Was the USSR actually a communist nation?

Economics Political Theory
41

There’s all kinds of statist communists: Leninists, Maoists, and lots of Trotskeyists. I think all of them are very, very wrong, but to say they have no claim to the title of communist is silly, and just not how language works.

There is a lot more to take into account than any standard metric of whether or not each of these factions adhere to Marx’s or Kropotkin’s (the guy that actually coined the “from each…” phrase) idea of what communism is. There are historical, cultural, and political aspects floating all around the word. What we read into the definition of communism today could change 10, 20, 50 years from now, and so would our conclusion about whether the USSR was Communist if we go by that metric. Instead its more useful to look at how the word has been used historically, politically, and so forth. See what usages have common elements and which don’t.

42

The Soviet economy was always planned on the national level. Even if certain communists had intentions of spreading that model internationally, the economic model was always economic planning on the national level. It was national socialism.

The withering away of the state is a pipe dream that is nonsense even in theory. All socialists are state socialists.

43

There’s all kinds of statist communists: Leninists, Maoists, and lots of Trotskeyists. I think all of them are very, very wrong, but to say they have no claim to the title of communist is silly, and just not how language works.

They can claim it, and I know what they are talking about when they do, but I see no reason to call them that myself. If the ancaps on this board insisted on calling themselves “anarchists” (without adjectives), would you call them that?

Aren’t Maoists and Trotskyists types of Leninists?

44

“They can claim it, and I know what they are talking about when they do, but I see no reason to call them that myself. If the ancaps on this board insisted on calling themselves “anarchists” (without adjectives), would you call them that?”

Well, my first thread here was an attempt at seeing whether or not there is a claim to it. Aside from a few off-hand Tucker references, and no attempt to really dig into the theory beyond a few anti-state quotes, I didn’t find a relationship. The USSR was an honest attempt at communism at the start, and it got dominated by authoritarian politics. The theory behind Leninism was that the masses weren’t ready to bring about communism themselves so it had to be brought from the top down. My objection to Leninism isn’t that it’s not communism or an attempt at it. It’s that it’s authoritarian.

Bolshevism was a respected school in the millieu of socialist thought for quite some time. It’s roots are very close to other kinds of communism. The same cannot be said for Anarcho-capitalism.

“Aren’t Maoists and Trotskyists types of Leninists?”

More or less, but there are plenty of non-Leninist schools of statist communism. Some simply call themselves Marxist, and some of the more tame schools of libertarian Marxism have a degree of statism to them. Either way, this whole mess of “true” communism or “true” anarchism is just a wild-goose chase, and who holds the claim to a term is not something you can deduce. Our language is too crazy and changes way too fast for that. Terms become almost tautologically true when too closely examined. Why are they communists? Because everyone calls them communists. It’s a word that conveys a more or less common meaning. If it weren’t then “true” communists wouldn’t bother hyphenating their label into things like anarcho-communism or libertarian-communism.

45

The USSR was an honest attempt at communism at the start, and it got dominated by authoritarian politics. The theory behind Leninism was that the masses weren’t ready to bring about communism themselves so it had to be brought from the top down. My objection to Leninism isn’t that it’s not communism or an attempt at it. It’s that it’s authoritarian.

Bolshevism was a respected school in the millieu of socialist thought for quite some time. It’s roots are very close to other kinds of communism. The same cannot be said for Anarcho-capitalism.

Oh, OK. I see what you mean here. Still, we are the ones who maintain and change language. If we think the government of China is no longer honestly attempting communism, then I don’t see a reason to keep calling it Communist. If a group of anarchists formed a political party and started running for election, I would stop calling them anarchists (without adjectives). I certainly wouldn’t call any state they formed an anarchist state.

More or less, but there are plenty of non-Leninist schools of statist communism. Some simply call themselves Marxist, and some of the more tame schools of libertarian Marxism have a degree of statism to them.

Calling them “state communists” would be fine by me then.

46

I agree. We create language and have the power to change it.

