Communist Failures

[ygolo]

I'm discussing an ism. But I want to unpack as much of it to direct human experience as possible.

I hold opinions about things that happen in Asia (where I was born), Europe, Russia, and the Americas that perhaps people here may disagree with.

I'm not a historian, but like all thinking people I'd like to examine what I believe and refine why I believe things or change my mind.

I was a child when I left, but whenever I go back, I'm aware that Communism is strong in the home state I am from. I have extended family who have scholarship in Communist and Marxist critique.

There are some good things that came up, like incredibly high literacy rates despite poverty levels. I admired that. My dad lamented the "parade a day" culture that kept people in poverty, however. I suppose I internalized that.

Here are other things I believe:
1) I believe well-intentioned policy can go incredibly wrong
2) I beleive the logic behind Animal Farm is the way long-term communism plays out.
3) Mao Zedong, in many ways, were worse than Stalin and Hitler
4) Stalin was an inevitable consequence of the Soviet Communist project
5) Communism is the reason East Germany was so much worse off than West Germany
6) Communism is the reason Cuba has so much poverty
7) Communism is the reason Venezuela has so much poverty
8) Bolivia can have similar things happen

I'll admit, for short amounts of time, a bit of prosperity can happen under Communism, especially if replacing an economic system rife with corruption. But, I believe the corruption was the root problem, not the economic system, because it finds its way back.

Thoughts?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I've wondered if various "isms" work at different scales/orders of magnitude. The core family unit is a communist micro-structure and there are some cultures with strong extended families in smaller countries that may have more successful communist political systems. Countries with populations that go beyond human's cognitive ability to perceive as actual individuals, then by nature, the system warps into a lower resolution where individuality is lost and takes on a cogs in the machine nature.

I've wondered if Capitalism works larger scale than Communism, but still fails at the global level by warping into corporate monopolies, duopolies, etc.? Maybe we don't have an economic system that works globally that we have even conceived of yet?

 

[Kephalos]

Socialism — remember that Communism is merely "Socialism in a hurry", as per Vladimir I. Ulyanov, alias Lenin — is a kind of political ideology that persists (and hence, it tends to resurface from time to time) because it appeals to a perfectly natural, and also quite noble ethical aspiration for a just and prosperous world (meaning justice and well-being for all). This underlying ethical impulse, coupled with other aspects of Socialism as an ideology and as practical social-economic program make it especially dangerous. One of these aspects is this: Socialism is and has always been doomed to fail in its implementation because the means it postulates to achieve its ultimate ends are no good. A second and perhaps much more concerning aspect of Socialism is a tendency towards maximalism and utopianism. This is dangerous because there always will be Socialists like Mao Tse-tung or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov that make the logical leap from maximalism and utopianism to the sort of instrumental, "ends justify the means" reasoning so typical of actually existing revolutionary communist movements.

 

[ceecee]

I hear all kinds of things about Communism, Socialism, Marxism....first and foremost and the fact that these were totalitarian governments with despot leaders way down the line and that those leaders and their mindset existed way before any change in government happened. I also never hear critics talk about what put these people there to begin with and somehow think that you just can't...have any form of totalitarian government under capitalism? Democracy (and more Americans having more democracy) is what keeps the US from dissolving into totalitarianism or a dictatorship, autocracy or any other flavor of oppression. Take a guess who is chipping away at that? Not the left.

I'm also considering that places like Cuba or South and Central American socialist/communist countries have been fucked with by the US and the West - from sanctions (Cuba for decades) or training and backing literal death quads (Nicaragua) post Vietnam. They learned it so well they used the same methods to exterminate in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Virtual ghost]

First of all there is no such thing as Communism, there are Communisms. There are simply too big varieties of the idea that you can put everything under one dome and get the full picture. Especially if we add time/history component into the mix.


