Generally speaking, communism usually starts off great for the majority of people. Brings people out of poverty and whatnot. Very, very bad for the rich and upper middle classes but overall the public benefits.
Then authoritarianism kicks in and everything goes to shit really fast. People very quickly lose equality and equal treatment as a result.
Corruption is the biggest, inevitable problem because people naturally want to improve their position relative to their peers. Since that’s incredibly difficult under communism, you end up with lots of quid pro quo. Underground, black markets for anything and everything take hold and become just as important as the main economy.
Basically, it never works out. The end result is authoritarianism and deep corruption every time. Just like other forms of government! Except with communism, the pressures of the system force these sorts of problems to arise much faster.
Generally speaking, communism usually starts off great for the majority of people
Generally speaking, the movement for communism reaches revolutionary potential during the absolute worst times for the majority of people. The movement for communism, helmed by a communist party, pushes to organize the masses during times of deep desperation and then applies revolution to the entire society, starting with the government and the military. During this time, the society is the most authoritarian it can ever be as the revolutionaries and the existing government, as well as other groups, all attempt to establish control over the society by imposing their authority.
If the communists succeed, it gets better from there, not worse. You can see this in literally every single communist project in modern history.
Brings people out of poverty and whatnot. Very, very bad for the rich and upper middle classes but overall the public benefits.
This is pretty handwavy of the massive amount of effort and complexity required to solve mass poverty. In the USSR and China, both countries had centuries of cyclic famines that caused the masses to suffer and die off while the rich hoarded everything they needed to survive and maintain their power. It takes years of huge effort to modernize an entire country’s agricultural sector to end the cycle of famines, and modernizing agriculture means modernizing a lot of other things - chemical production for fertilizer, machine factories, internal combustion engines, steel foundries, etc. It’s a gargantuan effort.
The sense in which it’s very very bad for the rich is the sense that the royal family doesn’t get to keep their palace and their jewels, the aristocracy don’t get to keep charging rent to indentured servants and peasants on the farm land they own (usually the majority of farmland in the country), etc. It’s “bad” in the sense that they no longer have the ability to be billionaires and luxuries stop getting produced. They lose the caviar and the jewelry and the palaces but they get the same benefits as everyone else - an end to the famine cycle, an end to homelessness, major improvements to the medical system, the sanitation systems, etc.
Then authoritarianism kicks in and everything goes to shit really fast
So we’ve established why the authoritarianism is worst at the beginning of the revolutionary moment. So let’s talk about the history that supports your position.
In the USSR, the revolution of 1917 was quickly followed by an invasion of Russia by Western Europe and the US in 1918. War always results in authoritarian social controls. By 1925, Hitler had published Mein Kampf which clearly stated that this intention was invade Russia, destroy the USSR, and enslave the population. During this time, the USSR was busy trying to stop the endless cycle of famines and it was experiencing internal resistance from the petit bourgeois farm owners. Authoritarian social control was applied both to force the change in the agriculture sector to finally be able to feed everyone, but also in ensuring society against those that agreed with the West and particular were willing to collaborate with the Third Reich.
By the time the Nazis invaded, Stalin had spent years using authoritarianism to force the country to prepare for war when many people didn’t believe there would be a war and even among those that did didn’t believe the doomsday scenarios that Stalin was driven by. Again, authoritarianism applied, this time in the industrial sectors to drive the preparations for war and in the political sector to ensure the war preparations would continue.
We know that these were limited applications of authority, no matter how egregious, because the masses of the population were in love with Stalin. He was from an ethnic minority, he had zero personal wealth, he was committed entirely to the masses and was willing to use authority on their behalf, and then after the USSR not only survived the onslaught but marched all the way through Berlin and liberated the concentration camps, the masses support for Stalin was incredible.
So, despite the initial revolutionary period being the most authoritarian, it is also true that the authoritarianism that followed after the initial revolution was very acute and dramatic. Things DID go to shit, but not because of authoritarianism. The famines were solved until the Nazis invaded. The invasion sent everything to shit. Millions died, famines returned, etc.
