Since someone in comments challenged my assertion that neither the Soviet nor Maoist Chinese states were communist, I thought I would clarify my view on this.
By definition, communism refers to a stateless society in which the citizenry own the components of production, including land, resources, money, and labor in common. The USSR and “Communist” China could therefore by definition not be communist, since they included a state apparatus.
Though these governments justified themselves as an intermediary step between capitalist and a communist society, I argue that they really existed only as a way to institutionalize the consolidation of wealth in the hands of elites. This makes them authoritarian and tyrannical, perhaps, but it does not make them communist.
In a sense, the commenter has offered an example in support of my argument that social discourse matters. Since he grew up on a social environment that classified these governments as communist, he refers to them so, whatever Engels, Marx, or anyone else says. They were communist only in the sense that he believes they were.
#1 by Mike at January 24th, 2010
| Quote
I agree that in practice they consolidated wealth among the elite. The “equality” of communism was no more than equality of misery for the proletariat
Under your definition of communism no society in history was ever communist
#2 by R. Stanton Scott at January 24th, 2010
| Quote
Some aboriginal tribes may come close–many Native American societies understood property generally in a communal sense, especially land, for example. But yes, I would agree with the statement “There has never been a Communist State.” Such a thing cannot exist, by definition.
Otherwise, I agree that with wealth so extremely concentrated, the broad population shared very low standards of living in both the Russian and Chinese “communist” states. And I wonder if it’s possible for Capitalism to deliver a similar result. Given recent events, I think it is.
#3 by Mike at January 24th, 2010
| Quote
You do realize the Bolsheviks / CPSU referred to themselves by name as communist. It’s a matter of fact, but we’ve already seen your eagerness to deny facts & plain language of our founders
#4 by R. Stanton Scott at January 25th, 2010
| Quote
Referring to themselves as “communist” did not make them so, give that the organized society so that only CPSU members, rather than the entire proletariat, shared in ownership of the means of production.
More likely, they claimed the title “communist” as a rhetorical device intended to create a particular image of the state among the population. Sadly, it worked.
#5 by Bob S. at January 25th, 2010
| Quote
Stan,
Just because they did not achieve the final end state of a stateless society does not mean they were not communists.
It means they were bad communists.
#6 by R. Stanton Scott at January 25th, 2010
| Quote
Well said–that they were. But they were bad communists because they never really tried to be communists–at least the leadership didn’t. They pretended to be and used the discourse but never even attempted to create a communist society by eliminating the state and giving up their positions to join the proletariat. Communist society has no class differences: everyone is the proletariat. So Stalin and the boys cannot be correctly characterized as “communist” unless you think they planned, at some point, to rush off to join the proletariat. These were authoritarian, and arguably socialist, but they were in no way communist.
If the definition of “baseball player” included “played in the major leagues,” then little leaguers would not be “baseball players,” even if they do a lot of the same things “baseball players” do, and their leaders–plus a bunch of football players–call them by that name.
#7 by mike w. at January 25th, 2010
| Quote
Do you consider Communism an ideal to strive towards Mr. Scott?
#8 by R. Stanton Scott at January 25th, 2010
| Quote
No. I do not.
#9 by Bob S. at January 26th, 2010
| Quote
Stan,
One could argue (I’ll take that approach here) that your very definition of how things are changed through consensus, social construction, etc — that they were communists.
No society is changed over night, right?
Given that they raised or tried to raise generations to believe in the communist creed meant at one point it was entirely possible (but unlikely) that the leadership would join the proletariat….because their views of the world had changed to the point where that was the only thing to do.
Just because there are intermediate steps needed to get to a point doesn’t negate the overall philosophy or ideal.
#10 by R. Stanton Scott at January 26th, 2010
| Quote
This is a very good point. You could be right that Soviet and Chinese leaders intended eventually to eliminate the state, join the proletariat, and create a truly communist society. This would indeed make them in some sense “communist.”
You could reinforce this argument by pointing out that much of their discourse included a characterization of the Soviet state as an intermediary step intended to support global communist revolution as capitalism collapses.
I would respond to this with a discussion of the specific economic policies these states promulgated, including their aggressive foreign policy (Marx would have said that all they had to do was wait–capitalism would fall on its own without help). I would also respond that an intermediary communist state would not have to be authoritarian, but Soviet leaders made theirs so to protect their power, not support communist revolution elsewhere in the world.
In the end, I believe that both the US and the USSR had an interest in characterizing the Soviet state as communist. For each, the other made a good boogey man which provided a reason to maintain a standing army and a military industrial complex (which threaten both prosperity and freedom, if you aren’t part of it). On some level it’s about self-identification based on identification of an “other”–we can’t be good guys if no bad guys exist.
So I don’t think the intent of Soviet leaders was to create a communist state, and therefore don’t classify them as “communist.” But your point is a good way to contest this view, whether or not I agree, and if you can get at some way to evaluate their intent I’d like to hear about it.