The Student Room Group

The irony/ tragedy of communism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/russias-communist-party-wants-red-star-copyrighted/?sf24179674=1


Thoughts?

I think Marx would be rolling in his grave, although after Stalin i'm sure he's already rolled himself to dust.

Scroll to see replies

Stalin was such a boss though, got to admit it
Reply 2
Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob
Stalin was such a boss though, got to admit it


H e was one of history's more interesting villains I'll give him that and unlike Hitler had a sense of humour, but the guy was a basket case.
Original post by Davij038
H e was one of history's more interesting villains I'll give him that and unlike Hitler had a sense of humour, but the guy was a basket case.


Definitely, I enjoy reading about monsters because a lot of people ignore their more human side, like Hitler's preference for solitude and Stalin's liking of foreign movies. Behind every mass murdering lunatic is a person with normal desires and insecurities... Curious, what is it that links these people? Is it chance? Or is there some trait they share I wonder.
It's like they admit that the fundamental ideas that communism is built around is a load of rubbish.
What a bunch of misinformed people they are. Even if there was an international copyright law, which there isn't, those companies (the airline aside) have all used the star for longer than the Russian communists have existed.
Reply 6
Original post by darkvibes
It's like they admit that the fundamental ideas that communism is built around is a load of rubbish.


This should be good. Please enlighten me. (I'm personally not a communist, but it a highly coherent political doctrine- (As are most ideologies pretty much)
Original post by Davij038
This should be good. Please enlighten me. (I'm personally not a communist, but it a highly coherent political doctrine- (As are most ideologies pretty much)


The principles of a command economy is fundamentally flawed. Look at how the USSR failed and how there has never been a truly communist country.
Original post by Davij038
This should be good. Please enlighten me. (I'm personally not a communist, but it a highly coherent political doctrine- (As are most ideologies pretty much)


I don't think communism is coherent - how many other ideologies are supposedly anarchistic yet have also been the official belief of the most authoritarian states of history?

Communists believe that the state should own everything and also that everyone should own the state. This is incoherent. Either a small clique controls the state which owns everyone, or else a state owned by everyone must have limited powers. Communism has to choose one or the other. These are two completely different ideologies and, what's more, both of them pre-date communism: they're called monarchism and liberalism respectively.
Reply 9
Original post by darkvibes
The principles of a command economy is fundamentally flawed.


That' must be why the Chinese are so poor



Look at how the USSR failed
and how there has never been a truly communist country.


I think he collapse of the USSR shows that Realism has failed rather than the ideas of Marx,

There's never been a truly capitalist country either. Should we conclude from the bank bail outs that capitalism has failed?
Original post by Davij038
That' must be why the Chinese are so poor



It's a common habit of people on TSR to simplify this. We both know there are more reasons to Chinas success and communism isnt genuinely one of it.
Original post by Davij038
I think he collapse of the USSR shows that Realism has failed rather than the ideas of Marx,There's never been a truly capitalist country either. Should we conclude from the bank bail outs that capitalism has failed?

The collapse of the USSR was due to a number of reasons, one of which because it didnt work. Resources weren't allocate properly and there was such a low standard of living in the country that they gave up on it.

Hong Kong was truly capitalist and I would say it was pretty successful. My conclusion for communism is more definitive than this satirical conclusion you have come up with.
Original post by darkvibes
It's a common habit of people on TSR to simplify this. We both know there are more reasons to Chinas success and communism isnt genuinely one of it.

What's Chinese success? China is still poorer than places like Romania, Botswana, and Uruguay. It's successful compared to what it was, which was one of the worst places to live in the world, not compared to free market economies.
Original post by Observatory
What's Chinese success? China is still poorer than places like Romania, Botswana, and Uruguay. It's successful compared to what it was, which was one of the worst places to live in the world, not compared to free market economies.


Well people underestimate how much the developed in the last economic boom. Much more than any other country. Economic growth at 7% is development but yes, as i argued, the ill fate of the chinese is as a result of their communist country.
Reply 13
Original post by Observatory
I don't think communism is coherent - how many other ideologies are supposedly anarchistic yet have also been the official belief of the most authoritarian states of history?

Communists believe that the state should own everything and also that everyone should own the state. This is incoherent. Either a small clique controls the state which owns everyone, or else a state owned by everyone must have limited powers. Communism has to choose one or the other. These are two completely different ideologies and, what's more, both of them pre-date communism: they're called monarchism and liberalism respectively.


