Stalin destroyed communism

[syo]

With Stalin's rule and his successors, the U.S.S.R. the SOCIALIST USSR, have destroyed communism.

Also, communism was created under the shadow of capitalism.

Lenin would be proud.

Anyway, I don't like how communism is defined. But all things are corrupted, communism is corrupted too.

Is there hope for a HEALTHY communism??? That has nothing to do with USSR and Stalin???

 

[halbhh]

Yes, and Mao also, especially. And a number of further huge wrongdoers, such as the
Khmer Rouge (Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia).

But, there is one who has all the good things in Communism in His teachings, teachings respected around the world, that endure -- Jesus, the Christ. His is the way to achieve that true sharing and care for one another in full reality.

 

[syo]

But, there is one who has all the good things in Communism in His teachings, teachings respected around the world, that endure -- Jesus, the Christ. His is the true way to that heaven.

I agree. I may not like the physical resurrection part, but the stories of Jesus are highly communistic.

 

[Tambourine]

I think it's a bit too pat to blame Stalin exclusively.
A lot of the problems the USSR suffered from at the start of his rule were the legacy of the Russian Civil War and Bolshevik policies during the war and in its aftermath. The Cheka, for example, was founded before Stalin came to power, and War Communism had arguably undermined a lot of the trust the Russian peasantry might have had in the Bolshevik promises of land reform initially. We shouldn't forget that Stalin, himself, rose through the ranks based largely on his accomplishments in the Civil War and his base of support within the Party, and Lenin himself considered the guy an invaluable asset for most of that time.

I think Stalin's theoretical works and early policies can be seen in a lot of ways as an acknowledgement that the initial Bolshevik idea of a World Revolution sparked from Russia had stalled, and that the USSR was pretty much the only socialist regime left in a sea of hostile capitalist governments. "Socialism in one country" I can see as a kind of resignation in the face of these unpleasant facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think Stalin's theoretical works and early policies can be seen in a lot of ways as an acknowledgement that the initial Bolshevik idea of a World Revolution sparked from Russia had stalled, ...

I think talk about "Stalin's theoretical works" is laughable on the face of it.

 

[Tambourine]

I think talk about "Stalin's theoretical works" is laughable on the face of it.

I don't care about them for their supposed value as Marxist think pieces, but I do think they document a shift in the nature and the self image of Russian Marxist-Leninism from a revolutionary theory to a state doctrine.

Marxism failed in its estimation of human nature. That's why industrialism was unable to make it work. It seems to me. I haven't asked any historians about it.

By my own reading, Marxism has very little to do with "human nature", either in theory or in practice. Its theory is fundamentally based on economics, or rather the philosophical abstraction of economics into a tool of political analysis, which I believe is still invaluable in our day and age.

 

[Ponder This]

With Stalin's rule and his successors, the U.S.S.R. the SOCIALIST USSR, have destroyed communism.

Also, communism was created under the shadow of capitalism.

Lenin would be proud.

Anyway, I don't like how communism is defined. But all things are corrupted, communism is corrupted too.

Is there hope for a HEALTHY communism??? That has nothing to do with USSR and Stalin???

Good question. I'm thinking that there really isn't any hope for a healthy communism, because, by definition (that you don't like), communism is:

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​

How can a political theory which advocates class war be healthy?
So, yeah, I think that this is why communism can never be healthy. It is fundamentally anti-social by definition... ironic.

I think the lesson here is that perceived future utopia is a mind control method by which people can be manipulated to commit unjustified violence or other wrong-doing.

"Everything will be better for you, if you just do this one terrible thing. It's terrible, I know, but you will go to Heaven. Everything will be better. All you have to do is this one thing... People may die, but you will be better off. Your loved ones will be better off. Your life will have purpose and meaning. You will be part of a greater cause. Just... do this one terrible thing. It's for the cause, it's justified because everything will be better."​

As long as it is only your future self that can be happy, you can always chase but never achieve happiness.

And this mental is the opposite of what it should be, which is: to be your best self right now in this very moment. And then... happiness rushes to find you!

So... the class warfare thing has to go bye bye. It's bad juju.

 

[Brickjectivity]

***Mod: Not a communist, so I shouldn't be posting in this dir. I've deleted my post.***

Oops. I wonder did the thread get moved into the dir after I posted, or did I not notice where it was?