But AFTER Stalin came Kruschev. And Kruschev and every subsequent leader actually went for LESS overt authoritarianism. They all engaged in a process of liberalization of the economy, allowing more private wealth accumulation. In the early years after the war, this was actually accompanied by an incredible increase in living standards based on the industrial strength develop before and during the war, and based on the fact that they were no longer facing imminent invasion. The USSR was second only to the United States in food availability and nutrition. They were the 2nd best fed country in the world according to the CIA.
It was the last few decades of the USSR where things really went to shit. The country was deep in its liberalization movement, with private wealth accumulating and inequality getting horrible. There were two prominent periods of scarcity (like bread lines) in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 80s caused by the wealth inequality caused by liberalization. There were two prominent periods of mass deaths in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 7 years following the dissolution of the USSR when liberalization shock therapy caused mass deaths due to lack of medicine, food, and hope.
China follows similar patterns. The initial revolution is deeply authoritarian. Then it lightens up. But the US is launching wars in Korea, Vietnam, etc and they are threatening to invade and even to nuke China. The authoritarianism becomes more acute, but less universal. Unlike the USSR, China has managed to continue to build up the autonomy and wealth of the masses over its 75 years. The USSR was already gone by year 75.
People very quickly lose equality and equal treatment as a result.
As you can deduce from the above, the problem is the opposite, in fact. Things go to shit because of the elevation of private wealth accumulation (unequal treatment is the cause not the effect).
Corruption is the biggest, inevitable problem […] Since that’s incredibly difficult under communism, you end up with lots of quid pro quo. Underground, black markets
You say this, but the US has been running covert drug operations for decades, literally creating entire cartels and running drugs globally for black market profits. Organized crime has always been a huge part of the US history, including its mythos. And we’re literally looking at that exact thing happening with Donald Trump and realizing it’s been this way for decades involving weapons manufacturing, human trafficking, feeder schools, the movie industry, etc. You’re pointing at a universal problem of power and saying somehow its special under communism, but Epstein, Trump, Enron, Bear Stearns, LIBOR, the Sacklers, and so many others happened under capitalism.
Basically, it never works out.
It’s been tried 6 times (USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, DPRK). One has failed.
The end result is authoritarianism and deep corruption every time.
Just look at the authoritarianism and corruption in the USA, UK. Most countries in the world are capitalist, and most are corrupt as shit and most are beating pro-Palestine protestors or imprisoning political dissidents.
Except with communism, the pressures of the system force these sorts of problems to arise much faster.
The US was literally founded on indigenous genocide and mass slavery? It was so fast, it literally took zero time.
This isn’t really true, though. You’re confusing the necessary mechanisms put in place to defend socialism with a general, vague, idealist notion of “authoritarianism.” People don’t seek to improve their conditions with respect to their peers, but instead seek to uplift themselves. In capitalism, you see such anti-social behavior because that’s what the underlying mode of production is focused on.
You were referring to socialist countries like the USSR, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Communism is post-socialist.
Not looking to offend but I’d be curious how they define ‘authoritarianism’ as well. My experience has been essentially that it’s often defined as “when the government does something”, which is essentially meaningless.
Corruption often rises from centralizarion of power without having “checks and balances”. So Central economy planning system might be more to blame, than the socialist movement part of communism.
Not to mention, that in a central economy planning system, there is no accurate way for the average Joe to signal on what he needs/wants to be made (talking about consumer items, not base needs).
That kinda creates the need for separate markets to rise to meet the demand, which works without the supervision by the state. The market can’t really self-regulate, so a lot of people end up scammed daily.
Ah… the glory of USSR and the hoops and whistles an average man had to take to buy a shitty radio.
Shit, even if you wanted to have a birthday party, you had to pay extra to get vodka from under the counter.
Corruption often rises from centralizarion of power without having “checks and balances”. So Central economy planning system might be more to blame, than the socialist movement part of communism.
Corruption arises from people desiring better conditions for themselves, and manipulating available levers. There’s nothing about socialism and central planning that makes it more corrupt than capitalism.
Not to mention, that in a central economy planning system, there is no accurate way for the average Joe to signal on what he needs/wants to be made (talking about consumer items, not base needs).
Fundamentally incorrect. Not only can you gather feedback directly, but you can use planned economics based on consumption to reallocate production and distribution.
