Is communism simply an ideology or does it actually exist?

Correct me if I am incorrect but from my understanding, communism is an ideology that everyone in society owns an equal capital and receive equal economic rewards. Additionally, the government owns its' citizens' houses/land and other capital (e.g. cars).

China, North Korea and Russia I believe are all communist countries. Yet, I try to understand how are they classified as 'communist'? Certainly, in those countries, there are rich and poor people. The ideology that everyone is financially equal is ruled out. More to my point, I doubt the government of those nations own everone's houses, land and certainly not cars. So how are they classified as communist nations?

simonvee said:

Correct me if I am incorrect but from my understanding, communism is an ideology that everyone in society owns an equal capital and receive equal economic rewards.

Click to expand...

Not quite since there is no such thing as capital. The means of production are equally shared. So, yes, things are collective and equitable but people do not "own" capital since capital is very much a product of capitalism (its ideological opposite). Remember, Marx was writing at a very different time, a time in which the means of production were being centralized, concentrated and used to exploit large swaths of the population. All Marx wanted was the dismantling of exploitation, a desire that led him to theorize a communal means of creating and sharing necessary goods. In this way, people don't win "economic rewards" since reward would not be a central feature of economic systems.

simonvee said:

Additionally, the government owns its' citizens' houses/land and other capital (e.g. cars).

Click to expand...

No because in a truly communist society, the state doesn't exist. This process is known as the "withering away of the state."

simonvee said:

China, North Korea and Russia I believe are all communist countries.

Click to expand...

In the truest form of the word, China and North Korea are not even close and Russia doesn't claim to be one (it is a republic). The former two are more statist. In fact, the centralization of power you see in places such as China and North Korea is the opposite of what communist theory calls for.

simonvee said:

Yet, I try to understand how are they classified as 'communist'?

Click to expand...

Misguided Soviet naming and Cold War sensationalism. Add to that the tangential connections to warped versions of Marxism and you've got what people call "communism" now. It's also a pejorative term now, one largely robbed of any theoretical sophistication and historical contextualization. It's so bad that anytime I here reporters say something is communist, I can't help but laugh at how little they actually know (honestly, if you're going to call something "communist," you ought to read communist theory so you know what you're talking about).

simonvee said:

So how are they classified as communist nations?

Click to expand...

Simply put, people mislabel them as such.

vansmith said:

No because in a truly communist society, the state doesn't exist. This process is known as the "withering away of the state."

Click to expand...

The state does not exist in a truly communist society? Are you referring to State as in the 'government'? So in other words, in a truly communist society, there is no governing body or governments?

Also, please validate this statement: The people in the community are limited by the amount of their contributions. Those who contribute more receive more (referring to communism).

simonvee said:

The state does not exist in a truly communist society? Are you referring to State as in the 'government'? So in other words, in a truly communist society, there is no governing body or governments?

Click to expand...

Take a look at this article on the withering away thesis (here).

simonvee said:

Also, please validate this statement: The people in the community are limited by the amount of their contributions. Those who contribute more receive more (referring to communism).

Click to expand...

What do you mean by validate?

Validate if that is coherent with the ideology of communism. In other words, is it a characteristic of a genuine communist society?

Oh my God, that is one heck of a long read. I was hoping somebody on here could simplify it for me so that I don't have to read something like that.

People are always limited by their contributions. I don't think that's necessarily limited to communism.

It's a long read but communism is a well nuanced theory (however much the media likes to simplify it to no end as a synonym for "bad" or "thing I disagree with"). You can't really simplify it well. Plus, of all the social and economic theorists, his work is some of the more approachable stuff.

In fact, countries we routinely call, and particularly used to call, "communist" are (were) never refering to themselves as such. Communism for them was, in theory, an ultimate goal, and the "Socialism" was their current stage ...

Also, the formula "those who contribute more, receive more" is not communism, it is in fact, socialism, for the communism's postulate would be something like "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their requirements". So basically, no greedy person could be tolerated in real communism, otherwise he will require, and receive, everything that exists.

