What is communism?

[shunyadragon]

Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Mercantilism is a form of economic nationalism. Its goal is to enrich and empower the nation and state to the maximum degree, by acquiring and retaining as much economic activity as possible within the nation's borders. Manufacturing and industry, particularly of goods with military applications, were prioritized. Mercantilism sought to ensure the nation produced as much volume and variety of output as possible,

I included several related definitions of economic and political theory related to communism. The idea is to have a more comprehensive discussion on communism and the real world.

First, there is nothing in these definitions that indicates nor designates religion as a part of these economic and political theories.Yes Karl Marx attacked religion and was an atheist, but this is Karl Marx's religious view, and not necessarily a property of communism nor socialism, which have much older roots in economic and political philosophy.

The following questions will begin the discussion:

Were USSR, China, Korea and other East European Countries truly Communist?

What is the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism in history?

What is the most recent successful model of communism/socialism? Hints: (1) It was very successful and ended recently for negotiated political reasons. (2) It was an entity under the United States government.

 

[leibowde84]

Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Mercantilism is a form of economic nationalism. Its goal is to enrich and empower the nation and state to the maximum degree, by acquiring and retaining as much economic activity as possible within the nation's borders. Manufacturing and industry, particularly of goods with military applications, were prioritized. Mercantilism sought to ensure the nation produced as much volume and variety of output as possible,

I included several related definitions of economic and political theory related to communism. The idea is to have a more comprehensive discussion on communism and the real world.

First, there is nothing in these definitions that indicates nor designates religion as a part of these economic and political theories.Yes Karl Marx attacked religion and was an atheist, but this is Karl Marx's religious view, and not necessarily a property of communism nor socialism, which have much older roots in economic and political philosophy.

The following questions will begin the discussion:

Were USSR, China, Korea and other East European Countries truly Communist?

What is the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism in history?

What is the most recent successful model of communism/socialism? Hints: (1) It was very successful and ended recently for negotiated political reasons. (2) It was an entity under the United States government.

Thanks for posting this. I think that the term "communism" is used often with misunderstanding and sometimes total ignorance. Socialism is not communism, and communism is not based in any way on a lack of religion. Now, I'm sure someone will come on and say, "name one communist society that was not atheist", so brace yourself. But, a statement like that demonstrates its own ignorance.

As to your question, I'm interested to know. What were you referring to?

 

[sun rise]

Wikipedia traces communism as a philosophy way way back in history from Marx. So the word "communism" might refer to modern Marxist communism, libertarian communism, Christian communism and other variations.

According to Richard Pipes, the idea of a classless, egalitarian society first emerged in Ancient Greece.[10] The 5th-century Mazdak movement in Persia (Iran) has been described as "communistic" for challenging the enormous privileges of the noble classes and the clergy, for criticizing the institution of private property and for striving to create an egalitarian society.[11][12]


At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[13] In the medieval Christian church, for example, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and their other property (see Religious and Christian communism).

 

[Valjean]

I'd always thought of the Hutterites as communist, but by the above definition they would seem to be socialists.

Our Beliefs

 

[shunyadragon]

As for religion.

All properly Marxist communists are materialists.
Materialism and materialist dialectics are what form the communist method that Marxists deem scientific.

You can be religious and a communist.
You would struggle to be religious and properly Marxist.

Your describing a particular philosophy of Marxist communism, which does not represent all forms of communism in history. The definition of communism is not necessarily Marxist.

 

[shunyadragon]

The reason I included mercantilism in the definitions was that in reality the goals of USSR, PR China, and most other governments called communist was State Mercantilism. The present governments of Russia and China have strong Nationalist Mercantilist economic and political goals.

In reality none of these countries truly had an egalitarian classless society. The had a strong hierarchal structure of increased privilege at the higher levels.

Based on the responses so far there is a lack of understanding between the reality of economic and political theory involving 'communism, socialism, and state merecantilism,' and gray area between them in the definitions.

The rule of Mao Tse Tung Was actually Dynasty pyramid structure, and not an egalitarian classless society. The last dynasty in China.

 

[YmirGF]

Why do what are ostensibly "Communist" governments have such a tendency to become personality cults. (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Casto, Tito ...)

 

[Revoltingest]

Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Mercantilism is a form of economic nationalism. Its goal is to enrich and empower the nation and state to the maximum degree, by acquiring and retaining as much economic activity as possible within the nation's borders. Manufacturing and industry, particularly of goods with military applications, were prioritized. Mercantilism sought to ensure the nation produced as much volume and variety of output as possible,

I included several related definitions of economic and political theory related to communism. The idea is to have a more comprehensive discussion on communism and the real world.

