Originally posted by @eladarIn communism there should be no nation and the state should wither away, so it would seem inevitable that the answer will be "no."
Only is only.
Do you believe there is a true communist nation?
Start with an analogy: do you think there is a true Christian Church today? Many Christian churches and faith groups exist and they each claim to represent the true legacy of Christian teaching, but they have a typical tendency to accuse other Christian groups of heretical or satanic errors and betrayals and no less an authority than whodey often complains that there is a need to go back to the principles of the early Christians, prior to the emergence of state sponsored organised Christianity. To his mind, when, say, the Pope claims to be the true and definitive source of Christian teaching, this is not to be believed. Just because someone clams to be Christian does not make it so.
To find true communism you cannot even refer back to an original Jesus or Paul figure as the original true communist or apostle of communism, though many would in fact trace communism to Jesus himself and see it as a Christian value. Maybe you could choose Thomas Mores' Utopia, or the Diggers and Levellers of Cromwell's time in England. English socialists have rarely been Marxist and have been far most likely to refer to Christian traditions alongside the Levellers and the Chartiists for their roots. In the 19th century the term was used interchangeably with socialism and had no firm definition. If anything, there was really no correct definition but a plethora of competing ideas about what it might be.
Both Engels and Marx signed up to the label of communist and/or socialist, then spent their lives trying to establish what that might mean in practical reality. Both were convinced in their youth of the need to achieve socialism through violent revolution, but their ideas matured with time and experience, and in old age - after Marx died - Engels certainly advocated democracy and opposed revolution, or opposed it in the context of a democratic society, based on his perception of the enormous powers of the reactionary state to suppress insurrections, and his horror of what modern warfare had become. [His prediction was fulfilled in World War 1]. Engles though nationalism and war would both wreck prospects for socialism, and argued the need for peace and stability in which to achieve a better educated and better organised proletariat.
Marx and Engels were joint authors of "Marxism" - certainly Engels had to complete and publish Kapital because Marx died leaving volume 1 and a mess of papers. In so far as they did indeed discuss what "communism" would be like, their account was as utopian in its way as Thomas More's - it represented an ideal or an aspiration. What was of lasting value was their analysis and critique of capitalism as they experienced it in their own period of history, bearing in mind that Engels was a successful mill operator and speculator and a very wealthy capitalist. Neither he nor Marx were ever egalitarian in any simplistic sense. What they objected to was theft and exploitation.
Marx and Engles were not prophets but analysts. Their predictions were as weak as you would expect because based on wishful thinking and upbeat enthusiasm to motivate their followers, but their analyses of the current scene were often exceptionally good. If Engels predicted so chillingly what the next great war would be like, it was because he made a serious study of warfare in his time, and if he and Marx predicted so well the evolution of global capitalism, this was not achieved by gazing into the future but by analysing their contemporary economic environment with the benefit of Engel's undisputed expertise in business.
When revolution came to Russia, the genius of Lenin and Trotsky was to transform this crisis into what they called a "communist" revolution, but they never claimed to have achieved "communism." What they introduced, and Stalin developed, was state capitalism, on the premise that this was the necessary route by which to make the transition from traditional, peasant economy through capitalism to a future, utopian communist society. What Stalin in particular did claim was that his interpretation of Marxism and the pathway to communism was definitive and beyond dispute; and he insisted that the world accept the USSR as "actually existing socialism". Stalin had massive authority and position power from which to impose his views. Even today, in Putin's Russia, it is seen as unpatriotic to disparage Stalin because he made Russia into a superpower (just as in post-communist China it is not acceptable to criticise Mao). But we know today that Stalin was both a power crazed psycopath and a pathological liar, so it is hard to see why we are required today to give his claims any credibility. Of course he claimed to be the final authority on Marx! Just like the Pope is the final and definitive authority on Jesus and will burn you to a crisp if you disagree [Update - no more burning, for the time being.].
This does not mean that, instead of Stalin, there is a different definitive authority on what communism is or will be. It means there is no definitive authority. The idea is a vague and utopian ideal. Whatever that utopia might be like in due course, the more immediate debate is about how best to achieve it, the path to follow, and you can choose any number of guides for your journey.