47

This honest attempt at communism basically was: Let’s make everything “free”, then we’ll have superabundance, and the state is going to wither away on itself. Only problem with that theory is that resources do not appear out of thin air because you take away the need to pay for them. Once those well-intentioned commies realize that their free lunch isn’t going to materialize, they’ll have no other choice than to impose communism from above. And that’s more or less how the Soviet experiment went down. The problem wasn’t some human failure to put a good theory into practice. The problem was that communist theory rests on ridiculous and obsolete objective value theories. The withering away of the state fails along with communist economics, and so does any pretension that it is not an authoritarian movement.

48

Wrong. Absolutely, completely, and irrevocably wrong. You’re making the same mistake here as you were making in your “Emergence [of] Anarcho-Capitalism” thread. It’s an appeal to the majority, either explicitly or implicitly. Neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to use the label “C/communists” for those people just because they and many others call themselves that.

49

“Wrong. Absolutely, completely, and irrevocably wrong. You’re making the same mistake here as you were making in your “Emergence [of] Anarcho-Capitalism” thread. It’s an appeal to the majority, either explicitly or implicitly. Neither I nor anyone else is under any obligation to use the label “C/communists” for those people just because they and many others call themselves that.”

You are perfectly able to call them whatever you like. That does not mean you will be understood or your terms recognized by others with whom you are speaking.

I choose to call authoritarian communists Communists because it’s pretty readily understood in most contexts by most people, even outside my particular in group, but aside from that there are plenty of historical roots that the USSR has to the larger communist movement. Definitions of terms, as you argue quite a lot, are not set in stone and depend completely on how people use them. This does not mean I am opposed to the USSR being called something other than Communist, but that there is definitely reasonable criteria for calling them that, if not only convenience.

If Wheylous had set out specific criteria for what he considers to be communism, then my answer may have changed. You are perfectly right, though. No one is obligated to call them C/communists. At this point I haven’t seen any other word that would breed confusion or suggest historical inaccuracies.

You seem to misunderstand my arguments about language. I am not suggesting that people are obligated to use this or that word, but the use of language, which we both agree is malleable to an extent, has effects. My objections come in when language creates a binary opposition or confusion. And even then, my objection is that it does something, not that anyone is obligated not to use it in such a way.

50

Wow! I never expected this thread to grow so fast. I also never expected it to be argued so foolishly. As I have a brief reprieve from killing the enemies of (what remains of) capitalism, I will respond as best I can from my drunken stupor (please excuse any typos):

First, there is no such thing as an “honest attempt” at communism. Socialist and communist idology grow out of pure envy and the idea that the masses of people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Every Socialist / Communist / Maoist / Trotskyist (LOL) / Marxist / Marxist-Leninist / Marcuse-ist (there’s a new one for ya) state has been, and are, totalitarian dictatorships of the most opressive kind. Human rights,

Natural Rights, freedom of speech, private property, and every other human freedom, are taken away at thewhim of an all-powerful bureaucracy. The individual has absolutely no value. Socialism in all its forms(even if you were to exclude Facism) have been responsible for more deaths than all other forms ofgovernment in history-- combined!

Still, the Socialists/Communists … continue to make the argument that Marxism just hasn’t been applied correctly, or that the right leader just hasn’t emerged yet. It has been applied as it was intended; it has had the leaders that the movement has wanted, and that is the problem! When socialist principles are applied in a state, the exact opposite of their stated mission is achieved. Capital is taken from those who have created it, and concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority who have no idea how to manage it. The individual suffers from the inability to manage his own afairs, and when he complains, is put down by thesame police that should be protecting his rights.

Regardless of how one defines “communism”, it is an impossible situation, so no state can be communist. Butevery country has socialist institutions that achieve the opposite of thier stated goals, yet apply themwith more and more vigor, so then every state is communist.

Even in a small, voluntary commune, the key word is voluntary. People are still free to walk away andpursue their own way, apart from that community. So, according to Marx, even a commune is not communist.

52

Sorry for all the broken sentences. That cut & paste feature doesn’t work at all. Maybe it’s the 3rd world internet here, but the LvMI forums never worked correctly for me.

