Communism - what is it?

[PyramidHead]

In 1934, the author H. G. Wells interviewed Joseph Stalin. The latter had this to say about FDR's New Deal:

The aim which the Americans are pursuing, arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here [in the USSR], however, as you know, in place of the old, destroyed economic basis, an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society.

NB: Here, JS uses "anarchy" not in the sense of anarchism (which he also opposed, rightly) but in the sense of leaving the production of goods and provision of services up to private actors who pursue individual goals, rather than planned according to the needs of society at large.

In speaking of the impossibility of realizing the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism, I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage and determination. Undoubtedly, Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like, once again, to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism, does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavorable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to.

Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded.

But what will this "socialism" be? At best, bridling to some extent, the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat. The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt's hands. All these are private property. The railroads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And, finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt's command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world.

The State is an institution that organizes the defense of the country, organizes the maintenance of "order"; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that in spite of all his energies and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable.

Full text here.

In my view, looking at America today almost 60 years after the New Deal, it seems unassailable that Stalin was correct in his analysis here.

 

[PyramidHead]

Leaving aside the question of what the USSR was doing in Prague back during the 60s, I'm most interested in the final paragraph. What exactly necessitates the filtering of information? If the benefits of the worker's revolution are apparent, then what use is served by blocking information? And who is doing the decision making around what information to block and what not to?

In China's case, the Communist Party acting on behalf of the people, who elect representatives at the village and town level; those representatives go on to elect higher levels and circle back to consult the people for guidance on policy. Blocking information is not really the intent; blocking baseless rumors, fabrications, and malicious bullshit that disrupts the fabric of Chinese society is. In America, we take it for granted that opening an internet browser immediately results in an onslaught of advertisements, social media noise masquerading as analysis, corporate think-tank propaganda dictating what gets reported in major news outlets, hysterically overblown scaremongering, and the most violent and disturbing stories receiving the most detailed coverage. China is trying to be intentional about what kind of media they digest, so their government limits the spread of counterproductive tabloid trash; the salient point here is that from China's perspective, western mainstream news outlets and search engines owned and operated by gigantic western corporations are tabloid trash. And that perspective is accurate.

But the so-called "Great Firewall" is more of a ceremonial stopgap, as VPN use to get around it is widespread and legal. Aside from that fact, the restrictions do not apply to independent media in China, only mass media--that is, they operate under the wise notion that when a media source gets large enough to be heard by society at large, it should be accountable to society at large. Even within state programming, for example, there is a spectrum of opinion and debate (CCTV-2 has a reputation for being more market-friendly, for example). What they do not tolerate, and should not tolerate, is attempts to subvert the socialist project they are embarked upon.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, lets see.

Despite what Uncle Joe said, the Soviets collapsed catastrophically. In Russia post Stalin the term was de-Stalinization. Stalin was an incompetent dictionary.

Maoism failed catastrophically. Rescued by modifying the Chinese economy to be more like the western economy.

Reality pyramidhead. You can not name any successful communist system that elevated the people as we tern free market capitalism has done, in spite of the inherent problems in the western system.

It is willful ignorance to ignore the history of communism.

 

[Deepak]

Leaving aside the question of what the USSR was doing in Prague back during the 60s, I'm most interested in the final paragraph. What exactly necessitates the filtering of information? If the benefits of the worker's revolution are apparent, then what use is served by blocking information? And who is doing the decision making around what information to block and what not to?

In China's case, the Communist Party acting on behalf of the people, who elect representatives at the village and town level; those representatives go on to elect higher levels and circle back to consult the people for guidance on policy. Blocking information is not really the intent; blocking baseless rumors, fabrications, and malicious bullshit that disrupts the fabric of Chinese society is. In America, we take it for granted that opening an internet browser immediately results in an onslaught of advertisements, social media noise masquerading as analysis, corporate think-tank propaganda dictating what gets reported in major news outlets, hysterically overblown scaremongering, and the most violent and disturbing stories receiving the most detailed coverage. China is trying to be intentional about what kind of media they digest, so their government limits the spread of counterproductive tabloid trash; the salient point here is that from China's perspective, western mainstream news outlets and search engines owned and operated by gigantic western corporations are tabloid trash. And that perspective is accurate.