If you are not a millenarian type, not desperately seeking utopia, you may nevertheless wish to understand why our current economic system is so destructive and oppressive and for that you will find an excellent guide in the writings of Marx and Engels, not because they predicted the future, but because neoliberalism is dragging us back to the past, the values of the 1840s and the methods of exploitation and theft which they describe so well. As for actually existing socialism, the Nordic model is alive and well, albeit under attack.
15 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganWell then obviously we need to accept imperfectly used tems. Russians and Chinese are communists, well perhaps the Russians are still in the closet.
In communism there should be no nation and the state should wither away, so it would seem inevitable that the answer will be "no."
Start with an analogy: do you think there is a true Christian Church today? Many Christian churches and faith groups exist and they each claim to represent the true legacy of Christian teaching, but they have a typical ...[text shortened]... the values of the 1840s and the methods of exploitation and theft which they describe so well.
These types of communist regimes are very similar to fascist regimes.
Originally posted by @eladarYes they are and what they have in common are the things you should learn to identify:
Well then obviously we need to accept imperfectly used tems. Russians and Chinese are communists, well perhaps the Russians are still in the closet.
These types of communist regimes are very similar to fascist regimes.
Authoritarian regimes
Weak accountability
State sponsored public relations
A powerful state ideology
Militarism and warfare - conditions of war consistently favour authoritarian regimes and that is why they perpetuate war and the fear of war.
The proper term is totalitarian.
There are totalitarian states of Left and Right.
The USA is one.
Originally posted by @finneganAuthoritarian: 5% of the world's population, 25% of the world's prisoners; about 3% get a proper trial.
Yes they are and what they have in common are the things you should learn to identify:
Authoritarian regimes
Weak accountability
State sponsored public relations
A powerful state ideology
Militarism and warfare - conditions of war consistently favour authoritarian regimes and that is why they perpetuate war and the fear of war.
The proper term is totalitarian.
There are totalitarian states of Left and Right.
The USA is one.
Weak accountability: corruption is rife; powerful interest groups have direct access to power at the expense of the public interest
State sponsored public relations: CIA interferes in Hollywood and all other media; media dominated by wealthy oligarchs with a consistently authoritarian, right-wing, militarist, free market bias and absolute misrepresentation or silencing of true ideological opponents. All debate is diverted to trivia.
A powerful state ideology: Incessant flag waving and obsession with the national anthem; total commitment to free market neoliberal values. American universities and media busy re-writing history and misrepresenting reality in unrealistic American terms.
Militarism and warfare: An insane, vast military budget, military bases across the globe, overt and covert military intervention across the globe
The proper term for the USA is totalitarian.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @finneganI agree concerning the US government, but the same people who pull sth strings in the US have control of Western Europe.
Authoritarian: 5% of the world's population, 25% of the world's prisoners; about 3% get a proper trial.
Weak accountability: corruption is rife; powerful interest groups have direct access to power at the expense of the public interest
State sponsored public relations: CIA interferes in Hollywood and all other media; media dom ...[text shortened]... covert military intervention across the globe
The proper term for the USA is totalitarian.
We all suffer under the golden rule.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarI disagree. The UK is the country most in thrall to US ideologues and interests.
I agree concerning the US government, but the same people who pull sth strings in the US have control of Western Europe.
We all suffer under the golden rule.
Certainly neoliberal ideology has had a massive impact across Europe and even including Norway, and is still gnawing at our democracies, while our traditions of imperialism and racism are still prevasive across many European countries, but I see nothing comparable to the USA situation, which is dire on so many objective criteria. When the Cold War ended, both towards the USSR and China, it really left the USA exposed as the most dangerous and endangered power on this benighted planet.
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @eladarYes. The kibbutz movement for many decades (until the mid-80’s).
So has there been an example of a society run by communism in the modern world?
And there are other small collectives.
No country though, that I am aware of.
Some have started upon communist ideals, but thepugh various reasons failed.
And many communist ideas have been integrated into social democratic platforms (think of healthcare, unemployment benefit, legalised unions, minimum wages, etc.).
16 Oct 17
Originally posted by @shavixmirI know communism has worked its way into our society.
Yes. The kibbutz movement for many decades (until the mid-80’s).
And there are other small collectives.
No country though, that I am aware of.
Some have started upon communist ideals, but thepugh various reasons failed.
And many communist ideas have been integrated into social democratic platforms (think of healthcare, unemployment benefit, legalised unions, minimum wages, etc.).
Godless society and political correctness are rampant.