Is there any evidence of a non invasive Communist Government?

[olm]

It is pretty common with Zinegata. He just goes on full offensive, very liberally throwing around claims like "western propaganda", "lies", "ignorance" etc. Not sure if that is an intentional debate tactic to scare back posters who are less sure in their position, or just a personality trait.

Regarding OP, generally then people talk about "communist governments" they mean governments that officially followed some variation of Marxism-Leninism, and those were all indeed more of less oppressive police states. That's not a "cold war myth", that is just a sad reality. Maybe non-crap communist state could be possible, but there haven't been any that lasted any noteworthy period of time.

 

[Geriander]

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.



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.

As someone who actually lives in Sweden and is quite content with the economic system here, I find you calling it communist to be very funny. Pretty much the only ones who would agree with you are the far right libertarians who call it communism whenever the state does anything. Our own leftists parties are constantly attacking the evils of our ”capitalist” system. This is exactly why I requested that we limit ourselves to states that themselves claim to seek to reach the Marxist stage of communism.

As for black markets here in Sweden, there are some but the VAT is usually not high enough to call for it and most goods are distributed through the free market. The main exception is alcohol. Due to a government monopoly on sales it is quite expensive and as a result there is alot of smuggling and home disstilling.

 

[Zinegata]

It is pretty common with Zinegata. He just goes on full offensive, very liberally throwing around claims like "western propaganda", "lies", "ignorance" etc. Not sure if that is an intentional debate tactic to scare back posters who are less sure in their position, or just a personality trait.

That English language history is biased in favor of the English-speaking peoples to the point that it's propaganda should not be a controversial statement. It's an accusation they regularly level on pretty much everyone else to begin with.

 

[Zinegata]

As someone who actually lives in Sweden and is quite content with the economic system here, I find you calling it communist to be very funny. Pretty much the only ones who would agree with you are the far right libertarians who call it communism whenever the state does anything. Our own leftists parties are constantly attacking the evils of our ”capitalist” system. This is exactly why I requested that we limit ourselves to states that themselves claim to seek to reach the Marxist stage of communism.

And have you ever actually lived in a communist country outside of Sweden to begin with so you can make the comparison?

Note that I don't have any problem with the Swedish marketing ploy of calling their form of communism "The Nordic Model" to avoid controversy, as there are in fact plenty of outsiders who have never been to Sweden who would happily accuse your country of being communist and therefore as evil and anti-freedom as the Soviets. I am not one of them.

My point instead is that communism vs capitalism is much simpler and less loaded with "good vs evil" narratives than the West suggests. It's simply a question of who owns the means of production. In the former, it's the public (therefore the government), and in the latter it's private individuals.

That I point out that even the United States is half communist under this definition should point to how this model works, and how deeply broken the premise of most Americans are when it comes to defining even their own country in that they don't even realize that the government and the public sector is the single biggest contributor to their economy.

 

[Zinegata]

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.

No you are indignant because you are unable to address the question.

You are upset because your precious ideologies were exposed as having enormous loop holes as to be little more than outright lies. That's why you immediately dropped the debate and started playing identity politics ("Zine is a dirty liberal!") instead to summon all of the right-wing ideologues here who are just as terrified of actually addressing the realities of the modern Western economy.

Pardon me for saying so, but I ignore your feeble false offense and accept your inability to address my points as your concession that what you said about communism having a grand "end game" is a complete and utter lie.

Also don't speak for the OP. He can very well tell me on his own if he's rather just listen to an echo chamber extolling the virtues of capitalism.

 

[olm]

And have you ever actually lived in a communist country outside of Sweden to begin with so you can make the comparison?

Have you? You are acting all tough about others being ignorant and believing "western cold war propaganda", so what is your personal experience of living under communism?

 

[Mder1]

So Communism is when the government does things, got it. Sounds like Libertarian hogwash to me.

 

[Geriander]

And have you ever actually lived in a communist country outside of Sweden to begin with so you can make the comparison?