But the so-called "Great Firewall" is more of a ceremonial stopgap, as VPN use to get around it is widespread and legal. Aside from that fact, the restrictions do not apply to independent media in China, only mass media--that is, they operate under the wise notion that when a media source gets large enough to be heard by society at large, it should be accountable to society at large. Even within state programming, for example, there is a spectrum of opinion and debate (CCTV-2 has a reputation for being more market-friendly, for example). What they do not tolerate, and should not tolerate, is attempts to subvert the socialist project they are embarked upon.

That in and of itself doesn't really address the question, and merely lays out that there is some structured process by which the filter is put in place. Any representative in the US government would also say that they too are acting on behalf of the people. But if the people are picking up what the Chinese government is laying down, then what purpose is served by controlling information specifically? I can comprehend the stewardship role of, say, having government unfettered by corporate pressures or ensuring equitable sharing of productive output - leaving aside an analysis of whether the Chinese government actually delivers here. The thing is that will of the people in those cases is turned to corporate interests. In the case of information it's a strange case of the will of the people being exerted on the people themselves. It's actually not terribly difficult to avoid most of what you've laid out in your list, and I do a pretty good job on most account by my own will. The very act seems to suborn the claim to me.

And if it's ceremonial then it's doubly damning. Why, rather than committing resources on people in rural regions of China, would they instead spend so much manpower blocking internet content that the people don't even desire and is not at all difficult to access with the resources spent? Curious too that they block things like LGBT content, even from indigenous content producers, which apparently is also western tabloid content?

 

[steve_bank]

pyramidhead

Ill make it simple. What would distinguish the hated, in your opinion, capitalist America and a communist state?

Communism has never been achieved at the scale of an industrialized nation, only socialism has. By this I mean that the transitional period between capitalism and communism has never been completed; this is entirely consistent with the dialectical model of social development, where the new society is born from the old and emerges from it, rather than starting out fully formed.

The socialist societies that are Marxist-Leninist are working towards communism, which is characterized by several features: (1) no economic classes (2) thus, no need for a state to manage the contradictions between classes, and (3) accordingly, no commodity production. For one approximate example of a communist society that has fully developed, look no further than Star Trek.

To differentiate it from communism, consider the corollaries of capitalism to these features: (1) society is stratified into groups with different relations of power and wealth to the means of production, (2) as these groups have opposing interests, a state authority is needed to manage their contradictions, always in service of the dominant class, and (3) the things all humans everywhere need to survive are not made for that purpose, but instead as a way to generate surplus value for the dominant class. As a consequence of these, especially the third point, imperialism is born as the inputs to the process are outsourced to poorer nations, who create the wealth that flows up into the hands of capitalists in the first world.

In between these two, with capitalism in its mature (some would say decaying) stages on the one hand and a classless, moneyless society on the other, is socialism. The goal of socialism is, according to Marxism-Leninism, to consolidate power in the hands of the formerly dominated classes and wield it against the formerly dominant class. When socialism is established following the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism within a country, the next step of the process is to arm the workers and start the uneasy path toward collectivizing production and distribution of resources. If the conditions within the country are still undeveloped, there may need to be a period of residual capitalist production, during which the commodity form is preserved and surplus value is generated to build up the country's wealth and power. The difference is that the organs of the state, who decides what happens to the surplus, are under the control of the workers and not the capitalists.

Socialism is also characterized by internationalism, which is why America will never be socialist as long as it's America. Socialist countries that want to survive in a world basically owned by imperialist capitalism must find allies. Preferably, these would be countries that have undergone revolutions of their own and are on the same path, but alliances can also form with countries who are against western encroachment without being socialist. The first category of countries were those that formed the USSR, and the second includes countries like Iran and Russia today. Socialism does not occupy and decimate other nations in the same way, nor for the same reasons, that capitalist countries do! It's a survival mechanism that seeks to establish mutually beneficial relationships with other societies sharing a common enemy, even if their ultimate goals are not shared.