 

[syo]

I think it's a bit too pat to blame Stalin exclusively.
A lot of the problems the USSR suffered from at the start of his rule were the legacy of the Russian Civil War and Bolshevik policies during the war and in its aftermath. The Cheka, for example, was founded before Stalin came to power, and War Communism had arguably undermined a lot of the trust the Russian peasantry might have had in the Bolshevik promises of land reform initially. We shouldn't forget that Stalin, himself, rose through the ranks based largely on his accomplishments in the Civil War and his base of support within the Party, and Lenin himself considered the guy an invaluable asset for most of that time.

I think Stalin's theoretical works and early policies can be seen in a lot of ways as an acknowledgement that the initial Bolshevik idea of a World Revolution sparked from Russia had stalled, and that the USSR was pretty much the only socialist regime left in a sea of hostile capitalist governments. "Socialism in one country" I can see as a kind of resignation in the face of these unpleasant facts.

Didn't Lenin fight Stalin in his last years?

Didn't Hitler too have theoritical works? Should we care for Stalins writings or his policies?
I think, Stalin is an example of what communism should NOT be.

Or would Marx be proud of Stalin??? Then I don't want to be part of communism.

 

[syo]

Good question. I'm thinking that there really isn't any hope for a healthy communism, because, by definition (that you don't like), communism is:
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 needsHow can a political theory which advocates class war be healthy?
So, yeah, I think that this is why communism can never be healthy. It is fundamentally anti-social by definition... ironic.

I like your post very much. Us newer generations should rewrite communism. Mr Marx wants war? To hell with him!

 

[Tambourine]

@Ponder This
@syo
The term used in Marx's works is Klassenkampf, with "Kampf" having both the connotation of "battle" as well as "fight" in the sense of a bar brawl or boxing match, but also of "struggle" as in "Kampf ums Überleben" (struggle for survival).

So I would argue that calling it a "class struggle" would be a more faithful translation than "class war".

 

[Ponder This]

@Ponder This
The term used in Marx's works is Klassenkampf, with "Kampf" having both the connotation of "battle" as well as "fight" in the sense of a bar brawl or boxing match, but also of "struggle" as in "Kampf ums Überleben" (struggle for survival).

So I would argue that calling it a "class struggle" would be a more faithful translation than "class war".

Hmm, it still sounds like it's advocating strife between different socio-economic groups.

 

[Tambourine]

Hmm, it still sounds like it's advocating strife between different socio-economic groups.

Have you read anything by Marx at all?

 

[wellwisher]

With Stalin's rule and his successors, the U.S.S.R. the SOCIALIST USSR, have destroyed communism.

Also, communism was created under the shadow of capitalism.

Lenin would be proud.

Anyway, I don't like how communism is defined. But all things are corrupted, communism is corrupted too.

Is there hope for a HEALTHY communism??? That has nothing to do with USSR and Stalin???

Communism and Socialism are intoxicating to the youth, since they are modeled on the family unit. These represent an extension of childhood into adulthood. Capitalism is modeled more on adulthood.

In the family of Communism and Socialism, big mother takes care of the food, clothing, medical needs, and manners (pc), for the children; social programs. Dad works and earns money and he builds and protects the home; business, construction and military. The citizens become the children, who enjoy the spoils of the labors of their parents; big government. Like parents, Big government can tell you what to do and can control your time as they see fit. But they can also spoil you at times.

This can work in any family unit, since there is an instinctive connection between all the members. The children and parents can fight and argue, but love keeps you together. But as this scales up to culture size, and people become more and more strangers to each others, the system starts to beak down. At the family level, the father may not mind working two jobs to help his family, but he may not do that instinctively for the stranger, since there is no instinctive connection and charity starts at home. For most, even the family is a lot to support, with many men unable to do this for their own family, year in and out. Adding more burden does not help that situation.

Capitalism is more modeled on adulthood, where one now has to become a provider, who has to make sacrifices, One is no linger the child who is being taken care of by big mother and father. The youth are often not ready to give up their childhood, so many hate capitalism will become enamored by socialism and communism.

