Has there ever been a communist society that worked?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's right... because the Soviets lied about it constantly .

[Zero]

Originally posted by orange


These are HARDLY communist. One is headed by a father and mother (in some countries just a father, and arguably in some cases just the mother) and has a built in heirarchy based on age or position of birth. The other is a monarchy, ruled by the supposed largest and most impressive King to ever rule.

family is communism. I dunno about your family, but my father's assets are readily available for my use. But of course the decision to use the assets for my purpose has to be agreed. Economically we are all equal.

Yes, dad does alot of decision making. Yes he is a bit of a leader figure in most countries. But do you eat whethet you earn your money or not? Of course you do. All economic assets are shared. I don't think my dad can just go out and get himself a porsche. He'd get shot by my mom (and me, which then after I will run off with the porche. )

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Calc II
Has there ever been a working communist society?

Yes. Depending on your view there are 2. Families and Churches.

Also generally patriachal dictatorships.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you can use the money your dad makes for anything you desire?

Families have never been communist. They've always been monarchies.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So you can use the money your dad makes for anything you desire?

Families have never been communist. They've always been monarchies.

Duh. Read my post please. Of course not. It is decided by familin whole. Even Dad cant go and get himself a porche.

PLUS, I have never seen a monarchy where king works his arse off just to feed his peasants, who dont do any work what so ever. Or have you forgotten the fact that it is your parents that puts the food on the table?

[monkspider]

One problem. Colonial powers CANNOT, by definition, be 3rd World Countries.

Perhaps true on a technicality, but it's really just a matter of semantics. What I meant was that pre-Soviet Russia had levels of infastucture and living standards comparable to third world nations.

Another thing you aren't supposed to say (well to leftists), the USSR never really had high living standards and their economy was always a mess, inefficient as anything that has probably ever existed.

The living standards in the USSR were not that high, relative to the United States or Western Europe. But they were pretty good. The key thing here is that were a huge improvement over 1917 living standards. They were the second world, not the third world, after all. Again, look at countries in 1917 that had comparable levels of living standards, and compare them to Russia in 1989. Of course, the Russians were much, much higher. Despite, a civil war, two world wars, and a cold war.

India had a better economy than the USSR did, if you look at the unsealed records, of course.

This is an interesting statement. How do you reason that this is true? If you look at the industrial, economic, and scientific output of the two countries you would have no reason to think this. If you look at the living standards of the two countries, there is still no reason to belileve this.The Soviet Union may have been inefficent, to one degree or another, but you can't say that India had a stronger economy.

[Graag]

In regards to the original question, naturally one must ask how do you define "worked". But the 1871 Paris Commune, the Shanghai commune (2), pre-Stalin USSR, various south american governments (such as the sandinistas) all give one glimpses of a functional, democratic Communist system.

Monkspider (and other Apolyton communists), I'd be curious to hear why you think these systems 'worked'. Or better still what sort of a system you think could/would work. You don't need to give too much detail, but I'd love to hear what lessons modern-day communists have learned from USSR, China, Cuba et. al.

[Zero]

I admit church isnt a great example of working communism (and i stated this on first post so I dont understand why the disagreement). Although I think, a true church without bullcrap should be more like communistic society. Not that I care anyway, it's their religion.

You can't tell me Family is still monarchial after all the things I have pointed out. So then what is it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Duh. Read my post please. Of course not. It is decided by familin whole. Even Dad cant go and get himself a porche.

And the King couldn't agree on anything without consent of the nobles, but he was undoubtably more powerful.

What I meant was that pre-Soviet Russia had levels of infastucture and living standards comparable to third world nations.

To today's third world nations perhaps. To colonies, it wasn't even close. The USSR was rich compared to them.

Again, look at countries in 1917 that had comparable levels of living standards, and compare them to Russia in 1989. Of course, the Russians were much, much higher. Despite, a civil war, two world wars, and a cold war.

Unfortunetly most of the countries that had comparable living standards in 1917 became owned by the USSR later (HUngary, Bulgaria). However, Greece and Turkey were MUCH richer than the USSR in 1989.

The Soviet Union did not do all that much compared to those countries most like them in 1917.

If you look at the industrial, economic, and scientific output of the two countries you would have no reason to think this.

