Will a new communist/Marxist/socialist state ever emerge?

This is something I've been pondering the last few days while playing the PC game ArmA: Combat Operations. In the game, a wealthy monarchy's northern neighbor, a totalitarian Communist dictatorship, invades the southern country with its more powerful military. Te game takes place in 2007 and that is why I bring this question up.

I am very much an ardent anti-communist, in the sense that I am a big proponent of political conservatism and free-market capitalism. However, I find communism, Marxism, and socialism all very fascinating and important concepts for a variety of reasons. In the 21st century's globalized world, there are only five countries that can be solidly categorized as such, and one of them, China is no longer a prime example. Yet, the game ArmA depicts a communist society in the present day.

Here are more things to ponder when asking the question:
- We will, in my opinion, never see a USSR ever again. The USSR was a once-in-history deal. However, could we see a smaller, regional power emerge that becomes the bastion and the "shining city of the hill" for communism/socialism?
- Could this country become that shining city by maintaining a large industrial and economic base? Or is the globalized economy centered on the market too contrary for a command economy?
- Does communism/socialism even carry any clout any longer? In other words, what would it take for a populace to rise up and start a revolution? Are the ideas and philosophies outdated?

Looking forward to the replies.

"This is something I've been pondering the last few days while playing the PC game ArmA: Combat Operations. In the game, a wealthy monarchy's northern neighbor, a totalitarian Communist dictatorship, invades the southern country with its more powerful military. Te game takes place in 2007 and that is why I bring this question up.

I am very much an ardent anti-communist, in the sense that I am a big proponent of political conservatism and free-market capitalism. However, I find communism, Marxism, and socialism all very fascinating and important concepts for a variety of reasons. In the 21st century's globalized world, there are only five countries that can be solidly categorized as such, and one of them, China is no longer a prime example. Yet, the game ArmA depicts a communist society in the present day.

Here are more things to ponder when asking the question:
- We will, in my opinion, never see a USSR ever again. The USSR was a once-in-history deal. However, could we see a smaller, regional power emerge that becomes the bastion and the "shining city of the hill" for communism/socialism?
- Could this country become that shining city by maintaining a large industrial and economic base? Or is the globalized economy centered on the market too contrary for a command economy?
- Does communism/socialism even carry any clout any longer? In other words, what would it take for a populace to rise up and start a revolution? Are the ideas and philosophies outdated?

Looking forward to the replies."

Games are fun, but typically unrealistic, and wholly out of touch. The first thing you'll want to know if you ever want to be able to know anything about communism/socialism/Marxism, is that nothing that you have perceived to be those things, (and I mean NOTHING) actually has been. There aren't, and have never been (or will be), any "communist" countries. In fact the very term itself is an oxymoron. Any actual communist/socialist system must be inherently international and devoid of any and all national boundaries or divisions. I.E. The workers of the world under a single banner, their own.

The closest that anyone has ever come to realizing this goal was the Bolsheviks of Russia in the early 19th century. But they (i.e. Lenin, Trotsky, et al.) only got so far as to achieve what is known as a 'workers state,' which is essentially a (significant) step before Socialism, wherein the workers take control of the state apparatus and all major economic industries for themselves. What is supposed to follow this is the whithering away of all elements and oppressive functions of the old ruling class (their ideologies, their material control, national boundaries, etc) and a complete unification and solidarity with other workers states to maximize productive output. However, the Soviet Union (under the Bolsheviks) wasn't able to achieve this. Really due to a laundry list of reasons, but the major ones were that; A) Germany and the other European countries did not follow suit (in no small part due to the many failures of the communists in each of those nations), B) Russia was an economically and socially backwards country to begin with (and was NOT the ideal place to begin the revolution), and C) the fledgling USSR was invaded by armies of some fourteen separate nations (the US included I believe), had to fight back against counter-revolutionary forces of the old Tsarist regime, and after Lenins death was betrayed (yes betrayed) by Stalin.

Theres more I could put, but thats enough for now. If you want to do some more digging on your own I suggest the Youth for International Socialism website. They have a great FAQ that could probably answer any initial questions or curiosities you may have,
www.newyouth.com...

*peace

Yes. We would see the US become a socialist state under the presidency of Hillary Clinton.