53

While true, it does mean that my language isn’t trapped in calling them “Communists” - which is what you wrote earlier. I certainly don’t feel trapped in my use of language here.

Again, that sounds different to me from saying that all of us are trapped in using certain language for the past members of the CPSU.

Then why did you write earlier that we’re trapped in our use of language here? That to me certainly implies obligation - or, at the very least, a lack of choice. (What’s the difference, really?)

Language quite often creates binary oppositions, such as “true vs. false”, “yes vs. no”, “up vs. down”, “left vs. right”. The ability to match patterns is the same as the ability to not match patterns. Of course, that doesn’t mean that there won’t ever be confusion in pattern-matching.

Can you elaborate on this notion of language “having effects” that you introduce? So far, it seems exceedingly vague to me.

54

“Then why did you write earlier that we’re trapped in our use of language here?”

Well, probably bad word choice on my part, but basically there isn’t a word that is more readily understood than Communist in reference to the USSR. That’s all I meant. Language is restrictive and vague at the same time. It’s a funny thing.

“Can you elaborate on this notion of language “having effects” that you introduce? So far, it seems exceedingly vague to me.”

Language (broadly defined) is the only, for lack of a better word, language we have for communication. So it’s restrictions and definitions will have an effect on how we think and perceive others. For instance, there are some tribal languages that have no words for time. So there’s not very much time spent thinking about time in those languages.

The white/black race paradigm is another good example, especially historically since it’s changed so much. Certain races throughout US history have “become” white, which has connotations of purity, cleanliness, holiness, etc. While the color black has connotations of death, fear, the unknown. By speaking of, and writing of, race within the white/black paradigm our language readily associates each color with it’s respective connotations, reflecting the existing social structure of race, while recreating that very social structure by continuing to associate black and white with their connotations of purity or dirtiness.

55

I fail to see your point. Just because the ruling party of the Soviet Union called itself the “Communist Party” doesn’t mean I or anyone else has to call it or its members “Communists”. Whether that label is the one most readily understood for them is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned. Besides, I figured that the meaning of the OP’s question was clear - can the Soviet Union be accurately considered a “communist country”? That is, did it fulfill the ideals of communism?

I’m not trying to change the subject of this thread, but would you care to provide an example of such a language?

Again, I’m not trying to change the subject of this thread, but wasn’t the term “black” originally advocated by African-Americans themselves to be used instead of “Negro” or “colored”?

56

“That is, did it fulfill the ideals of communism?”

Well that raises the question of what is communism, or the ideals of communism. Perhaps what Marx said, so we look at Marx. Did the Communist party fulfill the things outlined in the Communist Manifesto? Well that depends on a whole other slew of definitions, like proletariat, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. all of which are arbitrary or at least malleable and subjective, and only given meaning by their use and reciprocation.

“I’m not trying to change the subject of this thread, but would you care to provide an example of such a language?”

This article suggests Amazonians do not: http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/amazon-tribe-has-no-language-for-time.htm

“Again, I’m not trying to change the subject of this thread, but wasn’t the term “black” originally advocated by African-Americans themselves to be used instead of “Negro” or “colored”?”

Even the terms ‘Negro’, which is derived from the Latin word for black, or ‘colored’ have connotations very similar to not white or the opposite of white. Black became a preffered term at the rise of the black power and black nationalist movements. My guess would be that black has connotations of its own instead of depending on simply being “non-white” like other terms that had been used. However, the same power disparity existed during and after these movements, and our language still refelcts it.

57

As the founders of the Soviet Union were Marxists, or Marxist-Leninists, I think it’s instructive to see what Marx and Lenin envisioned by their use of the word “communism”. It seems to me that, based on my understanding of what they meant, the Soviet Union in no way can be said to fulfill their visions.

To say “Amazonians” there is highly inaccurate. The article references the Amondawa, “a sub-group of the Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau people”. And they obviously do have a concept of time - otherwise they wouldn’t “change their names to reflect their life stage and position within their society”. Furthermore, to live in a world of events at all means having some way to relate those events relative to one another. So while they may not have a single word that (directly) translates to the English word “time”, I submit that they still have the concept generally reflected by that word.

