Communism, the theory , vs
We can generally agree that the attempts failed for the most part.
But a detailed view of the mechanism for how each slightly different approach failed will help refine the theory.
Please catalog examples of earlier attempts in history
And do your best not to simplify the narrative
No one has been able to cement revolutionary political gains without a transition to authoritarianism. Communism preaches botton-up rule until it gets power. Then those same things become threats to the revolution.
Instead of addressing this contradiction head on, Gramsci ramified it, creating the school of thought that basically you NEED an intelligencia to run things, and to create class contiousness in the first place. Variations of this have now been the dominant school of Marxism since the 2nd half of the 20th century. So they learned, they just learned the wrong lesson.
>Gramsci ramified it, creating the school of thought that basically you NEED an intelligencia to run things
Way to misinterpret what an organic intellectual is.
Good job. Read Gramsci next time.
Generally, when one person raises grossly fallacious interpretations, it is considered on topic to school them. In particular there are a number of conspiratorial interpretations of what people have read on Wikipedia about Gramsci.
>One guy predicts that the capitalist system will eventually collapse due to its own contradictions, an event that will give rise to a dictatorship of the proletariat and, consequently, communism.
>Fast-forward to 2016, capitalism is stronger than ever, delivering massive prosperity to human society in a way never seen in history.
>All applications of a dictatorship of the proletariat were not started by workers, but by "intellectuals" through vanguard parties.
>They all have ended in misallocation of resources, starvation, genocide, corruption and destruction of cultural heritage.
>Some guy thinks we should "refine the theory", possibly to make another attempt
>That is literally what every 20th and 21st century socialist dictator has said
I hope I haven't simplified it enough.
>growing wealth inequality, political instability, terrorism, population explosion in developing world, degradation of natural world
I'm no Marxist, but life today isn't necessarily all it could be
Prosperity is relative and not increasing for the average joe
If you donnt want to participate then don't.
Moreover your claim that all attempts were by an elite is demonstrably false
Your narrative is too simple lacking in detail and obviously fronting a political opinion
Capitalism is clearly not stronger than ever considering the vast majority of economies including America's thoroughly employ socialist and kynesian practices
He was wrong about revolution, but right about eventual socialism and communism
Scandinavia and Canada are socialist already.
Socialism and Communism are not inherently authoritarian or oppressive, only soviet style Revolutionary Communism is.
Compare the average joe from the 18th century, plowing the fields of his lord, not knowing when his next meal will be, cold, dirty, ignorant, no access to entreteinment, can't speak his mind, can't start a business, can't invest, no way to move up the social ladder and dying of the most minor diseases, to the average joe in 2016. I would say things have gotten better for him.
>I just wish we could all actually fullfill my request
Read Pirani. Then Fitzpatrick. Then Conquest. Then Andrle. Then Ðilas. Then Kołakowski. Then Miklos Haraszti. Then Cliff. Then Trotsky.
It's certainly not the freeway market in the world considering the amound of federal and state regulations stiffling any such free enterprise that hasn't already been established beforesaid regulations came into effect.
Let's not forget public education housing assistance a standing army taxes and a pletirra of prottectionist laws that are ever expanding in scope.
Certainly not free
The biggest problem with communism is that its economic efficiency is dependent on public enthusiasm rather than personal greed, or more so than other systems. To keep public enthusiasm up the government has to resort to destructive methods like starving dissenters and lots and lots of propaganda. They usually are against pluralism and create one party systems to show unity, but one party systems are awful cesspools of corruption where all the actual policy making is as far from the public's eye as is possible.
That's the best explanation I can muster as to why communism keeps failing.
I know the Gracchus brothers tried to redistribute grain in the roman republic in the 2nd century BC. That's the earliest attempt at something heading in the direction of communism I'm aware of.
As an aside, the measures were extremely popular and almost passed, but they were both assassinated by intrenched members of the roman oligarchy.
>These are the conventional definitions aren't they?
They're one set. The other is the lower and FULL COMMUNISM definition about whether other classes exist and whether the armed proletariat in workers councils still exists as a "state"
Personally I haven't been convinced by the idea that Greed makes people work more efficiently. There's more nuance than that imo.
I think this is relevent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
>There's more nuance than that imo.
