/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11642341]

is this trying to say that soviet union wasn't "real" communism or that all communist states will eventually turn into tyrannies?

[Anonymous No.11642364]

My guess is the latter. Orwell was a Social Democrat.

[Anonymous No.11642366]

>>11642364
I thought he was a socialist

[Anonymous No.11642372]

>>11642341
People on the right generally interpret it as the latter; anti-USSR (or at least anti-Stalin) communists usually the first way.

Orwell himself was a socialist, although not a communist. But that's still too far left for most Americans' tastes

[Anonymous No.11642432]

>>11642364
Nuh uh, Socdems don't fight for the Republicans in the Civil War

[Anonymous No.11643041]

It wasn't supposed to be an instruction manual...

[Anonymous No.11643053]

>>11643041
So that's why my farming scheme failed. Damn you Orwell

[Anonymous No.11643068]

He just wanted to share the oats

[Anonymous No.11643067]

>>11642341
orwell was a massive brainlet. who would've thought that pigs would implement a piggish state, russians and chinese would implement communism without regard for life, and czech, hungarians and east germans would have well functioning socialist systems. jeeze it's almost like the system itself doesn't matter, but rather the people who compose it.

[Anonymous No.11643342]

>>11642366
he was a socialist that became disillusioned with his fellow socialists whom he viewed as hating the rich rather than caring for the poor

[Anonymous No.11643721]

I believe to this day that Orwell's books are all valuable political tracts, and worthy of being kept that way, but its important to realise that even though actual existing socialism turned out as it did, Orwell did believe the notion in principle to be correct.

[Anonymous No.11643734]

>>11642372
>Orwell himself was a socialist, although not a communist
Social democrat who became extremely discontent with socialism after his experiences in the Spanish Civil War after the POUM was branded Trotskyists and ourged by the Stalinist and Progressive government forces of the Republic.

He became a staunch anti-communist afterwards

[Anonymous No.11643740]

>>11643067
>czech, hungarians and east germans would have well functioning socialist systems
L M A O

[Anonymous No.11643776]

>>11642341
The latter.

[Anonymous No.11643917]

>>11643342
t. lobster

[Anonymous No.11644057]

>>11642432
errr...yes they did

[Anonymous No.11644469]

>>11642341
Dude, the book is basically Harry Potter tier with minimal room for interpretation.

>>11643067
>czech, hungarians and east germans would have well functioning socialist systems
Mah nigga, you silly.

[Anonymous No.11644700]

>>11642364
He was a Democratic Socialist, not a Social Democrat, those are two very different things.

[Anonymous No.11644812]

>>11643067
>czech, hungarians and east germans would have well functioning socialist systems.
the scary thing here is some lefty brainlets actually believe this.
t. German

[Anonymous No.11644849]

>>11642341
both in a sense
because "real" communism as prescribed by the literature is an impossibility and so all attempts will by default lead to tyranny
so its best not to bother

[Anonymous No.11645611]

>>11644812
The capitalist propaganda probably plays a part in the delusion. Since East Germany wasn't as horrible as the West claimed, faggots went to the other extreme starting to claim it was actually a nice place.

Ironically the anon has an overly negative picture of the socialism in Russia, from 70s on life quality was probably superior to the shit they have now. The only modern positive is that it's easier to leave the place.

[Anonymous No.11645635]

>>11645611
>The capitalist propaganda

[Anonymous No.11645648]

>>11644700
>very different
No.

[Anonymous No.11645671]

>>11643342
NO IM NOT PAYING FOR YOU PERSONALITY QUIZ!

[Anonymous No.11645820]

>>11642341
>communist states

that is an oxymoron, communism involves a stateless society

[Anonymous No.11646167]

>>11645820
socialist state fails to accurately define USSR pre-1976 China or other similar states as it would also include modern China, Viet-Nam, pre-Pinochet Chile, who's stated goals are/were not to achieve the communist state. It is reasonable then to refer to the former (those states who's stated goal was to achieve a communist state) as communist states, as any other name would simply exist cloud the fact that communism requires those states before (if ever) it achieves its statelessness.

[Anonymous No.11646188]

>>11646167
Modern China is neither socialist nor anywhere near failing.

[Anonymous No.11646230]

>>11646188
>13th 5 year plan
>not socialism
I didn't imply or state the second, although much of china's economy is dependent on economic realities that may not continue to work in their favor for much longer.

[Anonymous No.11646923]

>>11644700
yeah and this is people's front of judea, not judea people's front.

[Anonymous No.11646967]

>>11642341
It was a flat out critique of Stalin. The original ideology of the Farm was positive, and Snowball aspired to great things. Left to their own devices, the Farm could have been successful in its aims. It was only after Napoleon took over that everything went bad. Remember also that the book was published in the forties... At a certain point, Orwell switches from critiquing the past/present, and speculating about the future. As such, it can’t be read as a 1:1 assessment of anything.

