I have arrived at several conclusions about this question and will entertain any debate concerning these musings.
I will state several propositions in the form of "generalized observation" and try to briefly support these through example. The entire subject requires at least 35 years of study, so if you haven't studied that long, please just observe.
1 - The masses of people tend to be very caring and social in nature and in general are willing and eager to share wealth and distribute land to all.
This is what I have personally observed and in my travels and studies I see nothing that refutes it. My grandfather took in several homeless people and families. In one case, he even let a family live in one of his houses for ten years, provided them food and fuel and health care.
2 - Because of this inborn goodness and general willingness to share, good causes are able to be suborned by evil "leaders" who's only true goal is "power". Several examples of socialization that were hi-jacked by evil are Nazi Germany, USSR,China,Cuba,Viet Nam, and Cambodia. We'll give the current new crop of South American commies a pass until they hang themselves.
It is my observation that kind and good people who are not "selfish" in the best sense of the word, tend to be lazy in protecting their liberty. They are so 'good' that the idea that others aren't as they are... is literally "unthinkable".
3 - My thesis is that Communism and Marxism in it's many forms has always failed because they depend on benevolence at the leadership level and because of the basic nature of man, they ineviatbly get the most ruthless power hungry killer in the pack.
Communism is a "dedicated dictatorship". By it's founding definition as being "a single people" unwilling to tolerate political "competition". In happy books for children, the land is led by a kind king. In the real world we get Hitler,Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
4 - Socialism in educated societies seem to work by their (meaning the Peoples) willing acceptance of political "competition".
Based on this, I think I have arrived at a predictive indicator to my thesis. 4-a ... "Any socialist government cum dictatorship that outlaws opposition is doomed to fail because it will require brutal killing to maintain it's sole authority."
In short... All efforts at "true" communism to date have been put upon uneducated and illiterate peasants. In Sweden the masses are not able to be hijacked by seemingly good ideas like "land reform" because the populous actually know that "land reform" is "loss of my land".
Now I will indulge a bit of rambling. Have any of you gone into the archives of the USSR that have been recently declassified? Well, from 1915 to 1943 anyway. These are very interesting.
One gets to see that Chairman Mao was hand selected by Stalin because he was a fellow communist party member with Professor Chen in Shanghai in 1923. Mao made Stalins aquaintence through Chen and then endeared himself to Stalin completely and finally during the Hunan farmers revolt in 1927 when Mao was able to see the power of violence. He wrote several letters to Stalin stating that at last he was able to see the vision that Stalin engendered for the cause. The violence he saw was that of "Doe Dee Ju" or "struggle against the landlord"; or as Mao later called it "land reform". But what he admired the most was the "thug violence" that succeeded so completely where "protest" failed. Mao became a fan and devotee of thug violence and never again apologized for using it. He was a pragmatist. Of all the Communist revolutions, only the Chinese revolution never had a single "popular revolt" in any city. Mao felt that there wase no need to put effort into such "weak" displays when thug violence and the death of half the population could attain a much more "satisfying result" ... his, not my description.
The thing about Mao's "land reform" was that the peasants were given land which -- three years later -- was taken from them by the state. This is crucial if we are to understand the need for "Power" that drives the heart of communism.
It is really interesting to read the cables between Stalin and Mao -- Up to 4 or 5 per day in 1948, 49 and 50. Stalin actually makes margin notes telling him how to improve the killing of small farmers for example. This isn't conjecture. Go read it.
From 1958 to 1961 Mao took the food from these collecives and sold it to the Russians for Nuclear weaponry and military goods. Thirty-eight MILLION peasants died of starvation and slave labor. Why? Because the heart of the machine, ie, Mao... craved "power". He truly had a desire to rule the world. This caused the great break with the soviet union and his courting Richard Nixon in 1973. And it worked. China got it's hardware and goods from the US following this time. But interestingly, only after Mao's death in '76.
In summary. Communism always fails because it's self imposed "dictatorship" is always and inevitably taken over by an evil capitalist who knows power from shinola. The reason is obvious. Sharing and caring are learned traits whereas "chimp credits" are part of our genetic code. Everybody understands "greediness" because without it, we are dead.