Last time I checked work motivation study was an entire sub-field of industrial relations, and "motivation" is a primary preoccupation of the joke of a discipline "human resources management."
Back in my day we used to call it labour discipline. Funny story: stakhanov was a cunt of a foreman.
People have aspirations, and communism doesn't acknowledge that. Everyone wants to do something special with their lives, be it, become a soccer player, a writer, and communism doesn't work toward these goals. Also, people usually crave to earn material stuff and luxuries and that's only natural, but it's denied by communism, that I think is its main flaw
>whether the armed proletariat in workers councils still exists as a "state"
That's pretty specific to the soviet style vanguard government.
Communism is a hypothetical economic state in which there is no money.
As an ideology, "Communism" is shorthand for working towards reaching that state of economic communism.
Socialism is another economic state, in which money exists.
You can refer to ideologically communist countries as either Socialist or Communist interchangeably, and I think this is where the confusing comes in.
Referring to the soviet union as economically Communist though is just misinformed.
Not one of you. Neither the Marxists nor the capitalists on this thread attempted to historically substantiate you comments. Instead you justrepeated the same ridiculoussly repetitive logical theoretical arguments and then You presented incompatible slogans.
Congratulations you both turned my thread into a joke.
/hist/ might as well be /pol/ with people like this running amok
>That's pretty specific to the soviet style vanguard government.
Not really. The factory councils were disarmed in early 1918, and lost political control in early 1918 to geographic councils dominated by the bolsheviks and the old tzarist bureaucracy taken over intact by the bolsheviks.
It's the exact opposite of vanguardism.
Yes, they typically are the group that redistributes the wealth. What point are you making?
Considering the fact that they have been under embargo by the USA and their allies (up until recently at least), exist just next to the USA, used to be a total shithole, used only as a vacation place for rich Americans and now having one of the best healthcare systems in the world, I'd say they do alright.
Of course it's not ideal, thought.
The general mechanism for communist failure is simple: economies are more complex than can be explicitly managed by human minds, so attempts to control the economy with planning committees and bureaus do not work. Capitalism works around this by using decentralized, self-organizing systems to manage the distribution of material. Communism would work fine with carefully implemented, market-like systems.
Not saying "communism would work fine with a free market". The medium of exchange in, for example,
is necessarily different from the public currency and carefully managed. But communism, or any other ism, will not work in any modern complex economy if it insists on centralization.
you tell me if this has something to do with marxist theory one way or another
>dude in charge of some regional agronomic reform is a uneducated patijček given position for heroism during war and such
>somehow gets the idea goats are the enemy
>possibly crazy because war
>party directive is holy scripture no matter how retarded
>army dudes looking at each other in complete bevilderment as they actualy get orders to round up goats
>no one dares question party directive
>whole region gets almost purged of all thing goaty
>people actualy smuggling and hiding goats just like they did people and supplies during the war
now see, this kind of retarded bullshit happened in communist countries often, this is just a blatantly silly example but there are countless others more complex, but i seriously doubt marx would have agreed with it or with the fact half the ruling party were corrupt nepotistic uneducated morrons often from basicaly tribal hillbilly backrounds for the first several decades after ww2
thats partly why there were so many failures, you cant realy expect someone whos only expertiese is herding sheep and blowing up nazi tanks to have any real ability in managing a colectivised economy
also, if you pay attention you will see that in all post-socialist countries in which the 'new' ruling party(literaly the same fucking assholes, the same fucking ones) applied neoliberalism the same way they applied marxism decades earlier, shit failed catastrophicaly, again, this time destroing what was actualy acomplished during all those arduous years of communism, and words like privatization and free market have become like curses among the population
>Communism, the theory, vs the application.
>We can generally agree that the attempts failed for the most part.
>But a detailed view of the mechanism for how each slightly different approach failed will help refine the theory.
How will criticising something that wasn't part of the theory, and arguably against the theory, help refine the theory?
In any case, there's way too much people that equate communism to central planning so the comment was necessary.
>How will criticising something that wasn't part of the theory, and arguably against the theory, help refine the theory?