That kinda creates the need for separate markets to rise to meet the demand, which works without the supervision by the state. The market can’t really self-regulate, so a lot of people end up scammed daily.
Socialist systems can legalize markets and control them by maintaining ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. Black markets arise from problems with the socialist system, but these are not unsolvable problems.
Generally speaking, communism usually starts off great for the majority of people. Brings people out of poverty and whatnot. Very, very bad for the rich and upper middle classes but overall the public benefits.
Then authoritarianism kicks in and everything goes to shit really fast. People very quickly lose equality and equal treatment as a result.
Corruption is the biggest, inevitable problem because people naturally want to improve their position relative to their peers. Since that’s incredibly difficult under communism, you end up with lots of quid pro quo. Underground, black markets for anything and everything take hold and become just as important as the main economy.
Basically, it never works out. The end result is authoritarianism and deep corruption every time. Just like other forms of government! Except with communism, the pressures of the system force these sorts of problems to arise much faster.
This is inaccurate. Let’s break it down.
Generally speaking, the movement for communism reaches revolutionary potential during the absolute worst times for the majority of people. The movement for communism, helmed by a communist party, pushes to organize the masses during times of deep desperation and then applies revolution to the entire society, starting with the government and the military. During this time, the society is the most authoritarian it can ever be as the revolutionaries and the existing government, as well as other groups, all attempt to establish control over the society by imposing their authority.
If the communists succeed, it gets better from there, not worse. You can see this in literally every single communist project in modern history.
This is pretty handwavy of the massive amount of effort and complexity required to solve mass poverty. In the USSR and China, both countries had centuries of cyclic famines that caused the masses to suffer and die off while the rich hoarded everything they needed to survive and maintain their power. It takes years of huge effort to modernize an entire country’s agricultural sector to end the cycle of famines, and modernizing agriculture means modernizing a lot of other things - chemical production for fertilizer, machine factories, internal combustion engines, steel foundries, etc. It’s a gargantuan effort.
The sense in which it’s very very bad for the rich is the sense that the royal family doesn’t get to keep their palace and their jewels, the aristocracy don’t get to keep charging rent to indentured servants and peasants on the farm land they own (usually the majority of farmland in the country), etc. It’s “bad” in the sense that they no longer have the ability to be billionaires and luxuries stop getting produced. They lose the caviar and the jewelry and the palaces but they get the same benefits as everyone else - an end to the famine cycle, an end to homelessness, major improvements to the medical system, the sanitation systems, etc.
So we’ve established why the authoritarianism is worst at the beginning of the revolutionary moment. So let’s talk about the history that supports your position.
In the USSR, the revolution of 1917 was quickly followed by an invasion of Russia by Western Europe and the US in 1918. War always results in authoritarian social controls. By 1925, Hitler had published Mein Kampf which clearly stated that this intention was invade Russia, destroy the USSR, and enslave the population. During this time, the USSR was busy trying to stop the endless cycle of famines and it was experiencing internal resistance from the petit bourgeois farm owners. Authoritarian social control was applied both to force the change in the agriculture sector to finally be able to feed everyone, but also in ensuring society against those that agreed with the West and particular were willing to collaborate with the Third Reich.
By the time the Nazis invaded, Stalin had spent years using authoritarianism to force the country to prepare for war when many people didn’t believe there would be a war and even among those that did didn’t believe the doomsday scenarios that Stalin was driven by. Again, authoritarianism applied, this time in the industrial sectors to drive the preparations for war and in the political sector to ensure the war preparations would continue.
We know that these were limited applications of authority, no matter how egregious, because the masses of the population were in love with Stalin. He was from an ethnic minority, he had zero personal wealth, he was committed entirely to the masses and was willing to use authority on their behalf, and then after the USSR not only survived the onslaught but marched all the way through Berlin and liberated the concentration camps, the masses support for Stalin was incredible.
So, despite the initial revolutionary period being the most authoritarian, it is also true that the authoritarianism that followed after the initial revolution was very acute and dramatic. Things DID go to shit, but not because of authoritarianism. The famines were solved until the Nazis invaded. The invasion sent everything to shit. Millions died, famines returned, etc.
