Is there any evidence of a non invasive Communist Government?

[dantescritic]

One thing I seem to notice and am often fascinated by is the massive amount of Communist governments in history that initially had very positive ideals (Workers Rights, Free Healthcare, etc) yet they always devolve into surveillance states that often terrorize even their most ardent supporters. The GDR would be a good example in that they didn't necessarily "kill" dissidents, but put them through immense social and psychological totrture. Are there any Communists who spoke out against this and/or possible Communist or Syndicalist states that would be AGAINST organizations such as the Cheka, Stasi, NKVD etc?

 

[Geriander]

Such organizations are needed to root out the counterrevolutionaries and foreign imerialist agents!!!!

More seriously, a government needs to be intrusive if it is going to collect what you produce according to your ability unless you are willing.

 

[Denkt]

How about socialist governments who had similar ideals?

 

[Geriander]

How about socialist governments who had similar ideals?

Best to stick to governments who claimed to want to achieve communism. Otherwise the thread will devolve into "no true Scotsman" territory. Would we count Social Democrats, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

 

[Thousandflowers]

The problem is always one of splitting hairs; as a Marxist myself I would point out that Communism in a Marxian sense is a theoretical end-state described by Marx in which the state has ceased to be. If we are talking broadly about extreme-left states however the one most often quoted to my knowledge would be the Paris Commune;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Quite benign, democratic and destroyed mainly due to the fact that they weren't willing to be as brutal as the French government. Of course they only existed for a few months so its anyones guess how they would have developed further down the line.

 

[dantescritic]

That depends, for instance a "Communist" government voted into power as exists in Venezuela would count. However a Democratic Socialist government in the current European Sphere wouldn't apply, Spartacists would however. So I guess "radical democratic socialism" would apply in my question.

 

[Geriander]

That depends, for instance a "Communist" government voted into power as exists in Venezuela would count. However a Democratic Socialist government in the current European Sphere wouldn't apply, Spartacists would however. So I guess "radical democratic socialism" would apply in my question.

Do you think that the Marxist idea of: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", needs to apply in order for a state to be communist? If so, it requires either state intrusion or a significant change in human behaviour.

 

[dantescritic]

I think the statement itself is quite subjective in nature, but ive always understood it to mean the distribution of goods and services that the state itself or the workers produce. But I may have misunderstood your question, perhaps you are suggesting that for such a system to exist, totalitarian security apparatuses basically have to exist alongside with it?

 

[Zinegata]

One thing I seem to notice and am often fascinated by is the massive amount of Communist governments in history that initially had very positive ideals (Workers Rights, Free Healthcare, etc) yet they always devolve into surveillance states that often terrorize even their most ardent supporters. The GDR would be a good example in that they didn't necessarily "kill" dissidents, but put them through immense social and psychological totrture. Are there any Communists who spoke out against this and/or possible Communist or Syndicalist states that would be AGAINST organizations such as the Cheka, Stasi, NKVD etc?

That's because you're not actually talking about actual communist governments, just the caricatures invented to make capitalist ideologues feel bigger.

In the strictest sense communism merely means that an enormous chunk of the economy is owned by the public rather than private enterprise, which in practical terms means the chunk of the economy that's owned by the government. The countries that most fit the bill presently outside of a full authoritarian regime like North Korea are actually places like Slovenia, Sweden, and Ireland - none of whom are actually anywhere close to being a police state.

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/government-spending-to-gdp

Indeed, if you want to see the largest half-"communist" state in the modern world, you need to look no further than the United States of America, which has a consistently growing share of its GDP owned by the government that has reached something in the region of 40%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshba...rd-march-of-government-spending/#5bd1ab552720

Police states and communism do not go hand in hand. This was simply the big myth invented during the Cold War to justify demonization of the concept of communism and socialism. That these mythical beliefs are so widespread really goes to show how much of Western history is really little more than highly politicized propaganda.

 

[Geriander]

I’m saying that if a system is going to extract what a person produces based on their ability but only reward them based on their needs, a significant amount of intrusion into that persons life is necessary. Alternatively that person may be willing to voluntarily submit to this system but, for the system to work, such selflessness needs to be almost universal in society.

In practice you end up with black markets that need to be cracked down on or the legitimate redistributive system will be starved. This of course happens in all societies but the rewards for going to a black market depend on how much of a tax you avoid by doing so. For that reason the government needs to be that much more invasive in order to keep the legitimate redistributive system from collapse.

 

[dantescritic]

Hi Zhegata, I wasn't suggesting it was essential at all. But for instance in the GDR and the USSR there are many examples of even fellow travelers, comrades etc being jailed, questioned, shot. In this case I would put them in the "Brutal Regime" category, of course this doesn't mean ever Communist state uses these elements.

