Do you think Communism should be despised as much as Nazism?

[Serge Forward]

How does communism work, in theory? You nationalise everything, then what? Decisions are made through ‘democratic centralism’ where every party member votes, according to wiki. Is there no representation, like MPs?

None of that is how communism works.

Communism is a social and economic system which does away with class, inequality, inequity and money. It places the means of production (factories, agriculture, distribution, services) in the hands of the population, controlled from the bottom up by workers and community organisations. It is a society based on the idea of "from each according to ability to each according to need". Throughout history, there have been no such examples of a communist society, and any such attempts to implement such a society on event the smallest scale have been ruthlessly and brutally surpressed by the agents of capitalism (sometimes by people claiming to be communists themselves).

 

[Sasaferrato]

When in the 1950s did this occur?

There wasn't a Labour government for the entirety of the 1950s.

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your ignorance.

(Not directed at you Pickman's. )

 

[JimW]

It’s at this point in the conversation I ask either side what they felt about Mao. Then I normally get asked to leave, or the conversation turns to their role as Labour parish councillor...

Re-read the first half of Meisner's political biography of Mao recently (must do the rest) as it happens, his early trajectory includes a period of out and out liberalism but the authoritarian streak was evident back in the Jiangxi soviet and certainly in Yan'an. But then even after '49 I don't think it's simply just a case of autocrat, though certainly the cult of personality laid a trap the Party found it couldn't get out of.

 

[Sasaferrato]

In China they first gave land to the farmers as family units and collectivisation came a little later; lots of landlords died in the initial "land reform" but unlike Russia collectivisation went fairly smoothly. When they broke them up again there were plenty of places that weren't too keen. There was massive state control of course but in certain senses people felt they had a lot more agency than under the old landlords or bosses, read credible accounts of the social dynamic in villages meaning there was popular input and old workers waxing fondly about the way their cadres had to consult with the shop floor before getting things done and not always getting their way, unlike modern boss worker relations. But overall it was top down command and you even had to get approval to be married in some instances.

But is still comes down to a one party state, with a bullet in the head for objectors.

I take your point though that it was marginally better than Russia. Slightly different flavours of communism.

When you consider the fate of the Uighurs today though, there is still quite a way to anything that resembles democracy.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

In China they first gave land to the farmers as family units and collectivisation came a little later; lots of landlords died in the initial "land reform" but unlike Russia collectivisation went fairly smoothly. When they broke them up again there were plenty of places that weren't too keen. There was massive state control of course but in certain senses people felt they had a lot more agency than under the old landlords or bosses, read credible accounts of the social dynamic in villages meaning there was popular input and old workers waxing fondly about the way their cadres had to consult with the shop floor before getting things done and not always getting their way, unlike modern boss worker relations. But overall it was top down command and you even had to get approval to be married in some instances.

The Great Leap Forward in China resulted in more than 50 million dead - went fairly smoothly? I think not.

 

[seventh bullet]

And probably in another galaxy...

Stalin was a Marxist, albeit a crude one, and a particular kind of Communist. The USSR and its influence worldwide was a genuine attempt at establishing an alternative to capitalism, unfortunately.

 

[JimW]

The Great Leap Forward in China resulted in more than 50 million dead - went fairly smoothly? I think not.

The move into collectivism didn't meet with the same mass resistance, as a lot of farmers had land of their own for the first time because of the Party. Thanks for reminding me of the Great Leap famines though, obviously hadn't thought about that.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Do some people on here think that the Russians were treated nicely by the Tsars? A few people on here need to brush up on their knowledge of Russia history!

Two wrongs don't make a right. Too difficult for the dialectical mind?

 

[JimW]

But is still comes down to a one party state, with a bullet in the head for objectors.

I take your point though that it was marginally better than Russia. Slightly different flavours of communism.

When you consider the fate of the Uighurs today though, there is still quite a way to anything that resembles democracy.

Yeah, I think this is either stuff that goes without saying or is wrong, for is, but either way from the perspective you get here it's more interesting to me to look at the changes in the lives of many, the opportunities missed and why the regime has persisted rather than just bemoaning what's happened.

 

[Schwartz]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Too difficult for the dialectical mind?