However if we want to take a more broad view of the concept and what is wrong with idea: that is evidently the lack of oversight. That is the problem with all openly autocratic systems and here that is also the case. In other words this means that good ideas are quite likely to be shut down and people can get prosecuted for trivial things (like having Christmas tree on Christmas or telling jokes). What means that the system spends huge amount of energy on control that at the end of the day is waste. While at the same time there is no one to check the top unless the establishment decided to throw a few powerful people under the bus. But that is more of internal power struggle than exact ideological measure of cleaning the system. So as the time goes you have more and more problematic people at the top that no one can really remove ... and in the end the whole things crumbles. Since most people want to get out. That is the main problem.

 

[ygolo]

I've wondered if various "isms" work at different scales/orders of magnitude. The core family unit is a communist micro-structure and there are some cultures with strong extended families in smaller countries that may have more successful communist political systems. Countries with populations that go beyond human's cognitive ability to perceive as actual individuals, then by nature, the system warps into a lower resolution where individuality is lost and takes on a cogs in the machine nature.

I've wondered if Capitalism works larger scale than Communism, but still fails at the global level by warping into corporate monopolies, duopolies, etc.? Maybe we don't have an economic system that works globally that we have even conceived of yet?

I think size is an important component.

Can we unpack this a bit more into experiences and historical events?

What does it mean for an economic system to work?

Ultimately, I think it's about what's possible and probable for people.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unpacks this a little.

The capabilities model for disability justice is also interesting:

life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; interactions with other species; play; and control over one’s environment

I think part of the reason the Nordic countries can provide a lot from a high taxation rate is their relatively small size. But, my belief here is based on instinct, not reasoning based on evidence. I've seen at graphs showing taxation getting income for government caps out as percent of GDP, but there's more to an economy than GDP.

 

[ygolo]

Socialism — remember that Communism is merely "Socialism in a hurry", as per Vladimir I. Ulyanov, alias Lenin — is a kind of political ideology that persists (and hence, it tends to resurface from time to time) because it appeals to a perfectly natural, and also quite noble ethical aspiration for a just and prosperous world (meaning justice and well-being for all). This underlying ethical impulse, coupled with other aspects of Socialism as an ideology and as practical social-economic program make it especially dangerous. One of these aspects is this: Socialism is and has always been doomed to fail in its implementation because the means it postulates to achieve its ultimate ends are no good. A second and perhaps much more concerning aspect of Socialism is a tendency towards maximalism and utopianism. This is dangerous because there always will be Socialists like Mao Tse-tung or Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov that make the logical leap from maximalism and utopianism to the sort of instrumental, "ends justify the means" reasoning so typical of actually existing revolutionary communist movements.

For me, the demarcation needs to be clear.

It's untenable to have no rules and no taxes at all. I'm assuming this is your position too.

Can you clarify, in your definition, what the isms you used mean?

My simplistic demarcation is:
1) Communism: collective control of economic resources, often using procurement procedures to distribute them.
2) Capitalism: Markets where people can trade resources, often with a lot of bargaining and negotiation.
3) Socialism:A mix of both ways of allocating resources.

For me economic systems are purely about resource management-keeping in mind people can create new resources from others.

Government, more generally, is not extractable from the economic system.

Government is composed of the general way people make decisions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think part of the reason the Nordic countries can provide a lot from a high taxation rate is their relatively small size. But, my belief here is based on instinct, not reasoning based on evidence.

Size of the country isn't the key factor here. Much more important is that the government is functional. That there is general cultural homogeneity or at least general social consensus on key topics. That there is enough of resources and genuine experts per capita. Functionality of the society really is the key here. You can perhaps argue that small countries are more likely to be functional but that is factually unclear. While population density is what is probably more important in this story. Since that has much higher say in how functional thing are. Because key is in "per capita" not the overall size.

 

[ygolo]

I hear all kinds of things about Communism, Socialism, Marxism....first and foremost and the fact that these were totalitarian governments with despot leaders way down the line and that those leaders and their mindset existed way before any change in government happened. I also never hear critics talk about what put these people there to begin with and somehow think that you just can't...have any form of totalitarian government under capitalism? Democracy (and more Americans having more democracy) is what keeps the US from dissolving into totalitarianism or a dictatorship, autocracy or any other flavor of oppression. Take a guess who is chipping away at that? Not the left.

