"Communist" Nations -- An Interesting Anomaly

[Dragon]

Here's something that occurred to me recently. Every Communist country that has ever existed has defied Marxist predictions. That is, every Communist country in history has been one that Marx would have said was impossible.

Here's what I mean. According to Marxist theory, civilization progresses according to a fixed sequence determined by economics and class struggle. A feudal/agrarian economy becomes a capitalist/industrial economy as the rising bourgeoisie (or capitalist class) struggles against the aristocracy and wins. Only AFTER THAT does a mature industrial capitalist country see the workers' revolt that is supposed to establish a socialist economy.

But if you look at the list of Communist revolutions in history -- Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba -- NONE of these occurred in mature industrial capitalist countries! All of them jumped the gun, so to speak, and went straight from a feudal/agrarian economy to a socialist economy. And that, according to Marxist theory, is not supposed to happen.

At the same time, the genuine mature industrial capitalist economies did experience worker revolt just as Marx predicted, but the outcomes of that revolt defied his predictions. Nowhere was the capitalist democracy overthrown and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" created. Always there was reform, mixing socialist elements with capitalism and providing the working class with a share of the proceeds.

Meanwhile, the allegedly Communist countries industrialized by a different, socialist road, with the investment of capital controlled by the state rather than by private individuals. In the long run, centralized socialism proved no better at running an industrialized economy than laissez-faire capitalism, although also no worse, and either one sufficed to do the job of industrializing itself.

My own conclusion is that Marx had some interesting insights but the world is more complex than he thought it was.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

If the theory does not fit the facts, nor the facts fit the theory, the problem is not with the facts.

 

[Dragon]

If the theory does not fit the facts, nor the facts fit the theory, the problem is not with the facts.

Definitely the case. Marx was wrong.

 

[whitehall]

You are making an invalid assumpton dragon. Capitalism is not synonymous with industrialism. Back around the turn of the 20th century a country could have been relatively agrarian and capitalist even under a monarchy. Russia didn't skip over capitalism. Capitalism was crushed (along with much of the population) by the socialist revolution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's something that occurred to me recently. Every Communist country that has ever existed has defied Marxist predictions. That is, every Communist country in history has been one that Marx would have said was impossible.

Here's what I mean. According to Marxist theory, civilization progresses according to a fixed sequence determined by economics and class struggle. A feudal/agrarian economy becomes a capitalist/industrial economy as the rising bourgeoisie (or capitalist class) struggles against the aristocracy and wins. Only AFTER THAT does a mature industrial capitalist country see the workers' revolt that is supposed to establish a socialist economy.

But if you look at the list of Communist revolutions in history -- Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba -- NONE of these occurred in mature industrial capitalist countries! All of them jumped the gun, so to speak, and went straight from a feudal/agrarian economy to a socialist economy. And that, according to Marxist theory, is not supposed to happen.

At the same time, the genuine mature industrial capitalist economies did experience worker revolt just as Marx predicted, but the outcomes of that revolt defied his predictions. Nowhere was the capitalist democracy overthrown and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" created. Always there was reform, mixing socialist elements with capitalism and providing the working class with a share of the proceeds.

Meanwhile, the allegedly Communist countries industrialized by a different, socialist road, with the investment of capital controlled by the state rather than by private individuals. In the long run, centralized socialism proved no better at running an industrialized economy than laissez-faire capitalism, although also no worse, and either one sufficed to do the job of industrializing itself.

My own conclusion is that Marx had some interesting insights but the world is more complex than he thought it was.

When the stupid gets that deep into the fabric it's beyond saving.

Stop getting your history from the Communists, they lie about everything

 

[whitehall]

No people in their right minds willingly trade freedom for communism. Communism doesn't get voted in at the polls. It comes at the point of a gun. Stalin and Mao rival Hitler as the worst monsters in history. Yet it seems that one of Obama's staff tells school kids that one of her political heroes is ...Chairman Mao. The liberal media probably thinks the same way or they would have questioned the administration about the issue. One of Obama's green jobs board members was an admitted communist who once led an arson and looting rampage. Fortunately the alternate information sources broke the story of Van Jones and he was quickly given a bus ticket and a kick in the ass home.

