Marx said that communism would evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community. It also involved democracy by electing officials where necessary. He didn’t mention state control, so no, we have not remotely experienced communism.
You might argue, even correctly, that communism is unworkable, but you can’t argue that humans have tried it in modern history and it failed.
You have to compare what went before it as well. China is a success compared to the utter slavery and poverty of the common folk before the communist revolution. It’s not freedom exactly, but even the US isn’t free either by many measures. China has guaranteed vacation days, at least. It has near universal health insurance, and while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government.
I’d say that a perfect form of government doesn’t exist, but communism isn’t necessarily the worst. At least in every regard.
That comparison is absolutely essential when looking at history and reality, I agree.
If you’re looking at abstract theory, maybe less relevant.
But then, is there any meaningful discussion of political theory in the abstract? Maybe it should always be grounded in real history since that’s the highest quality evidence.
The trouble with theories is they only work theoretically!
“Real” communism understands “human nature” in that human nature is not essential but historically and socially contingent. When communism is thought of and implemented abstractly, which you are doing but also in cases where social movements have “tried” it, then it fails to understand that society is made of people and their activity, and can not be thought of abstractly in separating people from the society we create. This is a key insight of Marx.
Unfortunately, usually when people talk about “human nature” they are also being too abstract and can’t define exactly what they mean, because in order for something to be essential to humanity it has to be found in virtually every culture in every time. Human nature is always cultural, and culture is shaped by who rules over society.
I mean…what? Marx didn’t mention state control? Marx analysed state control in several contexts. He said that communist society was “stateless” so yes he did mention state control under communism in the manifesto. He analysed the “bourgeois” state, and how it compared with feudal kingdoms and states.
The Marxist formulation of the state is that it is a historical/social mechanism to manage class antagonisms. The state in a capitalist country is a capitalist state, which functions to keep the capitalists in power and divide/repress the workers, so the workers can be exploited by the capitalists. So, according to Marx, the state does in fact have to be seized by a mass worker party, smashed, and then replaced with a worker’s state.
This would be a transitional stage before communism. Some people call it “socialism.” This definitely had been tried, with different kinds of successes and failures in different places at different times.
This is all extremely abstract, and dependent on the time and place where it is “tried”. If you “tried communism,” as in creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society, according to Marx, it would definitely fail. That is not how theory of change works under Marxism, kind of how you describe “evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community.” Except according to Marx, this change doesn’t come about only by people working together, although that will undoubtably be a huge part of it, and such an important part of it I can’t fault you for it.
But what will bring about socialism, the transitional phase where the workers have control of a “state,” and use it to suppress the capitalists ability to exploit workers for their own profits, will be working together to smash capitalism, liberate as many people as possible – more people every day from oppressive conditions, institute new forms of real democracy and consent, and defend this revolution from anyone who tries to take power from the masses for themselves. That practical activity is communism. So communism can be tried in our society, in that Marxism isn’t just a theory but a theory in practice.
But trying to force a capitalist society into a fully communist society will always fail. And any attempts to do so, even in the name of Marxism, are not Marxist. Marxism rejects prefigurative politics. In fact I don’t really think of Marxism as a way of predicting the future, but rather, as a way of seeing what is actually happening in our society so we can take action to change it.
He mentioned state control as a criticism of the capitalist system, not advocating for a communist replacement like-for-like. He well understood the lessons of 1789 and the failings of replacing the crown with a new kind of exploitation.
Much of the concepts you list are the academic explanations for Marxism, but a lot of that have been thrust upon his theories and not what he actually wrote about. You can argue that many of them, including state control, are natural extensions of his writing, but nothing Marx wrote about, or very little, describes what happened in either China, the USSR or satellite regimes. In that sense, there is no such thing Marxism.