I'm also considering that places like Cuba or South and Central American socialist/communist countries have been fucked with by the US and the West - from sanctions (Cuba for decades) or training and backing literal death quads (Nicaragua) post Vietnam. They learned it so well they used the same methods to exterminate in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm willing to change my mind about things.

But, it's hard for me to believe that East Germany, North Korea, and even the central and South American countries were only there because the US put them there.

There's always a set of forces that bring about despots. Hitler's rise was largely the result of what happened after WW1. That doesn't absolve Fascism from its ills.

Things like the Iran Contra affair are unconscionable.

Do you believe that the atrocities of the cultural revolution had nothing to do with the economic system in place?

 

[ygolo]

Size of the country isn't the key factor here. Much more important is that the government is functional. That there is general cultural homogeneity or at least general social consensus on key topics. That there is enough of resources and genuine experts per capita. Functionality of the society really is the key here. You can perhaps argue that small countries are more likely to be functional but that is factually unclear. While population density is what is probably more important in this story. Since that has much higher say in how functional thing are. Because key is in "per capita" not the overall size.

Indeed. I tried to demarcate the governance of resources (economic system) from general governance. It's definitely an artificial demarcation. If general governance is bad, it's hard to see how the governance of resources can be good.

I'm curious, do you know of examples where complete collective control of resources is functional at the scale of a nation?

As many have observed, at the scale of a family, this is the norm.

Homogeneity of population is another thing that makes governance easier. This is used by many openents of immigration.

If everyone thought the same way, had a shared history, and held the same values, making decisions together would be quite simple.

But it is also more boring and insular.

 

[ceecee]

I'm willing to change my mind about things.

But, it's hard for me to believe that East Germany, North Korea, and even the central and South American countries were only there because the US put them there.

There's always a set of forces that bring about despots. Hitler's rise was largely the result of what happened after WW1. That doesn't absolve Fascism from its ills.

Things like the Iran Contra affair is unconscionable.

Do you believe that the atrocities of the cultural revolution had nothing to do with the economic system in place?

The economic system happened in response to poverty and rebellion. The atrocities happened because of their leaders. You don't think the US had anything to do with the formation of East Germany or North Korea? It was literally what we gave the Russians for WWII. Yes Hitler happened directly because of the Treaty of Versailles and post WWI economic recession and a global depression. And the Nazis were not socialists no matter what crank tells you that. But why DID Hitler call himself a national socialist? It’s because among the three predominant contemporary German political alignments (communists/socialists, moderate social democrats, conservative monarchists) he tried to present Nazism as a new “middle way,” appealing to socdems and conservatives by claiming to combine the best of nationalism and socialism. It was branding, nothing more. In reality he was staunchly capitalist and declared anticapitalists, anarchists, socialists, and communists enemies of the state. Then he killed them. (of course our German friends can add or correct but I think in a nutshell that's ok)

North Korea? In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops." So you tell me what pushed that country into totalitarianism.

In 1981, when Regan took office, most of South America is under anti-communist dictatorships, following coups that the US had supported: Chile in 1973, Uruguay in 1973, Bolivia in 1971, Paraguay and Argentina in 1976. So South America was secure — it was like a garrison continent. Central America was in revolt, the Sandanistas had won their revolution in 1979 and there were insurgencies in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Secular neoconservatives, religious theocons, militarists radicalized to the right by the Vietnam War, Soldier of Fortune–type mercenaries — Reagan basically lets loose all of these people in Central America and helped exterminate millions. Capitalism and US imperialism did this, not communism.

I'm not advocating for communism and it's never worked that I have seen. That said, most people stop right there and do little to examine the leaders plus outside forces that might have caused a little (or a lot in the US's case). But that requires people being honest with themselves, stop believing in American mythology and look at things from an truthful perspective, from sources they might not want to hear from.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Indeed. I tried to demarcate the governance of resources (economic system) from general governance. It's definitely an artificial demarcation. If general governance is bad, it's hard to see how the governance of resources can be good.