 

[Yakman]

One thing I seem to notice and am often fascinated by is the massive amount of Communist governments in history that initially had very positive ideals (Workers Rights, Free Healthcare, etc) yet they always devolve into surveillance states that often terrorize even their most ardent supporters. The GDR would be a good example in that they didn't necessarily "kill" dissidents, but put them through immense social and psychological totrture. Are there any Communists who spoke out against this and/or possible Communist or Syndicalist states that would be AGAINST organizations such as the Cheka, Stasi, NKVD etc?

if you want to be communist, you kinda got to root out private ownership and counter-revolutionaries.

 

[Zinegata]

I’m saying that if a system is going to extract what a person produces based on their ability but only reward them based on their needs, a significant amount of intrusion into that persons life is necessary. Alternatively that person may be willing to voluntarily submit to this system but, for the system to work, such selflessness needs to be almost universal in society.

That's the simplistic capitalistic caricature of it, meant to stoke fears of loss of liberty and submission. That people keep repeating the meme and lie that "communist societies can only work if everyone is selfless" is in fact really a reflection of how little people critically examine the narratives repeated endlessly by the pro-capitalism ideologues.

In particular, this idea that workers in communist society are lazier because they don't "own" the fruits of their labor would be utterly ridiculous to anyone who has spent any time as a mid-level manager for a large corporation (experience which I have).

Workers in corporations are often lazy too, because they don't own the corporation (particularly since stock compensation is limited to the CEOs and top executives) and rarely get to see an equitable share of the profits. They have to be motivated by things closer at hand - liking the team / coworkers and not wanting to fail them, having a good manager who looks out for their needs, and having the occasional and real financial incentive in the form of bonuses. Any mid-level manager going "You are in a capitalist system so you should perform better!" would be laughed at as someone just trying to snivel their way to top management.

That's the reality of your average large-institution workplace. It applies equally whether you're working for a communist government or a large multi-national corporation.

That's why communism should not be seen through the invented caricatures but rather its core concept - which is the public as opposed to private ownership of large-scale "means of production" such as factories. The system, as evidenced by Sweden, can in fact work but only if the government actively acts in the best interest of its citizens. Indeed, it can be argued the system can only really act in the best interest of its citizens if it was democratic and allowed the ordinary citizen a greater say in how the country should be run.

Most governments are in fact not very good at this. That is why (especially in the United States) they keep extolling the nonsense claim that capitalism is the bestest system ever, even as government spending actually increases as a proportion of GDP and said countries are actually becoming more communist. They are basically shifting blame to corporations / private industry even as they actually take more control of the economy.

That's why also many countries end up being police states - it's easier to suppress dissent through force or propaganda than to actively work for the best interest of their citizens. That the Western world has delusions of being immune to their own lies and propaganda just because it has (an increasingly not-free) press is really a damning indictment of why it's unable to solve big problems.

In short, the system matters much less than the leadership. A capitalistic system stuck with uncaring leaders interested only in their own wealth (e.g. Russian oligarchs) is just as awful as a communist system with that kind of self-serving leadership. But no one in the political establishment wants to admit to this narrative as it holds them accountable.

In practice you end up with black markets that need to be cracked down on or the legitimate redistributive system will be starved. This of course happens in all societies but the rewards for going to a black market depend on how much of a tax you avoid by doing so. For that reason the government needs to be that much more invasive in order to keep the legitimate redistributive system from collapse.

Again, that's the caricature based on how the Russian economy has basically acted since before the communist revolution. By contrast there aren't black markets in Sweden.

 

[Zinegata]

Hi Zhegata, I wasn't suggesting it was essential at all. But for instance in the GDR and the USSR there are many examples of even fellow travelers, comrades etc being jailed, questioned, shot. In this case I would put them in the "Brutal Regime" category, of course this doesn't mean ever Communist state uses these elements.

I understand but your impression is that communist states "always" devolve into police states. This is not true.

Rather, the issue is that 60 years of Cold War propaganda have loaded the word "communism" with so many negative connotations that smart nations avoid using the term even though they know they're basically practicing something close to communism. That's why they invented the "Nordic Model" in Sweden, while some American economists refer to the "Chicago School".

Unfortunately because so few people call out this myth on the news and on the Internet it's basically impossible to have a factual discussion of the American or world economy with a layperson; as the entire premise of their economic beliefs are built upon a complete lie.

 

[Zinegata]

if you want to be communist, you kinda got to root out private ownership and counter-revolutionaries.

