Was the USSR actually a communist nation?

Economics Political Theory
61

Anarcho-communists would definitely denounce the USSR just as AnCaps denounce most “capitalist” nations.

I am asking this question because I am in a debate league and some teams simply argue “kill capitalism, institute communism.” Of course, if I ask about the USSR they immediately distance themselves.

I wanted to hopefully gain some facts as to whether the USSR carried out the ideas of lowercase c communism (whatever school of thought they may be, likely Marxist).

One of the things I am interested in is the early history of the USSR which I have heard was an attempt at communism.

62

“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.”

Well that’s just not true. Just consider female sexuality. I’ll bet you can think up at least twice as many English words that are used to degrade sexually active women than you can for sexually active men. I’d even go as far as to say that most of the words used to degrade men for their sexuality are for gay men or have the word “man” attached to them (manwhore for instance) because the assumed definition is feminine.

“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”.”

Sure, but if you’re concerned about being logically consistent then you shouldn’t be making any assumptions about that. If language is arbitrary in one instance, it will still be in another. At this point, Marx et al are dead, so there’s not really a way we can ask them.

“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?”

Language primarily produces some sort of meaning, and that meaning needs to be interpreted by an audience in order to exist. Because of the arbitrary nature of language, that you throw out whenever it seems to suit your needs, there are multiple ways to interpret a given text depending on context. That’s not to say that language is meaningless, but that it’s malleable.

I use language because its the best way I know how to communicate. Asking me what I mean or for clarification is not the same as asking for the meaning of one thing I said. That necessarily takes two people.

63

At this point, Marx et al are dead, so there’s not really a way we can ask them.

So why read them at all? Why not have everyone start from scratch? Forget what Aristotle, Kant, Marx, Rothbard, and Gandhi said and make up our own fantasies.

64

In a sense you are starting from scratch when you read old texts. You’re starting from a completely different time period and culture, and usually in the case of Aristotle etc., the words are filtered through translation.

What makes lasting pieces impressive is the fact that they have lasted and that despite all the radical shifts we’ve had over time people are still getting something out of it. This is not because their texts allude to an immovable truth, but because they constructed them in such a way that we can still pull from them, despite changes in our language and culture.

65

Yet we still have an interest in figuring out what they meant so that we can test their theories, whether theoretically or practically.

66

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying (and no, the irony of that statement is not lost on me).

I’m not saying that Aristotle, Marx, or any classical philosophers are useless or that we shouldn’t be interested in them, but that our interest in them is absent of the context in which their philosophies arose and instead placed in ours. What we draw from them is new in its own right, and only based on a very crickety old skeleton of the original text.

67

You’re seriously saying that certain quirks of the English language mean that all English-cognizant women are necessarily and constantly being told that they’re inferior?

Please elaborate on what you mean by “being logically consistent” here.

Meaning exists entirely within the mind. The point of language is to (try to) convey one’s own thoughts and feelings to others. Language is arbitrary in the sense that there’s no particular mapping between sounds/sound-combinations and meanings that is “correct”. As far as I can tell, what you’re saying - and advocating - is akin to saying that it’s perfectly valid to put words in someone’s mouth. If I’m wrong, then please explain how.

Communication is about understanding. If I don’t understand something you’ve said, and I want to, then I’ll ask you to explain it further. I’m not concerned with any notion such as “the meaning of what you said”, because that doesn’t exist. There’s only what you actually mean vs. what I think you mean. The point of communication is to bring those two together, which means (pardon the pun) that what I think you mean should be brought in line with what you actually mean.

If I took the approach to language and meaning that you seem to take, then I wouldn’t bother asking you what you mean or for clarification at all. I’d simply make claims about what you meant, and when you’d protest about them, I’d say that it doesn’t matter what you actually meant, because my interpretation of what you said is just as valid as any other interpretation.

68

“You’re seriously saying that certain quirks of the English language mean that all English-cognizant women are necessarily and constantly being told that they’re inferior?”