It sounds like you are saying something like “Marx wouldn’t have condoned the USSR/China”. I don’t see any possible way of litigating this, as it is so abstract and moralistic that it can’t really be handled by Marx’s methods. As for my taking an “academic” view, everything I said is directly supported by the works of Marx, I can pull quotes if you like, but pulling my Marxism card is a pretty lame maneuver. I’m not an academic. I learned Marxism through study of Marx and secondary sources, and real application of his ideas. You will have to work very hard to prove that I am misunderstanding Marx. On these topics we are discussing: I do not misunderstand, I have receipts, and I don’t appreciate the implication.
If you want to criticize the USSR and China feel free to do so. Marx wrote extensively on the Obschina and the possibility of peasant communes to develop into socialism without going through a Capitalist phase. The revolutions in Russia and China were just, theoretically sound, and inevitable. The necessity of a proletarian and/or peasant revolution in both countries is underscored by how utterly bourgeois revolutions failed in their own time to actually overthrow their kings and emperors. All of them degenerated back into imperial relations.
Did the USSR and China also degenerate into top-down bourgeois relations? Absolutely, you’ll get no argument from me. But Marx’s theories were successful when they allowed revolutionaries to understand and act upon real conditions in order to overthrow the old order. I am familiar with the histories and criticisms, and are able to discuss them beyond just abstractly waving toward some (one might call) authoritarian “regime.” Stalinist rejection of Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution”, or the idea that if you start a revolution, you fucking finish it, bore out in predictable ways.
But if Trotsky had seized power instead of Stalin I doubt things would have changed much. These revolutions were thrust upon the revolutionaries, if you had asked Lenin in 1916 when a revolution would occur in Russia, he might have said “not for 50 years” and then advocated for a bourgeois revolution. The Bolsheviks had deep roots among the proletariat and peasants, but the proletariat was critically underdeveloped, the revolution as a “truly Marxist” one never stood a chance. That has nothing to do with Marx or the way his theories were applied or misapplied. It has to do with the exact conditions of those countries during their revolutions, and the difficult decades that followed. In order to understand those conditions, a thorough understanding of Marx is extremely helpful. but even then, there is still immense ground for disagreement. So much so that it hardly seems practical to litigate.
I’m happy to provide direct Marx quotes to support everything I said in my first comment, I have them saved on my phone and reference them frequently. I would be more than happy to share them. The works I would cite would be the Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, and my personal favorite, The German ideology. Incidentally, TGI has a great quote that I believe defends your position:
The transformation, through the division of labour, of personal powers (relationships) into material powers, cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea of it from one’s mind, but can only be abolished by the individuals again subjecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division of labour. This is not possible without the community. Only in community [with others has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible. In the previous substitutes for the community, in the State, etc. personal freedom has existed only for the individuals who developed within the relationships of the ruling class, and only insofar as they were individuals of this class. The illusory community, in which individuals have up till now combined, always took on an independent existence in relation to them, and was at the same time, since it was the combination of one class over against another, not only a completely illusory community, but a new fetter as well. In a real community the individuals obtain their freedom in and through their association
I don’t really disagree with you on some level, but it feels like you’re trying to discredit me in order to make a point that you aren’t making an explicit case for, so excuse me if I’m grasping a bit. I would appreciate specifics in order to continue, so we aren’t just “talking past” one another.
I actually deeply admire your post, which is nuanced in the extreme. There is not much I can disagree in a general sense. My knowledge about Marxism comes primarily through the study of European revolutions at University level and it annoys me to see stupid memes simplify complex historical factors based upon immature current day biases.
I would beg to differ on Stalin’s attitude towards Trotsky that it was not focused upon his political ideology so much as Trotsky’s initial popularity and his potential as a rival. Trotsky was just as powerful an intellectual figure after exile as he was in Moscow. The threat need be eliminated.
The last point I might make is that we are both talking nonsense to a large extent. What historical figures choose to borrow or steal from others in order to realise some political goal is anybody’s guess. They can dip in and out of political theory at will. In this way both God and the Devil are able to quote scripture because the text contains all the justification that suits each according to their political needs.
Marx said that communism would evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community. It also involved democracy by electing officials where necessary. He didn’t mention state control, so no, we have not remotely experienced communism.