You’re right that “Negro” came from the Latin word for “black”. I’ll also submit that some African-Americans preferred the word “black” because “Negro” was the origin of a certain racist epithet.

That aside, and first off, I think you’re quite reaching in your association between “Negro”/“colored”/“black” and “bad”, on the one hand, and between “white” and “good”, on the other. Secondly, and related to this, if someone looks down on you, do you think you’re obligated to therefore look down on yourself? Is that what you mean by “power disparity”? Or else what?

58

“Furthermore, to live in a world of events at all means having some way to relate those events relative to one another. So while they may not have a single word that (directly) translates to the English word “time”, I submit that they still have the concept generally reflected by that word.”

And that’s fine, and it still proves my point. Their language does not have an equivalent to our concept of time, and it is either reflective or performative in their thinking about time.

“That aside, and first off, I think you’re quite reaching in your association between “Negro”/“colored”/“black” and “bad”, on the one hand, and between “white” and “good”, on the other. Secondly, and related to this, if someone looks down on you, do you think you’re obligated to therefore look down on yourself? Is that what you mean by “power disparity”? Or else what?”

On the atomistic level, I don’t think there is necessarily an effect, and it could be that language is merely reflective of social disparity.

However, there is some psychology in the situation. If you live in a society where you are constantly told that you are inferior it’s likely you’ll internalize that message. It’s not inevitable, or an obligation, but it happens. Especially if there is not (yet) a word you can even use to define yourself that is not rooted in inferiority.

I don’t think my conclusion that black/colored/negro means anything other than non-white, or the opposite of white, and it’s clear that white has always had implications of purity, perfection, etc. It’s not necessarily a good/bad binary opposition, but a good/not-good, pure/impure relationship. Whiteness is held as the standard and anything else is below it.

“…based on my understanding of what they meant…”

And that’s my take as well, but what you think they meant may not be what they think the meant. Moreover, the whole of communist texts existed no matter what Marx said about them. If Marx could explain himself, all he would be doing would be giving us another text that is open to interpretation and the arbitrary nature of language. See: intentional fallacy

59

I think an accurate rendering would be that their language does not express the concept of “time” in a single word, and maybe not even in a single (simple) phrase. I don’t see how that proves your point.

How about “human being”? One can certainly use that to define himself, now and in the past. Besides, one is not obligated to define himself exclusively in terms of one thing or another.

Do we currently live in a society where anyone who has characteristic X (whatever that may be) is constantly told that he’s inferior? Somehow I doubt it. But I’ll grant that there’s a non-zero probability that, should that indeed happen to someone*,* he will internalize that message. Then again, the internalization process is his own doing, isn’t it? The people constantly telling him that he’s inferior aren’t doing his own thinking for him.

“Whiteness” is held as the standard? Seriously? You make it sound like this is what everyone necessarily thinks - white and non-white alike. (Please do not read any good vs. not-good or pure vs. impure connotations into what I just wrote, because there aren’t any.)

That’s certainly true, although I’m skeptical of it at this point. I think I have sufficient understanding of what Marx et al. meant by terms such as “dictatorship of the proletariat”, “classless society”, “withering away of the state”, and even “from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs”.

I put no stock in the so-called “intentional fallacy”. I consider it worthless. It seems to me like an excuse for getting away with putting words in someone’s mouth. But since you apparently think otherwise, tell me - why then do you even bother to try to persuade anyone of anything?

60

Call the USSR or perceive the USSR to be whatever you want or whatever your detractor wants to be. Who cares? All states are bad.

If a bunch of people find it easier to get on with life sharing a more communal [probably because they live in such abundance or the opposite, in such poverty; their choices being virtually unlimited or conversely non-existant] arrangement of property rights and ownership, so be it! even if there is a little bit of skimming off the top by their leaders or tithe collectors known by all to occur. What does it matter?

The only thing that matters is that they do not force every one of us to take that crap.

Ask them: What is the big difference?

The distinction is as relevent to economics as is the distinction between New Keynesians and Post Keynesians is to… well, to anything.