>>11643734
He went over to Spain believing that all Socialists were united together in their drive to liberate the working class and oppose fascism, he came home specifically disillusioned (angry even) at the USSR (specifically, Stalin.) I wouldn’t say that it translates to a general disillusionment with socialism, at least not by the time AF was published.

[Anonymous No.11647494]

>>11646167
I see that you do not know what socialism is, either

>communism requires those states before (if ever) it achieves its statelessness.

absolute bullshit. there are many potential roads to communism. why call those states something they are very clearly not?

[Anonymous No.11647522]

>>11647494
Then please enlighten us, as clearly there is some example of communism without a state based transition. Or at least a place where communism was tried without the creation of a state to go along with it.

[Anonymous No.11647532]

>>11642341

>communist
>state

lmao read marx

[Anonymous No.11647556]

>>11643734
>He became a staunch anti-communist afterwards
Anti-Stalinist at best, he was still an avowed socialist, at least in Road to Wigan Pier

[Anonymous No.11647566]

>>11644700
Same shit, different smell.

[Anonymous No.11647574]

>>11642341
He was trying to accurately portray farm life in the mid 20th century.

[Anonymous No.11647643]

>>11647522
>clearly there is some example of communism without a state based transition

https://youtu.be/feepQg_Dx7U?t=9m45s

communism has existed as a social formation during the times of primitive man, as there existed little to no relationships of domination. some call this "proto-communism". As Althusser states in the interview, there are also "islands of communism" in many places, at many different times. But communism has not existed as a whole social formation or socialism as a mode of production in any notable way in recent times, no.

>a place where communism was tried without the creation of a state

States exist as the default now, so what you are asking is: has communism been tried with the corresponding abolition of the state. and the answer is yes, but only in highy localised (in terms of space and time) areas.

I can't make any sort of comprehensive list, but a few examples of anarcho-communism (as this is essentially what youi ask) are revolutionary Spain, Ukraine during the Russian civil war, and perhaps the Paris commune.

If you think that this scant list means that the left has suffered defeat, you would be correct. But perspective is required: Capitalism has only existed as a global social formation for (much?) less than a century. The time for socialism will come, but almost certainly not in our lifetimes. The only hope is that AI technology develops enough that much labour is eliminated. This would most likely lead to socialism for reasons that I can't be bothered to go into.

[Anonymous No.11647657]

He himself said it was the history of the Soviet union as a parable.

If you look at his essays he's basically social democrat.

[Anonymous No.11647664]

>>11643067
1 in 5 of Eastern German citizens cooperated in one way or another with STASI. Typical for the bloc was 1 in 20.

[Anonymous No.11647667]

>>11647643
>communism has existed as a social formation during the times of primitive man, as there existed little to no relationships of domination

Just to expand on this to avoid confusion: Communism is the absence of relationships of domination, the achievement of which requires certain conditions, such as the absence of states, of economic domination (i.e. capitalism) and consequently an absence of classes and of money. The definition of communism is usually defined in these terms, rather than in terms of an absence of domination. But it is to the end of the absence of domination that the absence of states, capitalism, classes etc is required.

[Anonymous No.11647738]

>>11647643
>communism has existed as a social formation during the times of primitive man...(with) no relationships of domination
there is no evidence to support the general lack of domination of others during the pre-agricultural era, and once agriculture was implemented we clearly see the opposite form.
>Spain, Ukraine, Paris
as you point out, these are anarcho-communist systems. The whole point of this conversation is the justification of the term 'communist state' as these would be called anarcho-communist; communist state still seems to have a purpose as a definition for states who's intended purpose is the achievement of the aforementioned end of relationships of domination.

[Anonymous No.11647919]

>>11647738
>there is no evidence to support the general lack of domination of others during the pre-agricultural era

i'm no expert on the era, but surely most of the means of domination simply didn't exist at the time, because commodity production basically didn't exist. Further there existed some hallmarks of a communist social formation, like communal living and baby raising, goods shared in common, etc

>once agriculture was implemented we clearly see the opposite form.

yes, at that point primitive man was no longer primitive. goods were no longer shared in common but hoarded as a select few had access to the means of production.

>communist state still seems to have a purpose

The reason that these states are known as communist is because for states with liberal capitalism, as opposed to the state capitalism of states such as the USSR, it was a powerful anti-left tool to associate communism with breadlines and state terror. At the same time, it was a powerful legitimising tool for states like the USSR in order that they not lose credibility with their own people, despite clearly having given up on any left wing project decades before.

It would be much better and more accurate to call these states 'Marxist states'. At least then it has some accuracy.