To the extent that the theory of communism involves popular control of production, the popular conception of communism must be addressed.
but can we realy agree it failed for the most part?
i mean define 'most part'
i mean certain things were acomplished, for example eastern europe was basicaly rural and still semi-feudal before, the increase in literacy alone was a historical success, industrialisation and urbanisation happened, massive amounts of basic infrastructure were set up, in just a couple of decades, mortality actualy went down, standards of living actualy improved rapidly across the board, entire generations of people got acess to free education and health care, it was the first time in history any pesants son could get any higher education he wanted, and a actual civil society was set up under te protection of the regimes, etc...
its just that the starting point was such shit its hard for you today to understand that these were all mayor improvements, but more to the point that these would never have happened that way under capitalism of any form, places like poland or ucraine would still be third world countries, or just west eu colonies
>economies are more complex than can be explicitly managed by human minds, so attempts to control the economy with planning committees and bureaus do not work
That's absolutely correct, attempting to implement communism through central planning isn't very effective.
In order for communism to work properly, it must be applicated globaly. Otherwise, Capitalism will always win. Not because it is better, but because Capitalism will "lure" people with the possibilities it can offer, like a more luxurious life, standing above other people, as long as you work hard enough.
In other words, it uses the greed of people to it's own benefit.
Despite my beliefs (I consider myself a communist), I undestand that capitalism offers the chance of rising above the rest of the people. Of course, it would be delusional to think that EVERYONE can rise to the top. Also, the upper classes don't feel very comfortable with the idea of losing their position.
Anyway, to me choosing between Communism and Capitalism is like chosing not to gamble or to gamble. With Communism, you have the same as everyone, no more, no less. With Capitalism, by taking risks, you will end up having more or having less.
More or less, this is, I think, the main reason that Communism failed.
The other reason is that it was applicated through authotorianism, and not through democracy. Thus, the equality part of Communism was seriously damaged, since some people were more powerfull than the rest.
Just my thoughts.
>i mean certain things were acomplished, for example eastern europe was basicaly rural and still semi-feudal before, the increase in literacy alone was a historical success, industrialisation and urbanisation happened, massive amounts of basic infrastructure were set up, in just a couple of decades, mortality actualy went down, standards of living actualy improved rapidly across the board, entire generations of people got acess to free education and health care, it was the first time in history any pesants son could get any higher education he wanted, and a actual civil society was set up under te protection of the regimes, etc...
The United States accomplished all these feats and more without a bloody communist revolution.
This may seem counter intuitive but these attempts which arguably went against the intended goal were implemented with a desire to make it practical.
Lenin posited that since other parrallel attempts that followed the original failed Usually due to an inability of a decentralized revolutionary approach to effectively combat outside capitalist and feudalist forces (Paris commune, German revolution.. etc)
Therefore he redefined the vanguard pinto something more centralized.
He assumed that the parties intentions would remain earnest and eventually after stability would work to create the intended effect.
Initially it was successful
considering the Bolsheviks were the only ones who managed to fight and win their particular war of intervention
However the system fell apart due to the internal failures of the party. And arguably the extended period of antagonism towards the newlly formed Soviet union. Leading to what I presume would be the rise of Stalin and the Crystali sation of what was meant to be a temporarily beurocratic centralized communist application
Intentions are unobservable and therefore historically irrelevant. Whatever Lenin's ultimate end was, the soviet union stopped being a communist experiment when workers lost the power, which was basically day one.
Central planning, one party dictatorship, etc...
>b-but that's not communism!
You're correct, that is a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which according to Marx will magically disappear and then we'll be rich and happy!
Any day now I'm sure!
One could demonstrate the contrary with the rise of the Labour movement and the various bloody strikes. These admittedly did not devolve into the same thing as their eastern counterparts but they did lead to the introduction of strong organized unions with the workers interests in mind. In recent years this has changed
there is hardy any proleteriat in north korea, starving pesants dont count as proletariat
that for historical reasons they declare themselves a marxist country doesnt realy mean much, they are a example of military dictatorship so obvious its silly, they might as well declare themselves a absolutist monarchy with a god-emperor ruler, wouldnt make a centimeter of difference
You ignored the first question, misquoted the second one, and you are obviously arguing without any idea of what "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant (protip: their example of dictatorship of the proletariat is the paris commune).
Am I being rused?
