Benevolent Communist Nation

Tielhard

Banned
1) Just to clarify, logical from which perspective Spike, I was not as clear as I could have been? Do you mean that there are no Communist states only Socialist ones. As in the Communist state is a perfect state and Socialist states are simply the best approximation that can be made to the Communist state. Alternatively were you saying just because you call something Communist does not mean it is Communist.

2) I would value your perspective on democracy. Are there any democracies out there? If so what is it that makes them democracies.
 

Spike Torch

Tielhard said:
Alternatively were you saying just because you call something Communist does not mean it is Communist.
Click to expand...

Yes. Communism is where all wealth is held in common by society which collectively decides what to do with it, through directly democratic or consensus based processes. I'm not claiming that would ever be possible, only stating that no nation in modern times has ever achieved that.

As to the second question, see above ^ .
 

Berra

Oddly enough communism suggests that the state should dissapere. Lenin starts dismantle the state.
 

xchen08

True Communism is probably impossible and certainly has never been achieved. The closest we have had has been dictatorship of the proletariat.(read dictatorship of the party functionaries)

True democracy is probably unachievable outside of a citystate context, but there are plenty of representative republics that approximate it.

If we understand communism to be what most people have called communist, then something like Tito's regime or Castro's without the American embargo or the political killings is probably the best. Now a benevolent communist economy cannot compete with a capitalist world economy due to its inherent inefficiencies. The best way to get around it is a small resource based economy, something like Kuwait. Such a country is ideal for communism since no real economy is necessary, all income is derived from resource exports, and a benevolent communist government can use oil revenues for internal improvements, external investments, and improving the lives of its people.
 

Lordkraken

Several people have mentioned Tito's Yugoslavia, but as King Thomas pointed out, his successors butchered his work and lowered it to the level of the Warsaw Pact nations. I would imagine that a similar thing would have happened in a Checkloslovokia with a successful revolution.
 
Rasputin

Rasputin

xchen08 said:
The best way to get around it is a small resource based economy, something like Kuwait. Such a country is ideal for communism since no real economy is necessary, all income is derived from resource exports, and a benevolent communist government can use oil revenues for internal improvements, external investments, and improving the lives of its people.
Click to expand...

By that definition Chavez's Venezuela seems to be well on the way towards becoming a 'benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat', though that's probably more in the realm of future history. I agree that it'd be the best way to bring about a society of the kind theorised by purist Marxists, where people are freed from the alienating effects of mass production to improve themselves and yet still have plentiful amounts of raw cash with which to make said improvements to themselves.

However, it seems doubtful that this worker's state could proceed beyond the 'socialist' state of Marx's grand schema. The economy would be dependent on oil revenues and that depends on mighty thirsty capitalist giants going on summer driving seasons well away from it. A major global recession would result in the land of workers' councils going tits-up rather sharpish.
 

Wendell

Hendryk said:
Communist Mongolia was as bad as it got. Forced sedenterization of nomads, eradication of the local culture, Stalinist autocracy, you name it. Fifteen years on, the place has yet to recover.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there were regimes that were far worse. Frankly, I know not how a Communist state ever starts to "work" without a forceful hand of some sort to get things done.
 

xchen08

Rasputin said:
By that definition Chavez's Venezuela seems to be well on the way towards becoming a 'benevolent dictatorship of the proletariat', though that's probably more in the realm of future history. I agree that it'd be the best way to bring about a society of the kind theorised by purist Marxists, where people are freed from the alienating effects of mass production to improve themselves and yet still have plentiful amounts of raw cash with which to make said improvements to themselves.

However, it seems doubtful that this worker's state could proceed beyond the 'socialist' state of Marx's grand schema. The economy would be dependent on oil revenues and that depends on mighty thirsty capitalist giants going on summer driving seasons well away from it. A major global recession would result in the land of workers' councils going tits-up rather sharpish.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I mentioned Kuwait. Venezuela is just too big, and I can see it becoming the land of the worker's paradise except there are no workers or most workers are working in unproductive state factories. A communist system cannot survive competition. Kuwait is small enough to have the entire population work the oil fields or supporting tasks, and it is also small enough to ride out a global recession.
 

Wendell

xchen08 said:
Yeah, that's why I mentioned Kuwait. Venezuela is just too big, and I can see it becoming the land of the worker's paradise except there are no workers or most workers are working in unproductive state factories. A communist system cannot survive competition. Kuwait is small enough to have the entire population work the oil fields or supporting tasks, and it is also small enough to ride out a global recession.
Click to expand...

Also, Venezuela is not homogenous. I think that this sort of "benevolent" Communist society would surface in a uniethnic society more akin to Kuwait or Japan.
 

Tielhard

Banned
Spike. How would you distinguish between State Capitalism and Communism or more correctly Socialism? Indeed what are the features of all three systems that distinguish them from a democratic mixed economy or a consitutional monarchy?
 

Spike Torch

Tielhard said:
Spike. How would you distinguish between State Capitalism and Communism or more correctly Socialism? Indeed what are the features of all three systems that distinguish them from a democratic mixed economy or a consitutional monarchy?
Click to expand...

State Capitalism - Is where the government controls the economy and produces surplus value through wage labour, but that surplus value is controlled by the bureaucrats not the workers (producers)

Communism - All property is held in common, from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs etc. No wage labour, no exchange based economy. Total personal freedom as long as you're not harming or exploiting others. Another term is Libertarianism, not in the sense it was hijacked by the Libertarian Party, but in the sense meant by the french libertarians in the 19th Century.

Socialism has been debased as a word imo - it can mean anything from Swedish style social democracy to the 'revolutionary politics' of the different trotskyist splinter groups around the world, to the libertarian socialism which has dozens of different interpretations itself.

So 'socialism' in some forms is compatabile with a democratic mixed economy/constitutional monarchy, state capitalism is also compatabile in theory with a liberal democratic state in theory though I can't think of a single example. (maybe Republican Spain, but I doubt it)

Communism is not compatabile with any other system as far as I can see. I'm no expert though.
 

Spike Torch

Mondragon is not a state though, it has no national territory.

I work for a construction industry coop, we have around eighty members all skilled building workers. It costs £1000 to join, though we can lend that to people. Everyone gets paid the same, even the lowliest apprentice. Everyone has to take a turn on the management committee. We have been going for five years now and luckily have only been growing in a strong industry. Keeping in mind that we all earn the same, I earn enough to only have to work eight months a year and I own my own house, and I fly to the US and Ireland quite regularly.

Workers democracy can work.
 

xchen08

Spike Torch said:
Mondragon is not a state though, it has no national territory.

I work for a construction industry coop, we have around eighty members all skilled building workers. It costs £1000 to join, though we can lend that to people. Everyone gets paid the same, even the lowliest apprentice. Everyone has to take a turn on the management committee. We have been going for five years now and luckily have only been growing in a strong industry. Keeping in mind that we all earn the same, I earn enough to only have to work eight months a year and I own my own house, and I fly to the US and Ireland quite regularly.

Workers democracy can work.
Click to expand...

Hmm, what keeps you from shirking work? Just wondering, because that is the theoretical problem with these things. If everybody gets paid the same, how do you keep everyone from working to the lowest denominator?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top