I'd note that the Soviet Union never completely abolished private property, and indeed it's arguable whether Marx really called for abolishing all private property (even your child's favorite doll) or just the means of production - which in many cases remain in government control anyway even in "capitalistic" and democratic states.

There are in fact many forms of infrastructure that should not be in the hands of institutions whose sole motive is profit. The justice system for instance cannot be a for-profit institution, as that would simply result in the rich always winning any trial.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I'd note that the Soviet Union never completely abolished private property, and indeed it's arguable whether Marx really called for abolishing all private property (even your child's favorite doll) or just the means of production - which in many cases remain in government control anyway even in "capitalistic" and democratic states.

There are in fact many forms of infrastructure that should not be in the hands of institutions whose sole motive is profit. The justice system for instance cannot be a for-profit institution, as that would simply result in the rich always winning any trial.

Of course the communist regimes of the ussr the east bloc did not abolish private property. You could own a shop or a workshop in East Germany and continue to solicit customers. Small shops were an important part of the economy, and private farms contributed essential parts of people's diets that the collective farms were unable to produce reliably with quantity. Meat and fresh produce for example.

But that wasn't because the government appreciated what they did and supported them. Quite the contrary. The mindset of an independent business owner was alien and incomprehensible to the regime leaders, and always under suspicion for alleged "hoarding" even when small businesses were regularly starved of materials and taxed into oblivion. (If a business allowed to accumulate profit then it wasn't taxed enough in their view. Private individuals weren't supposed to accumulate property. The tax rate for independent business owners started at 15% and went up to 98% http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?Steuern_und_Abgaben this is not something made up by western propaganda dear Zinegata! )

The economy that the regime had in mind as the future end state of communism would have no place for independent small businesses operating outside of government-controlled syndicates.

 

[Zinegata]

Of course the communist regimes of the ussr the east bloc did not abolish private property. You could own a shop or a workshop in East Germany and continue to solicit customers. Small shops were an important part of the economy, and private farms contributed essential parts of people's diets that the collective farms were unable to produce reliably with quantity. Meat and fresh produce for example.

In short, the idea that you can't ever own anything for yourself even in communist countries is a lie.

But that wasn't because the government appreciated what they did and supported them. Quite the contrary. The mindset of an independent business owner was alien and incomprehensible to the regime leaders, and always under suspicion for alleged "hoarding" even when small businesses were regularly starved of materials and taxed into oblivion. (If a business allowed to accumulate profit then it wasn't taxed enough in their view. Private individuals weren't supposed to accumulate property. The tax rate for independent business owners started at 15% and went up to 98% http://www.ddr-wissen.de/wiki/ddr.pl?Steuern_und_Abgaben this is not something made up by western propaganda dear Zinegata! )

And yet when the American small farmers are being starved into oblivion by corporate farms it's glorious and proof that capitalism is the bestest system ever?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-04/family-farms-pushed-to-get-big-or-go-bust

I fail to see how this is not hypocrisy. Apparently it's not okay for a government to fail to support a small business and to pressure them to close down, but it's totally okay if a corporation does the same thing because it's all in the name of some nebulous "free hand of the market" or even worse an appeal to the false and laughable machismo of "survival of the fittest through competition" (which in itself is a very twisted interpretation of Darwin's theory). Indeed, to add to the utter hypocritical nature of the situation many of the capitalism cheer leaders in the US keep criticizing the EU over farm subsidies (which help small businesses) and accuse it as a form of communism/socialism.

Really, the lies just all keep piling up because you're in such total denial of how wrong your economic premises are. Capitalism is not a cure-all. That you keep repeating this lie is why I refuse to accept your narrative.

Support or lack or support for small business is in fact a wholly separate parameter from capitalism or communism. That's why the "Ease of doing business" index is measured separately, and governed in large part by factors such as the government's transparency and lack of corruption - because in a corrupt state (e.g. modern Russia) the big corporations or the government immediately quash any attempts to compete with them even if it's technically "capitalist".

Capitalism is in fact hugely subject to the same corruption and inefficiency that afflicted "communist" nations or national governments. Stop repeating the lie that only communist governments ever oppress small businesses or where vested interests stifle competition. It is a universal thing that occurs in all economic systems - which is why things like anti-trust laws exist to prevent such abuse.

Really it's blatantly obvious how the people defending capitalism on the Internet generally don't understand or live within that system; because they keep repeating anecdotes about the injustices of the communist system that they never witnessed yet are completely oblivious to the very same injustices perpetrated by the capitalist system that is happening on their own doorstep.

The economy that the regime had in mind as the future end state of communism would have no place for independent small businesses operating outside of government-controlled syndicates.

Ah yes that's why Gorbachev initiated free market reforms. To further clamp down on small business.

