question about communism

[Dogbean]

I have a question...

I've been studying the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism, in light of politics and socioeconomic systems, in an effort to understand it all better. From what I've read, the goal of communism is a stateless society. That means in a communist country, there should be no government because it is unnecessary; the goods are transferred freely "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." Money is not needed. However, all communist states currently existing, or that existed in the past, had a government in place, and often a large and powerful one, as well as a huge military. My question is, why did they have governments if a communist state was not supposed to have a government? And if there was no government, who would control the military? From what I've read, it sounds like all states that we have called "communism" were really instances of "socialism" where a transitional dictatorial government was in place as the state transitioned from capitalism to true communism, but no state has made it all the way, and they were all socialist states that we called communist.

Thoughts or insight?

 

[Kalevalatar]

I have a question...

I've been studying the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism, in light of politics and socioeconomic systems, in an effort to understand it all better. From what I've read, the goal of communism is a stateless society. That means in a communist country, there should be no government because it is unnecessary; the goods are transferred freely "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." Money is not needed. However, all communist states currently existing, or that existed in the past, had a government in place, and often a large and powerful one, as well as a huge military. My question is, why did they have governments if a communist state was not supposed to have a government? And if there was no government, who would control the military? From what I've read, it sounds like all states that we have called "communism" were really instances of "socialism" where a transitional dictatorial government was in place as the state transitioned from capitalism to true communism, but no state has made it all the way, and they were all socialist states that we called communist.

Thoughts or insight?

Kind of hard to argue with your post; I think you pretty much nailed it.

However, as to the "transitional" nature of these totalitarian governments, they never were. Once the currupted psycopaths like Stalin had all that power in their hands, they were never going to give it up and return the power back to the people, IMO. Just look at their histories; these governments were constantly trying to find more new ways to control the people and concentrate the power. That's why I don't personally believe this sort of true anarchy can work in real life because there will always be power-hungry individuals to seize control and abuse the power they have assumed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have a question...

I've been studying the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism, in light of politics and socioeconomic systems, in an effort to understand it all better. From what I've read, the goal of communism is a stateless society. That means in a communist country, there should be no government because it is unnecessary; the goods are transferred freely "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." Money is not needed. However, all communist states currently existing, or that existed in the past, had a government in place, and often a large and powerful one, as well as a huge military. My question is, why did they have governments if a communist state was not supposed to have a government? And if there was no government, who would control the military? From what I've read, it sounds like all states that we have called "communism" were really instances of "socialism" where a transitional dictatorial government was in place as the state transitioned from capitalism to true communism, but no state has made it all the way, and they were all socialist states that we called communist.

Thoughts or insight?

Perhaps a transitional (often powerful) government was deemed necessary in order to ensure that the principles of communism permeated successfully in the population. Once the procedures of communism functioned it could be deemed that the government should be dissolved as it was no longer necessary. However, this did not occur and perhaps for a variety of reasons: the people (or a segment of the society) never fully embraced communism and so the government retained a continual justification for its existence; or perhaps those in the power of such States felt no reason to relinquish their authority and saw themselves as the best organizers of society.

Either way, the government or state is an institution of power, and such institutions seem always orientated toward their own self-preservation and the conservation of their power. In the Communist State which you describe, the government can continually justify its own existence by claiming (whether true or false) that not everyone embraces Communism and therefore the government must exist to enforce it.

 

[Dogbean]

Fascinating! Very well explained; makes perfect sense. Keep the thoughts coming.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Another possible reason for the failure of Communist governments to dissolve to allow 'Communism' to flourish without a State is perhaps because of money itself. The State and its economy may have become like a corporation, where political officials are akin to directors of the board, and concern is less orientated toward people and focused instead upon profit and material well-being alone. This more aptly describes the conversion of Communist principles to the operational status of State Capitalism, which of course requires a government to exist.

 

[PantsMcFist]

You've got the basics of your answer before you - socialism is dependent upon, and features a large, pervasive gov't who regulates everything. Socialism is ideally just a transitory system between capitalism - and the realization that unregulated 'moneygetting' doesn't make an optimal society, and communism - unregulated, unselfish living within a community.

The primary difference between all the various stages which Marx outlined in the historical dialectic are changes in what we think about something. The big difference between socialism and communism is that we change how we think about something. Instead of believing the system needs changing, and adopting a new set of stratified power structures, we internalize the values of socialism, and live them out in our own lives. In a truly communist society, there is no need of a governing body, because everyone acts in the best interest of everyone else, of their own free will.

The big argument is whether or not this really is humanly possible. I think that if we take into account the changes in thought process that lead to tribes forming, then agriculture, followed by a rejection of divine right, and the idea that we can govern ourselves, it is not larger a leap in social development than any of the other ones we've made thus far. Something only seems fantastic to us when we approach it at face value, without considering how it came to be, and what the necessary consequences of it may be.

 

[Gremlins]

The USSR never called itself communist (the hint is in the country's name ). Communism just sounds kinda scarier and makes for better propaganda.

 

[CCGirl]

You made a few mistakes........by saying communist countries, well, that is an oxymoron because communism involves no countries (states). Read the communist manifesto, it will help.

 

[tanzanos]

I have a question...

I've been studying the differences between capitalism, socialism, and communism, in light of politics and socioeconomic systems, in an effort to understand it all better. From what I've read, the goal of communism is a stateless society. That means in a communist country, there should be no government because it is unnecessary; the goods are transferred freely "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need." Money is not needed. However, all communist states currently existing, or that existed in the past, had a government in place, and often a large and powerful one, as well as a huge military. My question is, why did they have governments if a communist state was not supposed to have a government? And if there was no government, who would control the military? From what I've read, it sounds like all states that we have called "communism" were really instances of "socialism" where a transitional dictatorial government was in place as the state transitioned from capitalism to true communism, but no state has made it all the way, and they were all socialist states that we called communist.