Again, you are either ignoring deliberately or missing my point entirely.

You seem to think only the Bolsheviks caused the civil war and were the people instigating all of the violence. What utter bollocks.

 

[A380]

None of that is how communism works.

Communism is a social and economic system which does away with class, inequality, inequity and money. It places the means of production (factories, agriculture, distribution, services) in the hands of the population, controlled from the bottom up by workers and community organisations. It is a society based on the idea of "from each according to ability to each according to need". Throughout history, there have been no such examples of a communist society, and any such attempts to implement such a society on event the smallest scale have been ruthlessly and brutally surpressed by the agents of capitalism (sometimes by people claiming to be communists themselves).

I think that’s Marx’s advanced communism. Primitive communism existed (if Marx was correct) before there was any surplus Labour to be exploited in terms of hunter gatherers and gifting societies. Was pretty shit so slavery was ‘better’ . I always took the stages of Marxist societal models to be improving for greater numbers but not all. Primitive communism > Slavery > feudalism > capitalism > socialism > communism. And I’m my little head the gap and difference between a socialist society and a communist one is as big as that between feudalism and capitalism or capitalism and socialism. But then I’m a fucking wet reformist who got his Marxist theory instead of fairy tales as a child...

 

[Sasaferrato]

Yeah, I think this is either stuff that goes without saying or is wrong, for is, but either way from the perspective you get here it's more interesting to me to look at the changes in the lives of many, the opportunities missed and why the regime has persisted rather than just bemoaning what's happened.

I should imagine that living in China, what to the West are tiny incremental 'loosening' of state control are very welcome.

The closest I've seen to a totalitarian state was East Germany, which was never as 'locked down' as China.

Unlike the OP, I see China and Russia heading towards a Western view, rather than the West heading towards communism.

 

[Schwartz]

There wasn't a Labour government for the entirety of the 1950s.

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your ignorance.

(Not directed at you Pickman's. )

Strawman. Who posted anything about the Prime Minister at any time during the 1950s?

In 1945 Labour won a landslide and in the 1950s socialism and other left-wing were popular and have remained so. Most people want a fairer society not a dog-eat-dog I’m alright, Jack, type of society.

 

[Schwartz]

Why is everyone still going on about China? It’s not even a communist country. The country is lead officially by the communist party, but the economic policies are not communist at all.

China is a bad example of referring to communism and it’s often used by those who dislike communism (although I’m suspicious about what they even know about communism anyway) and think that China proves that communism does not work.

 

[A380]

Why is everyone still going on about China? It’s not even a communist country. The country is lead officially by the communist party, but the economic policies are not communist at all.

This post is a good example of the stopped clock theory - except once a fucking long week rather than twice a day.

It was socialist though, and saw China go from less developed than India to the second - and soon to be the first - largest global exchange, at cost though. But then the industrial revolution and empire came at a huge cost too.

 

[Jay Park]

This post is a good example of the stopped clock theory - except once a fucking long week rather than twice a day.

It was socialist though, and saw China go from less developed than India to the second - and soon to be the first - largest global exchange, at cost though. But then the industrial revolution and empire came at a huge cost too.

China’s empire came at a huge cost?

 

[Schwartz]

It’s also worth pointing out that there is no getting away from the fact that Chairman Mao’s policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people, but many people don’t know what China was like before him and some good things that he did. He’s a very polarising figure, but it is undeniable that he unified China, transformed the country completely from an illiterate country to a literate country, improved the lives of women, improved education, etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

It’s also worth pointing out that there is no getting away from the fact that Chairman Mao’s policies resulted in the deaths of millions of people, but many people don’t know what China was like before him and some good things that he did. He’s a very polarising figure, but it is undeniable that he unified China, transformed the country completely from an illiterate country to a literate country, improved the lives of women, improved education, etc.

And that makes up for the many millions who died in the great leap forward

 

[Schwartz]

This post is a good example of the stopped clock theory - except once a fucking long week rather than twice a day.

It was socialist though, and saw China go from less developed than India to the second - and soon to be the first - largest global exchange, at cost though. But then the industrial revolution and empire came at a huge cost too.