Technically a one-liner but it shouldn't really need much explaining.

reply to post by nyk537

---

it's also thoughtless partisan rhetoric that cannot be supported by fact, which is why it really doesn't need explaining

Is it really? So you assume because I am not a mindless Hillary Clinton supporter that I am a biased republican who only bases his political views on partisan politics?

That sounds more like thoughtless partisan rhetoric to me.

reply to post by socrepLT

---

Well, I do accept the fact that a true communist/socialist state has never existed. Its something I always say to the uninformed right-wing fascists.

However, is it possible to see the emergence of a new communist state similar to what we saw during the Cold War? Or, as you say, the conditions of the 21st century so far removed from what they were at the beginning of the 20th century that it just won't happen?

i dont think that it is possible to create a true communist\marxist state, because the values and ideas of such a state would not survive on the worlds face today.

As a Socialist, I'd vote for a Republican over H. Clinton. I'm sorry but you know very little about socialism if you think she's a socialist. Do a bit of research, I'll even give you a list of books if you'd like?

i would appreciate a list of books about socialism.

Look at things, Robert Owen wrote.

Socialism was about giving everyone a chance to do well in life. It was about removing the elite from society and in fact the United State's of America has a lot to thank multipul Socialists for. It was Socialists who challenged the Royal Family long before Europeans had began to travel back and fourth to the Americas.

John Ball - Priest - 1370's wrote this:
When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may ( if ye will ) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.

Look at the early history of the US of A. Your Nation wanted every man to be equal at birth and it has failed, somewhere along the line it allowed a new elite to form. No longer from "Royal Blood" but from Oil, Diamonds, etcetera.

Every person, should have access to multipul things that give them a chance in life. Education should be open to all, health care should be open to all. Socialism was never about removing individual rights, it was in fact about granting them. It would only limit one or two things seen as key industry to protect them from abuse and people would still be able to own their own business. It's why every early Socialist in fact was a business-man trying to help those who he employeed.

Robert Owen is the perfect example, he wanted his employees to have the best life possible. Not to be slaves.

reply to post by Odium

---

when it sopmes to america, every american citezen has equal chance to succeed, if it wasnt for racism, sexism, or the enabling of laziness and stupidity. do you understand what i mean? if a person doesnt succeed it is generally their fault.

That's complete tripe Savage Soldier.

The rich in the US of A have a much better starting block than poor people do. The fact you have private health care, Universities, etcetera, display not everyone has an equl chance.

For example, a child from a poorer family background that is ill. His parents have no ability to pay health insurance, thus he has extended periods of time off of school. It's not his fault who his parents are, it isn't his fault they can't afford health care. But he is the one who is punished. The lack of time in school, will in turn hurt his grades and so on and so fourth.

Social mobility in the US of A is awful now. It is probably at the worst it has been for a very long time.

I see two possibilities in the end result of human socio-politics.

1. Communism or some other form of communal structured ideology.

Everybody shares everything. There's no emphasis on money or material goods. Even the "leaders" share the same as the commonwealth. Everybody working for the good of one another. No castes, and may be even work as world time autonomy.

2. An all out fascist dictatorship.

Absolute rule by the very few onto the many. Absolute and blatant slavery of the masses for the benefit of the select few.


I also believe that either one could be manipulated to evolve into the other. These two are definitely the forefront of our own political evolution.

No it hasn't. The only ways in which it has "failed" is through stupid policies that try to "enforce equality."

There will always be wealthy people, but most in America are self-made, and no they aren't all from oil, diamonds, etc...free-market capitalism is what makes America so wealthy.



You just contradicted yourself.

Education and healthcare cannot be rights, and if you try to make them rights, you infringe on the rights of others. Healthcare and education are services. They require the skills of someone else to provide them.

If you are a teacher or a doctor, no one has any "right" to your skills. It's a service ultimately.

That is where you socialists get confused. In your quest to give grant rights, you end up infringing on people's rights.



What Savage Soldier said is very true. Economics, when it comes down to it, is grounded on one very simple premise: you don't work, you don't eat.

The American ideal of "equality" is simply that every person be born with the same rights to go out and pursue whatever they wish. Most have to work themselves up.

Sure some people will be born into higher forms of economic status. You cannot try to "enforce equality" in that sense.

Some are lucky enough to be the offspring of people who already made themselves wealthy, and as such, have access to more things than people of lower economic status.

But no one is really prevented from working their way up at all. If that was the case, we wouldn't be the richest nation in the world.

The rich have a better starting block that they have earned. If you want that same starting block for your children, you need to work your way up.

