Life and culture in the Soviet Union, North Korea, China etc was/is heavily controlled by the state, so their reputations around the world may be askew compared to actual life. I'm asking anybody with any experience of living in these countries to tell me what it was like, the positives and negatives.
Wolves of Paris: The Soviet Union failed at ever implementing socialism. After the Russian Revolution because of the material circumstances, Lenin resorted to one man management. The Soviets crushed emergent worker councils, collectives and also crushed justified uprisings in favor of economic centralization and one man management. No sensible socialist advocates nationalization, we advocate autogestion and statelessness.
The Soviet Union failed at ever implementing socialism. After the Russian Revolution because of the material circumstances, Lenin resorted to one man management. The Soviets crushed emergent worker councils, collectives and also crushed justified uprisings in favor of economic centralization and one man management.
No sensible socialist advocates nationalization, we advocate autogestion and statelessness.
Lenin was merely carrying out the first stage of Communism, know as 'Raw Communism' according to Marx.
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
wait a minute. but lenin couldn't have done anything to change history. he was merely being driven by the material forces, right. if anarchists like wolves in paris can remember marxism is not a theory of implementation of socialism but a science of laws of history.
garegin: wait a minute. but lenin couldn't have done anything to change history. he was merely being driven by the material forces, right. if anarchists like wolves in paris can remember marxism is not a theory of implementation of socialism but a science of laws of history.
Every charlatan relies on prophecy, and Marx was no different.
Lenin realized that the communist policies don't work and people starve. So he started the New Economic Policy which allowed more market freedom and improved things across the board. Unfortunately, his successors were far more interested in the total control to let go of the property takeover.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
liberty student: Every charlatan relies on prophecy, and Marx was no different.
they have to be reminded of that every 3 nanoseconds.
Im a Canadian who's lived in Harbin (North Eastern China) for a little over a year now.
It's certainly not as a bad as some would make it out to be- though its no paradise.
Note that the city I'm living in, is relatively backwards, non-westernized, and more communist than many other parts of China such as, Shanghai, Hainan, and others lucky enough to be designated "Special Economic Zones".
Pros:
-Very little government interference in everyday life, living here day to day is almost identical to living at home, from this perspective.
-The lack of minimum wage makes shopping, going to restaurants, and other activities related to low wage labour a far more enjoyable experience. For example, supermarkets have employees cleaning, stocking shelves, tidying up, etc, everywhere. It also means that no one who wants to work, is out of a job; if you're willing to work, you can find a job that will support you, even if it is at a low level.
-Business is, in certain aspects, unregulated. This means you'll see more mom and pop type restaurants, grocery stores, and the like, than you could imagine seeing back home. Also factoring into this, is that everyone pays in cash, so aside from not having to abide by health & safety regulations, minimum wage laws and registration costs, you can also get away without paying income tax. So, unlike back home, you can see giant chains like Wal Mart, operating alongside local grocery stores, both of whom make a profit.
Just generally speaking, walking around a Chinese city is almost identical to walking around a western one. It's certainly not the heavy handed image of communism some would expect.
Cons:
-The bureaucracy is just disastrous. Just the act of losing my bank card was a hell of standing in lines, filling out endless amounts of identical paperwork at separate locations, and all the typical bureaucratic nightmares. Any act which remotely involves government is the same.
-Corruption is rampant. It's common knowledge that government workers will get advance knowledge of all events, even to the extent of government workers being warned about potential national disasters, (such as the earthquakes a few years ago) while public knowledge is actively suppressed. Also, every foreigner I know who has tried to start a business has been approached by the police, threating to shut the place down, if they wont pay them a bribe. The police are even bigger jokes than the ones at home, they don't even make efforts to appear hardworking, trustworthy, etc.
-Compulsory military service, most males must spend 2 years in the military (unless you've got enough money)....the same applies to the one child policy...
-News outlets are hilariously pro government. Seriously. Watching CCTV (China Central Television) is like banging your head against the wall. FOX, MSNBC, and the rest of them appear almost anti-statist by comparison. The government makes no effort to hide the censoring of content it doesnt like. Also, the internet is tightly controlled, youtube is banned by the government, along with many other sites.
There are many other pros and cons, thats just the most general of outlines. Any questions, feel free to ask. As I said, Im lucky enough to be living in a fairly backwards region of China (culturally and otherwise) so its perhaps a better view of the 'real' China than you're going to get living in Hong Kong or Shanghai.
