We should learn from the mistakes and failed ideas. Equality of action causes a society to decline.

How, John?

On the one hand, it is correct that "we have not seen true communism". On the other hand, is there a reason for that? Could human nature be getting in the way so that every time an attempt is made to bring about communism we end up getting the grotesque imitations that result in tyranny and millions of deaths?

Why do you treat Marxism-Leninism under Lenin or Stalin as some aberration of the concept of communism and not as the natural result of trying to implement the communism? If you want to get rid of market allocation then it leads into central planning with highly centralized power. If you want to get rid of social inequalities, then you need to implement high level of repression to keep the more talented subdued to prevent them from rebelling or running away. If a group of true believers thinks that they are about to build an utopia, then a few atrocities on the way are going to be accepted. If the system is not working, then repressing some scapegoats (in this case class enemies or kulaks) looks as natural conclusion to have good excuse from political standpoint. If building utopia requires numerous bold decisions by a group of revolutionaries without any checks and balances, then it's a social dynamics favoring some unhinged sociopath to climb up in ranks and ending running up the whole system.

To Stanley, let me say: the formula 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to his needs', does NOT imply any kind of "equality" at all. Neither abilities nor needs are "equal", i.e., the same for one and all. Because they are not equal, there is no reason to either demand or expect either contributions to society or what's required to fulfill needs to be equal. The repeated recourse to "equality" as a criterion for social organization has been problematic ever since the French raised the cry of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". Indeed, every one of those three terms are problematic -as witnessed by the slogan being adopted by the French Third Republic - a murderously capitalist & imperialist power.

To Raphael, I'll say "human nature" has been socially shaped since before our ancestors became human. It's a concept that has been deployed to rationalize all sorts of disgusting behavior, including the rampant egoism & competition promulgated in capitalism as ideology to pit people against each other instead of uniting against their exploiters.

To Marcin, I'll say neither Lenin nor Stalin ever got rid of markets, they only changed the mix of markets & planning - just as Western capitalists have always deployed both markets (when they serve their purposes) and planning (when it serves their purposes). After all, Lenin's model for building "socialism" in the USSR was German state-capitalism and he was explicit about that choice. Also getting "rid of market allocation" does not necessarily lead to "central planning with highly centralized power." As both the current distribution of divers levels of planning and bio-regionalist arguments have made clear, the real issue is who makes the plans, for whom and dealing with which issues. Marx's analysis of the role of markets in capitalism makes clear their undesirability, but he also rejected all utopian projects, finding them sometimes interesting, but was more interested in what people were fighting FOR and what they were fighting AGAINST as clues as to how folks would reorder themselves once they got capitalism, its exploitation & alienation off their backs.

Harry you attribute the question of equality to me rather than it being that of others.

I disagree that Communism means authoritarianism and the connection is the unfortunate result of communism in Russia, authoritarian and imperial.

Harry Cleaver "It's a concept that has been deployed to rationalize all sorts of disgusting behavior" Have you noticed that you are not challenging here existence of such human nature, just trying to counter it with a moral argument, which is as promising idea as trying to build a moral argument against ex. gravity? Have you tried to analyze which exactly features that you deem as flaws are favored by natural selection as adaptions?

I don't see which kind of argument you are trying to build with Lenin or Stalin. I mean, if you suggest that they had not been even close towards stated goal, you are building a strong argument on the goal being completely unattainable. You have generations of revolutionaries, full state power, well funded university departments researching for Marxist thought, activists and apparatchiks trying persistently for decades to build socialist utopia and they only reach as you claim... "state-capitalism" and attempts in other countries of the Eastern Block had not been any more successful.

"but he also rejected all utopian projects" He not only considered as realistic but outright predicted stateless society and revolution of factory workers in the most developed countries. In the meantime, even when in power his disciples were unable to achieve such stateless society (if anything they needed very strong state apparatus) while economies moved towards post-industrial phase with limited number of factory jobs.