Socialists want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome means everyone has access to the same things from the get-go, i.e. if you're rich, great, if you're poor, you have access to social programs that provide the things the rich can afford.

And this is where socialism fails miserably, b/c in order to pay for those social programs, one must tax the wealthy. When you try taxing the wealthy, they take their money and themselves elsewhere, which means you must tax the middle-class.

This is why the European economies which are more socialist continue to have such low living standards and crappy economies with little to no growth.



Tell you what, tell those parents not to have a kid in the first place. As long as society continues to encourage such behavior by taking care of such children, it only enlarges the problem of children born into poverty.

If parents are stupid enough to have a child while poor and can't afford it, that's life. It is not the job of the government or society to pay for people's children.



Actually, it's probably the best it has ever been. The U.S. economy has had an almost utopian level of growth over the past twenty years, and there are now more wealthy people than ever before, with U.S. household incomes increased to their highest thus far.

With the Internet, there is now more opportunity than ever before to move up the economic ladder.

Now more than ever is a great time to seek wealth.

I think we're well on our damned way towards that now...

God bless us all, is all I can say...

reply to post by Odium

---

that is a very extreme case that you pulled out of your ass to support your horrible argument, of couse a small monority doesnt have a chance, but thats just life and we have to deal with it.

And the difference between the two powers is what, exactly? Looks like more post cold-war spank fantasy to me.



Five countries are communist? Seeing as how communism has never actually been tried (And is in fact, impossible to achieve in a live test) I have to wonder what these five are. Cuba is as communist as China, they only look moreso to the United States because we refuse to trade with them (the irony is, trade with the United States would have dropped Castro out of power by the mid-60's...) while North Korea... well, let me just say that a country needs to actually have an economy before you can call it communist, capitalist, socialist, etc.

I find it rather ironic that you are an ardent opponent of one unworkable oppressive outlook (communism) and yet are a big supporter of another, equally impossible and oppressive outlook (political conservativism / "free trade") I don't mean that as bagging on you, just that both ideas are equally flawed, and for nearly identical reasons.



Actually the only thing unique about the USSR is that it had an identical twin in the opposite hemisphere. Most super-empires tend to be solo things, maybe with a few lesser empires scattered around (such as Great Britain dominating the other European powers in the 19th century).



"The market," at least as you seem to be using it, is an illusion created by bored economists. ANY country that maintains a strong and productive labor base is going to prosper economically. Labor is the cornerstone of all markets, as it is what provides every service, good, and commodity on earth. In that respect, a "true" communist / socialist system would have a leg up on a capitalist system, since capitalism tries to find the balance between screwing laborers just enough for big profit for the non-laborers, and screwing them too hard, leading to things such as guillotines.



Communism, I would say, is very outdated. Much like Anarchism, Lasseiz-faire economics, and other 19th-century constructs, communism is an interesting philosophical debate, but falters and fails when applied to actual humans. The mathematics and principles are sound, except that they utterly fail to take into consideration the random variables of an actual population. These theories involve only a single person, who is tailor-made to perfectly fit the philosophy's underpinnings - this person does not actually exist.

Socialism, however, is very viable, and is in fact making strong movements towards dominance. It combines the ideals of personal achievement with hte social safety net. The huge difference between a capitalist and a socialist nation is that the capitalist nation believes the sole purpose of government should be punishment and retribution against enemies and rivals - police and military force, and nothing else - while the socialist government goes hte opposite route and demands its government be in total service to the welfare and prosperity of its people. External vs. Internal, just like hte systems themselves.

No they aren't. Free trade works. And it isn't oppressive. Capitalism works, and it isn't oppressive.

The United States is not a free country because of the watchful eye of government regulation over the economy to keep people safe. It is a free country with the most powerful economy in spite of the government regulation that exists.

The U.S. government plays a very small role in the U.S. economy, and as such America has the world's most powerful economy and highest material standard of living.

Communism is flawed precisely because it assumes humans are communal creatures, like ants or bees, which we aren't. We don't function as a collective mindset. We function as individuals.

Capitalism succeeds because it acknowledges this.



The United States and the USSR were polar opposites, not identical twins. One embraced individual freedom, the other embraced a so-called communist ideology, which was really socialist and failed horribly.



No it doesn't. Capitalism focuses on the individual and competition. Competition for employees and for customers. Businesses pay top-dollar for good employees when there is intense competition, and they provide stellar products/services, or go out of business.