 

[midcan5]

"...Ideology makes men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation." Deleuze/Guattari

...My own conclusion is that Marx had some interesting insights but the world is more complex than he thought it was.

I agree but communism like any ism is an ideal and as you wrote doesn't fit all. I would argue that today's republican tea party and the libertarian element also do not fit. Proof is the failure since Reagan to raise the boat for all people, and how do we explain capitalistic communist China?

"The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments." Robert Locke The American Conservative -- Marxism of the Right

 

[Sallow]

No people in their right minds willingly trade freedom for communism. Communism doesn't get voted in at the polls. It comes at the point of a gun. Stalin and Mao rival Hitler as the worst monsters in history. Yet it seems that one of Obama's staff tells school kids that one of her political heroes is ...Chairman Mao. The liberal media probably thinks the same way or they would have questioned the administration about the issue. One of Obama's green jobs board members was an admitted communist who once led an arson and looting rampage. Fortunately the alternate information sources broke the story of Van Jones and he was quickly given a bus ticket and a kick in the ass home.

Amazing? Communism doesn't get "voted in at the polls it comes at the point of a gun"? You conveniently seem to forget the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Those came in at the point of a gun as well. Comparing Stalin and Mao to Hitler is also naive. They were different animals. Hitler systematically slaughtered people because they weren't the German ideal of white and christian. Stalin and Mao set forth plans that failed miserably and caused a great deal of death. But to ignore the fact that Stalin and Mao was coming off the heels of a revolution and smack dab into a World War as a factor in that, is amazingly revisionist.

While I personally think Communism is a failure..discussing rationally helps make that case. Making up stuff gets people more interested once they discover what the real history was..

 

[editec]

Here's something that occurred to me recently. Every Communist country that has ever existed has defied Marxist predictions. That is, every Communist country in history has been one that Marx would have said was impossible.

Here's what I mean. According to Marxist theory, civilization progresses according to a fixed sequence determined by economics and class struggle. A feudal/agrarian economy becomes a capitalist/industrial economy as the rising bourgeoisie (or capitalist class) struggles against the aristocracy and wins. Only AFTER THAT does a mature industrial capitalist country see the workers' revolt that is supposed to establish a socialist economy.

But if you look at the list of Communist revolutions in history -- Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba -- NONE of these occurred in mature industrial capitalist countries! All of them jumped the gun, so to speak, and went straight from a feudal/agrarian economy to a socialist economy. And that, according to Marxist theory, is not supposed to happen.

At the same time, the genuine mature industrial capitalist economies did experience worker revolt just as Marx predicted, but the outcomes of that revolt defied his predictions. Nowhere was the capitalist democracy overthrown and a "dictatorship of the proletariat" created. Always there was reform, mixing socialist elements with capitalism and providing the working class with a share of the proceeds.

Meanwhile, the allegedly Communist countries industrialized by a different, socialist road, with the investment of capital controlled by the state rather than by private individuals. In the long run, centralized socialism proved no better at running an industrialized economy than laissez-faire capitalism, although also no worse, and either one sufficed to do the job of industrializing itself.

My own conclusion is that Marx had some interesting insights but the world is more complex than he thought it was.

I think you have been misinformed about the state of Russian industrialism before the communist takeover.

Russia was also an industrialized nation by 1900.

True it also had an enormous agricultural component to its economy, (90% still lived on the land) but the Communists that took overy Russia did so because there was an enormous number of FACTORY WORKERS in Russia.

 

[Dragon]

I think you have been misinformed about the state of Russian industrialism before the communist takeover.

Russia was also an industrialized nation by 1900.

True it also had an enormous agricultural component to its economy, (90% still lived on the land) but the Communists that took overy Russia did so because there was an enormous number of FACTORY WORKERS in Russia.

Can you see that there's a difference between a country with some industry and an industrialized country? The fact that 90% of the people still lived on the land illustrates the difference. Russia in 1917 was at about the same stage of industrialization as the U.S. in 1830. Marxist analysis would put it nowhere near ready for an uprising of the proletariat, because the proletariat (and bourgeoisie for that matter) hardly existed. The real power under the Tsar was held not by capitalists but by the titled nobility.