All of this happens because socialism in a single country will never lead to communism. Capitalism has to be smashed to the point where it loses the ability to launch an effective counterrevolution, and only then can the priorities of socialism shift from defense of the revolutionary workers' state to a state that only performs basic administrative functions and eventually withers away entirely. But until then, the imperialist nations should be dealt with only when necessary, and with great suspicion and care. This, and not a blindly authoritarian desire for control, is what drives China to restrict the ability of its citizens to access imperialist sources of information and culture. The stakes are simply too high to leave that entirely up to chance, and I support their approach even when I disagree with some of its details.

It has been a very long time since I waded through this. The Vanguard, was that Lenin? Lenin realized that abrupt disruption of the economic status quo would be problematic. The communist party was supposed to guide Russia to communism. Along came Stain who squashed the pro democracy faction and made abrupt changes when Lenin died.

The purges eliminated the bourgeoisie that could have made industry go and replaced it with ideologues.

I still have not heard you say specifically what that state is. You can not be working towards something without defining what it is. And again the previous Chinese leader defined China as socialist. What that means is the CCP owns everything but there is capitalism within that framework.

At this point it appears that your answer to the question 'what is communism' is that you do not know. What we do know is the systems in modern history calling themselves communism. All of it bad.

 

[steve_bank]

In what is called the west liberal democracies those kinds of working conditions have largely been eliminated, not ignoring the abuses of illegal immigrants over here.\
Marx's predicted global revolution in a sense has came and gone. The result is western liberal democracy that protects rights of the individual. The rights of workers of any k8ind to organize, protest, and negotiate working conditions and benefits.

No such rights exist or have existed in nay communist state. I remember the Polish Solidarity Movement and the ship yard workers, and the Russian tanks that were sent in.

Over here we now have the Occupations Safety Health Administration, OSHA, and workers'' compensation that compensates for work place injury.

We are moving towards socialism. The system as it is today can not survive with the existing wealth and income disparity while basic social and infrastructure needs are not filled.

COTUS says the government is to provide for the common good. To date that has mostly meant business. In the early 19th century there was debate on using federal funds to help people.

The USA will evolve as it always has to changes. With our massive manufacturing and agricultural capacity the future question will be what do we do with it. Do we all need to work multiple jobs to get by as slaves to an economy, or should the economy work for everybody.

The debate is current with the democratic campaigns.

Do we really need to work 40 hours a week?

The trick will be to keep alive the dynamics of innovation and completion alive while the demonstrated pitfalls and conformity communism.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto, originally the Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), is an 1848 political document by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Commissioned by the Communist League and originally published in London just as the Revolutions of 1848 began to erupt, the Manifesto was later recognised as one of the world's most influential political documents. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and then-present) and the conflicts of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.

The Communist Manifesto summarises Marx and Engels' theories concerning the nature of society and politics, namely that in their own words "[t]he history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism. In the last paragraph of the Manifesto, the authors call for a "forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions", which served as a call for communist revolutions around the world.[1][2]

In 2013, The Communist Manifesto was registered to UNESCO's Memory of the World Programme along with Marx's Capital, Volume I.[3]
Synopsis[edit]

The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion. The introduction begins by proclaiming: "A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre". Pointing out that parties everywhere—including those in government and those in the opposition—have flung the "branding reproach of communism" at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to "meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself".

The first section of the Manifesto, "Bourgeois and Proletarians", elucidates the materialist conception of history, that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority exploited under the yoke of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, the bourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the "common ruin of the contending classes". The bourgeoisie, through the "constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions" have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves and accumulating capital. However, in doing so the bourgeoisie serves as "its own grave-diggers"; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

"Proletarians and Communists", the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists' party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world's proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, including claims that it advocates communal prostitution or disincentivises people from working. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances and private property; abolition of child labour; free public education; nationalisation of the means of transport and communication; centralisation of credit via a national bank; expansion of publicly owned land, etc.—the implementation of which would result in the precursor to a stateless and classless society.