BTW, the Soviet Union was a true socialist system. Absolutely no private property allowed. Government ownership of everything. Had no leg up on capitalism.



Actually, you just defined Mussolini-style fascism, also adopted by Hitler's Nazis.

And it didn't work either. It failed horribly, because it was just another form of socialism.

Socialism is in no way gaining dominance. It failed. Socialist is exactly what the USSR and "communist" China and Cuba and all those other murderous dictatorships were/are. The State owned everything. There was no private property ownership, except for the political elites, and even with them, except for THE absolute highest levels, it was strictly regulated.

The USSR was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. The German Nazi party, was the German National SOCIALIST workers party. During the 30s, some commented that Hitler had created, "...the most modern Socialist state in the world." The most socialist nations in Europe today have the lousiest economies, such as Sweden, France, Finland, etc...Norway is an exception because 24% of their GDP is subsidized by oil.



That's fascism. Mussolini and Hitler both said that back in the thirties, that's how they got into power. By stating they had a system that wasn't pure Marxist socialism, but wasn't "evil" and "exploitive" like capitalism, but instead combined the best attributes of both.

Sounds great. Works terribly.



The difference between a capitalist and a socialist nation is that a capitalist nation believes in the RIGHTS of the individual. The government is an institution that exists solely to protect those rights. That's it for the most part. Yeah, there are some small exceptions, but for the most part, that's it.

In a socialist nation, the individual exists to serve the government, to serve the State. The rights of the State supercede those of the individual. The State comes before the individual, because to a socialist, the individual is best expressed through the State and the State is like a mother, who thus cares for the individual.

Powerful-sounding stuff. There are the Marxist variety and the fascist variety, which both despised each other, yet ultimately result in the same darned thing.

Socialism abhors the concept of private property ownership. That is absolute blasphemy. You violate that, they hate you.

Fascism allows private property ownership, but under stringent government regulation designed to "protect" people, which sounds good, but in practice does just the opposite.

Socialist dictatorships have killed more people than anything else in human history.

Even Hitler, who PURPOSELY sought to kill millions with guns, bombs, and gas, still couldn't match socialism itself.

So, wait. Did you start this thread out of curiosity and a desire for debate, or because you wanted to get a "yay capitalism" circle-jerk going and call anyone who disagrees a Nazi supporter? Well, regardless, I figure the ignorant must be taught...



If free trade works, then why doesn't it... y'know... work? Deregulation does not increase competition, it lowers quality. Global competition does not increase productivity, it exploits poor regions and impoverishes wealthier ones. If it's not oppressive, then why are people who work under the system... largely oppressed? The principles of free trade are what bring us sweatshops, child labor, and pinkertons.

Capitalism does work, I'll grant you. Unfortunately what it works at is being a ponzi scheme, where everyone puts in money and a handful prosper from it. The ultimate expression of capitalism is slavery - It's as close to 100% profit as a person can make.



I think you have it backwards there. Our economy was crap from our nation's inception to the early 20th century, and it perfectly matched the "free market" ideal during that time - almost no government involvement. And yet, even with almost totally wage-free labor (slavery in the south, wage slavery in the north - later just wage slavery in both areas) and massive resources taken by conquest from Mexico and the Native peoples, America could barely keep itself afloat on the world market.

In 1901, Theodore Roosevelt took office, and brought with him anti-trust laws, monopoly breakups, labor support, and the Square Deal - The Hepburn Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Meat Inspection Act. Know what happened? The United States began strong economic growth in response to this government involvement

In 1921, Warren Harding took office, and began undoing all that through a policy of isolationism, nativism, and moving away from the activist governments of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. Included in this was of course the first tax big tax break in American history - the Revenue Act. After Harding died in office, Coolidge took over where he left off, instituting large deregulation and laissez-fair policies. The result? A six-year boom from combining very low taxes with the prosperity created by Roosevelt - Wilson... followed by the Great Depression. Hoover tried to cut in the middle - he didn't touch Harding and Coolidge's policies, but instead tried to raise taxes. Smart move numbnuts.

Cue FDR and the New Deal, along with all manner of other programs reminiscent of the first three 20th century American presidents. Know what happened? The economy began picking up again. There was huge government involvement in the economy, and the United States managed to pull itself out of depression via these policies, without slipping into fascism or aggression. Of course, credit where credit is due, a lot of our post WW2 boom was due in part to the fact we were the only country left with an intact industrial base at the end of the war.