Which economic output? The Soviets have always lied about economic and industrial outputs. They made nothing good except military goods. Btw, massive inefficiency leads to a crap economy. Soviet plants would make millions of baby shoes and hardly any adult shoes because they could fulfill their quota and get bonuses making smaller shoes out of the leather they recieved.

India, during the late 70s and 80s, passed the USSR, IMO. That is how bad it got.

The USSR acheived amazing growth in the 30s and 40s, but that was because Uncle Joe snapped the whip and used fear to get results. After he left, it was a long, slow dive.

[Zero]

I.S, So you are saying that family is still monarchial? Damn, I better get a job real soon cause he aint gonna fund my tuition. I gotta worry about starving!

I'm getting the feeling that you are spoiled. (sorry if this offends you)

[orange]

i don't think what you said proves a thing, Calc...

[Zero]

elaborate instead of just being vague, cause I don't know how to respond to that.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Graag


Monkspider (and other Apolyton communists), I'd be curious to hear why you think these systems 'worked'. Or better still what sort of a system you think could/would work. You don't need to give too much detail, but I'd love to hear what lessons modern-day communists have learned from USSR, China, Cuba et. al.

Good question Graag, I would love to have Che chime in here as well. But I will share my thoughts.

I have an overall positive impression of the worker's revolution in the USSR. For the first few years, it set a great example for future communist societies. It had democratic worker's councils, competing political parties, and so forth. In fact, all political parties, except those who directly opposed the Commies during the civil war were allowed to participate. It is a little known fact that, for a while, the Soviet Union was the most democratic country in the history of the world! Of course, the later Soviet Union gave us several examples of what to avoid in future commie societies. It showed us that a massive state beauracracy, contolling various monopolies leads to levels of ineffiency we should avoid. It showed us that, as Fredrich Engels once said, that there is no communism without democracy.

My impression of the Cuban revolution is also a very positive one, in fact, much more so than the USSR for the most part. The Cubans have, against great adversity, forged a society with moderate levels of housing, one of the best health care systems in the world, and standards of living several orders of magnitue better than in the pre-Castro days. In fact, Cuba, the last time I checked, had the highest standard of living of any third world country in the world, even higher than Taiwan. This is despite a US embargo, and near-constant US terrorism over the years. The Cuban revolution has shown us that, even against all odds, communism can (and will) triumph.

The Chinese revolution is interesting, because before this time, it was never even thought a theoretical possibility in the classics of Marxism that a peasent war could lead to a worker's state. The Chinese have had many more obstacles to overcome than the Russians or Cubans. Including a lack of industrialization, a dearth of general infastructure, and a massive population, and a primitive state of economic development. I am optimistic that one day the Chinese will, once this period of capitalism passes, that be able to go through with some serious communist reform.

In regards to future communist societies, I am first and foremost a Christian Communist. I believe that an evolution (or revolution) in spiritual enlightenment and understanding will be what leads to communism coming about.

But speaking in purely secular terms, I think that a more democratic control of the means of production, through various worker councils and so forth is key to avoiding the mistakes made by the past communist regimes. (Rather than always being mandated from above how to do things).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by monkspider
Pre-Soviet Russia is almost universally considered a third world level nation by historians.

Monkie, monkie...where did you pull this from? Come on, admit you made it up. I've read a lot of history books by very prominent historians, and certainly none of them would support such a claim. Pre-Soviet Russia was a major European power, and in fact a major world power. Find me ONE credible historian who would assert this, and I'd be impressed.

[Graag]

In regards to future communist societies, I am first and foremost a Christian Communist. I believe that an evolution (or revolution) in spiritual enlightenment and understanding will be what leads to communism coming about.

A nice thought, but don't hold your breath
It's pretty pointless being a communist if you belive it isn't going to work until humanity has evolved beyond greed.

But speaking in purely secular terms, I think that a more democratic control of the means of production, through various worker councils and so forth is key to avoiding the mistakes made by the past communist regimes. (Rather than always being mandated from above how to do things).

Seems to be the most obvious observation considering USSR, China etc. The question is how to actually do this.

What I really want to know, and this is something I haven't seen any communist system come close to achieving, is how to to communise wealth without removing the incentive to work.