I'm curious, do you know of examples where complete collective control of resources is functional at the scale of a nation?

As many have observed, at the scale of a family, this is the norm.

Homogeneity of population is another thing that makes governance easier. This is used by many openents of immigration.

If everyone thought the same way, had a shared history, and held the same values, making decisions together would be quite simple.

But it is also more boring and insular.

To be honest I don't know any such example.
However the problem is what exactly can be considered "functional". In other words if this can't work then all such attempts should have failed within 3 to 6 months. While some communist countries existed or exist for generations. In other words can "existing" be enough to rate the process as "functional".

I am afraid that "functional" is actually pretty subjective term when it comes to political ideas.
Not to mention that Communism in practice is top-down control, not collective control.


Also just if people share history that doesn't mean that they will have the same interpretation of it. My thoughts were simply that the clear majority of the population needs to have some basic social compatibility. Since without that you can't have welfare/redistribution state. You can't build that without general consensus or clear majority. Because in a sense welfare state means that the whole country is becoming one big household. In other words if you try to build this by force you get Communism and the problems we already named.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes Hitler happened directly because of the Treaty of Versailles and post WWI economic recession and a global depression. And the Nazis were not socialists no matter what crank tells you that. But why DID Hitler call himself a national socialist? It’s because among the three predominant contemporary German political alignments (communists/socialists, moderate social democrats, conservative monarchists) he tried to present Nazism as a new “middle way,” appealing to socdems and conservatives by claiming to combine the best of nationalism and socialism. It was branding, nothing more. In reality he was staunchly capitalist and declared anticapitalists, anarchists, socialists, and communists enemies of the state. Then he killed them. (of course our German friends can add or correct but I think in a nutshell that's ok)

Here I think you are somewhat wrong. Hitler wasn't all that much capitalist if we take North American definition of the term. After all he build his entire movement and eventually "empire" on taking away private property. In other words to make things more simple he send previous owners into concentration camps. Also this whole idea of building a massive army and taking over whatever he could also isn't that much capitalist. Especially since that lead to war economy that isn't exactly a free market ideal.

How he named the whole ideology is actually fairly accurate definition.

 

[ygolo]

The economic system happened in response to poverty and rebellion. The atrocities happened because of their leaders. You don't think the US had anything to do with the formation of East Germany or North Korea? It was literally what we gave the Russians for WWII. Yes Hitler happened directly because of the Treaty of Versailles and post WWI economic recession and a global depression. And the Nazis were not socialists no matter what crank tells you that. But why DID Hitler call himself a national socialist? It’s because among the three predominant contemporary German political alignments (communists/socialists, moderate social democrats, conservative monarchists) he tried to present Nazism as a new “middle way,” appealing to socdems and conservatives by claiming to combine the best of nationalism and socialism. It was branding, nothing more. In reality he was staunchly capitalist and declared anticapitalists, anarchists, socialists, and communists enemies of the state. Then he killed them. (of course our German friends can add or correct but I think in a nutshell that's ok)

North Korea? In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops." So you tell me what pushed that country into totalitarianism.

In 1981, when Regan took office, most of South America is under anti-communist dictatorships, following coups that the US had supported: Chile in 1973, Uruguay in 1973, Bolivia in 1971, Paraguay and Argentina in 1976. So South America was secure — it was like a garrison continent. Central America was in revolt, the Sandanistas had won their revolution in 1979 and there were insurgencies in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Secular neoconservatives, religious theocons, militarists radicalized to the right by the Vietnam War, Soldier of Fortune–type mercenaries — Reagan basically lets loose all of these people in Central America and helped exterminate millions. Capitalism and US imperialism did this, not communism.

I'm not advocating for communism and it's never worked that I have seen. That said, most people stop right there and do little to examine the leaders plus outside forces that might have caused a little (or a lot in the US's case). But that requires people being honest with themselves, stop believing in American mythology and look at things from an truthful perspective, from sources they might not want to hear from.

That's fair. I don't believe the US, has their hands clean. I didn't want to give that impression.