First, there is nothing in these definitions that indicates nor designates religion as a part of these economic and political theories.Yes Karl Marx attacked religion and was an atheist, but this is Karl Marx's religious view, and not necessarily a property of communism nor socialism, which have much older roots in economic and political philosophy.

The following questions will begin the discussion:

Were USSR, China, Korea and other East European Countries truly Communist?

What is the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism in history?

What is the most recent successful model of communism/socialism? Hints: (1) It was very successful and ended recently for negotiated political reasons. (2) It was an entity under the United States government.

What would help some of us would be a comparison of 2 societies...one commie, one socialist.
This would really bring it home.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why do what are ostensibly "Communist" governments have such a tendency to become personality cults. (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Casto, Tito ...)

This broadly true of many recent totalitarian governments whether they are described as communist or not. In reality Nationalist Mercantilism dominated all the recent totalitarian governments

 

[YmirGF]

This broadly true of many recent totalitarian governments whether they are described as communist or not. In reality Nationalist Mercantilism dominated all the recent totalitarian governments

And yet to deny that said governments, who described themselves as communist, were communist, would likely have had rather serious consequences for the person espousing the opinion. That begs the question, "Has there ever been a purely communist government anywhere in history?" @Sartre @shunyadragon

 

[shunyadragon]

And yet to deny that said governments, who described themselves as communist, were communist, would likely have had rather serious consequences for the person espousing the opinion. That begs the question, "Has there ever been a purely communist government anywhere in history?" @Sartre @shunyadragon

The next post will describe this entity of the US government which was as close to Communism as any in the world.

 

[Duke_Leto]

Shunyadragon, I think you have a few things wrong.

Communism - a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Firstly, communism and socialism have been historically used to refer to the same thing. They are often used differently now, but the ways in which they're used differ depending on the speaker's school of thought. I'll try to clarify later.

Secondly, socialism and communism are not derived from Karl Marx, any more than capitalism is derived from Adam Smith. The notion of communism/socialism predated him by a century at least. Marx, in fact, did not write very much of "communism" or how "communism" should be implemented; his writings, in fact, were mostly critiques of capitalism; most notably his magnum opus, Das Kapital [Capital].

Thirdly, many communists disagree with Marx about various things, especially anarchists. Marx is not the founder of communism, or considered to be infallible among the left. He is influential because of two things; first, his critique of capitalism in and of itself, and secondly, his bringing this into the academic world. Before him and Engels, communist theory was mainly limited to the working class.


Onto the topic of the thread though,

Were USSR, China, Korea and other East European Countries truly Communist?

I don't believe any of them actually declared themselves to be communist; they said they were "socialist." As I mentioned earlier, the definitions of socialism and communism seem to differ depending on who you talk to.

The USSR, China, Korea, etc --really, most self-declared "socialist" states -- were based on the "Marxist-Leninist" school of thought. MLs think that "communism" is the final state they want to attain, while "socialism" is the name of the transitional process. What this means is that their leaders thought they were "moving toward" communism.

I don't think they were at all. My main problems with ML theory is that:

1) They essentially believe that the proletarians they supposedly care so much about are too dumb to think for themselves, and require what they call a "vanguard" party to lead the communist movement, which will supposedly relinquish its power, once it attains it, to the working class, as the state "withers away." Looking at the state of socialist states throughout history, one can see how that worked out.

2) They don't understand economics, or how capitalism operates. What they believe/d is that if you got rid of the capitalist class, while leaving the structures of capitalism intact, capitalism would vanish. Instead, what happened is that the state took over the role of the capitalist, leaving the system of production essentially the same, if more centralized and controlled. The "socialist" states are therefore referred to on the left as "state capitalist." So what they ended up with is essentially capitalism, just controlled by a despotic state instead of capitalists and corporations that are hopefully regulated by a less oppressive state.

What is the relationship between Christianity and communism/socialism in history?

Weren't the apostles communist? According to Acts, they lived together, sold their possessions to provide for anyone as they required, and "held all things in common." Sounds like communism to me. ツ

What is the most recent successful model of communism/socialism? Hints: (1) It was very successful and ended recently for negotiated political reasons. (2) It was an entity under the United States government.

I'm dumb; what are you referring to?

 

[metis]

In political science and common but not universal usage, there's a difference between "communism" and "Communism", with use of the latter usually being a reference to Marxism.

So, Jamestown colony worked under "communism" but not "Communism".

Secondly, the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and "Communist China" were not communist but a political/economic/philosophical system based on the teachings of Marx, which never reached the "communist" phase because pretty much the entire world would have to operate on that principle since the final stage involved the dissolution of federal governments, thus putting all sovereignty at the local level with community ownership.[how's that for a run-on sentence]

 

[sun rise]

And yet to deny that said governments, who described themselves as communist, were communist, would likely have had rather serious consequences for the person espousing the opinion. That begs the question, "Has there ever been a purely communist government anywhere in history?" @Sartre @shunyadragon

A purely communist government cannot exist under Marxism because the state is supposed to cease to exist with everyone being self-governing.

