You’re all missing the point of the paraphrase - communism could be a good thing if anyone tried it… it’s sarcasm.
It means that as yet, nobody has actually tried communism. In other words, there has yet to be a communist state - none of the ones the west considers to be ‘communist’ are actually communist, neither in ideology, or treatment of their people.
maybe you’re aware, but “communist state” is an oxymoron since communism is distinguished by being stateless …
My impression of the situation is that the Russian Revolution was attempting a communist revolution, and while the Bolshevik concept of Marxism was very particular (as was the Menshevik conception, as is probably most Marxisms), it’s unclear what you mean exactly by “actually tried communism” - are you saying Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks never had communism on the mind, that the revolution never actually intended to bring about communism?
Or are you saying the Bolsheviks never tried skipping straight to implementing the communism Marx theorized about because they focused only on the socialism Marx claimed was necessary and would bring about communism naturally, and thus they only tried socialism but never communism?
It’s probably important context to note that at the time, the Bolsheviks were already the more radical leftists willing to skip ahead and attempt the revolution without the necessary liberal revolutions as a prerequisite. The Mensheviks were more moderate and even more committed stageists, who believed the aristocracy first had to undergo liberalization as Marx theorized before it would be ripe for the seeds of the socialism which would then eventually wither away into communism.
EDIT: I should say, I don’t mean my comment in an antagonistic way, I’m just genuinely wondering what your perspective is on what is or isn’t a genuine attempt at communism; without clarification, I just assume you mean these movements, by focusing on socialism, didn’t directly implement communism and thus were never really communist. (Which as you might tell by now has its problems, but isn’t the worst starting place. I tend to think overly dogmatic readings of Marx and assuming his dialectical materialism still has relevance for predicting the future of human societies could be considered a problem with these movements.) Anyway - just wanted to say, I mean this all in friendliness and cooperation, I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
to be fair, the CIA did play a large role in undermining communist / socialist-identified governments, and in turn the authoritarians exploited the resultant legitimate fears into justifying slave camps, suppression of civil rights, political purges, and so on.
Its also because people aren’t not flawless, socialism/communism need almost everyone to be good people to succeed, both the leaders and the followers.
My dad told me the people in factories (in China) would just slack off when the supervisors aren’t looking.
The people in his factory said: 做也三十六，不做也三十六
“Work and you get paid ¥36, Don’t work and you also get paid ¥36” (Currency in Yuan/Renminbi, pay is paid monthly, but this is a long time ago so its probably equivalent to like ¥2000 or more these days)
I don’t think a utopia will work if this is what people do. People are selfish, from the leaders, to the workers, everyone.
Villages over-report their productions, then they have feasts to celebrate because they think there’s a surplus.
Both external and internal struggles caused communism to fail
Sure, and like 5000 years of monarchy and feudalism stood in opposition to classical liberalism. At a certain point you just need to get good or go back to the drawing board.
yeah, German Idealism turned out to not be the best theoretical foundation for predicting the future of human society - unlike how Hegel thinks about human history in a linear fashion, we are not always moving in some guaranteed direction, nor are the societies that pre-date aristocracy “primitive”.
EDIT: I misunderstood your comment. Monarchy did stand in opposition to liberalism, the difference is that liberalism was backed by people with great amounts of wealth and power - the shift to liberalism was more like a change in hands from foreign colonial powers to local moneyed elites. The problem is that socialism as a proletarian revolution does not appeal to the wealthy and powerful, so it’s not surprising socialism hasn’t received the same support liberalism has. The closest we got was something like FDR’s social liberalism, where some wealthy folks realized some amount of social services help stabilize the political situation, and that this is good for them (property rights and wealth are more secure in a stable society than in one marked by constant threat of revolution or reactionary coups).
But I wouldn’t call that socialism in the Marxist sense, it does not have communism as a goal for example.
You’re all missing the point of the paraphrase - communism could be a good thing if anyone tried it… it’s sarcasm.