This is all theory, of course - in practice desire to control, greed and power hunger rule ...

MBP17•David said:

In fact, countries we routinely call, and particularly used to call, "communist" are (were) never refering to themselves as such. Communism for them was, in theory, an ultimate goal, and the "Socialism" was their current stage ...

Click to expand...

Even that is a bit of a misnomer since the nationalization of industries is only ever meant to be temporary and I'm pretty sure that the USSR held on to as much as it could for as long as it could.

MBP17•David said:

This is all theory, of course - in practice desire to control, greed and power hunger rule ...

Click to expand...

This is a common complaint levied against communism with one fatal weakness - this theory assumes objective conditions about human nature (that they are greedy, desire power, etc). There was plenty of human history where that wasn't the case. Indeed, capitalism is the quintessential framework through which to socialize people to be greedy and power hungry.

A sober debate on the internet about communism, who would have thought!

No because in a truly communist society, the state doesn't exist. This process is known as the "withering away of the state."

Click to expand...

That is indeed the goal of a communist society. Unfortunately a guy called Lenin introduced the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat"

The idea was that a central cadre of communists leaders would have absolute rule, ideally until the society had been transformed enough by communist ideology to progress to true communism, as Vansmith stated.

Of course, as is predictable, once a power elite gains power, they are somewhat reluctant to hand back power to those they rule.

Maybe it would be a good idea to read George Orwell's Animal Farm, which was written as a critique of how a communists ideal revolution is taken over by powerful elite and is corrupted into a dictatorship.

I only read Animal Farm for the first time a few months back and it is indeed an excellent critique of communism (it helps knowing that when you start reading it).

Yeah, Lenin assumed power of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and never really let go. It's as if he started the process of fostering Marxist style communism, others and himself saw what they could have if they stopped and did so.

Even in its ideal form I don't think Communism holds up well in the real world because it ignores a few things about human nature.

In a small group it may work because you know everyone else and theoretically want them to do well. At the very least they can do some things you cannot do so you help each other in enlightened self-interest. That starts to break down in large groups where you don't know everyone personally or have more than one source to get what you need.

Also, let's assume for a moment that two people are performing the same task. One of them through either hard work or luck produces more than the other. The person who produced more is not likely to want to end up with the same as the person who did not produce as much. Some will out of altruism or being "true believers" for lack of a better word but that won't last long for most.

Taken to its logical conclusion there are some who will decide there is no need to work as hard since everything will be provided based on needs.

Van has already mentioned the possibility that some who grab power in order to re-make society keep it because the4 like the benefits.

Note other systems of government have there own flaws though sometimes for different reasons.

I'm probably going to regret jumping into this thread.

Slydude said:

Even in its ideal form I don't think Communism holds up well in the real world because it ignores a few things about human nature.

Click to expand...

Oh no, you brought back human nature!

Slydude said:

That starts to break down in large groups where you don't know everyone personally or have more than one source to get what you need.

Click to expand...

Who says you need a larger group? We've all been conditioned to believe that the national context is necessary for life (indeed, social psychologist Michael Billig in his book Banal Nationalism points out how often we unquestioningly defer and refer to the national context as if it was the quintessential form of social organization...that's simplifying his argument though). Thinking back to the theory of communism, Marx was an advocate of community based organization (I believe - my Marxism is a little rusty).

Slydude said:

Also, let's assume for a moment that two people are performing the same task. One of them through either hard work or luck produces more than the other. The person who produced more is not likely to want to end up with the same as the person who did not produce as much. Some will out of altruism or being "true believers" for lack of a better word but that won't last long for most.

Click to expand...

True, that's very possible but not a specific problem for communism. Indeed, that can happen in any system (it's just that capitalism rewards this kind of thinking). I'd argue though that this is a problem of socialization. Everyone has something to offer and that person who does less can be encouraged to do something that they excel at. Even then, the person who produces less isn't necessarily obsolete (my...that's very anti-communist language...haha).