Stanley Wilkin How otherwise socialism is supposed to turn private property into public property? How it prevents high scale brain drain as experienced by Eastern Germany before building of Berlin Wall?

The violence inherent in the system... ;)

رغم سلبيات الشيوعية الا ان بعض الشعوب تأقلمت معها ونجحت إلى حد بعيد مثل الشعب الصيني.

The concept of Communism was equality and all members of society would be included in the development of a state that would be transparent. This is hypocritical at best as seen by every nation that embraces communism ended up with a dictatorship and with the notable exception of Yugoslavia under Tito flourished before his death in 1980 exposed the umbrella of Communism as a bind to hold people together. So to answer the question, a return to Communism will only create more dictatorships like Putin Hitler Castro Pinochet

Sad, @Martin Hoctor, that today, decades after the overthrow of the USSR and its client states, in good Cold War style, you still call that police-state form of state-capitalism “communism”! Its architects never even pretended to call it communism, not since Lenin quite explicitly adopted German state-capitalism as his model. He and those who followed called it “socialism”, arguing (falsely) that the Party would rule in the name of and for the working class. But the specter of “communism” – worlds living by the rule “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs” continued to terrify capitalists, just as it did when Marx wrote his “Manifesto’ in 1848. So, it was convenient during the Cold War to equate Stalinist, even the reform-inclined regimes that followed, with that specter – while, at the same time, fighting those trying to get beyond capitalism by labelling them all “communists”, mis-equating their goals with Stalinist policies. Just as Cold Warriors labeled even reformist Gorbachev a “communist”, Trump & his MAGA cult are calling Kamala Harris a “communist”. It’s a laughable, bizarre throwback to a bygone era - given her pro-capitalist position on every issue. But unlike the Cold Warriors who were a mix of liberal & conservative pro-capitalist policy makers, Trump & MAGA are fascists, making no pretense of honoring the Constitution or the political practices hitherto associated with it. So, they scrape the bottom of the propaganda barrel for anything fear-engendering ploy that might muster their legions to battle. One hopes for better from academics who post here, but, it seems, Thomas Kuhn was right, no old paradigm truly dies until its last practitioner passes on to the next sphere of existence.

Where, pray tell, is this 'true communism' of yours? If it has never been implemented, is there a reason for that, like maybe human nature getting in the way? And how would you know it would work? And if we have seen true communism, where did it go, why did that utopian society not make it?

Harry Cleaver

"Lenin quite explicitly adopted German state-capitalism" You can't call it capitalism as it clearly lacked basic tenets of capitalism like primary role of market allocation of resources. "Its architects never even pretended to call it communism," If we take their claims at face value it was "highly developed socialism", while reaching the promised phase of "communism" was supposedly not that far away. Moreover, it's architects often literally called their parties as communist... I've checked constitution of my country from times of communist regime. From it's preamble: "W wyniku rewolucyjnych walk i przemian obalona została władza kapitalistów i obszarników, utrwaliło się państwo demokracji ludowej" ("Due to revolutionary fight and changes overthrown was power of capitalists and landowners, while stabilized state of people's democracy.") It's not exactly something that you write if the intended goal is a capitalism. The system self-identified with being a socialist people's republic... "So, it was convenient during the Cold War to equate Stalinist, even the reform-inclined regimes that followed," I don't see how it's being "equated". The whole political ideology is being called as communists, while particular strains within this ideology are being called as ex. Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Goulash Communism, etc. "Just as Cold Warriors labeled even reformist Gorbachev a “communist”," Would you consider calling Trump as "Republican" or Harris as "Democrat" as highly offensive or incorrect? Because Gorbachev was the chairman of the Communist Party. "Trump & his MAGA cult are calling Kamala Harris a “communist”" [...]"Trump & MAGA are fascists," I think that's only marker of highly polarized US politics where any politician is simply called by their opponents as communist (if left-wing) or fascist (if right-wing). It's quite funny that you both do it and complain when those that you oppose do exactly the same. And you do so in single paragraph without noticing many layers of irony. Moreover, you are launching here another self-defeating argument. If you insist on testing ideological purity for communism, you should do the same for fascism and check how well their ideas really fit concepts cherished by Benito Mussolini including ex. syndicalism. (But it wasn't the true... fascism ;) ) "One hopes for better from academics who post here, but, it seems, Thomas Kuhn was right, no old paradigm truly dies until its last practitioner passes on to the next sphere of existence." Uhm, yes. There are numerous holdouts who had been praising communism for many years, just after its spectacular downfall and right now are in somewhat awkward position and have to rationalize what the have been doing, haven't they? It's the communism being the old paradigm that is slowly fading away. I mean in my country people brought up on communist propaganda are slowly dying out, there is clearly undergoing shift towards position that there were two totalitarian regimes built on equally twisted ideologies that jointly invaded my country in September 1939 and the only major difference is that one was among WW2 winners so its equally deserved condemnation was somewhat delayed.