>starving pesants dont count as proletariat
Maybe not to you, but to Lenin, Mao, and numerous other communist leaders and thinkers, they do. If I reckon, even Marx himself said that communism could be achieved in Russia without an industrial working class.
im assuming it was a process that took some centuries and was influenced by numerous complex factors, and even then most of the country was hardly rich and developed all up to the 40is, then the postwar boom occured kicked off by war effort industrial development and the whole technocratic logic of it, turning to consumerism to move all the manufactured surplus etc etc
being on the winner side in WW2 surely had something to do with it, as well as having practicaly a whole continent of resources to exploit in the first place, millions of people pouring in from europe for over a century, and so on, and so on...
you know you are on /his right?
>You ignored the first question
The first question was asinine. The "proletariat" can never "control" a country because it is impossible for uncoordinated actions to result in a state. There will always have to be the existence of a government to "pull the strings". Of course you probably don't believe that, because you're a braindead libturd.
>and you are obviously arguing without any idea of what "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant (protip: their example of dictatorship of the proletariat is the paris commune).
Protip : the paris commune was an oppressive one-party state which routinely summarily executed people only for being born in the wrong class.
Now kill yourself.
Please explain, in realistic terms, how the dictatorship of the proletariat can rule without the intermediary of a vanguard party.
>Thread about how historical failures of communism can be used to refine the theory
>But according to theory there have never been any failures!
Marxism, like libertarianism and anarchism, is a fine idea that could be improved on but never will be because its community is long since locked into total domination by turbulent obsessives. Abandon ship, new century new leftisms.
I don't think I'll commit suicide over a play on logic
The Paris commune was single party yet the party exerted limited control over the proletariat instead acting as a facilitator rather than director of the workers councils who in turn executed specific members of the upper class for specific crimes.
Ricidulous argument. Believing proletarian control of the state is impossible makes your argument about north korea representing the dictatorship of the proletariat an impossibility. In other words, you are confused enough to refute yourself. Pretty hilarious.
In any case, i don't give a fuck about you believing that stateless organic horizontalist organization is possible or not, north korea isn't an example of it by any stretch of imagination.
>The "proletariat" can never "control" a country because it is impossible for uncoordinated actions to result in a state.
Not that anon, but that's just a question of representation then. The intermediary state can establish democratic means of production.
>Please explain, in realistic terms, how the dictatorship of the proletariat can rule without the intermediary of a vanguard party.
they can organise on image boards and trough social media
but no kidding tho, technology, 2016, networks, communication technology, right? groups and cooperatives in a network... would function just fine
not the guy you asked but any way
> maybe look at project cybersin
A great example of how modern communication technologies have advanced. Hand-drawn data visualization of an entire economy in real time was not going to work then, but can be done now.
And while systems theory back then was probably not up to the task, that too has come a long way.
I apologize. It's just that I really wanted to stay away from more current events considering the propensity of 4chan to get "triggered" as they say.
I did make a mistake by not being specific. I think next time I'll just ask about an individual nation rather than the entire world in relation to a theory
>I don't think I'll commit suicide over a play on logic
>play on logic
It's simply "logic".
>The Paris commune was single party yet the party exerted limited control over the proletariat
Insofar as the "proletariat" was a rampaging mob of pillagers.
Show me a successful communist state which didn't look like detroit and baltimore and which, y'know, lasted a long time.
>Ricidulous argument. Believing proletarian control of the state is impossible makes your argument about north korea representing the dictatorship of the proletariat an impossibility.
Oh wow you actually get it.
>n other words, you are confused enough to refute yourself.
Wait what?! You were so close!!
So you've acknowledged that there has never been a "stateless organic horizontalist organization" as you put it, yet you still believe it can magically appear...
There's a term for people like you : "fucking idiot".
No, it's more profound than that. Define "democratic means of production" precisely. Tell me how industry would be run. Tell me how the economy would work. In precise terms.
Wait what? Did you just compare governments with twitter? Are you pretending to be clinically retarded or did you undergo a botched icepick lobotomy when you were a kid?
>upper class doesn't want to lose their position
Then why don't you tell me how many families stay rich for more than a single generation? You'll find the upper class (and specifically their heirs) gut themselves out of money very often.