[Anonymous No.11647926]

>>11646923
lmao

[Anonymous No.11648012]

>>11647919
>means of domination simply didn't exist at the time, because commodity production basically didn't exist.
there was commodity production in the form of hunting and gathering and goods production in the form of tool making and basic construction. But as I said, there is no evidence, not that there was never. But to say conclusively that there was (or wasn't) a communist society is simply an attempt to appeal to nature or the natural state of man. My point about the development of agriculture was that those people in hunter-gatherer tribes; by hook or by crook, transitioned into that system. To me that would Imply that A. there was a relationship of domination existent before the transition to move them into the new system. or B. That the previous pre-agricultural society was bad enough in comparison that the new system of domination (of goods and of law) was preferable to the old.

>Marxist states
as you point out, the USSR and others wanted the label communist state for political reason and as such it would be as reasonable to call them communist states as it would be to call someone by their name. It would also seem to me that Marxist state would have the same hypocrisy that communist state has, at least to the point where rewriting every political science textbook written in the last century would not be benefited by the change in name.

[Anonymous No.11648350]

>>11648012
>It would also seem to me that Marxist state would have the same hypocrisy that communist state has

But Marx, for better or worse, advocated a large state (in economic terms) as the best way to transition to communism. And the states of which we speak were, at least in formal, constitutional terms, states based on Marxist thought.

>rewriting every political science textbook written in the last century

No one is suggesting this, it would just be much better if people didn't use oxymorons and distortions/basic errors when trying to have an intelligent discussion about communism. The changed textbooks would follow if enough people did so

[Anonymous No.11648771]

>>11642341
to me it's more a story to explain why humans can't get along

[Anonymous No.11648998]

>>11648771
how does it explain that?

[Anonymous No.11649138]

i have a couple questions:

why is it unreasonable to think that communist movements will inevitably dissolve into tyranny when these movements are all invariably led by intellectuals and political leaders and not the workers themselves? what reason is there for believing they would give up their power?

what exactly do communists and anarchists mean when they talk about the state? because they say they oppose the state (though communists provisionally accept the need of the state while in a certain stage of socialist development) but presumably they would always need some sort of administrative bureaucracy to carry out their preferred policies. isn't that a state? or does the fact that it's decentralized and democratic negate its status as a state? but if it's not centralized, how are you supposed to guard against reactionaries seizing power locally and undermining your system?

[Anonymous No.11649264]

>>11649138
It isn't unreasonable to look at the extreme left, in particular those with authoritarian leanings (marxist-leninists, trotskyists, maoists etc) and think that their strategy would or could lead to tyranny. I'm talking about groups that still believe that a left wing revolution is possible/desirable in first world countries.

However, it is unreasonable to think that of modern communist parties. The modern radical left, apart from the aforementioned extreme (i.e. anti democratic) left, can be grouped as follows: conservative communists, reform communists, and democratic socialists. There is nothing to be afraid of from these latter three, they all wish to uphold (and in many cases extend) the political democracy that exists in their states.

The answer changes somewhat if you think that the state encroaching into the economic sphere is somehow wrong, or tyrannical. However, that would be moronic.

In response to the latter half, my personal conception of the means of administration in a communist society is of a decentralised planned economy. Specifically, this would involve small communities coming together physically and/or through the internet to create a list of demands, in terms of commodities needed. This would have to involve no vertical hierarchies. No doubt it would be difficult to get right. Lists of commodities would be produced by all of the communities of the world, and humanity would set about fulfilling these wishes. It is important to have in mind that we are talking at least a century in the future, where much labour would have been eradicated by technology, and much labour would have disappeared because capitalism keeps total production at a level that is artificially high.

>how are you supposed to guard against reactionaries seizing power

Ideological hegemony, militias, and the fact that the development of the forces of production would at that point have rendered anything other than full communism wasteful/inefficient/undesireable.

[Anonymous No.11649274]

The Soviet Union wasn't real communism, and anyone who says otherwise should be beaten

Also Joseph Stalin was a great man

[Anonymous No.11649286]

>>11649274
feel free to, like, read the thread

[Anonymous No.11650748]

>>11645648
>>11646923
>>11647566
You guys are honestly fucking idiots. Social Democrats are capitalists, they can't be socialist by nature. Not everything that has the word "social" in it is anti-capitalist, I hope to God that you're americans, because then I would understand what led you to believe this.
>hurr durr the names sound similar so they must be the same!
It's weird how this is a literature board, yet you fucks don't seem to have actually read a book about anything you discuss.

[Anonymous No.11650892]

>>11650748
Social democrats are reformists by communist vocabulary. Trying to spin them as something completely different is akin to fascists pretending nazis are something completely different as in a lie.