Sadly, we also know and accept these "cults of death" and apologize for them for decades because our own chimpness has been violated. One such effort that is worthy of study is the current effort of Noam Chomsky to "bring down" Jung Chang over her new book on Mao. But I digress.
All the intellectual dabbling in the world can't overcome our genetic nature as dedicated predators. Any cause is grist for the mill of the evil to dominate the weak minded of the world. So it behooves us to study the path of our fellows and understand the true nature of man.
Very interesting - any links to this material?
I have heard it said that Mao made Stalin look like a pleasant guy!
2 points to your commentary:
1. There has never been true communism any where in the world, thus you cannot claim it always fails. What we have had -as you point out - is mere dictatorship. True communism would have co-ordinators (or rulers) constantly taking it in turns.
Personally, I believe that communism would always fail for the reason that people need some reward for their efforts. If everyone got the same no matter what, then I think we would end up with a unmotivated, deflated, lazy population.
2. You talk about socialism as if it is the same as communism. It is different. It allows inequality, and hence gives the citizens the motivation to work hard and earn their increased reward. Put simplistically, socialism is a hybrid of capitalism and communism. It allows those at the top to get richer, whilst providing a safety net for those at the bottom.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHe will probably answer you but my read of it is he thinks human
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you are saying, because of man's evil nature, communism can never succeed?
nature is generally kind, but naive, hoping a dictator will be kind and
a wise leader. The examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao show
otherwise. I would also throw in Idi Amin.
Originally posted by howardgeeSocialism is not a watered down version of communism. They are the same thing (Cripes - I'm agreeing with SVW!!).
[b
You talk about socialism as if it is the same as communism. It is different. It allows inequality, and hence gives the citizens the motivation to work hard and earn their increased reward. Put simplistically, socialism is a hybrid of capitalism and communism. It allows those at the top to get richer, whilst providing a safety net for those at the bottom.[/b]
What you describe - safety nets etc etc is social democracy, which is a different thing.
In cold war times, people called themselves socialists rather than communists, to distance themselves from the USSR. Also, people view socialism as the means to achieve communism, but politically, they are really the same thing.
SVW, of course, has no idea about either.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
I think it should be more like, "why totalitarianism always fails."
I believe communism would succeed if not just wealth was distributed evely but also power. Why, would the government deign to receive the same amount of produce and land as a farmer. Thus, i think that a kind of democratic communism (wouldn't that just be socialism?) would be better.
Originally posted by RedmikeWell, they are not the same thing, which I thought that you of all people (being a socialist) would know.
Socialism is not a watered down version of communism. They are the same thing (Cripes - I'm agreeing with SVW!!).
What you describe - safety nets etc etc is social democracy, which is a different thing.
In cold war times, people called themselves socialists rather than communists, to distance themselves from the USSR. Also, people view socialism as th ...[text shortened]... , but politically, they are really the same thing.
SVW, of course, has no idea about either.
If they were the same thing, why would both terms exist in our vocabulary?
Originally posted by RedmikeFor one, Blair's Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International, along with a great number of social democratic parties.
OK - what do you think the differences between socialism and communusm are?
It's just the biggest international organization of socialists, but what do they know?
Some Communists/Marxists have been trying to coin the term for themselves in order to shed the negative conotation of the word "Communism" and to dissociate themselves with failed "People's Republics" but originally it has been used by social democrats.
Originally posted by PalynkaMembership of the socialist international doesn't make a party a socialist party. Even the SI's own site says: "The Socialist International is the worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties" - clearly drawing a distinction between these 3 kinds of parties.
For one, Blair's Labour Party is a member of the Socialist International, along with a great number of social democratic parties.
It's just the biggest international organization of socialists, but what do they know?
Some Communists/Marxists have been trying to coin the term for themselves in order to shed the negative conotation of the word "Communism ...[text shortened]... ves with failed "People's Republics" but originally it has been used by social democrats.
So, the SI is the biggest international organisation of socialists, social democrat and labour parties. There are plenty of socialist parties not in the SI.
Also, Communism and Marxism aren't the same beast - Marxism is just one 'branch' of Communism.
The original use of the term Social Democrats was by by Russian socialists - Lenin & Co. In this case, communist, socialist and social democrat were pretty much the same thing. Social democracy (in western Europe at least) has come to mean the sort of welfare system we generally have to varying degrees.