You're right, the US government has been withdrawing from the economy rapidly since the Reagan years. And what's happened since then? Where is the Dollar going? Down. Steadily. Why? Because production and work is what our money is based on - and government deregulations and withdraw of worker support have led to lower quality products, more monopolization, and the largest drop in wages relative to inflation since the great depression.

NAFTA should tell you all you need to know about where we're going. NAFTA was an agreement that strongly favored lack of standards and government regulation with regards to production, wages, and compensation - and it was imposed upon a nation without an economy as strong as our was at the time. Know what NAFTA has done to Mexico? Here's a hint, illegal immigration was not nearly the problem then that it was now.



I disagree somewhat on the flaws of communism. Communism's deadly flawed, as you note, but it's flawed because people are territorial and hierarchal. A classless sharing society is impossible.

However, you're very wrong that people function as individuals. We are not collectivists, but we are var from isolationists. We are a tribal species. Capitalism, as a policy, tells us that we must compete against everyone, strive to harm them four our betterment, and that if we don't they will do the same to us. Eat or be eaten. We do not actually work that way, at least not as individuals.



You keep using that word, socialist - I do not think you know what it means. I think you're looking for fascism. Stalin's policies mirrored those of Hitler far more than those of Marx. And if you really think the United States was free, well, you might want to look up McCarthyism. Or the Civil Rights movement. Or you know, all those countries we tried to conquer to "contain communism" (that the communists were trying to conquer to contain capitalism, no less)



You're quite wrong. Businesses make an offer. The potential employee takes it or leaves it. The people running the business know that sooner or later someone will take it.

(more)

There are very, very few businesses where one person is so integral as to be able to demand "top wages" and actually receive it. In the modern deregulated era of increased monopolization, it's becoming more and more true that a prospective worker must either take what the business is willing to offer him, or remain unemployed. As such conditions persist, and even increase, that offer gets smaller, and smaller, and smaller.



That's communism with a dash of fascism for flavor. Again, I don't think you actually know what socialism means, and I'm beginning to suspect you base your economic theory off of B-grade cold war movies.



One, Mussolini's system was actually far closer to the end result of libertarianism - rule by corporation rather than government by hte people.

Two, Nazi fascism was far more of a pseudo-religious nationalist movement than it was a mirror of Italian Fascism.



Actually, Fascism was pretty successful, as far as government systems go. Greek and Spanish Fascism continued for a good long while. Chinese Fascism is still running strong, and may even be picking up steam. What brought down Italy and Germany was aggression. Bullies tend to get the crap beat out of them at some point.



Socialism is the state control of the means of production - and takes varying degrees. Communism is state control of all property and all business. Arguing that Russia and China are socialist is a lot like arguing that the United States is a monarchy.



I suppose that you believe that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is 1) democratic, 2) uses a republican system, and 3) represents it people, too?

Strangely, the Baltic and Scandinavian states, for all their "lousy economies" still have a superior standard of living to America. What you fail to realize is that a country's economic growth only needs to keep pace with its population to be healthy and successful. If economic growth vastly outpaces population growth, as it does here in America, as it did in Japan, you get what I call a kudzu economy.



Really, got a source for such quotes? As both Mussolini and Hitlers' fascist states operated by economic meritocracy (i.e., rightist capitalism), I would have to believe that if they stated such denunciations of capitalism, it was after a long bit of binge drinking. What you really need to realize is that capitalism is not individualistic in practice - its purpose is to enrich a few with the labor of many.

Sounds awful. Works pretty well.



The rights of an individual depend more on the government system and level of public involvement in it, than on the economic system used.



The purpose of a socialist government is to meet the needs of its people. It is invested with this power by the people it's caring for.



Which ironically is generally the same result gained from neo-liberalism like what you seem to be in favor of, as well as anarchism. Oh, 19th-century political philosophers, will you ever cease to amuse?



So, nobody in Finland owns anything and htye all hate us? I think you're mixing your isms again.



Actually fascism regulates to protect business, not people. It's collectivism of a capitalist sort.



I would argue that, since monarchy actually has a seven-thousand year lead on ANY of the concepts we've talked about, it might beat them all, combined. And you might want to ask yourself where the heck the Native Americans all packed off to.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by The Walking Fox]