Again, it's really obvious how shallow your understanding of communism actually is and are simply resorting to caricature. The Soviet Union did not have a unified economic system for 80 years. There was no single plan for economic or world domination (they didn't believe their own lies about the "inevitable triumph of communism"). It was not ruled by one man during that entire period. Heck, Soviet leaders often explicitly detested their predecessors and sought a different path for themselves.

So what is this "end state of communism" that you and all the capitalism memers keep inventing out of whole cloth?

 

[JodelDiplom]

In short, the idea that you can't ever own anything for yourself even in communist countries is a lie.



And yet when the American small farmers are being starved into oblivion by corporate farms it's glorious and proof that capitalism is the bestest system ever?

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-04/family-farms-pushed-to-get-big-or-go-bust

I fail to see how this is not hypocrisy. Apparently it's not okay for a government to fail to support a small business and to pressure them to close down, but it's totally okay if a corporation does the same thing because it's all in the name of some nebulous "free hand of the market" or even worse an appeal to the false and laughable machismo of "survival of the fittest through competition" (which in itself is a very twisted interpretation of Darwin's theory). Indeed, to add to the utter hypocritical nature of the situation many of the capitalism cheer leaders in the US keep criticizing the EU over farm subsidies (which help small businesses) and accuse it as a form of communism/socialism.

Really, the lies just all keep piling up because you're in such total denial of how wrong your economic premises are. Capitalism is not a cure-all. That you keep repeating this lie is why I refuse to accept your narrative.

Support or lack or support for small business is in fact a wholly separate parameter from capitalism or communism. That's why the "Ease of doing business" index is measured separately, and governed in large part by factors such as the government's transparency and lack of corruption - because in a corrupt state (e.g. modern Russia) the big corporations or the government immediately quash any attempts to compete with them even if it's technically "capitalist".

Capitalism is in fact hugely subject to the same corruption and inefficiency that afflicted "communist" nations or national governments. Stop repeating the lie that only communist governments ever oppress small businesses or where vested interests stifle competition. It is a universal thing that occurs in all economic systems - which is why things like anti-trust laws exist to prevent such abuse.

Really it's blatantly obvious how the people defending capitalism on the Internet generally don't understand or live within that system; because they keep repeating anecdotes about the injustices of the communist system that they never witnessed yet are completely oblivious to the very same injustices perpetrated by the capitalist system that is happening on their own doorstep.



Ah yes that's why Gorbachev initiated free market reforms. To further clamp down on small business.

Again, it's really obvious how shallow your understanding of communism actually is and are simply resorting to caricature. The Soviet Union did not have a unified economic system for 80 years. There was no single plan for economic or world domination (they didn't believe their own lies about the "inevitable triumph of communism"). It was not ruled by one man during that entire period. Heck, Soviet leaders often explicitly detested their predecessors and sought a different path for themselves.

So what is this "end state of communism" that you and all the capitalism memers keep inventing out of whole cloth?

Sorry but I have no in interest in discussing what "true communism" is with a petulant leftie who bemoans my lack of "understanding of what communism means". You're not the first to lament how misunderstood communism is and won't be the last. With a heavy heart I pass on the opportunity to discuss your interpretation of this well worn argument.

 

[Zinegata]

Sorry but I have no in interest in discussing what "true communism" is with a petulant leftie who bemoans my lack of "understanding of what communism means". You're not the first to lament how misunderstood communism is and won't be the last. With a heavy heart I pass on the opportunity to discuss your interpretation of this well worn argument.

Stop pretending, you simply have no answer for the fact that you were inventing lies like "there is an end state for communism" despite the Soviet Union having very varied economic policies over 80 years.

Acting indignant does nothing to change this.

And in any case the only one you're hurting is yourself because you keep believing your own lies.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Stop pretending, you simply have no answer for the fact that you were inventing lies like "there is an end state for communism" despite the Soviet Union having very varied economic policies over 80 years.

Acting indignant does nothing to change this.

And in any case the only one you're hurting is yourself because you keep believing your own lies.

I am indignant at the vehemence with which you jump on other people's opinions out even just questions with a holier-than-thou attitude and a convicting that you are right and everyone else has his opinions based on lies and anti communist propaganda. You jumped on the OP's rather innocent questions and immediately ranted about how his views were based on lies. You ranted about how anticommunist propaganda had spread certain false ideas (like how communism calls for the abolition of private property) when no one had actually mentioned these allegedly false ideas before you started ranting about them.

This is just a terrible style of discussion. I am indignant at your style not at your arguments. If you want to have a discussion try being less vehement and don't go on rants before you have even engaged in the discussion with the other participants.