Originally posted by Conrau KThe problem with this thinking is that wealth does not naturally distribute itself evenly. How do we ensure that wealth is equal? Of course we have to have an all powerful state to facilitate equal distribution of wealth.
I think it should be more like, "why totalitarianism always fails."
I believe communism would succeed if not just wealth was distributed evely but also power. Why, would the government deign to receive the same amount of produce and land as a farmer. Thus, i think that a kind of democratic communism (wouldn't that just be socialism?) would be better.
You can't have equal wealth without totalitarian power. ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to even come close.
As far as "equal power" goes, it can't be attained. Some are better at persuasion than others. Those people naturally have more power in any form of distributed power. You could in theory have 300 million people all vote on each minute government action. Of course you have to teach 300 million people the detailed principles of engineering so that they can judge for themselves when a bridge is safe. Or, you have a small number that have the power to persuade the masses, and they could have alterier motives.
Originally posted by howardgeeHi Howard,
Very interesting - any links to this material?
I have heard it said that Mao made Stalin look like a pleasant guy!
2 points to your commentary:
1. There has never been true communism any where in the world, thus you cannot claim it always fails. What we have had -as you point out - is mere dictatorship. True communism would have co-ordinators ( ...[text shortened]... It allows those at the top to get richer, whilst providing a safety net for those at the bottom.
I have spent an inordinant amount of time studying Communism. A very good "generic" source is the ISR or International Socialist Review.
The Marxist is also educational.
http://www.isreview.org/links.shtml#inte
Here are a couple of book reviews of the previously mentioned book by Jung Chang...
These are both about as left leaning as it gets here in the US. I won't bother posting reviews by right wingers. It is controversial enough as written and I think that the book is worth while. I have not read it yet, but watched a two hour q&a on Book TV with it's authors.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120801641_pf.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/25/BAG13FTR9A1.DTL
"Mao: The Unknown Story," by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
I guess that what I meant (responding to your #1) is that a "full collectivization" has never succeeded. That would mean the full implementation of communal life and total equality for all citizens. Don't you find it interesting that the attempts (and I will admit "to date"😉 have all turned into dictatorships and totalitarian nightmares?
In response to your #2 point, I will just say that I indeed see "socialism" as creeping communism or "baby communal equality" if you please. I am making no value judgement as to whether it is a good thing or a bad. But taken to it's logical extension, equality is the inevitable goal. And to not say that "equality" doesn't tend to "total equality" is to beg the question. Indeed, by definition "anything short of total equality is inequality".
The Social safety net is an interesting beast, and I think that it is implemented much better by capitalists than socialists. The "strings attached" greedy gift ensures a "hands on utilization" of resource that is much bigger per person than "uniform minimum to all" can offer.
Thanks for your post. Well said and well thought out.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHi Freaky,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as though you are saying, because of man's evil nature, communism can never succeed?
The definition of "Intellectualism" can be bantered about a bit, but basically one takes easy and glib statements and tries to add MEANINGFUL complexity.
This is not an easy thing to do in a subject as difficult as "socialism" vs. "Partial Socialism". Redmike was making reference to this effort below, I believe.
And so the very concept of "mans evil nature" is one subject and "socialism/communism" is another. I think that some (if not most) people can be "good" and indeed many ARE communist. So with a discourse of several days, we would inevitably arrive at the fact that "evil" alone can't explain the "to date" failed efforts of the "good" to collectivize. My argument is more concise. That these good people SEEM TO BE coopted by evil dictators. I think this is the reason I opened this thread. To examine if this is so, and if it has a grain of truth "to date"... then why is that?
Thanks for your post. Nice to meet you.
Mike
Originally posted by sonhouseHi Don,
He will probably answer you but my read of it is he thinks human
nature is generally kind, but naive, hoping a dictator will be kind and
a wise leader. The examples of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao show
otherwise. I would also throw in Idi Amin.
I think you know me quite well. The idea that "one form of government" is determinant as to our human nature seems quite anathema.
So you have my intent. Why do these bad guys prey on socialism? I wonder if it could be the "absolute INCLUSIVE nature" of collectivization? In my next post to redmike, I might explore this a bit more.
Thanks for filling in for me while I ran to the dugout.
Mike