You might argue, even correctly, that communism is unworkable, but you can’t argue that humans have tried it in modern history and it failed.
I think you can.
I think what happened was exactly what will always happen when people try real communism.
Like any political system it will be brought down by the aspects of human nature it misunderstands or misrepresents.
You have to compare what went before it as well. China is a success compared to the utter slavery and poverty of the common folk before the communist revolution. It’s not freedom exactly, but even the US isn’t free either by many measures. China has guaranteed vacation days, at least. It has near universal health insurance, and while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government.
I’d say that a perfect form of government doesn’t exist, but communism isn’t necessarily the worst. At least in every regard.
That comparison is absolutely essential when looking at history and reality, I agree.
If you’re looking at abstract theory, maybe less relevant.
But then, is there any meaningful discussion of political theory in the abstract? Maybe it should always be grounded in real history since that’s the highest quality evidence.
The trouble with theories is they only work theoretically!
Absolutely agree.
“Real” communism understands “human nature” in that human nature is not essential but historically and socially contingent. When communism is thought of and implemented abstractly, which you are doing but also in cases where social movements have “tried” it, then it fails to understand that society is made of people and their activity, and can not be thought of abstractly in separating people from the society we create. This is a key insight of Marx.
Unfortunately, usually when people talk about “human nature” they are also being too abstract and can’t define exactly what they mean, because in order for something to be essential to humanity it has to be found in virtually every culture in every time. Human nature is always cultural, and culture is shaped by who rules over society.
Well, I can see this is addressed to a general case but I’ll try a reply anyway.
When I talk about human nature I’m talking about the essential nature of who and what it means to be human.
True, this is always tied to the context and environment. Part that human essentialism is our adaptability, our plasticity.
Had Marx access to the research and theory we have today, I imagine he could have produced a more accurate and refined theory!
As a thousand men can make a thousand shapes with clay their finished product will always be clay, though with a thousand uses.
I mean…what? Marx didn’t mention state control? Marx analysed state control in several contexts. He said that communist society was “stateless” so yes he did mention state control under communism in the manifesto. He analysed the “bourgeois” state, and how it compared with feudal kingdoms and states.
The Marxist formulation of the state is that it is a historical/social mechanism to manage class antagonisms. The state in a capitalist country is a capitalist state, which functions to keep the capitalists in power and divide/repress the workers, so the workers can be exploited by the capitalists. So, according to Marx, the state does in fact have to be seized by a mass worker party, smashed, and then replaced with a worker’s state.
This would be a transitional stage before communism. Some people call it “socialism.” This definitely had been tried, with different kinds of successes and failures in different places at different times.
This is all extremely abstract, and dependent on the time and place where it is “tried”. If you “tried communism,” as in creating a stateless, classless, moneyless society, according to Marx, it would definitely fail. That is not how theory of change works under Marxism, kind of how you describe “evolve naturally with neighbour working with neighbour and community working with community.” Except according to Marx, this change doesn’t come about only by people working together, although that will undoubtably be a huge part of it, and such an important part of it I can’t fault you for it.
But what will bring about socialism, the transitional phase where the workers have control of a “state,” and use it to suppress the capitalists ability to exploit workers for their own profits, will be working together to smash capitalism, liberate as many people as possible – more people every day from oppressive conditions, institute new forms of real democracy and consent, and defend this revolution from anyone who tries to take power from the masses for themselves. That practical activity is communism. So communism can be tried in our society, in that Marxism isn’t just a theory but a theory in practice.
But trying to force a capitalist society into a fully communist society will always fail. And any attempts to do so, even in the name of Marxism, are not Marxist. Marxism rejects prefigurative politics. In fact I don’t really think of Marxism as a way of predicting the future, but rather, as a way of seeing what is actually happening in our society so we can take action to change it.
He mentioned state control as a criticism of the capitalist system, not advocating for a communist replacement like-for-like. He well understood the lessons of 1789 and the failings of replacing the crown with a new kind of exploitation.