[Anonymous No.11650910]

>>11643740
>>11644812
unlike you eurotrash I actually have family who lived in Czechoslovakia until the 80's. There was no famine, education was free and high quality, drug abuse was unheard of outside Prague. There were less luxury goodies, and religion was somewhat suppressed which sucked, but as a whole quality of life was rather good.

[Anonymous No.11650916]

>>11644812
>>11650910
In fact, my mother was actually able to do things like ski, and take horseback riding lessons, that are now out of reach for common people in Europe and America.

[Anonymous No.11650924]

>>11650892
no its not like that at all, Democratic Socialists are the nondenominational “soft” equivalent of Fascists for the Left, neither of them are full on communists or nazis. You can be a fascist and not invade other countries or persecute minorities, see: Brazil, Greece, Spain. Soc democrats are not Socialists they just want a social market economy

[Anonymous No.11650958]

>>11642341
the first one since he was a commie

[Anonymous No.11651084]

>>11650916
>things like ski, and take horseback riding lessons, that are now out of reach for common people in Europe and America
anyone above part time Walmart greeter can afford to ski in the united states if they live less than a few hours from a resort, horseback riding varies by region, some areas its as cheep as owning a car, others its a luxury that few can afford. depends on land prices and economic forces.

[Anonymous No.11651115]

>>11651084
most people in America are at or below walmart greeter. That's what I meant, in Czechoslovakia these things were available for everyone, including kids from small villages, because they were part of the school curriculum.

[Anonymous No.11651193]

>>11651115
>most people in America are at or below walmart greeter.
>median income $59,000/year

[Anonymous No.11651208]

>>11650892
>FDR was a communist reformer
please think. Sanders is a new-new-dealer.

[Anonymous No.11651227]

>>11651208
Then you look at his administration being half new-dealer democrats and half communist agents and realise he really was a reformist socialist. By the way Labour party in the UK used to declare their ultimate goal to be communism in the past so that's not far either.

They call it "diversity of approach".
>>11650924
Except it's NS that's more "materialistic" that is liberal (mindset-wise) offshot of fascism and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11651233]

>>11651193
Also important thing to note - 34k a year puts you in world's 1%

[Anonymous No.11651282]

>>11651227
>FDR really was a reformist socialist
this is something crazed tankies spurt out in the midst of an ideological fit

[Anonymous No.11651577]

>>11642364
>There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master. Of course such a state of affairs could not last. It was simply a temporary and local phase in an enormous game that is being played over the whole surface of the earth. But it lasted long enough to have its effect upon anyone who experienced it. However much one cursed at the time, one realized afterwards that one had been in contact with something strange and valuable. One had been in a community where hope was more normal than apathy or cynicism, where the word 'comrade' stood for comradeship and not, as in most countries, for humbug. One had breathed the air of equality. I am well aware that it is now the fashion to deny that Socialism has anything to do with equality. In every country in the world a huge tribe of party-hacks and sleek little professors are busy 'proving' that Socialism means no more than a planned state-capitalism with the grab-motive left intact. But fortunately there also exists a vision of Socialism quite different from this. The thing that attracts ordinary men to Socialism and makes them willing to risk their skins for it, the 'mystique' of Socialism, is the idea of equality; to the vast majority of people Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no boot-licking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of Socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see Socialism established much more actual than it had been before. Partly, perhaps, this was due to the good luck of being among Spaniards, who, with their innate decency and their ever-present Anarchist tinge, would make even the opening stages of Socialism tolerable if they had the chance.

[Anonymous No.11652832]

>>11651227
>half communist agents and realise he really was a reformist socialist. By the way Labour party in the UK used to declare their ultimate goal to be communism in the past so that's not far either.

You are either unintelligent in the extreme or are telling lies. Please tell me you are a yank, I would be incredibly sad to learn that you are European with this level of understanding of leftist politics.

Presumably wrt Labour you are referring to the former Clause IV, part four. It was a committment to socialism, yes. But if you think it declared a goal of communism you would be betraying a lack of knowledge of what communism is. Labour has always been an anti-communist party. I suggest Ralph Miliband's "Democratic Socialism" if you truly want to know about Labour.

[Anonymous No.11652971]

>>11642341
It was a comment on the violent revolutions in general that had taken place just a few years prior, not specifically communist ones.

[Anonymous No.11653006]

>>11650892
>Social democrats are reformists by communist vocabulary
>Capitalist countries are actually socialist because they have the word social in it
I don't know why I even bother.

[Anonymous No.11653195]

>>11653006
some real brainlet right wingers itt ini lad

[Anonymous No.11653202]

refer to pic related for a hierarchy of interpretations

[Anonymous No.11653669]

>>11653195
It's just ignorance, though. It only takes two seconds of research to find out that Social Democracy is based in a capitalist economy. It's baffling that someone would ever deny this.