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

 

[YmirGF]

A purely communist government cannot exist under Marxism because the state is supposed to cease to exist with everyone being self-governing.

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

Thank you, @sunrise123 I will admit I was well aware of the answer prior to asking the question. My tiny point is that I often wonder why people have any interest in Communism, whatsoever, due to its inherent unworkability. For example, this is what @Sartre was referring to in the transitional phase of socialism towards a communist nirvana. The problem is the state can't seem to figure out how to liquidate itself and return power to the unwashed masses, the much ballyhooed proletariat. It's almost as if the whole idea is predicated on a profound misunderstanding of the human condition.

 

[sun rise]

Thank you, @sunrise123 I will admit I was well aware of the answer prior to asking the question. My tiny point is that I often wonder why people have any interest in Communism, whatsoever, due to its inherent unworkability. For example, this is what @Sartre was referring to in the transitional phase of socialism towards a communist nirvana. The problem is the state can't seem to figure out how to liquidate itself and return power to the unwashed masses, the much ballyhooed proletariat. It's almost as if the whole idea is predicated on a profound misunderstanding of the human condition.

I agree and find all such philosophies impossible given human nature as it is today. Someday people will be more mature.

 

[YmirGF]

Because they don't see it as inherently unworkable like you do.
Surprise surprise.

And we all know how well that works out for people like me if the true believers ever assume power.

 

[sayak83]

And yet to deny that said governments, who described themselves as communist, were communist, would likely have had rather serious consequences for the person espousing the opinion. That begs the question, "Has there ever been a purely communist government anywhere in history?" @Sartre @shunyadragon

The Amish should qualify as communists...

 

[shunyadragon]

Shunyadragon, I think you have a few things wrong.



Firstly, communism and socialism have been historically used to refer to the same thing. They are often used differently now, but the ways in which they're used differ depending on the speaker's school of thought. I'll try to clarify later.

Secondly, socialism and communism are not derived from Karl Marx, any more than capitalism is derived from Adam Smith. The notion of communism/socialism predated him by a century at least. Marx, in fact, did not write very much of "communism" or how "communism" should be implemented; his writings, in fact, were mostly critiques of capitalism; most notably his magnum opus, Das Kapital [Capital].

Thirdly, many communists disagree with Marx about various things, especially anarchists. Marx is not the founder of communism, or considered to be infallible among the left. He is influential because of two things; first, his critique of capitalism in and of itself, and secondly, his bringing this into the academic world. Before him and Engels, communist theory was mainly limited to the working class.


Onto the topic of the thread though,



I don't believe any of them actually declared themselves to be communist; they said they were "socialist." As I mentioned earlier, the definitions of socialism and communism seem to differ depending on who you talk to.

The USSR, China, Korea, etc --really, most self-declared "socialist" states -- were based on the "Marxist-Leninist" school of thought. MLs think that "communism" is the final state they want to attain, while "socialism" is the name of the transitional process. What this means is that their leaders thought they were "moving toward" communism.

I don't think they were at all. My main problems with ML theory is that:

1) They essentially believe that the proletarians they supposedly care so much about are too dumb to think for themselves, and require what they call a "vanguard" party to lead the communist movement, which will supposedly relinquish its power, once it attains it, to the working class, as the state "withers away." Looking at the state of socialist states throughout history, one can see how that worked out.

2) They don't understand economics, or how capitalism operates. What they believe/d is that if you got rid of the capitalist class, while leaving the structures of capitalism intact, capitalism would vanish. Instead, what happened is that the state took over the role of the capitalist, leaving the system of production essentially the same, if more centralized and controlled. The "socialist" states are therefore referred to on the left as "state capitalist." So what they ended up with is essentially capitalism, just controlled by a despotic state instead of capitalists and corporations that are hopefully regulated by a less oppressive state.



Weren't the apostles communist? According to Acts, they lived together, sold their possessions to provide for anyone as they required, and "held all things in common." Sounds like communism to me. ツ



I'm dumb; what are you referring to?

You misunderstand me, I had not concluded that the PR China and Russia were either communist or socialist. I had more questions than specific answers. I did conclude if you read my posts, the government and economic system is more like Nationalist Mercantilism than either Communism or Socialism.

More to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Another thing that should be pointed out.

Marx didn't say all property should be publicly owned.

Good point which would void both the USSR and China as communist, and in fact not socialist despite claims as such.