Ad hominem.

If you don’t understand my argument then why bother to reply with a personal attack at all?

Has this thread not demonstrated that people will use the Soviet Union (normally during Joseph Stalin’s rule) and China as so-called proof that communism does not work?

 

[Pickman's model]

Ad hominem.

If you don’t understand my argument then why bother to reply with a personal attack at all?

Has this thread not demonstrated that people will use the Soviet Union (normally during Joseph Stalin’s rule) and China as so-called proof that communism does not work?

It's kinder than using the Soviet Union under Lenin or Brezhnev

 

[Schwartz]

And that makes up for the many millions who died in the great leap forward

Do you just post for the sake of it? I’ve already identified you as a troll so stop quoting me and go and bore someone else with your crap. Do one.

 

[Jay Park]

And that makes up for the many millions who died in the great leap forward

he has a point though there, and considering the size of China the arable land isn’t even 1/4.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Again, you are either ignoring deliberately or missing my point entirely.

You seem to think only the Bolsheviks caused the civil war and were the people instigating all of the violence. What utter bollocks.

Yeah, of course, if everyone else had just rolled over and given up there would have been no civil war. My point is just straightforward. The Bolsheviks were more violent, more indiscriminate, more paranoid. And they stayed that way, indeed got worse, for decades. Ruthless murdering bastards. They don't need to be defended by anyone. Any pretended link to the withering away of the state is so much wishful thinking.

 

[JimW]

I should imagine that living in China, what to the West are tiny incremental 'loosening' of state control are very welcome.

The closest I've seen to a totalitarian state was East Germany, which was never as 'locked down' as China.

Unlike the OP, I see China and Russia heading towards a Western view, rather than the West heading towards communism.

Bit of a mixed bag, "reform" has often seen the state withdrawing from the things people actually appreciated, like housing and health provision. In many ways the social space is a lot freer, though been a bit of a chill recently, and always a bottom line on e.g. media control that won't be going anywhere soon.
I think it relates to the wider question in that the Party substitutes itself for the project, which is why a bunch of peasant revolutionaries largely of good will could do something as horrendous as they did during the Great Leap - it was more important to meet central directives than serve the actual people starving in front of their eyes. You can see historical reasons why this sort of organisational dynamic came about, and without it the achievements (by their own lights) would never have happened either, and why it carries on in this strange afterlife; the language of the Xi regime is full of Marxism as they conceive it and while I don't think they can ride the tiger of capital as comfortably as they might hope, they really imagine they are going to do something different from the West. Since the turn of the millenium, most of what they've seen from "our side" has only confirmed them in their view I think.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you just post for the sake of it? I’ve already identified you as a troll so stop quoting me and go and bore someone else with your crap. Do one.

Yeh this would be because your claims don't stand up to the slightest examination.

You come here and bore us with your bollocks eg no one was killed for disagreeing with the Bolsheviks between 1917 and 1924

It's you who should bugger off

 

[Pickman's model]

he has a point though there, and considering the size of China the arable land isn’t even 1/4.

no he doesn't

next

 

[Schwartz]

Yeah, of course, if everyone else had just rolled over and given up there would have been no civil war. My point is just straightforward. The Bolsheviks were more violent, more indiscriminate, more paranoid. And they stayed that way, indeed got worse, for decades. Ruthless murdering bastards. They don't need to be defended by anyone. Any pretended link to the withering away of the state is so much wishful thinking.

What books have you read about the civil war?

Were the Allies and the peoples from the Czechoslovak Legion, Social and White Army also “ruthless murdering bastards”?

 

[JimW]

And that makes up for the many millions who died in the great leap forward

Old Amartya Sen made the point comparing excess deaths in India and China since the 1940s that even with actively starving millions the PRC made a better fist of keeping peasants alive. Which makes the Great Leap even more of a shameful crime.

 

[Jay Park]

And that makes up for the many millions who died in the great leap forward

nothing makes up for that, but China has experienced a multitude of famines. The Great Leap was exacerbated by the rule of a cultural icon and his inability to organise an economy

 

[Jay Park]

no he doesn't

next

Mao was surrounded by yes men. Sound somewhat familiar?