• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Communism Have a Future?

Waterbearer

Member
This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, does Communism have a future? Can Communism be molded into a new form that would not cause the deaths of millions? Can Communism work without Atheism being the state "religion"? It is an interesting thought. Do you think a society in the future could make communism work? If so, what changes, if any, do you think will have to be made in order for the ideology to work?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, does Communism have a future? Can Communism be molded into a new form that would not cause the deaths of millions? Can Communism work without Atheism being the state "religion"? It is an interesting thought. Do you think a society in the future could make communism work? If so, what changes, if any, do you think will have to be made in order for the ideology to work?
I think if Communism is to exist in a desirable modern society it would have to come about through a democratic electoral process in competition with non-Communist parties. I don't see why Communism can not exist with full modern freedom of religion though. However I think private ownership of most types of businesses is better as it promotes more concern for creativity, efficiency and customer service; the very things Communism has struggled with. I think those struggles are because people are too far removed from the end results of their efforts in a Communist system.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, does Communism have a future? Can Communism be molded into a new form that would not cause the deaths of millions? Can Communism work without Atheism being the state "religion"? It is an interesting thought. Do you think a society in the future could make communism work? If so, what changes, if any, do you think will have to be made in order for the ideology to work?
IMHO, communism inherently stifles progress. So, no.
 
Forms of communism have been around for 3000 years. There's no reason to think that it won't be back again.

As regards the Marxist kind, people have short memories and many people are not happy with capitalism. Utopian egalitarianism has always had a romantic appeal and it may well reappear in a revised form within a generation or 2 unless the inequalities of the current system are addressed.

As to what needs to be changed to make it work, the centrally managed economy is the main thing. Would need to be run on a much more localised level rather than on the level of the nation state. A Marxist communism is unworkable, maybe some form of syndicalism could, in theory, be workable. As to how practically achievable this is, I'm pretty sceptical.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The future I think is going to be lots of socialism with degrees of communism blended into it. People are going to get fed up with a system that allows the bad habits and choices of a few wrecking the masses, eventually resources will become too scarce to fuel capitalist growth, and as society becomes more egalitarian there won't be a need "wealthy elites" to be placed on a pedestal; but, because of our squandering of natural resources, do not be surprised if we tomorow (in future generations) are forced into a position of the state having to centrally plan the economy because we today have wasted resources like tomorrow isn't a concern (sorta like rations during WWII in America, but probably far more strict). Without a doubt, future generations are going to look at the lust for profit as terrible thing, because it caused the extinction and near extinction of many species, in just a few centuries depleted large amounts of the world's oil supplies, and completely wiped out forests and other ecosystems throughout the world. They're also going to see what we did with out abundance of stuff, stuff that was produced in the interest of profit, and how ultimately we polluted and poisoned the earth to make it and polluted and poisoned the earth some more to dispose of it.
As for creativity and inventiveness, it won't be stifled. Humans have been creating and inventing new things since before we were modern homo sapiens, and even Soviet Russia had a flow of drive, inventions, and was even ahead of America for awhile in some areas. Problem solving and creating new solutions and inventions is probably one of our better traits as a species, even if it gets used for terrible and horrible destruction. But there have been standards in measurement and weight for the production of various items since ancient times. I don't think it's going anywhere, regardless of the economic climate.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
At this point in time I'm not sure why anyone who even seriously look into Communism or even try to better some of their less unsavory ideals. With socialism, it seems to be the case of let's try it one more time and see if WE can get it right. Sadly, it is the common person who drags the political elites down as they don't react fast enough to appease the political elites. This frustrates those in power and more often than not pushes them over the edge into the land of atrocities. Capitalism ain't great, but it is head and shoulders better than socialism and light years beyond outright Communism.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
If they made a comeback they would need another religious framework. I suggest given the current Pope, the inspiration might come from that direction. Who knows?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The future I think is going to be lots of socialism with degrees of communism blended into it. People are going to get fed up with a system that allows the bad habits and choices of a few wrecking the masses, eventually resources will become too scarce to fuel capitalist growth, and as society becomes more egalitarian there won't be a need "wealthy elites" to be placed on a pedestal; but, because of our squandering of natural resources, do not be surprised if we tomorow (in future generations) are forced into a position of the state having to centrally plan the economy because we today have wasted resources like tomorrow isn't a concern (sorta like rations during WWII in America, but probably far more strict). Without a doubt, future generations are going to look at the lust for profit as terrible thing, because it caused the extinction and near extinction of many species, in just a few centuries depleted large amounts of the world's oil supplies, and completely wiped out forests and other ecosystems throughout the world. They're also going to see what we did with out abundance of stuff, stuff that was produced in the interest of profit, and how ultimately we polluted and poisoned the earth to make it and polluted and poisoned the earth some more to dispose of it.
As for creativity and inventiveness, it won't be stifled. Humans have been creating and inventing new things since before we were modern homo sapiens, and even Soviet Russia had a flow of drive, inventions, and was even ahead of America for awhile in some areas. Problem solving and creating new solutions and inventions is probably one of our better traits as a species, even if it gets used for terrible and horrible destruction. But there have been standards in measurement and weight for the production of various items since ancient times. I don't think it's going anywhere, regardless of the economic climate.
I don't think I'd personally like or care to see any revival of a zombie version of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, does Communism have a future?