Not relating to your post, Editec, but I find it interesting and perhaps predictable that we have visible jerking knees on the right, reacting like Pavlov's dog to the word "Communism" without any understanding of what's actually being discussed, and apparently oblivious to the fact that their comments on how "bad" Communism is are of no relevance to this discussion at all. I guess any attempt to deal with Marxist philosophy intelligently and rationally, even when it's a criticism such as I'm offering here, offends them, since they think any right-hearted Murkin should simply foam at the mouth and spit.

 

[Dragon]

You are making an invalid assumpton dragon. Capitalism is not synonymous with industrialism. Back around the turn of the 20th century a country could have been relatively agrarian and capitalist even under a monarchy. Russia didn't skip over capitalism. Capitalism was crushed (along with much of the population) by the socialist revolution.

In the sense Marx meant, capitalism does require industrialization. By another definition I suppose a pre-industrial capitalism would be possible, but an economy dominated by industrial magnates who are served by wage slaves would not.

 

[Unkotare]

Marx only had some 'interesting' thoughts in his analysis of history from the point of view of the time he lived in. When he then went on to play 'imagination time' about the future he went completely off the rails and inspired a great evil in the world.

 

[whitehall]

No people in their right minds willingly trade freedom for communism. Communism doesn't get voted in at the polls. It comes at the point of a gun. Stalin and Mao rival Hitler as the worst monsters in history. Yet it seems that one of Obama's staff tells school kids that one of her political heroes is ...Chairman Mao. The liberal media probably thinks the same way or they would have questioned the administration about the issue. One of Obama's green jobs board members was an admitted communist who once led an arson and looting rampage. Fortunately the alternate information sources broke the story of Van Jones and he was quickly given a bus ticket and a kick in the ass home.

Amazing? Communism doesn't get "voted in at the polls it comes at the point of a gun"? You conveniently seem to forget the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Those came in at the point of a gun as well. Comparing Stalin and Mao to Hitler is also naive. They were different animals. Hitler systematically slaughtered people because they weren't the German ideal of white and christian. Stalin and Mao set forth plans that failed miserably and caused a great deal of death. But to ignore the fact that Stalin and Mao was coming off the heels of a revolution and smack dab into a World War as a factor in that, is amazingly revisionist.

While I personally think Communism is a failure..discussing rationally helps make that case. Making up stuff gets people more interested once they discover what the real history was..

Communism only comes at the point of a gun. I'm surprised that fuzz face lamely compares the American revolution to Mao's terror or Stalin's blood bath.

 

[Dragon]

Communism only comes at the point of a gun.

You're more or less quoting Mao here, I'll have you know.

However, you and he are both wrong. There has never been a government anywhere at any time that was held in place over its own people by force, unless that force came from a stronger foreign power. All government derives its powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. In 1917, the Russian people supported the Soviet Union, and continued to do so until the early 1990s. Then they withdrew that support and the government fell. All Communist governments except the Soviet satellites in eastern Europe have been very popular. They offered the people a much better deal than the feudalistic crap they were enduring before. It's all relative.

This is what I meant about jerking knees. You will never understand anything as long as you persist in these reflexive, unthinking reactions.

 

[whitehall]

Communism only comes at the point of a gun.

You're more or less quoting Mao here, I'll have you know.

However, you and he are both wrong. There has never been a government anywhere at any time that was held in place over its own people by force, unless that force came from a stronger foreign power. All government derives its powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. In 1917, the Russian people supported the Soviet Union, and continued to do so until the early 1990s. Then they withdrew that support and the government fell. All Communist governments except the Soviet satellites in eastern Europe have been very popular. They offered the people a much better deal than the feudalistic crap they were enduring before. It's all relative.

This is what I meant about jerking knees. You will never understand anything as long as you persist in these reflexive, unthinking reactions.

Say what? "...knee jerk? All governments derive their powers from the concent of the governed"?
The "consent of the governed" concept originated in the greatest document ever written as a result of the 18th century American Revolution. Ignorant Americans educated by union teachers tend to think the freedom of the US Constitution extends to the entire world but Russians didn't elect Bolshevism and China didn't elect Mao. The 20th century tyrants gained power at the point of a gun just like Mao said.