Thoughts or insight?

No they were called Socialist states and the ruling party was communist. Also I think you will find that communism and Christianity differ very little! Previous posts pretty much covered this topic; however one must never forget the human factor. Any system; be it capitalism, socialism, communism, is as good as the intentions of the ones in power. Corruption and greed are human traits and do not belong to any particular ideology.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Another possible reason for the failure of Communist governments to dissolve to allow 'Communism' to flourish without a State is perhaps because of money itself. The State and its economy may have become like a corporation, where political officials are akin to directors of the board, and concern is less orientated toward people and focused instead upon profit and material well-being alone. This more aptly describes the conversion of Communist principles to the operational status of State Capitalism, which of course requires a government to exist.

Good point. Ceaucescu et all. spent ridiculous sums of money to build pompous facades for themselves and/or the party. Those communist-era palaces in Eastern European capitals are not so different than, say, Saddam Hussein dictatorial palaces. That pesky human nature again, I suppose, standing between ideals and reality.

 

[Kalevalatar]

No they were called Socialist states and the ruling party was communist. Also I think you will find that communism and Christianity differ very little! Previous posts pretty much covered this topic; however one must never forget the human factor. Any system; be it capitalism, socialism, communism, is as good as the intentions of the ones in power. Corruption and greed are human traits and do not belong to any particular ideology.

Indeed. Christians not exempt. Christian clergy, past and present, are no strangers to treating themselves to opulent lifestyle while preaching something else.

 

[Maverick3000]

My question is, why did they have governments if a communist state was not supposed to have a government?[/quote]

Because they weren't actually Communist states. They were Socialist, or, in the words of Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat that was suppose to come before the final stage of humanity (which was Communism)

And if there was no government, who would control the military? [

/quote]

There would be no military because there is no states to conflict, and everyone is completely equal.


The final parts of the post are accurate.

 

[Maverick3000]

You've got the basics of your answer before you - socialism is dependent upon, and features a large, pervasive gov't who regulates everything.

Not always true. Most modern day Socialists (atleast in the USA and Western Europe) generally reject statist models in favor of minarchism and in many cases anarchy.

 

[Dogbean]

The USSR never called itself communist (the hint is in the country's name ). Communism just sounds kinda scarier and makes for better propaganda.

The USSR never called itself communist? Read this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle and see that the hammer and sickle is universally recognized as a symbol of communism, the communist party, or communist ideology, and by the mere act of putting on their flag, the USSR was in reality calling itself communist.

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Communism failed because of the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing. You see, there can't be a dictatorship of a whole class of people. Never has been, never will be. Dictatorships require...well, dictators. And once a dictator is in power, he doesn't just give it up.

 

[tanzanos]

Communism failed because of the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing. You see, there can't be a dictatorship of a whole class of people. Never has been, never will be. Dictatorships require...well, dictators. And once a dictator is in power, he doesn't just give it up.

And why did Capitalism Fail? God knows we are all feeling the repercussions of its demise!

 

[Kalevalatar]

The USSR never called itself communist? Read this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_sickle and see that the hammer and sickle is universally recognized as a symbol of communism, the communist party, or communist ideology, and by the mere act of putting on their flag, the USSR was in reality calling itself communist.

The Soviet Union chose to call itself the CCCP, Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

Whereas symbols are mighty tricky business. No such thing than "universally recognized" when it comes to symbols. The swastika would be a case in point. This is already a cliché, but here goes once more: I present the Presidential Standard of the Republic of Finland:

 

[SallyNow]

Many of the countries that are called, and even called themselves, "socialist" or "communist" were, in fact, facist dictatorships.

The democratic and republic countries that today embrace forms of socialist programs - England, Canada, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, Australia, and dozens of others - are a far cry from the facist dicatorships that are now associated with socialism and communism. These are successful, independant countries that embrace capitalist markets while maintaining social programs successfully, with high standards of living.

Of course, there are communist dictatorships - take China, for example - that show what happens when communism is tried at a massive scale.

Communism is great in theory and in the small scale but has proven unsuccessful on a larger scale. However, calling it socialism or what have you is just watering down the meaning of the terms.

 

[tanzanos]

Many of the countries that are called, and even called themselves, "socialist" or "communist" were, in fact, facist dictatorships.

The democratic and republic countries that today embrace forms of socialist programs - England, Canada, Austria, France, Sweden, Finland, Australia, and dozens of others - are a far cry from the facist dicatorships that are now associated with socialism and communism. These are successful, independant countries that embrace capitalist markets while maintaining social programs successfully, with high standards of living.

Of course, there are communist dictatorships - take China, for example - that show what happens when communism is tried at a massive scale.

Communism is great in theory and in the small scale but has proven unsuccessful on a larger scale. However, calling it socialism or what have you is just watering down the meaning of the terms.

What about the capitalist dictatorships that called themselves Democratic? (guess which country supported them)

There are more millionaires in China than there are in the US. It is also a fact that since China has gone the capitalist way; crime has sky-rocketed.

The US compared to many European countries is almost a Dictatorship. It has only one system of government. Communist and
Socialist parties are practically banned! Only in theory are they permissible.
Religion is a governing factor making the US almost a theocratic country.

Money does not civilisation make!

 

[Maverick3000]

Communism failed because of the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing. You see, there can't be a dictatorship of a whole class of people. Never has been, never will be. Dictatorships require...well, dictators. And once a dictator is in power, he doesn't just give it up.

Marx's use of "dictatorship" is different from the ones most people were in power. Dictatorship of the Proletariat just refers to the state where the workers control the economy; it has nothing to do with authoritarianism.