
Oh, I see. You are disatisfied with the fact that although practical communism has failed, there are still fans. There will always be fans of anything, including Nazism, theocracy, and other forms of authoritarianism.
This is not a trick, it’s people’s faith. People have always clinged to hope. That’s why it was stuffed into Pandora’s box.
That there are still fans of communism is disappointing in the same way that the continued existence of flatearthers is disappointing, but the world is insufficient to the reality.
That modern day communists insist that the failures of a hypothesis, to use your word, long ago outmoded and inapplicable to a modern society would create utopian and non-totalitarian societies is more than disappointing. Ridicule must be applied as is done to flatearthers.
If you really studied communism and what people went through, you would probably be more understanding.
In fact, not only about those who believe in communism, but with everyone. But maybe it’s just me.
It’s exactly what people went through that drives my sentiments.