 

[Unkotare]

There has never been a government anywhere at any time that was held in place over its own people by force, unless that force came from a stronger foreign power. .

You are an utter simpleton. Enroll in a community college or something for cryin' out loud.

 

[editec]

I think you have been misinformed about the state of Russian industrialism before the communist takeover.

Russia was also an industrialized nation by 1900.

True it also had an enormous agricultural component to its economy, (90% still lived on the land) but the Communists that took overy Russia did so because there was an enormous number of FACTORY WORKERS in Russia.

Can you see that there's a difference between a country with some industry and an industrialized country? The fact that 90% of the people still lived on the land illustrates the difference.

Drag?

In 1900 90% of Americans worked on the land, too.

Russia was an industrializING nation just as much of Europe was becoming.

Russia in 1917 was at about the same stage of industrialization as the U.S. in 1830.

Wrong.

Marxist analysis would put it nowhere near ready for an uprising of the proletariat, because the proletariat (and bourgeoisie for that matter) hardly existed.

Wrong

The real power under the Tsar was held not by capitalists but by the titled nobility.

Overstated but yes, Russia's outlands were still more feudal than the rest of Europe.

Not relating to your post, Editec, but I find it interesting and perhaps predictable that we have visible jerking knees on the right, reacting like Pavlov's dog to the word "Communism" without any understanding of what's actually being discussed, and apparently oblivious to the fact that their comments on how "bad" Communism is are of no relevance to this discussion at all. I guess any attempt to deal with Marxist philosophy intelligently and rationally, even when it's a criticism such as I'm offering here, offends them, since they think any right-hearted Murkin should simply foam at the mouth and spit.

This certainly isn't the place where one can rationally discuss political SCIENCE questions involving anything that requires subtle thinking.

Too many partisans who think that the point of discussing issues is to win arguments, to have rational discussions here.


FYI, Drag, you might find this an informative read regarding Russia's age of industrialization.

Let us now look at the characteristics of industry in Russia as a latecomer. We now have enough information about the historical growth of industrial output, the size of the work force and the productivity of labor in the period of industrialization for most countries, so that we can look at Russian industrialization in comparative perspective.

Figure 1 show the effect of increasing the rate of industrial growth from 5 to 6.65%. If we take as our starting point the original estimates of Goldsmith, then in its rate of growth and the growth of productivity of labor in Russia for the last 25 years before World War I is comparable with that of the main rapidly growing industrial countries.

In Russia, the increase in the number of workers in industry was more significant than in Germany and Britain, and compared to the growth of numbers of employed persons in the US. If we take the highest estimate by Kafengauz, it appears that Russian industrial growth was much faster than economic growth in the leading industrial countries (for comparisons see Fig. 2).

 

[Dragon]

In 1900 90% of Americans worked on the land, too.

Incorrect. The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy

In 1900 41% of Americans worked in agriculture. Still high compared to today, but nowhere near 90%. Also, note that by 1930 (the crisis of transformation in the U.S. economy) that percentage was down to 21.5%.

Russia was an industrializING nation just as much of Europe was becoming.

Russia lagged well behind the leading industrial nations, Britain, Germany, France, and the U.S. That's why Stalin found it necessary to engage in a brutal, fast-track industrialization program in the 1930s (the real reason for the forced collectivization of farming and the famine: he traded part of the crop to the West for capital and technology to build Soviet industry).

Overstated but yes, Russia's outlands were still more feudal than the rest of Europe.

And that, according to Marxist theory, makes Russia unsuitable for revolution and a socialist economy. Remember, in his thinking everything comes down to class struggle: the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, and then the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie or capitalist class must win its struggle against the aristocracy before the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can properly begin. If the aristocracy is still a powerful force in a society, the class struggle between it and the bourgeoisie is still on, and must be allowed to finish.

This certainly isn't the place where one can rationally discuss political SCIENCE questions involving anything that requires subtle thinking.

Too many partisans who think that the point of discussing issues is to win arguments, to have rational discussions here.