The third section, "Socialist and Communist Literature", distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class.

"Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties", the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland and Germany, this last being "on the eve of a bourgeois revolution" and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the democratic socialists, boldly supporting other communist revolutions and calling for united international proletarian action—"Working Men of All Countries, Unite!".

 

[steve_bank]

A group of old Chinese people watch the China cable TV channel on our building big screen TV..

You do not need to understand the language to see what it is. Comedy shows, talent shows, patriotic military movies. Historical dramas from Chinese history, game shows. Breaking news.

People in China wear Nike an Jordan shoes. The NBA is popular. A past NBA star is Chinese.

Starbucks and Dominos pizza.

For all practical purposes China has become like the west. Once a growing middle class had a disposable income it was inevitable. China has gone over to the imperialist American dark side, delightful bourgeois decadence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A group of old Chinese people watch the China cable TV channel on our building big screen TV..

You do not need to understand the language to see what it is. Comedy shows, talent shows, patriotic military movies. Historical dramas from Chinese history, game shows. Breaking news.

People in China wear Nike an Jordan shoes. The NBA is popular. A past NBA star is Chinese.

Starbucks and Dominos pizza.

For all practical purposes China has become like the west. Once a growing middle class had a disposable income it was inevitable. China has gone over to the imperialist American dark side, delightful bourgeois decadence.

Yup. Lots of dating shows, they at least pay lip service to determining a suitable match rather than just attraction. A decent number of dramas that run daily episodes. The one that has surprised me is sports--I've seen more of a variety of sports on Chinese TV than you would find here. Our last time there I encountered a regional competition for sport climbing. Not a word of English but the only hard part of it was figuring out why--I managed to google a logo to figure out why a bunch of women were climbing a gym rock wall.

 

[steve_bank]

A group of old Chinese people watch the China cable TV channel on our building big screen TV..

You do not need to understand the language to see what it is. Comedy shows, talent shows, patriotic military movies. Historical dramas from Chinese history, game shows. Breaking news.

People in China wear Nike an Jordan shoes. The NBA is popular. A past NBA star is Chinese.

Starbucks and Dominos pizza.

For all practical purposes China has become like the west. Once a growing middle class had a disposable income it was inevitable. China has gone over to the imperialist American dark side, delightful bourgeois decadence.

Yup. Lots of dating shows, they at least pay lip service to determining a suitable match rather than just attraction. A decent number of dramas that run daily episodes. The one that has surprised me is sports--I've seen more of a variety of sports on Chinese TV than you would find here. Our last time there I encountered a regional competition for sport climbing. Not a word of English but the only hard part of it was figuring out why--I managed to google a logo to figure out why a bunch of women were climbing a gym rock wall.

They climbed it because it was there!

I have always thought Chinese people are more like us than both sides want to acknowledge.

I imagine Mark and communism are part of primary and college education analogous to our western economics being taught in schools. I doubt people hang around talking Mark and communism anymore outside of intellectual and political circles.

I expect if our resident communist went to China he would be sorely disappointed.

 

[PyramidHead]

Leaving aside the question of what the USSR was doing in Prague back during the 60s, I'm most interested in the final paragraph. What exactly necessitates the filtering of information? If the benefits of the worker's revolution are apparent, then what use is served by blocking information? And who is doing the decision making around what information to block and what not to?

In China's case, the Communist Party acting on behalf of the people, who elect representatives at the village and town level; those representatives go on to elect higher levels and circle back to consult the people for guidance on policy. Blocking information is not really the intent; blocking baseless rumors, fabrications, and malicious bullshit that disrupts the fabric of Chinese society is. In America, we take it for granted that opening an internet browser immediately results in an onslaught of advertisements, social media noise masquerading as analysis, corporate think-tank propaganda dictating what gets reported in major news outlets, hysterically overblown scaremongering, and the most violent and disturbing stories receiving the most detailed coverage. China is trying to be intentional about what kind of media they digest, so their government limits the spread of counterproductive tabloid trash; the salient point here is that from China's perspective, western mainstream news outlets and search engines owned and operated by gigantic western corporations are tabloid trash. And that perspective is accurate.