To Raphael, there is no "true communism" other than 1) ideas such as "from each... etc." which sometimes guide 2) the struggles of people to get beyond various aspects (and sometimes the totality) of capitalism (those struggles are what Marx called communism). My point was that regardless of what Leninist party members called themselves, what they were imposing was state-capitalism, NOT "communism". I call it that because it operated like other moments of capitalism - endlessly subordinating people's lives to commodity producing work, exploitation, alienation and, as a result, fomenting resistance. "State-" capitalism because the role of the state was greater than in many other capitalist countries. Was it "socialism" - which they often claimed? That depends on how you understand socialism. Like "communism" it's such an amoebic term I eschew its use: https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/socialismessay.html At any rate, the failure of those regimes was due to resistance, which undermined their viability, NOT "human nature". Leaving aside such physiological characteristics as our inability to fly, "human nature" has been a social construct, which has been evolving along with society. Currently, it suits capitalist ideology to inculcate the belief that it is selfish & competitive - despite virtually every accomplishment (good or bad) being based on cooperation. As for utopias, read the Communist Manifesto, if nothing else, where Marx & Engels critiqued the utopians of their time, pointing instead to what workers were fighting for & against for ideas of where they might take society.

Raphael, I agree except in the past. The original Christian communities and many very early cultures in Mesopotamia and elsewhere. The early Christian societies were mutually beneficial although they had leaders. But in many aspects they were like early capitalist societies. In some money for example was the province of the entire group and used for its benefit. Poverty was overcome as each member could take a loan. In early Mesopotamian societies there were no kings (a later development possibly connected to territorial conquest) and national gods, nor was there the concept of a state but simply a community.

Harry, you have a strong argument and your description provides a good reason for USSR's economic shortcomings, even though it was after WW2 economically very successful. The system provided little solace to the workers or citizens, but even long before Putin was beginning to meet the needs of a vast elite and state bureaucracy. Its real failure was that the imposed methods of working, having little incentive for most, was in the end outdated. Consumerism was at a minimum except that seeping in from the West connected to generational change, music styles, fashion, and for the already well off cars and boats and planes.

While a society remains pre-state (imposing, policed and determined communities with powerful elites and rulers over specific territories) communism functions very well.

To Marcin, several points. 1) You say: “You can't call it capitalism as it clearly lacked basic tenets of capitalism like primary role of market allocation of resources.” I argue that in the development of capitalism, “markets” have been progressively subsumed to “production”, i.e., to the subordination of human life (and that of other animals) to the work of commodity production – production which capitalists have always carefully planned in order to control those doing the work. As economists who used to work on “comparative economic systems” pointed out, the main difference among economies has been the mix of planning & markets. Cold Warriors juxtaposed Soviet-style planning to Western-style markets because the simple dichotomy suited their ideological role in condemning one, while praising the other. But economists who studied the former were well aware of the extensive use of markets in those supposedly totally “planned” economies.

2) As I wrote to Raphael, I make no “moral” objection to ideas of “human nature”, but argue it’s “a social construct, which has been evolving along with society”. “Natural selection” unfolds within society (which has increasingly internalized “nature”) and within capitalist society “selection” is designed by its architects to be based on “competition”, i.e., pitting people against each other, to facilitate the control of all of them.