At every instant of their lives? No. However, you don’t think its odd that we have a slew of words to degrade female sexuality and barely any to do the same to men? This is not a quirk in language. You can trace where these words first appeared in the English language, often back to religion. Women were seen as dirty, the carriers of sin, etc. There was an intense religious discourse on the promiscuity of women and why it’s bad. On top of that, there was medical discourse around women and homosexuality tracing back to warnings against masturbating for fear that women may become “rubbers.” We’ve created a language where we have multiple words to degrade female sexuality. Words are not just a given fact.

“Please elaborate on what you mean by “being logically consistent” here.”

While you may even be right about Marx, you can’t expect any objective truth to come out of your discourse of his work if you really believe that definitions are arbitrary. And unless you lay out some criteria for determining how language produces meaning you can’t really assume that your interpretation of Marx is correct either.

“As far as I can tell, what you’re saying - and advocating - is akin to saying that it’s perfectly valid to put words in someone’s mouth. If I’m wrong, then please explain how.”

I’m not saying that its okay to do that, but that whatever thoughts someone has are only conveyed through language. Any meaning that exists in the mind is inescapable except through language which has its own limitations. Consider this: Shakespeare was the first person to put down the adjective before the noun in the English language. “Heavy is my heart…” and things like that. Imagine that Shakespeare comes onto this board just to post one thread, and all it says is “heavy is my heart.”

One person takes the opinion that Shakespeare is saying that all things heavy are akin to his heart, meaning that his heart weighs him down and stops him from doing things, while another says that Shakespreare is saying that his has just flipped, “my heart is heavy” in order to get a better cadence to his prose, and is simply suggesting that he feels a weight in his chest at a particular moment, and both the words ‘heavy’ and ‘heart’ are being metaphorically used to describe a sensation and a location, respectively.

Now boh could be right, both could even be saying the same thing, you said “Language is arbitrary in the sense that there’s no particular mapping between sounds/sound-combinations and meanings that is “correct”.” And I agree with that. However this, “Meaning exists entirely within the mind,” negates languages role in any of it. In order to convey an idea, which may spark other ideas, you need to use language. When the way you communicate has certain limitations imposed on it, there’s only so much you can convey between minds, and perhaps never even correctly map what it is that is in your mind.

So when your interpreting a text, the best way is to look at the structure of language and explore what phrases, words, etc., ring out in a more than usual way. Attention to context, history, etc. is good, but at the end of the day whatever meaning I’m expressing in my mind is inaccessable. If I chose to express myself through typed language, then I better know pretty well how language works. If someone reads something new or different into my text, then they have produced meaning, not absent of my words, but absent from “me.”

“If I took the approach to language and meaning that you seem to take, then I wouldn’t bother asking you what you mean or for clarification at all. I’d simply make claims about what you meant, and when you’d protest about them, I’d say that it doesn’t matter what you actually meant, because my interpretation of what you said is just as valid as any other interpretation.”

Like I said, there’s a difference between what I as a person mean, and what my words mean, you know what I mean? When I say “my boots are shitty” I do not literally mean that my boots are covered in shit or made of shit. The connotative, metaphorical part of language that comes into play there is reciprocal, and take one person saying and another understanding to produce a collective, recognizable meaning. If you’re unfamiliar with the term “shitty” as meaning “of poor quality” then how can you know what I meant?

69

I accept your concession.

I personally do think it’s odd, but then I’m not responsible for the historical biases that may happen to be present (so to speak) in English or any other language. Furthermore - and you seem to have conceded this - I don’t see how the mere presence of words with certain commonly-accepted meanings necessarily leads to a constant degradation of anyone here and now.

We’ve created it? Excuse me but where in the world did I take part in that?

What “objective truth” do you think I’ve been referring to, exactly? Regardless, I certainly can assume that my interpretation of Marx (or anyone else, for that matter) is correct. That doesn’t mean it is correct - only that I assume it to be so.

Yes you are.

I seriously doubt that. Please provide at least one source citation as evidence for your claim.