Yes. But futurologists would refer to it as a low probability, high-impact future event, or a "wild card". It would take a number of conditions to be fulfilled. My personal opinion is that a combination of serious climate change and socio-economic polarisation makes it very plausible it will emerge later in this century. that is easily an existential crisis for capitalism. However, at this point, it is virtually dead as an ideology and faces a form of extinction. After the horrors of the twenieth century, almost no-one wants to take that kind of risk. Even North Korea has given up on achieveing communism and they are the most hard-line pseudo-Stalinists you'll find. So, you need the two of the above conditions combined with major scientific and technological break throughs and consequent atmosphere of utopianism. People will only go communist if they actually think it can offer something better. (hopefully, it will, but it remains a long shot).

Can Communism be molded into a new form that would not cause the deaths of millions?

This would unquestionably be desirable, but I'm going to be hard-headed and say No. I haven't come accross a situation where that would be the case. I'm using the term communism to refer to it's "Marxist-Leninist" varient and "Maoist" derivation based on the assumption that any future varient of communism would have to draw on past historical experience and won't develop out of thin air. Both are based on asserting that the class struggle is an objectively existing historical law and that class conflict in the process of obtaining and keeping power is a necessary and inescapable part of communism, or as Mao put it: "Political power comes out of the barrell of a gun". logically, this led to the conclusion that the state was an instrument of class rule and therefore it must consciously serve the interests of the working class as a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

There are conflicting interpretations over what exactly would happen to the worker's state and as to how it would "wither away", but Stalin's view that the state would witheraway as a coercive force by becoming identical with society won out- this lead to a conclusion that could be described as a democratisation of political violence where everyone became part of the state apparatus and was required to enforce the norms of society. Terror stopped being the weapon of the few and became the weapon of the many. This is what makes it potentially much more frightening that what the Nazis did as there was no 'higher law' that stopped everyone from engaging in mass murder. The Nazis used only a select group of people to commit mass murder to target specific groups, but the Communists had the power to make everyone do it to everyone else. it represented a purer and more effective form of totalitarianism (even if that word fails to grasp the gravity of the implications) because of how successful they were at getting people to think and behave the way they wanted.

At certain points in the history of communism, this was taken to the extreme of trying to 'liquidate' an entire social class because it was considered a dying or reactionary class that it's "liquidation" would simply accelerate the process. If this were referring to a racial or ethnic group, it would be considered genocide (and occassionally they did cross this line as well but its a very peculair interpretation of Marxism to do it). the difference is, is that race can be identified largely by visual cues, whereas class is defined more nebulously and more or less based on ideas and therefore whether a person agrees with the current party-line. Many communists fell victims to communist atrocities themselves (including members of the security services) because they the party-line changed and they were (or were suspected of being) on the wrong side of it. Being corrupted by absolute power isn't measured by the ability to kill you enemies. it's the ability to kill your current allies, freinds and family members. If the only measure of a person's worth is their usefulness to the revolution and to the state, all other considerations and allegiences are secondary.

Given that, I get the distinct feeling that the early communists grossly under-estimated the scale of the terror they would unleash and that it would be confined in the tens maybe hundreds of thousands "to build the new world" based on the experience of the French Revolution. Still bad, but not as existential to our humanity as what happened.They didn't take into account the fact that industrialisation had not only led to total war but to a total state capable of murdering its own citizens. it therefore represents something still very new and difficult in human experience. we've never had the power to destroy ourselves and it looks likely that the question of how we use that power, and whether we should even have it, will be a persistent one for future history. So even if there is no communism in the future, the questions it raises will still have to be answered.

Can Communism work without Atheism being the state "religion"? It is an interesting thought.

Generally No. But this only applies to the Marxist varient of Communism. If Marxism asserts materialism as a scientific fact, it therefore takes precedence over all other belief systems, necessitating an offical state ideology. There were however forms of Marxism that did entertian the idea that Marxism had to fulfill an innate religious impulse (known as the "God Builders") and these were characteristic of the 1920's. I sort of think they may have a point as communism is supposed to be the realisation of what makes us human, and religion is a dimension of that.

Do you think a society in the future could make communism work?

Yes. Communism "worked" in the twentieth century and proved it was not impossible. But it was the fact that it appeared at various times inevitable that a machine-like state killing apparatus would rip its way through society and kill indicriminately, whether by war or revolution, that made it terrifying. I hope if communism does develop in this century it won't be as lethal.

If so, what changes, if any, do you think will have to be made in order for the ideology to work?

Less killing. if you solve that, most of its other flaws are bearable and can probably be overcome using technology or more "relaxed" forms of collectivism.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't think I'd personally like or care to see any revival of a zombie version of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic.
Saying Soviet Russia is an accurate description of communism, in its entirety, is like saying ISIS is an accurate description of Islam, in its entirety. Most people probably don't even realize that even among the Russian Communist party, there were many communists who were strongly opposed to the direction the state was going (many where executed, some, such as Tchotsky, were exiled).
If you go strictly by Marxism, communism is another form of anarchy, as it is ultimately stateless, and it lacks a centralized dictator who makes all the decisions.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
With all that stifled progress, it makes you wonder how they got the first person in space.
I often wonder how far we would have made it had Soviet and American scientists worked together, instead of having the reality of the two states working strictly to compete against each other.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Threats of violence if they failed. I thought the OP said that was off the table.

Did the OP say that?

Either way, I just mean to point out its a bit more complicated than that. Let's say that threats of violence for failures were the case. As unsavory as that may be, it didn't really stifle progress in that regard. Although in a million other ways, it did.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Did the OP say that?

Either way, I just mean to point out its a bit more complicated than that. Let's say that threats of violence for failures were the case. As unsavory as that may be, it didn't really stifle progress in that regard. Although in a million other ways, it did.
It did stifle progress, as they put their best minds into beating us. If we had been friends we could have been working together. In other words, their intent was flawed because they had to show the world that communism wasn't a disaster, which it was.
 
Top