But the so-called "Great Firewall" is more of a ceremonial stopgap, as VPN use to get around it is widespread and legal. Aside from that fact, the restrictions do not apply to independent media in China, only mass media--that is, they operate under the wise notion that when a media source gets large enough to be heard by society at large, it should be accountable to society at large. Even within state programming, for example, there is a spectrum of opinion and debate (CCTV-2 has a reputation for being more market-friendly, for example). What they do not tolerate, and should not tolerate, is attempts to subvert the socialist project they are embarked upon.

That in and of itself doesn't really address the question, and merely lays out that there is some structured process by which the filter is put in place. Any representative in the US government would also say that they too are acting on behalf of the people. But if the people are picking up what the Chinese government is laying down, then what purpose is served by controlling information specifically? I can comprehend the stewardship role of, say, having government unfettered by corporate pressures or ensuring equitable sharing of productive output - leaving aside an analysis of whether the Chinese government actually delivers here.

Right. That's the long and the short of why and how China restricts media. All the media they don't want is Western corporate media.

The thing is that will of the people in those cases is turned to corporate interests. In the case of information it's a strange case of the will of the people being exerted on the people themselves.

Yes, how strange! A party that is responsive to the wishes of its people is indeed a rarity in bourgeois democracies.

It's actually not terribly difficult to avoid most of what you've laid out in your list, and I do a pretty good job on most account by my own will. The very act seems to suborn the claim to me.

Are most people like you? And anyway, if you were being swayed by corporate propaganda in the Western media, how would you know? Wouldn't you still think of yourself as a discerning consumer of information, even if you were being bamboozled by misinformation? The point is that China made a decision to not tolerate the bullshit that passes for reliable sources of data in the developed capitalist world. It's their choice, and they are responding to their history and conditions in making it, so we should respect it instead of telling them how to run their society.

And if it's ceremonial then it's doubly damning. Why, rather than committing resources on people in rural regions of China, would they instead spend so much manpower blocking internet content that the people don't even desire and is not at all difficult to access with the resources spent?

They do both.

Curious too that they block things like LGBT content, even from indigenous content producers, which apparently is also western tabloid content?

That's a problem and is, again, related to the specific history and culture of China, which spans thousands of years and does not change overnight. Nobody said that socialism would be immune to the cultural environment it arises in. However, it's always more egalitarian and accepting than the system it replaces, and usually sets historical precedents in being that way. Abortion was fully legalized in the USSR in 1920, but in other ways they were still regressive; Russian tsarism did not vanish without a trace.

Happy to engage you on this topic or whatever else you want to know about communism/socialism that I can answer, and that goes for anyone else asking about it in good faith. But this:

Despite what Uncle Joe said, the Soviets collapsed catastrophically. In Russia post Stalin the term was de-Stalinization. Stalin was an incompetent dictionary.

is not worth responding to

 

[Tigers!]

Dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[PyramidHead]

Dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[steve_bank]

A take on the old whimsical cowboy song Home On The Range.

Oh give me a home where the communists roam,
where the panda and proletariat play.
Where never is heard an anti government word,
and the skies of Beijing are not polluted all day.

 

[steve_bank]

Right. That's the long and the short of why and how China restricts media. All the media they don't want is Western corporate media.

Exactly, the opposite of the western media that can actually hold up the 'people's government' to review and critique 'of the people'. The CCP is terrified of any criticism from within.

I can not help but feel pyramidhead is being fed information or is referencing a web site somewhere.

Pyramidhead, do you really see modem western systems as the same as the 19th century systems? If so beyond words like proletariat and bourgeoisies how are the conditions the same? Derails not slogans.