Strictly speaking, in order to convey an idea, which may spark other ideas, I need to use a language. I don’t have to use English. I don’t have to use any other, as they’re called, natural language. I can use an artificial language - either one constructed by someone else, or one of my own construction. None of this obviates the fact that meaning exists entirely within the mind - even if one uses a language to convey the meaning to himself.

It’s an open question as to whether any human language, or human language in general, is Turing-complete. It’s also an open question as to whether the human mind itself is so. But it seems clear to me that pretty much any human language is capable of expressing just about any concept or notion. That doesn’t guarantee that it can do so “succinctly”, of course.

If whatever meaning you’re expressing in your mind is inaccessible (i.e. completely so), then why bother to express yourself at all? This assertion seems to render all communication impossible. On the other hand, if someone reads something new or different into your text, then they have not “produced meaning” - they have either misunderstood or misrepresented/distorted your meaning. From what I understand, the latter case is what is typically meant by the phrase “putting words in one’s mouth”.

Not at all. That’s my whole point. Words don’t mean anything in and of themselves.

I can know what you meant if you explain it to me. Then I become familiar with the use of the word “shitty” to mean “having poor quality”.

Regarding “collective, recognizable meaning” - it seems to me that you consider this a shackle on our attempts at communication, as if we’re bound to use only the meanings that have been established collectively. I don’t see it that way at all. The fact that other people have previously agreed to attach certain meanings to certain words in no way binds me to them. I am therefore free to attach completely different meanings to those words, if I like. That doesn’t mean other people will necessarily understand me, but that’s neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned.

70

“I personally do think it’s odd, but then I’m not responsible for the historical biases that may happen to be present (so to speak) in English or any other language. Furthermore - and you seem to have conceded this - I don’t see how the mere presence of words with certain commonly-accepted meanings necessarily leads to a constant degradation of anyone here and now.”

How do you come to that conclusion? There is no, or at least few, words that women can use to describe their sexuality as women that do not have negative connotations. That is, our language, a tool for reciprocating meaning, has no way of expressing female sexuality without negative connotations. You don’t think that’s at least a bit of a damper on any discourse of sexuality?

“I seriously doubt that. Please provide at least one source citation as evidence for your claim.”

King Lear, published by Washington Square Press, from the Folger Shakespeare Library, pages xviii to xix.

“Strictly speaking, in order to convey an idea, which may spark other ideas, I need to use a language. I don’t have to use English. I don’t have to use any other, as they’re called, natural language. I can use an artificial language - either one constructed by someone else, or one of my own construction. None of this obviates the fact that meaning exists entirely within the mind - even if one uses a language to convey the meaning to himself.”

Well, if you want access to anything outside of your mind and want to convey any meaning to anyone else, you’ll have to use language, as you’ve admitted. I’m not saying that anyone has the authority to say that you, as a person, meant this when you said this, but that no one has access to what you meant besides through your words. Just because someone continually insists and backs up what they think you meant, that does not mean that they are right, but tautologically that whatever it was you said conveyed that meaning to them.

Now, from the starting point that meaning is entirely inside one’s head, doesn’t it seem like a wild-goose chase to be defining communism by whatever was in a long since dead Marx’s head? How do we have any access to that besides language, which is not the same as whatever was in his mind?

Moreover, if meaning occurs solely inside one’s mind, how is someone incorrect in taking the meaning created in their mind by the words of another to be the meaning of a text? This isn’t something I’m saying is true, mind you.

What I’m getting at is that definitions arise by how words are used, which is necessarily a mutual process. One does not invent a word that cannot be interpreted by anyone else. Shakespeare only invented words because we continue to use them and have ascribed meaning to them. You can drop plenty of gibberish words that will never be counted as “inveting” a word unless someone else (or many other people) adopt them and use them regularly.

“But it seems clear to me that pretty much any human language is capable of expressing just about any concept or notion. That doesn’t guarantee that it can do so “succinctly”, of course.”