Note that I don't have any problem with the Swedish marketing ploy of calling their form of communism "The Nordic Model" to avoid controversy, as there are in fact plenty of outsiders who have never been to Sweden who would happily accuse your country of being communist and therefore as evil and anti-freedom as the Soviets. I am not one of them.

My point instead is that communism vs capitalism is much simpler and less loaded with "good vs evil" narratives than the West suggests. It's simply a question of who owns the means of production. In the former, it's the public (therefore the government), and in the latter it's private individuals. That I point out that even the United States is half communist under this definition should point to how this model works.

Yes I see that you are redefining communism in a way that was neither intended by Marx nor its common usage since his death. It makes the whole discussion pointless. Marx would probably be rolling in his grave to hear a country with the wealth disparity, employer/ employee relationship, private ownership of the means of production, etc, that is the case in Sweden, being compared to his utopian ideal of communism.

 

[Zinegata]

Have you? You are acting all tough about others being ignorant and believing "western cold war propaganda", so what is your personal experience of living under communism?

I haven't but the people I know who have paint a very different picture especially compared to the right-wing Reaganite version. And at the very minimum the idea that there is a monolithic view of communism even within the Soviet Union itself has no historical backing. Lenin and Stalin couldn't even agree if communism should be limited to one country or a global revolution. So why is there this presumption that they had some master plan for world domination? Because Senator McCarthy said so?

Indeed, just one visit to Japan also pretty much demonstrated that all of this "Japan is denying war crimes" narrative is one that was invented by the British press to hide its own shameful denials of its own bitter colonial history (Hint: They do acknowledge their war crimes in most of their memorials).

It is not me "acting tough". It's me stating facts and people with weak positions having a meltdown. Indeed, you should really ask yourself why you are bringing the conversation to this topic when you should be having a dialogue with yourself on why you are so disturbed and so troubled by some guy just "acting tough" on the Internet.

 

[Zinegata]

Yes I see that you are redefining communism in a way that was neither intended by Marx nor its common usage since his death. It makes the whole discussion pointless. Marx would probably be rolling in his grave to hear a country with the wealth disparity, employer/ employee relationship, private ownership of the means of production, etc, that is the case in Sweden, being compared to his utopian ideal of communism.

Untrue. Marx never defined communism as ownership beyond the "means of production". Indeed, communists are not united in what the "means of production" even means, so why are you insisting that Marx's definition was so certain?

The only ones pretending that communism is a monolithic and certain thing are the ones who "oppose" it, as it is basically capitalist shorthand for "not us". Its no different from the Soviets accusing the West of imperialism or decadence.

 

[Zinegata]

So Communism is when the government does things, got it. Sounds like Libertarian hogwash to me.

Not really. The main defining line of capitalism vs communism is who owns "the means of production". Capitalists believe it should belong to private enterprise. Communism holds it should be held for the public good, which in practice means the government.

That is again why I pointed to a very simple statistic - government share of national GDP. A country where 40% of the economy is paid for by the government is much less capitalistic than one where only 20% of the economy is paid for by the government. And yet we have America's political system insisting it is "capitalism" when they are in the former category rather than the latter.

You can try to twist what I said any way you want, but it's actually really simple and any conclusions outside those of what I noted are frankly reflections of your own biases.

 

[Mder1]

Not really. The main defining line of capitalism vs communism is who owns "the means of production". Capitalists believe it should belong to private enterprise. Communism holds it should be held for the public good, which in practice means the government.

That is again why I pointed to a very simple statistic - government share of national GDP. A country where 40% of the economy is paid for by the government is much less capitalistic than one where only 20% of the economy is paid for by the government. And yet we have America's political system insisting it is "capitalism" when they are in the former category rather than the latter.

You can try to twist what I said any way you want, but it's actually really simple and any conclusions outside those of what I noted are frankly reflections of your own biases.

So Communism is when the government does things. As I already said that's hogwash.