Laughing Man: Wolves of Paris: The Soviet Union failed at ever implementing socialism. After the Russian Revolution because of the material circumstances, Lenin resorted to one man management. The Soviets crushed emergent worker councils, collectives and also crushed justified uprisings in favor of economic centralization and one man management. No sensible socialist advocates nationalization, we advocate autogestion and statelessness. Lenin was merely carrying out the first stage of Communism, know as 'Raw Communism' according to Marx. http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm
Lenin openly stated that any attempt at communism was not at all practical.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/15.htm
"You know from the debates in the Central Committee that we are not opposed to placing workers at the head, but we say that this question must be settled in the interests of production. We cannot wait. The country is so badly ruined, calamities—famine, cold and general want—have reached such a pitch that we cannot continue like this any longer. No devotion, no self-sacrifice can save us if we do not keep the workers alive, if we do not provide them with bread, if we do not succeed in procuring large quantities of salt, so as to recompense the peasants by properly organised exchange and not with pieces of coloured paper which cannot keep us going for long. The very existence of the power of the workers and peasants, the very existence of Soviet Russia is at stake. With management in the hands of incompetent people, with fuel not delivered in time, with locomotives, steamers and barges standing unrepaired, the very existence of Soviet Russia is at stake."
Trotsky:
"I consider that the if the civil war had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undboutedly have entered the path of one-man management in the sphere of economic administration much sooner and much less painfully."
The Bolsheviks openly crushed worker collectives, why would they do that if they were trying to reach communism?
Wolves of Paris: Lenin openly stated that any attempt at communism was not at all practical. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/15.htm
Actually if you read the article, Lenin stated that communism that merely came about that wasn't based off of capitalism is mythical. To get to communism, you must go through capitalism which is the highest advancement of capitalism intensive labor. You must build on capitalism to get to communism, just like capitalism was built on feudalism. This is basic Marxian doctrine. And why did the Bolsheviki crush other collectives? Simple because they were not state collectives. Just like the sailors who got shot down at Kronstadt, those who were power rivals against the state apparatus were destroyed under the guise that they had false consciousness. Don't presume that Stalin did all the killing in Soviet Russia
Laughing Man: Wolves of Paris: Lenin openly stated that any attempt at communism was not at all practical. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/mar/15.htm Actually if you read the article, Lenin stated that communism that merely came about that wasn't based off of capitalism is mythical. To get to communism, you must go through capitalism which is the highest advancement of capitalism intensive labor. You must build on capitalism to get to communism, just like capitalism was built on feudalism. This is basic Marxian doctrine. And why did the Bolsheviki crush other collectives? Simple because they were not state collectives. Just like the sailors who got shot down at Kronstadt, those who were power rivals against the state apparatus were destroyed under the guise that they had false consciousness. Don't presume that Stalin did all the killing in Soviet Russia
I totally agree, that is what I meant by the material conditions in my first post. Post-Civil War Russia was an impoverished, war ridden, peasant society. Not a thriving industrial capitalist society, that is why many revolutionaries looked at Germany during that time as the next place for a successful leftist revolution.
The Bolsheviks favored economic centralization and basically nationalization. No matter who stood in there way, be it the kulaks, other socialist revolutionaries, Makhovinists, if they stood against the Bolsheviks they stood against the working class, which is fallacious.
For the record, I oppose all Leninist branches of Marxism and all centralization branches of Marxism.
Wolves of Paris: The Bolsheviks favored economic centralization and basically nationalization. No matter who stood in there way, be it the kulaks, other socialist revolutionaries, Makhovinists, if they stood against the Bolsheviks they stood against the working class, which is fallacious. For the record, I oppose all Leninist branches of Marxism and all centralization branches of Marxism.
Because the Bolsheviki thought of themselves as the consciousness of the working class. It is a claim that many socialists make, the difference between them and the Bolsheviki is that the latter actually had the power to substanciate the claim in the sense that they could monopolize the fabricated legitimacy of it. By the way all of Marxism is centralization. The only decentralist communists were individuals like Bakunin and Kropotkin.
Wolves of Paris: No sensible socialist advocates nationalization, we advocate autogestion and statelessness.
I've never understood this ambiguity in socialist thinking.
Honestly, I have argued with marxists that said the same thing while they defended the USSR and Cuba.
someone should say something about calculating.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: someone should say something about calculating.
No fair, you economists get to talk all day about your theories. Let us have one discussion that doesn't involve economic doctrine.
in the spirit of compromise I'd like to offer a joke on political-economy from someone that was a superior comedian than he was a president.
nirgrahamUK: in the spirit of compromise I'd like to offer a joke on political-economy from someone that was a superior comedian than he was a president.
Ah the merchant of death has a comedic side