This is true, because language evolves to express new concepts and notions as humans think them up and articulate them. This does not, however, change the fact that there is no “right” way to use a word, and that the “true” meaning inside one’s mind is not the same as the meaning expressed by language.

“Regarding “collective, recognizable meaning” - it seems to me that you consider this a shackle on our attempts at communication, as if we’re bound to use only the meanings that have been established collectively. I don’t see it that way at all. The fact that other people have previously agreed to attach certain meanings to certain words in no way binds me to them. I am therefore free to attach completely different meanings to those words, if I like. That doesn’t mean other people will necessarily understand me, but that’s neither here nor there as far as I’m concerned.”

You’re surprisingly close to what I am expressing, and I pretty much agree with everything you’re saying here. However, you’re missing one very important part about language. If it is a way of communicating to other people, and you are using words they will not understand, why then are you talking at all?

As I said earlier, I was not trying to say that one is obligated to use one word over another just because everyone does so, but that using new words has effects. Using a word in a new way creates new concepts. Take for instance the evolution of the word queer. By being embraced by the LGBT community, and asserted with pride, it has gained positive connotations and developed new meaning.

71

Easily and logically.

From what I understand, there are plenty of words in English that women use to describe their sexuality and which do not (necessarily) have negative connotations. And besides, saying that there’s “a damper on any discourse of sexuality” is in no way the same thing as saying that all English-cognizant women (at the very least) are always and necessarily being told that they’re inferior. So make up your mind - what are you actually trying to claim? On another note, though, I don’t see any necessary damper on any discourse of sexuality, either in English or in any other language.

I asked you to provide at least one source citation for the claim that Shakespeare was the first person to “put the adjective before the noun” in English. Surely you knew that.

It may have conveyed that meaning to them initially, but if they’ve come to understand what I did mean, then it must no longer convey that meaning. Otherwise they’re behaving dishonestly.

I don’t see it as a wild-goose chase whatsoever. Marx seems to have been pretty clear by what he meant by “communism”. When he used specific words, he seems to have had certain meanings in mind for them. I can’t be certain, as I’m not a mind-reader, but that doesn’t mean that the meanings I infer from his writing aren’t the same as, or very close to, the meanings he intended to convey.

Strictly speaking, he isn’t incorrect in simply defining certain words in certain ways. He is incorrect when he attributes those same definitions to the author of the text - that is, when he claims that the author of the text is necessarily using the same definitions as he is - in the face of (ample) evidence to the contrary.

Please point out where Shakespeare invented a word.

With that out of the way, if I state that I’m defining a word a certain way, and other people understand and accept it - at least arguendo - would say that the definition itself arose by a necessarily mutual process? I wouldn’t. I was the one who laid down the definition. Others were free to accept it or reject it. If they continue to use a different definition in the discourse, no communication will occur there.

You seem to act as though language is a thing unto itself. It isn’t.

Regarding meaning, I fail to see how the fact that it exists within the mind (i.e. it’s not a thing to be discovered out in the world) means that it can never be expressed or conveyed by any language - that the meaning one takes from another’s statements is necessarily never the same as the meaning the other had in mind.

Presumably I’m using words for which I hope they will understand my intended meanings. If I think they won’t understand them, then I will explicate them as fully as I can. However, many people fail to maintain “mental discipline” in the face of an unconventional definition for a word, and end up engaging in what AJ calls “word-thought overwriting” - reverting back to the definition they consider to be conventional.

It certainly seemed to me that you were arguing the typical canard of “words having power over us”.

While the word “queer” may have new meaning for people in the LGBT community, that in no way means it has a new meaning in general. There seem to be plenty of people who’ve stuck to the old, completely negatively-connoted meaning of “queer”. If such a person calls a homosexual person “queer”, you can be sure that he didn’t imply a positive connotation. Sad but true - and also my point.

72

“I asked you to provide at least one source citation for the claim that Shakespeare was the first person to “put the adjective before the noun” in English. Surely you knew that.”