 

[Geriander]

Untrue. Marx never defined communism as ownership beyond the "means of production". Indeed, communists are not united in what the "means of production" even means, so why are you insisting that Marx's definition was so certain?

The only ones pretending that communism is a monolithic and certain thing are the ones who "oppose" it, as it is basically capitalist shorthand for "not us". Its no different from the Soviets accusing the West of imperialism or decadence.

Even by that very limited definition (one that ignores pretty much everything else Marx said or wrote) Sweden isn’t communist. Hardly any of the means of production are owned by the state. If you count taxation as ownership you could argue that Sweden is 50% communist since that is the total tax revenue as a percentage of all production.

 

[olm]

I haven't but the people I know who have paint a very different picture especially compared to the right-wing Reaganite version. And at the very minimum the idea that there is a monolithic view of communism even within the Soviet Union itself has no historical backing. Lenin and Stalin couldn't even agree if communism should be limited to one country or a global revolution. So why is there this presumption that they had some master plan for world domination? Because Senator McCarthy said so?

As expected. So anyone saying anything critical about USSR & friends is automatically pushing "right-wing Reaganite version". Also where did that "master plan for world domination" suddenly come from? I didn't see anyone else posting such stuff here, attacking western imperialist strawmen again? Senator McCarthy?!? You seem to have constructed some ridiculous caricature in your head that you are now tirelessly debunking, too bad that this caricature has hardly any relevance to other people's posts.

 

[IsadorBG]

Even if it did exist it would have been swiftly crushed by anti-communist forces. Anarchist of many kinds and of many periods learned (not) the hard way.

The real question is not whether communism can not be invasive but whether it can survive in a very hostile world without cracking down on opposition. History showed it's impossible without a "global revolution" occuring beforehand.

 

[Zinegata]

Even by that very limited definition (one that ignores pretty much everything else Marx said or wrote) Sweden isn’t communist. Hardly any of the means of production are owned by the state. If you count taxation as ownership you could argue that Sweden is 50% communist since that is the total tax revenue as a percentage of all production.

At its height the ratio of government spending to GDP in Sweden was 70%. If the government vanishes the Swedish economy simply collapses, therefore it is difficult to argue that it's not at least holding a big chunk of the actual means of production. Again the vast majority of Internet posters talking about economics are acutely unaware of how huge a role the government plays in their economy not only in terms of policy but actual spending.

Moreover, the OP was asking why communist states turn into police states and if it was possible to have a communist state without the repression. I answered that the former was more a product of the historical leadership and norms of the states that turned communist (Czarist Russia was no liberal democracy).

For the latter I pointed out that many democratic and liberal states are in fact putting more and more of their economy in the hands of democratically elected governments; hence putting the hands of the "means of production" in the hands of the public. Indeed, based on some interpretations this model is an ideal "end goal" of Marx - wherein the means of production was directly controlled by society and not by the government; but as we can't have leadership without government then having a democratic government directly answerable to the people is the next best thing.

I am well aware that this position does not include Marx's call for violent revolution or the inevitability of violent class struggle. But note that all capitalist states of the period had to navigate the issue which is why even a diehard conservative like Bismarck laid the foundations of both democracy and modern European welfare states - which in many ways gave the people more power and say over the "means of production". Just because Marx was wrong about the need for revolution doesn't mean that his insights into class struggle and the means of production were wrong.

That's in fact the point of stirring the pot. Just because the Soviet Union vanished doesn't mean the inequities and challenges raised by the communists have likewise vanished. They in fact continue to exist, and it's America's complete denial of this fact that is pretty much resulting in its broken economic and political dialogue of today.

 

[Zinegata]

As expected. So anyone saying anything critical about USSR & friends is automatically pushing "right-wing Reaganite version". Also where did that "master plan for world domination" suddenly come from? I didn't see anyone else posting such stuff here, attacking western imperialist strawmen again? Senator McCarthy?!? You seem to have constructed some ridiculous caricature in your head that you are now tirelessly debunking, too bad that this caricature has hardly any relevance to other people's posts.

