You're viewing a single thread.
There were no actual efforts to establish communism in eastern europe. Only autocratic regimes backed by soviet russia.
It's like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.
When people proclaim to be something doesn't make it true.
I'm no too learned in the subject but what would "true" communism even look like on the large scale like a country? Would it even be feasible?
True communism in a country is impossible.
You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we've seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.
A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can't apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.
To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn't do it, China didn't do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.
That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.
Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.
There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).
There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.
That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.
It’s… complicated.
In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.
It is not an abstract "I don't like capitalism so let's try something different" approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name 'anarchist communism' in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.
No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.
different approaches carry a different name
Yeah, well... So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …
So, which one of those is the true communism?
Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.
And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
It's how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it's Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx's mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.
Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don't bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin's Russian form of Capitalism with US's imperialism and French Revolution's early capitalism together doesn't make sense either.
He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I'd focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I'd talk about his socialism in one country theory
I've got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one "true" communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what "true" communism even is.
Wish it was that simple. Left is fighting over it for decades, if not centuries. Even killing each other, instead of focusing that energy against the right. And yes, it's as stupid as it sounds.
Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)/¯
But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.
Aha, is that so?
I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well
Yeah, you could say that!
So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L'Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.
And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔
Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?
Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.
I'm actually not. I think many approaches have their pros and cons. Anarchy sounds a lot better as a path to a classless system, I don't disagree with Trotsky's permanent revolution, though I am heavily against his 4th International (and to a big degree the 3rd one as well) and I think that socialism is the hardest way to make it work, but if it does, is probably the best since it prepares the populace to think in a different way.
But good for you for figuring me out when I haven't done that myself in over 20 years I'm in politics.
As for that dick contest about communists before Marx and their books, because it is a dick contest at this point, I never claimer Marx was the first to talk about communism, or use that word. Even the manifesto was commisioned by a pre existing party namely the Communist League. A party that existed before Marx and Engels came in contact with them.
But Marx was in fact the first to bring those ideas together, from philosophy to economy to politics etc and describe a full featured system that covered it all (for his time, times changing and things adapt), which is why is the one most well known and remembered with his name attached to it. Take it further, back to ancient Greek philosophers why don't you?
The original poster asked an ELI5 of communism. While what you say is not wrong, it's far from ELI5. Even for someone like me who spent years reading on all that, there were a couple of things you mentioned I didn't know about. At the end of it all there's a reason that if you look at the history of communism most will refer to Pre-Marx and after. And a simple answer to a simple question of "what be?" has to start somewhere. I chose Marx since it's probably the best entry point for someone who has no idea.
Nothing of that changes that calling Marxism „the one and only true/base communism“ is ridiculously wrong on several levels and absolutely not helpful for an „ELI5“ on communism.
And if you’re so concerned about leftist infighting you might just stop acting like there was an apodictic definition, that would certainly help. Someone already pointed out the irony to you hours ago, it seems you still haven’t realized that.
That's also not what I said, that Marxism is the one and only true communism. The fuck is that supposed to mean in the first place. For someone so intent on digging relics and using big words, you either can't read or refuse to do so. He asked what communism is, I mentioned Marx. Go ahead and mention Aristotle for all I care. Hell I didn't even mention Marx until you answered me.
As for the infighting you're the one with your knickers in a bunch because I answered Marx. I am not fighting anyone and the two people that disagreed with me, it was polite and we reached an understanding while in disagreement. You on the other hand put on a great show of that infighting. I'm done with that charade. Have a good day.
And the fact that you don't consider communism partly an economic system is baffling. From Marx onwards the entire idea of socialism and communism is based on the Capital.
Bojler eladó
What do you think is anarchy? Without searching engine please.
How is this question relevant?
I don't think they know what anarchy means.
Why?
Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.
Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there's no leadership or ranking across its members.
Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.
Anarchist checking in, so, y'know, bias and all that. But I'd say it's just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I'm an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We've had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn't function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it's scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it's scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can't have a fully anarchist society until it's global.
Which all just means that I'm an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.
So i was wrong. Sorry for the 'nuanced' question.
Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.
True communism is pretty much impossible, same as true capitalism.
There have been some short-lived small-scale experiments like the "United Order", but nothing that actually survived more than a few months with more than a few thousand people.
Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a 'temporary' vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War
Rojava is organizing today with communal federations
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
And here comes the guy who thinks he can do it better, this time without mass killings.
With capitalism we just outsource the death to 3rd world countries.
Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.
Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).
This time without hierarchy wherever possible. And we'll keep most of the capitalistic economy as is, just redistribute the wealth so that everybody is safe and happy. Cut the bullshit jobs, make produced goods more durable and sustainable, so that the last at least ten times as long, cut more jobs in producing, distribute the remaining work to all the people, everybody who wants to get a little extra can do this by working, most will. I certainly would still work even if i did not have to, even if there is no monetary benefit. Doing a job that is nice and that you like is fun, because you're doing your part.
Can't critizise something that has never been tried! Also we already got a comment critizising capitalism as a counter argument :D
In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn't say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.
If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.
There were no actual efforts to establish communism
Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.
I literally pissed a slow day at work away pointing out the many, many flaws in the USSR to a lemming whose primary response was LALALALA I CAN't HEAR YOU, GO READ THIS BOOK
There is definitely a cadre of extremely disillusioned and extremely ill informed users who think the USSR was legitimate sunshine and candy communism
That’s a joke, right?
Right?
If you want to argue against that, fine by me. I have nothing against an honest duscussion. But this comment is neither funny nor smart.
I was about 99% this was a joke because I thought nobody could be this stupid. I don’t argue with jokes, that’s pointless.
But that is no joke at all. It is what every honest historian will tell you. If you take communism as it was defined by Marx (not that this would be the best system or even what I would propse, parts of it maybe) then no society actually tried that.
Oh here we go with "That wasn't real communism!" as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.
I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.
They are though. China, Vietnam and Cuba are all pretty drastically different and they are all communist countries.
Give me an example of a capitalist society. Waiting.
Full no true scotsman.
Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.
Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.
Nah, that's just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.
And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.
This whole "Sounds great but won't work" rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.
That's funny because I do easy work for a great paycheck yet we have a harder time hiring than in my previous job which didn't pay as well and was harder.
Can you say what are the jobs?
I'm in my mid thirties, my current job (first time for this employer) is the best paid and offers the best conditions and is the easiest one I've ever worked and they need to give us a retention bonus so people don't leave for another department.
I'll leave it at that so I don't dox myself.
You can tell us the field of work, that wouldn't Dox you to know it's programing versus electrician or something.
While I agree with you, this doesn’t mean that Eastern Europe was communist.
They did attempt to be communist, but they failed like every other attempt will fail. Greed is basic human nature, and those who have it more than others will find a way to abuse the system, get in charge and ruin it.
Greed is basic human nature
I'm not arguing your other points, but this isn't always true. Humans seem to crave respect, not necessarily monetory wealth. If you want you can read more about gift economies.
What did they do to be communist? And what about a society where there is no such thing as 'in charge'?
How would a society like that work?