3) As I also wrote, while the architects of Soviet-style state-capitalism sometimes claimed “communism” as the long-term goal, e.g., in Bukharin and Preobrazhensky’s ABC’s of Communism (1920), what they were DOING was imposing the social relations of capitalism. Those with idealistic hopes of that sort were mostly killed off by Stalin’s assassins. His other apparatchik architects were NOT “trying persistently for decades to build socialist utopia,” but rather exploiting workers in factories, collective farms & the Gulag to industrialize and “catch up” with Western-style capitalism as fast as possible. Parallel contradictions between claims and actions in the “West” have been such things as capitalist claims a) to providing “freedom”, while subordinating life to work, and b) to being “democratic” while actually running political systems where the politicians and bureaucrats have been bought & paid for by capitalists!

4) Marx’s “predictions” were political rhetorical flourishes designed to encourage struggle. If you study his THEORY, there is no teleology, no inevitability to getting beyond capitalism only the optimistic view that because capitalism can never do away with its internal antagonisms (being based on exploitation & alienation), struggle is just as inevitable and therefore getting beyond capitalism POSSIBLE. To convert mere possibility into reality requires organizing, which is what he & comrades devoted their lives to.

5) Given your citizenship & position at Poznań University, you can read my Teoria Kryzysu: Jako Teoria Walki Klas, Poznan, 2017, for more on my thoughts about Marx & his relevance to Poland today.

Marcin,

It is very difficult to see what Communism intended as it rejected many of the means of state enrichment and towards its end in Russia provided full employment and blanket security. A steady state economy with limited expansion. That its main product was armaments was perhaps simply because of the market values associated with that activity.

I know people from Eastern European countries who grieve the fall of Communism because it provided security (without understanding its limitations in terms of genuine wealth production) and its limits on anxiety, felt by everyone (sic) in the West.

9, i'm trying to see where the claims here are met. They certainly made many claims but apart from state run farming and industry as an end in itself.

10, not my perception necessarily but friends who lived in Eastern Europe comparing their lives then and now.

12, really again the perception of people who lived in communist countries now in the west which for them was expressed emotionally, anxiety in west, security under communism.

Stanley, given the goals of the architects of Soviet-style state capitalism and leaving aside the massive destruction & death during WWII, I'd say they were quite successful until quite late. Those goals were quite explicit: channel as much surplus as possible into industrialization - meaning: exploit workers as intensely as you can get away with it, permit as few resources be diverted to consumption as possible. (What economists call "growth theory" partly originated in the USSR. The same approach, by the way, was the strategy of "supply-side" economics during the Reagan era.) They were able to pursue this with only passive & covert resistance (given their police-state methods) until food protests broke out, first in their client states (e.g., Poland in 1970 and then in 1976) and then with the USSR itself to such a degree that they were forced to revise their efforts and plow more resources into producing consumer goods. Unfortunately for them, that resistance was almost omnipresent and not only undermined the "imposed methods of working" but subverted their modernization. The heterodox economist Thorstein Veblen (1857−1929) was spot-on when he defined sabotage as “the conscientious withdrawal of efficiency” in On the Nature and Uses of Sabotage (1919) and the Russians were/are past masters of it. For a lot more see the sections on "Struggles over Food and Agriculture in Russia and Eastern Europe" and "The Development Decade Communist Style" in https://www.zerowork.org/CleaverFoodFamine.html (and references therein).

Harry,

By the 1950s Communism in Russia was successful but cracks were showing certainly by the 1970s but that was as much to do with changes within the state run industries whereby pay structures were introduced according to profitability. What was being built in factories had a shrinking market, then picked up by China which certainly is a capitalist society claiming to be communist in order for the elite to retain their power and riches.

in China an aristocracy developed under communism, certainly after Mau's death. Xi comes from such a new aristocracy and like Putin he is extremely rich.