You're clearly passionate about this, which I appreciate.

I do want some clarity around your stance on procurement systems for resources which are collectively decided upon vs trading resources based on individual momentary decisions.

I'm pretty certain, some sort of mix is what you would agree with. But I wouldn't want to assume.

It's my belief that some mix is what almost everyone would agree on-no matter what ism people would ascribe to.

Market externalities are well studied-even taught in introductory economics.

The fallacies of market equilibrium are also well studied.

I'm a consumer of a lot of criticism of the neoclassical consensus.

However, theories around failures of Communism aren't something economists popularize. Political scientists and historians do.

That asymmetry is disconcerting.

 

[ygolo]

To be honest I don't know any such example.
However the problem is what exactly can be considered "functional". In other words if this can't work then all such attempts should have failed within 3 to 6 months. While some communist countries existed or exist for generations. In other words can "existing" be enough to rate the process as "functional".

I am afraid that "functional" is actually pretty subjective term when it comes to political ideas.
Not to mention that Communism in practice is top-down control, not collective control.


Also just if people share history that doesn't mean that they will have the same interpretation of it. My thoughts were simply that the clear majority of the population needs to have some basic social compatibility. Since without that you can't have welfare/redistribution state. You can't build that without general consensus or clear majority. Because in a sense welfare state means that the whole country is becoming one big household. In other words if you try to build this by force you get Communism and the problems we already named.

I think these are salient points.

I can't even imagine how a collective procurement system could work at scale.

Every imagining leads to some form of top-down, rather than collective control of resources.

 

[The Cat]

I think these are salient points.

I can't even imagine how a collective procurement system could work at scale.

Every imagining leads to some form of top-down, rather than collective control of resources.

Imagine less imaginatively.​

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think these are salient points.

I can't even imagine how a collective procurement system could work at scale.

Every imagining leads to some form of top-down, rather than collective control of resources.

In theory it could be possible (at least to some degree). For example there are those business associations, therefore if you build one that includes literally every business subject you could make something that is collective effort. For that matter in European countries there is something often called "socio-econmic council". Which brings together representatives of elected government, workers unions and representatives of business/industry. Which then together debate and plan how the country should progress. In other words no matter who you are at least someone at the table should represent you to some degree. In other words this can work through representatives. But the model that we are all equal and deciding everything together in detail ... that is utopia I am afraid. If anything simply because that means that we all have same or at least similar competencies. What is increasingly unrealistic in the world where there is more and more specialists. To the point that the whole societies are cracking because people can't even agree about the basics anymore. Because there is way too much info that someone can see the full picture in detail. Therefore someone has to take charge depending on the type of problem.

In other words: as long as we skip blood, violence and social collapse the system is good enough.

 

[ygolo]

Imagine less imaginatively.​

Not a lot of scale there

 

[ygolo]

In theory it could be possible (at least to some degree). For example there are those business associations, therefore if you build one that includes literally every business subject you could make something that is collective effort. For that matter in European countries there is something often called "socio-econmic council". Which brings together representatives of elected government, workers unions and representatives of business/industry. Which then together debate and plan how the country should progress. In other words no matter who you are at least someone at the table should represent you to some degree. In other words this can work through representatives. But the model that we are all equal and deciding everything together in detail ... that is utopia I am afraid. If anything simply because that means that we all have same or at least similar competencies. What is increasingly unrealistic in the world where there is more and more specialists. To the point that the whole societies are cracking because people can't even agree about the basics anymore. Because there is way too much info that someone can see the full picture in detail. Therefore someone has to take charge depending on the type of problem.

In other words: as long as we skip blood, violence and social collapse the system is good enough.

The problem is scale. If everyone is deciding on resource allocation for everyone else, this grows at least by the square of the number of people. In the same way for business councils, by the square of council people. Most won't even care or be affected by a wast majority of decisions.

 

[Falcarius]

Communism is utopian much the same way capitalism is utopian, thus both are near unworkable in the real world which is why everyone reading this lives in a mixed economy.