But Communism and Socialism does not last since some of the children will grow up and the family dynamic s of culture changes for them. Then capitalism will appear again, such as in Russia. Sweden is not the exception but is understandable since their culture is more uniform in terms of origins. They can approximate a larger family. But in multicultural places like the USA or old USSR, there is not one family. This is even more of a problem is the USA, with the left dividing the family away from "American" to whatever identify politics you may have. That will sabotage socialist all experiments. That tells me this is power grab, since it all quickly go back to capitalism, but with different leaders in place.

 

[Tambourine]

Those are some remarkably bad takes.

 

[Ponder This]

Have you read anything by Marx at all?

I haven't read much of Marx's works, so feel free to point out anything important! Anything at all!

Communism is much larger than Marx. There were socialists/communists before and during Marx's time and there was a split after Lenin used violence to take over Russia (and I don't think we can deny Lenin's influence in associating communism with violence, and Stalin followed up with more and worse). That said, to the best of my knowledge, Marx is responsible for a grievous error that has spawned much grief.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

— Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto​

Karl Marx took the stance that the social classes are fundamentally in conflict. He was fundamentally wrong about that. Society would not be possible at all if such a statement were true.

Did I misunderstand Marx?

 

[Tambourine]

I haven't read much of Marx's works, so feel free to point out anything important! Anything at all!

Communism is much larger than Marx. There were socialists/communists before and during Marx's time and there was a split after Lenin used violence to take over Russia (and I don't think we can deny Lenin's influence in associating communism with violence, and Stalin followed up with more and worse). That said, to the best of my knowledge, Marx is responsible for a grievous error that has spawned much grief.

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

— Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto​

Karl Marx took the stance that the social classes are fundamentally in conflict. He was fundamentally wrong about that. Society would not be possible at all if such a statement were true.

Did I misunderstand Marx?

Marx was a student of Hegel, who had advocated that at the foundation of any idea is a conflict between two opposites. To Hegel, a constitutional government (the closest in his own conception to a free society) was the result of conflict between Masters and Servants, sublimated into a political system that would allow both to peacefully co-exist. (This is what Hegel calls a "synthesis" - the two opposite ideas are resolved into a new one that carries elements of that opposition inside).

Marx basically transplanted Hegel's ideas into the realm of economics and history (or Political Economics, if you will) because he saw politics fundamentally as being determined by economics rather than the other way around. (There is a reason for that but I'm not going into it for now.)

Marx saw history as a series of conflicts between Haves and Have-Nots in different stages, with modern industrial society the penultimate stage in that conflict. Like Hegel, Marx believed that the opposition of Workers and Capital could be resolved, but only in a new, higher stage of politics that would eliminate the economic foundation of that opposition.

That higher stage would be Communism - a society without coercive government, where people were free to do what they wanted, and economic activity revolved around free association and voluntary labor, rather than control over production.

To Marx, the foundational economic reason for the conflict between Capital and Labor was the private ownership of the means of production, depriving the working class of control over their product, their time, their place of work, and ultimately their lives. So in order to resolve the conflict between Capital and Labor, private ownership of the means of production needs to be abolished.

But that revolution of economics cannot be initiated by the capitalist class, because they are fundamentally content with that particular arrangement: They get to reap all the benefits of it, after all. So a resolution of that conflict can only come with the overthrow of capitalism at the hands of the working class, as they are the only ones motivated to resolve this conflict. (Likewise, in Hegel's philosophy, all impetus to resolve the Master-Servant conflict comes from the Servant, not the Master)

So in short: In order to achieve the actual harmony you claim already exists, people need to eliminate capital i.e. the private control over industry and production. And because capitalists would never willingly abandon their privileged position in society, the impetus for the abolition of private property has to come from the working class.

Cue ~150 years of Marxist politics.

 

[Tambourine]

Communism is much larger than Marx. There were socialists/communists before and during Marx's time and there was a split after Lenin used violence to take over Russia (and I don't think we can deny Lenin's influence in associating communism with violence, and Stalin followed up with more and worse).

If you're referring to the split between the "Bolshevik" and "Menshevik" socialists - that actually occurred before the 1917 October Revolution, and it was over a series of issues unrelated to the use of violence.