Slydude said:

Taken to its logical conclusion there are some who will decide there is no need to work as hard since everything will be provided based on needs.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that this is a product of socialization. There are a lot of people who work very hard even if they have what they need. But yes, some people can be lazy but I don't think Marx was deluded and thought that everything would be perfectly balanced.

Slydude said:

I'm probably going to regret jumping into this thread.

Click to expand...

louishen was right - this is an uncharacteristically sober conversation about communism. I think you're probably okay.

There has yet to be a 'communist' state so who knows?

Simply replaced one set or ruling class with another!

vansmith said:

Even that is a bit of a misnomer since the nationalization of industries is only ever meant to be temporary and I'm pretty sure that the USSR held on to as much as it could for as long as it could.

Click to expand...

Quite right, and IIRC, it was Brezhnev (or whoever was writing his speeches) who came up with the term 'advanced socialism', as in "hang on just a little bit longer, we're almost there" ... the reality was, of course, strikingly different.

And yes, prior to about 1987, when cooperatives were allowed for the first time since 1920s, even the tiny corner shops / newsagents were state owned in the Soviet Union.

An unusual and rather enjoyable thread, last time I've had discussions like that, was nearly thirty years ago ... if only they knew, what was coming ...

Communism is one of those things that are great in principle, but we humans don't have too many principles alas!

i've had 3 pints of peroni and 2 pints of meerydown cider and for that reason i'm out

i meant merry down...

My extremely simplistic take:

1) Communism relies on the innate virtue of its citizens to function well
2) Capitalism relies on the basic vices of its citizens

Any question on which is the better bet to succeed? ;P

Wow, a very sober topic. I have only one little story to add to all this discussion. In 1977 I was part of a group of Agriculture teachers who hosted a group of farmers from Russia. They came complete with interpreter to see why we, American farmers, were so successful. American agriculture had (and still has) a reputation for being highly efficient producers.

What came out of our discussion was:
1. American farmers own their own equipment and are in control of what is raised.
2. If an American farmer does not produce they do not earn or prosper.
3. How hard they work and how wise their choices are what determines their profits.

What I learned from the Russian (Soviet Union) farmers:
1. They said they had no incentive to take care of equipment because they did not own it.

2. They obtained what they needed from the pool of equipment which might not be available at harvest time or working properly if it is available. This was a major frustration but there was no option for owning their own equipment.

3. They were paid a base salary plus more if they harvested more acreage but loss of crop due to sloppy harvesting did not really affect their pay.

4. They concluded our methods would be of little help. They were looking for a magic seed or solution that would give great yields regardless of care during growing and harvest.

5. The motivation and efficiency of the American farmer was something they didn't feel would ever be achieved because Russian farmers didn't have any skin in the game (my words.)

I know Russia - Soviet Union - has changed a lot since then. But since this was a discussion on communism and that is what they were trying to perfect, I thought it relevant.

Slydude had the valid point. Human nature is full of positive traits and many failings. For communism to work everyone involved would have to be fully motivated to work for the good of all regardless of who they are or how many. We, as humans, would have to have many more "saint" like qualities to make that achievable. Communism a great theory but not really feasible.

Lisa

lclev said:

I know Russia - Soviet Union - has changed a lot since then. But since this was a discussion on communism and that is what they were trying to perfect, I thought it relevant.

Click to expand...

Ah, but as we pointed out earlier, the USSR wasn't really communist (in its truest sense).

lclev said:

Slydude had the valid point. Human nature is full of positive traits and many failings. For communism to work everyone involved would have to be fully motivated to work for the good of all regardless of who they are or how many. We, as humans, would have to have many more "saint" like qualities to make that achievable. Communism a great theory but not really feasible.

Click to expand...

But it is. Many indigenous communities lived very communal lives, didn't use currency, traded instead of sold and lived in relations of equity. That worked out really well for them for thousands of years (before Europeans came and stole their land).