Basically, and high class family that's been around long enough to actually worry about that position is generally the kind that can maintain it.
It's funny how you took what I said without source and argued with it any way
My claims weren't substantiated
the earlier comment was me taking your moralistic subjective approach and using it to make the opposite narrative.
Please stop mocking this thread. I haven't attacked your character so farbut you and the like , from the beginning decided it was appropriate to compare me to Stalin. It's obvious that all you want is a shouting match.
Best article I think I've ever read as to why centrally planned economies not only don't work, but CANNOT work.
So you're saying that the USA is comparable to those countries because it did the same thing, but it's not because it took longer?
>communism industrialized and litericed E yuros
>they're still shitholes compared to the country that took its sweet time.
So what makes them incomparable? The fact that one is fatter and better-off?
>So you've acknowledged that there has never been a "stateless organic horizontalist organization" as you put it, yet you still believe it can magically appear...
Are you retarded? We were never discussing if such organization is possible and i have no intention of doing so. By saying that communism is impossible you imply that north korea isn't communist, since it exists, which contradicts your statement about north korea being communist.
You are claiming at the same time that A is B, and that B is impossible. It's so evident that i'm legitimately surprised at your stupidity.
Can we please get on with a civil discussion?
I referred to the US, and as far as a source, I'll have to find that study when I'm not at work.
It's a well rounded a explanation for why the theory didn't work.
It had a few flaws.
He sort of brushed over the part where he said computational inadequacies would be filled in with "internal negotiations, arbitrariness and favoritism"
I would like more though
Are there more analytical arguments like this?
>Are there more analytical arguments like this?
Writing directly on the connection between economic complexity and limits of central control goes back a long ways
Outside the realm of economics, there's tons of military writing on accounting for the limits of human planning. Tends to be clearly written, practical, involve lots of military history, and it's generally free. Try poking around DoD CCRP.
Some cool shit
From my point of view, political ideology schould be chosen based on people mentality that prevail in the chosen state/country. For example Croatian politicians have been trying to force the idea of capitalism for 25 years, and still there are no results whatsoever.
sure there are results, the economy is in ruins, the society is faling apart and the population is moving towards extinction
id say those are some fucking results
i de nemot tripfegat molim te, koji ti je bog
>capitalism is stronger than ever
>as to why centrally planned economies not only don't work, but CANNOT work.
Yet companies exist and internally are centrally controlled fiefdoms and economies. Centrally controlled economies have existed for most of human history also you will be surprised what systems i've seen in Government planning, they make Cybersyn look like a childrens plaything.
Also I think a way around it would be using computers along with an organic input for new commodities (say a kickstarter-esque) system to actually "simulate" a market based on constant organic inputs which would then allow for planning.
Also there is something very important that Capitalist economists and those arguing the calculation debate often miss, Socialism is also a massive cultural shift towards anti-commodification and living more efficiently and sustainably, Socialism doesn't have to constantly make a bazillion consumer goods because it doesn't even pretend to offer the same choice in that regard to Capitalism because its an anti-consumerist ideology, one of the main points of Socialism I think any Socialist would bring up that because of technologically, people will need less and less consumer goods in the future, hell even now most people would really be happy with their phone, a computer and a TV and homewares, basically everything else is frivolous shit that you are largely tricked into buying through marketing.
> Yet companies exist and internally are centrally controlled fiefdoms and economies
I'm not sure you know what a fiefdom is. Also, the activities of firms are tremendously smaller and simpler than entire national economies.
> Centrally controlled economies have existed for most of human history
They worked fine a long time ago when economies were vastly simpler but have consistently failed in the modern era. Economic complexity has risen over time, rendering most of the past ineligible as precedent. We could not run the USA on an Aegean palace economy without gigantic reductions in quality of life.
The rate of profit in tertiary education at the point of production is at least 220%. Considering the non-immediate parts of the social worker, the rate of profit is still around 30-40%.
Your graph doesn't take into account new enclosures, reenclosure, proletarianisation or new commodities.
>Did you just compare governments with twitter?
Not that guy but that's one hell of a strawman. The fact that you ridiculed what anon was talking about while clearly making no effort to understand or even entertain it, and followed that up with a depressingly non-sequitor ad hom, shows your complete bias on the topic.