Much of the concepts you list are the academic explanations for Marxism, but a lot of that have been thrust upon his theories and not what he actually wrote about. You can argue that many of them, including state control, are natural extensions of his writing, but nothing Marx wrote about, or very little, describes what happened in either China, the USSR or satellite regimes. In that sense, there is no such thing Marxism.
deleted by creator
It sounds like you are saying something like “Marx wouldn’t have condoned the USSR/China”. I don’t see any possible way of litigating this, as it is so abstract and moralistic that it can’t really be handled by Marx’s methods. As for my taking an “academic” view, everything I said is directly supported by the works of Marx, I can pull quotes if you like, but pulling my Marxism card is a pretty lame maneuver. I’m not an academic. I learned Marxism through study of Marx and secondary sources, and real application of his ideas. You will have to work very hard to prove that I am misunderstanding Marx. On these topics we are discussing: I do not misunderstand, I have receipts, and I don’t appreciate the implication.
If you want to criticize the USSR and China feel free to do so. Marx wrote extensively on the Obschina and the possibility of peasant communes to develop into socialism without going through a Capitalist phase. The revolutions in Russia and China were just, theoretically sound, and inevitable. The necessity of a proletarian and/or peasant revolution in both countries is underscored by how utterly bourgeois revolutions failed in their own time to actually overthrow their kings and emperors. All of them degenerated back into imperial relations.
Did the USSR and China also degenerate into top-down bourgeois relations? Absolutely, you’ll get no argument from me. But Marx’s theories were successful when they allowed revolutionaries to understand and act upon real conditions in order to overthrow the old order. I am familiar with the histories and criticisms, and are able to discuss them beyond just abstractly waving toward some (one might call) authoritarian “regime.” Stalinist rejection of Trotsky’s theory of “permanent revolution”, or the idea that if you start a revolution, you fucking finish it, bore out in predictable ways.
But if Trotsky had seized power instead of Stalin I doubt things would have changed much. These revolutions were thrust upon the revolutionaries, if you had asked Lenin in 1916 when a revolution would occur in Russia, he might have said “not for 50 years” and then advocated for a bourgeois revolution. The Bolsheviks had deep roots among the proletariat and peasants, but the proletariat was critically underdeveloped, the revolution as a “truly Marxist” one never stood a chance. That has nothing to do with Marx or the way his theories were applied or misapplied. It has to do with the exact conditions of those countries during their revolutions, and the difficult decades that followed. In order to understand those conditions, a thorough understanding of Marx is extremely helpful. but even then, there is still immense ground for disagreement. So much so that it hardly seems practical to litigate.
I’m happy to provide direct Marx quotes to support everything I said in my first comment, I have them saved on my phone and reference them frequently. I would be more than happy to share them. The works I would cite would be the Manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program, the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, and my personal favorite, The German ideology. Incidentally, TGI has a great quote that I believe defends your position:
I don’t really disagree with you on some level, but it feels like you’re trying to discredit me in order to make a point that you aren’t making an explicit case for, so excuse me if I’m grasping a bit. I would appreciate specifics in order to continue, so we aren’t just “talking past” one another.
I actually deeply admire your post, which is nuanced in the extreme. There is not much I can disagree in a general sense. My knowledge about Marxism comes primarily through the study of European revolutions at University level and it annoys me to see stupid memes simplify complex historical factors based upon immature current day biases.
I would beg to differ on Stalin’s attitude towards Trotsky that it was not focused upon his political ideology so much as Trotsky’s initial popularity and his potential as a rival. Trotsky was just as powerful an intellectual figure after exile as he was in Moscow. The threat need be eliminated.
The last point I might make is that we are both talking nonsense to a large extent. What historical figures choose to borrow or steal from others in order to realise some political goal is anybody’s guess. They can dip in and out of political theory at will. In this way both God and the Devil are able to quote scripture because the text contains all the justification that suits each according to their political needs.