The edition of King Lear that I cited is full of introductory essays by those involved in the Folger Shakespeare library, and the pages I cited are the ones that explain his unconventional grammar, of which he was the first to put into print. And if you want proof that Shakespear invented words, or was at least the first person to print them as far as we know, I would suggest consulting the Oxford English Dictionary on any number of the words in the following website. His plays will be the first recorded use. http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html

As far as everything else goes, it all boils down to one main point. You’re content arguing that definitions are arbitrary when it suits your needs, but not accepting the consequences of such a position. Without outlining any criteria for what you can decide “easily and logically,” you just say that you’re probably right about what authors meant because you say so. That’s just not going to work. By drawing a distinction between language and meaning, by saying that meaning exists in the mind, there are logical consequences about any meaning people recieve through language.

“Regarding meaning, I fail to see how the fact that it exists within the mind (i.e. it’s not a thing to be discovered out in the world) means that it can never be expressed or conveyed by any language - that the meaning one takes from another’s statements is necessarily never the same as the meaning the other had in mind,”

Well, if that meaning inside of the mind is expressed through language, then it would seem as though meaning is actually contained within language, and if not, then there’s always a distinction between meaning and language. Since we both know language can change, then that compromises the way meanings are expressed. This doesn’t mean it can’t happen, that it never happens, or that we should just give up, but it does mean that language should perhaps be examined by itself at times.

Unless you can lay out how it is you divine the meaning of something with the confidence that you have, then you’re just picking a line you like, that definitions are arbitrary, and whipping it out as a shield as soon as someone disagrees with one of your arguments.

73

Is this edition of King Lear available online for free?

Otherwise, I would suggest presenting examples to actually back up your claim - not just telling me to look somewhere in the hopes that I’ll shut up. As you should know by now, I won’t.

You need to keep track of what I’m responding to. My comment about “easily and logically” was in reference to your contradictory statements. I see that you aren’t bothering to refute them - rather, you’re just shifting the goalposts.

Now then, please outline what you see as the logical consequences of my position about meaning. I think laying out your case in a syllogistic format would be ideal. Should you refuse to do this, I will consider your claims here to be baseless and worthless.

Please explain what you mean by “be examined by itself”. I’m also not sure what you mean by “there’s always a distinction between meaning and language”.

That’s a false dilemma. I’m not obligated to lay out how it is I divine the meaning of something with the confidence that I have. Any refusal of mine to do so, furthermore, does not necessarily imply that I whip out the “line” (more accurately, fact) of definitions being arbitrary as a shield as soon as someone disagrees with one of my arguments.

I submit that what you’re trying to do at this point is intimidate me into backing down or otherwise shutting up. I can assure you that it won’t work. You really should know that by now.

74

"Is this edition of King Lear available online for free?

Otherwise, I would suggest presenting examples to actually back up your claim - not just telling me to look somewhere in the hopes that I’ll shut up. As you should know by now, I won’t."

As far as I know, it’s not, however, I can copy-and-paste some entries from the OED, which I expect you to take with a grain of salt. (Also, I’ve broken the links, because they would refer you to the institution I’m involved with. That’s strictly a privacy concern, but take it for what you will.)

" Brit. /ˈlɑːfəbl/ , /ˈlafəbl/ , U.S. /ˈlæfəb(ə)l/

Etymology: < laugh v. + -able suffix.

Thesaurus »

Able to be laughed at; amusing. Now chiefly: ludicrous, absurd.

1600 Shakespeare Merchant of Venice i. i. 56 Theyle not shew theyr teeth in way of smile Though Nestor sweare the iest be laughable."
" /ˈləʊnlɪ/
Etymology: < lone adj. + -ly suffix1.
1.

Thesaurus »

a. Of persons, etc., their actions, condition, etc.: Having no companionship or society; unaccompanied, solitary, lone.

a1616 Shakespeare Coriolanus (1623) iv. i. 31, I go alone Like to a lonely Dragon, that his Fenne Makes fear’d, and talk’d of more then seene."