But AFTER Stalin came Kruschev. And Kruschev and every subsequent leader actually went for LESS overt authoritarianism. They all engaged in a process of liberalization of the economy, allowing more private wealth accumulation. In the early years after the war, this was actually accompanied by an incredible increase in living standards based on the industrial strength develop before and during the war, and based on the fact that they were no longer facing imminent invasion. The USSR was second only to the United States in food availability and nutrition. They were the 2nd best fed country in the world according to the CIA.
It was the last few decades of the USSR where things really went to shit. The country was deep in its liberalization movement, with private wealth accumulating and inequality getting horrible. There were two prominent periods of scarcity (like bread lines) in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 80s caused by the wealth inequality caused by liberalization. There were two prominent periods of mass deaths in the USSR - the first was caused by WW2, the second was in the 7 years following the dissolution of the USSR when liberalization shock therapy caused mass deaths due to lack of medicine, food, and hope.
China follows similar patterns. The initial revolution is deeply authoritarian. Then it lightens up. But the US is launching wars in Korea, Vietnam, etc and they are threatening to invade and even to nuke China. The authoritarianism becomes more acute, but less universal. Unlike the USSR, China has managed to continue to build up the autonomy and wealth of the masses over its 75 years. The USSR was already gone by year 75.
As you can deduce from the above, the problem is the opposite, in fact. Things go to shit because of the elevation of private wealth accumulation (unequal treatment is the cause not the effect).
You say this, but the US has been running covert drug operations for decades, literally creating entire cartels and running drugs globally for black market profits. Organized crime has always been a huge part of the US history, including its mythos. And we’re literally looking at that exact thing happening with Donald Trump and realizing it’s been this way for decades involving weapons manufacturing, human trafficking, feeder schools, the movie industry, etc. You’re pointing at a universal problem of power and saying somehow its special under communism, but Epstein, Trump, Enron, Bear Stearns, LIBOR, the Sacklers, and so many others happened under capitalism.
It’s been tried 6 times (USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, DPRK). One has failed.
Just look at the authoritarianism and corruption in the USA, UK. Most countries in the world are capitalist, and most are corrupt as shit and most are beating pro-Palestine protestors or imprisoning political dissidents.
The US was literally founded on indigenous genocide and mass slavery? It was so fast, it literally took zero time.
Excellent response, and very eloquently put
This isn’t really true, though. You’re confusing the necessary mechanisms put in place to defend socialism with a general, vague, idealist notion of “authoritarianism.” People don’t seek to improve their conditions with respect to their peers, but instead seek to uplift themselves. In capitalism, you see such anti-social behavior because that’s what the underlying mode of production is focused on.
Whoah there! I was talking about communism, specifically. Not socialism (which isn’t well defined).
You were referring to socialist countries like the USSR, where public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes in control of the state. Communism is post-socialist.
Vibes based analysis with nothing backing it except vague anticommunism.
This is the west’s leading country, accusing its enemies of “authoritarianism”:
What would be the opposite/absence of “authoritarianism”?
Not looking to offend but I’d be curious how they define ‘authoritarianism’ as well. My experience has been essentially that it’s often defined as “when the government does something”, which is essentially meaningless.
Corruption often rises from centralizarion of power without having “checks and balances”. So Central economy planning system might be more to blame, than the socialist movement part of communism.
Not to mention, that in a central economy planning system, there is no accurate way for the average Joe to signal on what he needs/wants to be made (talking about consumer items, not base needs).
That kinda creates the need for separate markets to rise to meet the demand, which works without the supervision by the state. The market can’t really self-regulate, so a lot of people end up scammed daily.
Ah… the glory of USSR and the hoops and whistles an average man had to take to buy a shitty radio.
Shit, even if you wanted to have a birthday party, you had to pay extra to get vodka from under the counter.
Corruption arises from people desiring better conditions for themselves, and manipulating available levers. There’s nothing about socialism and central planning that makes it more corrupt than capitalism.
Fundamentally incorrect. Not only can you gather feedback directly, but you can use planned economics based on consumption to reallocate production and distribution.
Socialist systems can legalize markets and control them by maintaining ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. Black markets arise from problems with the socialist system, but these are not unsolvable problems.
There is in that things that we call corrupt under socialism, is just normal business under capitalism.
True! A much more elegant way of getting across the broader point I was trying to make.