In short you're going to ignore all nuance and caricature me as a pro-Soviet partisan. Because you want me to stop reminding you that your portrayals of history are based on propaganda and lies.

Also, please read more carefully:

"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."

Asserting that the Soviets wanted to obliterate small business when the last Soviet regime was literally encouraging them is again indicative of the caricatured portrayal of the Soviet Union.

It was not a monolithic and unchanging state over 80 years. That nobody even remembers Gorbachev and his role in the ending the Cold War - indeed his role was arguably greater than Reagan's as he explicitly refused to send troops to crackdown on Eastern Europe - really goes to demonstrate who here are wrestling with guilty consciences and have to make hysterical accusations on someone simply stating the facts.

But hey, go ahead. Pretend that Gorbachev has nothing to do with the discussion despite him explicitly debunking the claim that the communists just wanted to obliterate small businesses always. It's the same old tactics applied by propagandist everywhere.

 

[Geriander]

At its height the ratio of government spending to GDP in Sweden was 70%. If the government vanishes the Swedish economy simply collapses, therefore it is difficult to argue that it's not at least holding a big chunk of the actual means of production. Again the vast majority of Internet posters talking about economics are acutely unaware of how huge a role the government plays in their economy not only in terms of policy but actual spending.

Moreover, the OP was asking why communist states turn into police states and if it was possible to have a communist state without the repression. I answered that the former was more a product of the historical leadership and norms of the states that turned communist (Czarist Russia was no liberal democracy).

For the latter I pointed out that many democratic and liberal states are in fact putting more and more of their economy in the hands of democratically elected governments; hence putting the hands of the "means of production" in the hands of the public. Indeed, based on some interpretations this model is an ideal "end goal" of Marx - wherein the means of production was directly controlled by society and not by the government; but as we can't have leadership without government then having a democratic government directly answerable to the people is the next best thing.

I am well aware that this position does not include Marx's call for violent revolution or the inevitability of violent class struggle. But note that all capitalist states of the period had to navigate the issue which is why even a diehard conservative like Bismarck laid the foundations of both democracy and modern European welfare states - which in many ways gave the people more power and say over the "means of production". Just because Marx was wrong about the need for revolution doesn't mean that his insights into class struggle and the means of production were wrong.

That's in fact the point of stirring the pot. Just because the Soviet Union vanished doesn't mean the inequities and challenges raised by the communists have likewise vanished. They in fact continue to exist, and it's America's complete denial of this fact that is pretty much resulting in its broken economic and political dialogue of today.

I see what you are going for but I think the term socialism fits better than communism as the latter is a utopian end state that Social Democratic parties don’t even claim to want to achieve. Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, etc, have the stated end goal of achieving communism and are therefore often called communists.

 

[Zinegata]

Even if it did exist it would have been swiftly crushed by anti-communist forces. Anarchist of many kinds and of many periods learned (not) the hard way.

The real question is not whether communism can not be invasive but whether it can survive in a very hostile world without cracking down on opposition. History showed it's impossible without a "global revolution" occuring beforehand.

Well if folks had an easy answer to that then France would still be ruled by the Paris Commune to this day . That they don't shows the validity of your point.

I would note however that political or economic ideology - whether communism or capitalism - only gets people so far. At the end of the day governments and people must navigate their particular circumstances. That's a big reason why the Bolsheviks won the Civil War to begin with.

 

[Zinegata]

I see what you are going for but I think the term socialism fits better than communism as the latter is a utopian end state that Social Democratic parties don’t even claim to want to achieve. Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, etc, have the stated end goal of achieving communism and are therefore often called communists.

As I said, I don't object to terms that people find more comfortable like the "Nordic Model" or "socialism". And I certainly do agree that many communist interpretations have unrealistic utopian end states which is their biggest reason for failing.