(IF i was a marxist)

A- Distinction between Trotskyism (Worldwide workers revolution) and Stalinism (State Socialism). Stalinism is essentially revisionism- Marxism can only work on a global scale in a post capitalist environment. Little wonder it failed in a semi feudal backwater.

B: Apart from the rejection of private property, then yes in some ways Marx's end goal was probably along the lines of Marxist Libertarianism or De Leonism.

C: What I really like about Marxism is the aspect of time: Monarchism and Liberalism, despite being as you rightly say the opposite of Marxism are contingently necessary in creating the environment needed for communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Marxist_dialectic
Reply 14
Original post by darkvibes
It's a common habit of people on TSR to simplify this. We both know there are more reasons to Chinas success and communism isnt genuinely one of it.


You didnt say communism, you said a command economy.

I think China has benefited more from this model than it would have done under liberal democracy when you compare it to say India.


The collapse of the USSR was due to a number of reasons, one of which because it didnt work. Resources weren't allocate properly and there was such a low standard of living in the country that they gave up on it.

Hong Kong was truly capitalist and I would say it was pretty successful. My conclusion for communism is more definitive than this satirical conclusion you have come up with.


This pretty much sums up my view (essentially the role of Ideas is supreme):

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16501894
Original post by Davij038
You didnt say communism, you said a command economy.

I think China has benefited more from this model than it would have done under liberal democracy when you compare it to say India.


China isnt a command economy, a true command economy.

I think its safe to say it is very complex
Reply 16
Original post by darkvibes
China isnt a command economy, a true command economy.
/QUOTE]

Come again?
Original post by Davij038
(IF i was a marxist)

A- Distinction between Trotskyism (Worldwide workers revolution) and Stalinism (State Socialism). Stalinism is essentially revisionism- Marxism can only work on a global scale in a post capitalist environment. Little wonder it failed in a semi feudal backwater.

Dunno what any of that means.

B: Apart from the rejection of private property, then yes in some ways Marx's end goal was probably along the lines of Marxist Libertarianism or De Leonism.

Rejection of private property is meaningless; all things are private property of someone/some organisation. Maybe "rejection of private property" means everything is owned by everyone. Then you get my dilemma: either some people need to be independent of this system, own everything, but be kings not communists, or else there need to be some restrictions on how that ownership can be exercised, in which case it's not really ownership, and thus not really communism.

The USSR was a state that tried to control everything centrally. This didn't result in dictatorship by accident; the Soviets tried hard to have democracy but they could never find a way of doing so that didn't result in some in-road against central planning. If ideology is meant to be centrally planned, how can people be allowed own opinions? And if no one had an own opinion, how does anyone decide what to do? This resulted in absurd situations like it being illegal for anyone in the party to disagree with a party decision which meant it was illegal for the party to ever change any decision it had made. What happened by default was that Lenin became dictator, because Lenin could change the party's decisions and no one dared arrest him despite his actions being notionally illegal. This was never intended by Lenin or by anyone else, it just happened.

The only ways to square the circle are dictatorship and dissolution - in other words communism isn't coherent. It's not that no one has tried, or tried hard enough, or been lucky enough; communism is impossible even in principle. Maybe if there were only one living human, which, judging by the actions of the most ardent commies, might have been the end goal.

C: What I really like about Marxism is the aspect of time: Monarchism and Liberalism, despite being as you rightly say the opposite of Marxism are contingently necessary in creating the environment needed for communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Marxist_dialectic

If you say so. What I like about Christianity is that I get to live forever, but do I actually?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Davij038
You didnt say communism, you said a command economy.

I think China has benefited more from this model than it would have done under liberal democracy when you compare it to say India.

India also has a command economy, more of one than the PRC. Are you trying to compare command economy and market economy, or communism and liberal democracy (wait, I thought communism wasn't meant to be a synonym for dictatorship? or just only when inconvenient?). A fairer comparison would be Hong Kong: exactly the same people, different economic policies.

Or North/South Korea.

Or East/West Germany.

This is possibly the only question in social science where we can really say multiple controlled experiments have been performed and all return same result.
Original post by Davij038
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/russias-communist-party-wants-red-star-copyrighted/?sf24179674=1


Thoughts?

I think Marx would be rolling in his grave, although after Stalin i'm sure he's already rolled himself to dust.


Depends how orthodox he would have been to his own writings. The left communism that came into being as opposition against Leninist-Marxism probably would have said the same back during the Russian Revolution and when the Bolsheviks were in charge under Lenin.

"We are the better marxists" to quote some anarchist at the time.

Quick Reply

Latest