As far as I can tell, the Mensheviks were not, in principle, against the use of violence*. Their objection was more about the structure of the socialist party (Lenin wanted a small cadre of "professional" revolutionaries, while the Mensheviks preferred an organized mass party like in Central and Western Europe) and their methodology (the Mensheviks saw improving work conditions as their primary goal, while the Bolsheviks considered this secondary to a socialist revolution).


*) It is worth noting that Russia was an incredibly repressive society, and all forms of socialism and even many liberal movements were outlawed and actively persecuted by the Russian police and its secret service branch. The socialists were far from the only movement to advocate for violent action - the most political violence not committed by police actually came from the nationalist-anarchist Social Revolutionaries, who were actively pursueing a policy of domestic terrorism against organs of the repressive Czarist regime.

 

[Ponder This]

Marx was a student of Hegel, who had advocated that at the foundation of any idea is a conflict between two opposites. To Hegel, a constitutional government (the closest in his own conception to a free society) was the result of conflict between Masters and Servants, sublimated into a political system that would allow both to peacefully co-exist. (This is what Hegel calls a "synthesis" - the two opposite ideas are resolved into a new one that carries elements of that opposition inside).

Marx basically transplanted Hegel's ideas into the realm of economics and history (or Political Economics, if you will) because he saw politics fundamentally as being determined by economics rather than the other way around. (There is a reason for that but I'm not going into it for now.)

Marx saw history as a series of conflicts between Haves and Have-Nots in different stages, with modern industrial society the penultimate stage in that conflict. Like Hegel, Marx believed that the opposition of Workers and Capital could be resolved, but only in a new, higher stage of politics that would eliminate the economic foundation of that opposition.

That higher stage would be Communism - a society without coercive government, where people were free to do what they wanted, and economic activity revolved around free association and voluntary labor, rather than control over production.

To Marx, the foundational economic reason for the conflict between Capital and Labor was the private ownership of the means of production, depriving the working class of control over their product, their time, their place of work, and ultimately their lives. So in order to resolve the conflict between Capital and Labor, private ownership of the means of production needs to be abolished.

But that revolution of economics cannot be initiated by the capitalist class, because they are fundamentally content with that particular arrangement: They get to reap all the benefits of it, after all. So a resolution of that conflict can only come with the overthrow of capitalism at the hands of the working class, as they are the only ones motivated to resolve this conflict. (Likewise, in Hegel's philosophy, all impetus to resolve the Master-Servant conflict comes from the Servant, not the Master)

So in short: In order to achieve the actual harmony you claim already exists, people need to eliminate capital i.e. the private control over industry and production. And because capitalists would never willingly abandon their privileged position in society, the impetus for the abolition of private property has to come from the working class.

Cue ~150 years of Marxist politics.

Marxism proposes a necessary contradiction: a conflict between social classes (aka the Haves and the Have-Nots).
But this conflict is not necessary. So he begins his reasoning with a false premise. If you start with a false premise, then you can prove anything you want.

Do you agree with Marx that the entire history of society is the history of class struggles? Do you see history as a series of conflicts between Haves and Have-Nots?

Cue 150 years of unnecessary conflict, strife, and misery. Because the theory demands that such a conflict must exist, it brings it into being wherever the idea propagates.

 

[Ponder This]

If you're referring to the split between the "Bolshevik" and "Menshevik" socialists - that actually occurred before the 1917 October Revolution, and it was over a series of issues unrelated to the use of violence.

As far as I can tell, the Mensheviks were not, in principle, against the use of violence*. Their objection was more about the structure of the socialist party (Lenin wanted a small cadre of "professional" revolutionaries, while the Mensheviks preferred an organized mass party like in Central and Western Europe) and their methodology (the Mensheviks saw improving work conditions as their primary goal, while the Bolsheviks considered this secondary to a socialist revolution).


*) It is worth noting that Russia was an incredibly repressive society, and all forms of socialism and even many liberal movements were outlawed and actively persecuted by the Russian police and its secret service branch. The socialists were far from the only movement to advocate for violent action - the most political violence not committed by police actually came from the nationalist-anarchist Social Revolutionaries, who were actively pursueing a policy of domestic terrorism against organs of the repressive Czarist regime.

Lenin's revolution alienated socialists world-wide (not just in Russia) who did not support his method of taking power. At the same time, Lenin's method of revolution came to be seen (world-wide) as the blueprint for communist and socialist movements in other countries.