It means that as yet, nobody has actually tried communism. In other words, there has yet to be a communist state - none of the ones the west considers to be ‘communist’ are actually communist, neither in ideology, or treatment of their people.
maybe you’re aware, but “communist state” is an oxymoron since communism is distinguished by being stateless …
My impression of the situation is that the Russian Revolution was attempting a communist revolution, and while the Bolshevik concept of Marxism was very particular (as was the Menshevik conception, as is probably most Marxisms), it’s unclear what you mean exactly by “actually tried communism” - are you saying Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks never had communism on the mind, that the revolution never actually intended to bring about communism?
Or are you saying the Bolsheviks never tried skipping straight to implementing the communism Marx theorized about because they focused only on the socialism Marx claimed was necessary and would bring about communism naturally, and thus they only tried socialism but never communism?
It’s probably important context to note that at the time, the Bolsheviks were already the more radical leftists willing to skip ahead and attempt the revolution without the necessary liberal revolutions as a prerequisite. The Mensheviks were more moderate and even more committed stageists, who believed the aristocracy first had to undergo liberalization as Marx theorized before it would be ripe for the seeds of the socialism which would then eventually wither away into communism.
EDIT: I should say, I don’t mean my comment in an antagonistic way, I’m just genuinely wondering what your perspective is on what is or isn’t a genuine attempt at communism; without clarification, I just assume you mean these movements, by focusing on socialism, didn’t directly implement communism and thus were never really communist. (Which as you might tell by now has its problems, but isn’t the worst starting place. I tend to think overly dogmatic readings of Marx and assuming his dialectical materialism still has relevance for predicting the future of human societies could be considered a problem with these movements.) Anyway - just wanted to say, I mean this all in friendliness and cooperation, I don’t necessarily disagree with you.
It’s all the CIA’s fault!
mental gymnastics intensifies
to be fair, the CIA did play a large role in undermining communist / socialist-identified governments, and in turn the authoritarians exploited the resultant legitimate fears into justifying slave camps, suppression of civil rights, political purges, and so on.
Its also because people aren’t not flawless, socialism/communism need almost everyone to be good people to succeed, both the leaders and the followers.
My dad told me the people in factories (in China) would just slack off when the supervisors aren’t looking.
The people in his factory said: 做也三十六，不做也三十六
“Work and you get paid ¥36, Don’t work and you also get paid ¥36” (Currency in Yuan/Renminbi, pay is paid monthly, but this is a long time ago so its probably equivalent to like ¥2000 or more these days)
I don’t think a utopia will work if this is what people do. People are selfish, from the leaders, to the workers, everyone.
Villages over-report their productions, then they have feasts to celebrate because they think there’s a surplus.
Both external and internal struggles caused communism to fail
The slave camps and suppressions of civil rights predate the CIA, and the CIA’s predecessor as well.
The CIA has done a lot of shit, but those horrors were home-grown on the Soviet end.
Sure, and like 5000 years of monarchy and feudalism stood in opposition to classical liberalism. At a certain point you just need to get good or go back to the drawing board.
yeah, German Idealism turned out to not be the best theoretical foundation for predicting the future of human society - unlike how Hegel thinks about human history in a linear fashion, we are not always moving in some guaranteed direction, nor are the societies that pre-date aristocracy “primitive”.
EDIT: I misunderstood your comment. Monarchy did stand in opposition to liberalism, the difference is that liberalism was backed by people with great amounts of wealth and power - the shift to liberalism was more like a change in hands from foreign colonial powers to local moneyed elites. The problem is that socialism as a proletarian revolution does not appeal to the wealthy and powerful, so it’s not surprising socialism hasn’t received the same support liberalism has. The closest we got was something like FDR’s social liberalism, where some wealthy folks realized some amount of social services help stabilize the political situation, and that this is good for them (property rights and wealth are more secure in a stable society than in one marked by constant threat of revolution or reactionary coups).
But I wouldn’t call that socialism in the Marxist sense, it does not have communism as a goal for example.
They only failed because they had to exist within the context of capitalist hegemony!
November Kelly: “Damn, I hate when I have to exist within a context.”