Well, that's observably true, but surely there are some exceptions. Hopefully enough to get some real discussion going.

Regarding your quote from Borodkin, that actually reinforces what I'm saying here: that Russia was not an industrialized nation ready (according to Marxist theory) for revolution. Very high rates of economic growth are typical of nations that are industrializing, and atypical of mature industrial economies. Why? A simple quirk of mathematics. Economic growth is measured as a percentage. When an economy of farmers builds its first factory, it adds, just with that one factory, a substantial percentage of its former output to its GDP. Build multiple factories, and the effect is multiplied. It's not uncommon at all for industrializing countries to show double-digit economic growth for a while.

A mature economy, however, with a bigger economic base to start with, cannot grow as quickly measured as a percentage, because a much larger absolute amount of capacity is required to represent a percentage point. So in terms of absolute capacity added rather than relative percentage, mature economies grow faster than industrializing ones, but this shows up as a smaller percentage of the starting point and hence a lower rate of economic growth.

That's why the U.S. had very high rates of growth in the Gilded Age and slower growth afterwards. It's why Russia's economic growth was obscene (in more ways than one) in the 1930s but slower later on.

Here's another side-point to the fact that no Communist revolution has been genuinely Marxist. There has never been a Communist revolution in a mature industrialized democracy. Movements in such countries aimed at Communist revolution have always been abortive and never anywhere close to success. I think of the Red Army Fraction in Germany or the New Left here.

I'm going to suggest that mature industrial democracies are immune to Communist revolution in the Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese/Cuban form. We have economic models (mixed socialist-capitalist) that are superior to the Soviet model, we have a tradition of democracy and openness and will not tolerate autocratic rule, and we have no peasantry oppressed by nobles (literally, anyway) ready to fuel such a revolt. It simply, literally, cannot happen here.

Which means that all of the fear of Communism on the right has been fear of nothing.

Now, Marx's half-right prediction of a revolt of the proletariat is another matter. We see that happening right now. But it remains to be seen what will ultimately ensue from that revolt, because clearly Marx's model was overly simplistic and not correct in the details.

 

[Dragon]

The "consent of the governed" concept originated in the greatest document ever written as a result of the 18th century American Revolution. Ignorant Americans educated by union teachers tend to think the freedom of the US Constitution extends to the entire world but Russians didn't elect Bolshevism and China didn't elect Mao. The 20th century tyrants gained power at the point of a gun just like Mao said.

LOL "greatest document ever written." I do admire that great and literate friend of my family, Mr. Jefferson, but please.

You are mistaken about the foreign revolutions, and Jefferson was only half right in his statement. All government, just or unjust, requires the consent of the governed. Mao, despite what he himself said, did not obtain power at the point of a gun; he obtained it from land reform and the provision of justice, land, and food to Chinese peasants. He got it by building schools and hospitals, by feeding the hungry, by protecting the peasants from their oppressors. They got a better deal from him than from their corrupt landlords, so they supported him. The guns were necessary only because the Kuomintang had them, and had no legal niceties restraining the government from using them; thus the Communists had to defend themselves until they had acquired enough popular support to overthrow the regime. And also from the invading Japanese, of course.

I might also point out that Hitler, that other great 20th century tyrant, DID obtain power in an election.

The reason a government cannot rule "at the point of a gun" is because guns must be wielded by people, and without enough popular support the government will not be able to command the loyalty of people to wield the guns. There are many examples in history, including quite recent history, of governments with plenty of guns being overthrown by their own people because their troops deserted to the revolution. The Soviet Union itself is one example.

 

[Unkotare]

Mao, despite what he himself said, did not obtain power at the point of a gun; he obtained it from land reform and the provision of justice, land, and food to Chinese peasants. He got it by building schools and hospitals, by feeding the hungry, by protecting the peasants from their oppressors. They got a better deal from him than from their corrupt landlords, so they supported him. The guns were necessary only because the Kuomintang had them, and had no legal niceties restraining the government from using them; thus the Communists had to defend themselves until they had acquired enough popular support to overthrow the regime. And also from the invading Japanese, of course.
.

You couldn't be more ignorant. Crack a book or something sometime, kid.