There is something to be said, however, about your willingness to admit that anyone is free to mean whatever they like when they say something, but not to accept that anyone is free to interpret however they would like. Are we under some obligation for interpreting meaning that we are not for writing? And if so, you seem not to act as though we are. For instance,

“…not just telling me to look somewhere in the hopes that I’ll shut up. As you should know by now, I won’t.”

I don’t recall ever telling you to shut up, trying to shut you up, or even hoping that you’ll shut up.

“is in no way the same thing as saying that all English-cognizant women (at the very least) are always and necessarily being told that they’re inferior.”

Those are also not my words. For someone concerned with putting words in other’s mouths you seem to be as guilty as anyone else. So if we are free to intend any meaning, why are we not free to interpret any meaning? Or are we free to do so, just as you seem to be doing now?

“I submit that what you’re trying to do at this point is intimidate me into backing down or otherwise shutting up. I can assure you that it won’t work. You really should know that by now.”

I’m not doing any such thing. You have said that you are confident in your interpretation of Marx to be close to what Marx meant. I’m wondering how you’ve come to that conclusion.

“Please explain what you mean by “be examined by itself”.”

We should be interpreting things like the Communist Manifesto as what it means. Not what Marx meant, or even what it meant. History is always the history of the present. We look back through a new context and point in time. So we cannot ever truly have access to what a text meant at the time of its writing. We know, presumably, more about other events, how it worked, and what happened afterward. Language should be read as language, not the meaning intended by its author.

“I’m also not sure what you mean by “there’s always a distinction between meaning and language”.”

That seems to be a line you’re drawing. If language is not fully and easily mapped into direct and concrete things, and meaning is contained in the mind (and not in language), then there is a distinction between the two. It seems as though, and I could be wrong, you’re implying that when meaning and language coincide it is because of coincidence, or good use of language, rather than because of language and meaning being in-tune for some single syntatical arrangement.

If either is true, I would only cite that language evolves. And while it is evolving, such as with my example of the word queer, it fails to continue to have a readily observable meaning by all parties since one word can mean two things to different people. And, once again, this raises the question of whether or not people are also free to bring their own meanings to a reading, just like a writer can bring their own meanings to writing.

75

By Mark Twain: "This was satisfactory, and so these adventures were carried out. Then Tom became Robin Hood again, and was allowed by the treacherous nun to bleed his strength away through his neglected wound. And at last Joe, representing a whole tribe of weeping outlaws, dragged him sadly forth, gave his bow into his feeble hands, and Tom said, “Where this arrow falls, there bury poor Robin Hood under the greenwood tree.” Then he shot the arrow and fell back and would have died, but he lit on a nettle and sprang up too gaily for a corpse. " (emphasis mine)

So, I suppose I should read this as “Then he shot the arrow and fell back and would have died, but he lit on a nettle and sprang up too homosexually for a corpse.”

Got it.

76

If I was arguing that words have one objective meaning at a time, and that we don’t know all connotations of words, or that we only know one at a time, then yes.

Unfortunately, I am not, and have not, said any of those things. Whatever strawman you’re responding to is quite upset now though.

77

Thats not what I said. I said a claim the USSR was not communist but some hipster teenage wanker in 2011 is, has no more inherent truth to it than a claim that Josif Jughashvili was a communist but Nikolai Bukharin or Lev Bronshtein were not.

Sure you can use communist teachings to show that A is communist but B is not, but then communist teachings can be used to show just about anything and therefore also the opposite that B is communist but A is not.

78

It’s clear the Soviet Union was not communist in this sense. That goes without saying. The Soviet Union never proclaimed it had accomplished communism, so we can hardly mean that.

79

Yes it was Communist but it was not the end stage of Communism that Marx thinks will be. It was in fact “Crude Communism” which Marx lays out in his “Private Property and Communism” chapter in the 1844 Manuscripts. After Crude Communism, Full Communism comes and that is when the State wither s away along with property concepts etc. etc.

80

Ah, so after the 100+ million people die. Got it.