Why can't pro-communist people simply accept that communism doesn't work?

Dec 2011
1,917
Socialist system was pushing his indoctrination on few levels: in schools, in media and in Yugoslav army where I was for a year. I would say that system presented itself on a wide level. And marxist theory was something completely different than a practice on all levels. That's why it collapsed: because of a widening gap between a presentation and a reality.
Exactly !

When I am talking about Eduard Bernstein, Rosa Luxemborg, and especially Karl Kautsky1 I am giving examples of Socialists/Marxists who were pointing out how Lenin was diverging from Marxist views. And, of course, we can extrapolate from that how Stalin et al, took the same brutal path away from what Marx intended.

So why do people still view socialism/Marxism favorably ? To know that we have to know the history and the literature that people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are consuming. Where are they getting their ideas from ? What is the historical basis for their position and how does it correspond to what we know Marx said. I absolutely do not want to get into current politics, but from a socialist perspective that is grounded in historical evolution it is a bit tricky to avoid that taboo.

Lenin employed brutal means as a part of his own interpretation of Marxist doctrine and the USSR became, what was essentially a cross between, depending on the time frame, a dictatorship (Stalin) and an oligarchic tyranny. Completely backwards to what some in the Marxist movement wanted.

----------------------------

1. Lenin was besides himself over Kautsky. Practically the first thing Lenin does in the State and Revolution is attack him. Kautsky had a log of credibility because of his association with Marx and Engels. BTW, Kautsky was heavily influenced by Bernstein.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
1,917
You really know nigh to nothing about human nature, do you? I'm pretty sure if you take a nomad to cold, dark USSR and make him work 40 hrs a week, he would more likely commit suicide than feel like a sultan.
To get an idea of the dismal nature of peoples existence in England (20's and 30's industrial Northern England), which we would assume would have been close to the view that Marx had, I suggest The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.
 
Dec 2011
1,917
I have read that there argument is that "communism hasn't been fully tested"..... but how can you really test it?

Many people claim that there are many obstacles to it mainly that human beings are selfish and greedy and don't want to work for one another but still pro communist persist that it does.

Why? What makes it so hard for them to just let it go?

Is it pride?

Is it arrogance?

Is it the unwillingness to accept that they were wrong?

Is it fear of the consequences if they do admit that they were wrong?

It is Marxist language for one thing. Marxist, not USSR type polemics.

The big takeaway concepts here are, IMHO, "antagonism between the classes" and the "failure of capitalism". (I am just conveying doctrinal Marxist language and these are not my words or my POV so please don't attack me)

The picture drawn by Marx is that Capitalism will ultimately fail1 and the proletariat will have to take control. This can be attractive to those who are frustrated with the parliamentary failures within the state.

-----------------------------
1. Bernstein thought Marx wrong on this account because he failed to recognize the ability of a free political system to modify production systems. See: Evolutionary Socialism, Bernstein, 1899/trans. 1902 below.

... Evolutionary socialism: a criticism and affirmation. (Die voraussetzungen des sozialismus und die aufgaben der sozialdemokratie.) : Bernstein, Eduard, 1850-1932 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
 
Its worked for China though.

I'm not a fan of Communism but China's financial stability is so sound and deep they have apparently used that cash reserve to buy into large portions of America.

Yes China is now moving toward capitalism more now but I thinks its because Communism has done what's needed for China, its now a global powerhouse with cash reserves deeper than any other country.
 
Feb 2017
132
Pacific Ocean
Its worked for China though.

I'm not a fan of Communism but China's financial stability is so sound and deep they have apparently used that cash reserve to buy into large portions of America.
It is probably safer to say that it has worked until now. If in 30 years China still did not find huge problems, if by then it has surpassed the US, then the Chinese government has a point. But nevertheless it seems that the safest test of the reliability of a kind government is to see it in action against a scenario of economic crisis, which did not happen yet.
 
In order to avoid this site becoming destroyed by partisan political squabbles (as has happened to other history sites) we are only really supposed to discuss history and not contemporary politics -- this being defined as 1991 (roughly).

Some subjects do 'slip through' or are tolerated as they are supposed to be of 'historical importance'.
Got it.
 
Oct 2013
1,283
Monza, Italy
I believe Marx and many others (Lenin, Luxembourg, Engels) were really great thinkers who clearly showed how 19th century capitalism was (and is also today) greedy, needs imperialism and provokes wars to mantain itself. The problem of many pro-Communist sympathizers (especially those who sincerely reject Soviet-style dictatorship) is that they can't accept the fact the since the time of Babeuf, there's no socialist thinker (be it Saint-Simon, be it Marx, be it Lenin) and utopian who in the end DIDN'T see society as human cattle to organize as such...private property and free-market surely are the main reasons of humans being greedy, yet they are cornerstones of any free society. Planned economy is, in the end, a basic point for creating re-educational hospitals and destroying economic, cultural, social freedom. I think that that choosing between capitalism and failed idealism can be very frustrating, people need to dream a better world after all.
 
Likes: Zanis

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,781
It is Marxist language for one thing. Marxist, not USSR type polemics.

The big takeaway concepts here are, IMHO, "antagonism between the classes" and the "failure of capitalism". (I am just conveying doctrinal Marxist language and these are not my words or my POV so please don't attack me)

The picture drawn by Marx is that Capitalism will ultimately fail1 and the proletariat will have to take control. This can be attractive to those who are frustrated with the parliamentary failures within the state.

-----------------------------
1. Bernstein thought Marx wrong on this account because he failed to recognize the ability of a free political system to modify production systems. See: Evolutionary Socialism, Bernstein, 1899/trans. 1902 below.

... Evolutionary socialism: a criticism and affirmation. (Die voraussetzungen des sozialismus und die aufgaben der sozialdemokratie.) : Bernstein, Eduard, 1850-1932 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Just one point.. Marx was writing in the context of high demographich growth (which still is case in "third world" countries, notably in most of Africa).... I wonder how it would have been different if the demographic situation was that of contemporary Japan for example...
 

Similar History Discussions