Name a successful Communist country!
By Ranting Panda
2 November 2019
Marxism didn't fail ... but it was betrayed!
One of the common challenges that capos like to throw at communists is to name a successful communist country. Ok ... how about ... Australia! No, they'll opine, that's not communist. Ok ... so what do they think is a communist country? Their answers are pretty predictable: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba. Oh ... you mean Marxist? Yes, they'll reply.
About that ...
There haven't been any truly Marxist countries in the world. Following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks did attempt to implement communism, and initially had some success, including industrialising a heavily agrarian nation, dramatically improving literacy rates and establishing workers' collectives to run the means of production. The Bolsheviks also abolished private ownership of factories so that they were run by workers, and established a planned economy that initially modernised and improved Russian society compared to where it had been under the Tsar (Woods 2017). There was also partial demonetisation (in which state enterprises supplied each other without payment), provision of free rations to workers, and abolition of rent and tramway tickets (Nove 1986, p. 65). Women were granted full equality with men and received equal pay, while abortion was legalised in 1920; all of this occurring, decades before equality was achieved in western countries, and even now, many western nations are still fighting for legalised abortion (Woods 2017). Immediately following the Russian Revolution, it was not practical for the Bolsheviks to completely dismantle the existing economic structure and replace it overnight with a Marxist system.
This was occurring in concert with the civil war. After overthrowing the Tsarist regime, the first promise that the Bolsheviks kept was to withdraw Russia from World War I. Forces loyal to the Tsar (the White Army) called on imperialist forces, particularly the US and UK, to side with them against the Red Army. This precipitated the Russian Civil War. As an aside, it's interesting that this is called a civil war when it was in fact, an international invasion of Russia to combat communism. Few people call the Vietnam War a civil war, yet it was similar in many ways to the Russian Civil War. North and South Vietnam were at war, and the US and its allies invaded to defeat the so-called communist North. By 1922, when the Russian 'Civil War' ended, more than 8 million were dead; some from the fighting and many from the famine that resulted as both sides directed efforts to the war. Capitalists tend to blame the Bolsheviks for the millions dead while ignoring their own role in these deaths.
During the war, Lenin implemented 'war communism' in direct response to the White Army and imperialist aggression. In 1918, imperialist forces directed by US President Wilson, blockaded Russia to choke it economically. In 1914, Russia's imports were 936 million poods and its exports were 1,472 million poods. The blockade reduced this to 11.5 million poods and exports 1.8 million in 1918, to zero in 1919 (Serge 1930). No wonder that Lenin needed to take drastic steps.
'War Communism' included requisitioning excess grain produced by farmers, so that the Red Army could be fed. Farmers couldn't sell their extra grain, so they stopped producing it. This along effects of the Russian Civil War and significant lack of rain through 1920 and 1921, caused a famine and mass starvation that killed millions of people. Compare this to Churchill who forcibly requisitioned grain from Indian farmers to feed Britons during World War 2, resulting in the Bengal Famine that killed more than four million people. Whereas Lenin took repratory steps, Churchill's response to a report telling him of the millions of deaths caused by his policy, was to reiterate his racist hatred of Indians, when he wrote on the report, '
Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?' (Tharoor 2017, p. 160). He went on to state, '
I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits'. Charming.
The Russian economy had been greatly weakened by the former Tsarist regime, the Great War and the Russian Civil War. As Lenin realised the extent of the economic rebuilding required, he ended 'War Communism' and introduced the 'New Economic Policy' (NEP), blending socialism and capitalism, which he felt was necessary given the poor state of the Russian economy. The NEP strengthened the economy through greater industrialisation, significantly improved literacy rates and helped the people and the economy to recover. Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin assumed power. In 1928, Stalin abolished the NEP.
When Stalin took power he introduced a closed economy, which is something that Marx railed against. Marx stated that communism could only succeed if it was an international effort, with many countries involved. Marx promoted the idea of a planned economy, which would temper the over-consumption and greed that drives capitalist states, but there is a big difference between planned and closed. Stalin's politics was a betrayal of Marxism and the revolution. The closed economies of East Germany, China, and North Korea were not run as Marxist states; they did not have workers' collectives, workers did not control the means of production. These were totalitarian regimes that eschewed democracy, closed their economies and modelled themselves on Stalinism, right down to political persecution, torture, disappearances and state-led mass killings. Their economies were mismanaged and their governments corrupt. Most so-called communist or socialist countries were satellite states of the Soviet Union.
The ultimate goal of Communism, according to Marx, was a workers' utopia in which needs were fulfilled, without greed, and without the need for a monetary system. Not one nation that labelled itself Communist, implemented this.
There were some successes, however. Similar to the contradictions of Stalin's Soviet Union, it was the Marxist elements that grew economies of so-called socialist or communist nations, while it was the excesses of bureaucracy that weakened them. In Cuba for instance, power was centralised with Castro, with no democracy, no opposition parties, brutal treatment of dissenters and a press that was merely a mouthpiece of the government (Foran 2009, p. 24). Cuba is one of the few revolutionary states that was able to withstand decades of US hostility and blockades. Foran (2009, p. 20) states that '
Few revolutions have been able to withstand the renewed counter-revolutionary attention of dominant outside powers and their regional allies'. Even given this, Cuba achieved some impressive outcomes as a result of the revolution, including unemployment becoming almost non-existent, income distribution being the fairest in Latin America, rent being limited to 10% of a person's income, almost no beggars or slum housing, 80% of Cubans owning their own houses, no starvation or chronic food shortages, free education and medical care, high literacy rates, low infant mortality compared to other areas in Latin America, life expectancy rose from 57 years in 1958 (the year before Castro took power) to 73.5 years in 1983, one of of the lowest crime rates in the world, and dramatic improvement in women's lives (with men required by law to help with the housework) (Foran 2009, pp. 21-22).
Vietnam also achieved much given the adversity it faced in its infancy. Because of the brutal treatment by the Japanese and French colonisers in Vietnam, communism gained popularity. Elections were scheduled to be held in 1956 across the country (which included north and south Vietnam) and it is estimated that 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, the Communist leader. The US, in typical style, undermined this and elections were cancelled, resulting in a corrupt US puppet being installed in South Vietnam, where the French still had some power. This culminated in a civil war between North and South Vietnam, with the US invading to stop the Communists from taking over South Vietnam. The US war against North Vietnam resulted in more high explosives being dropped on this tiny nation, then the Allied Forces dropped on Germany and Japan combined during World War 2 ... not to mention, the use of napalm and agent orange on civilian populations and other war crimes in which civilians were massacred (Davies 2015).
The US lost that war, but continued the battle through propaganda and corrupting the leadership with capitalism. Vietnam suffered more than three million casualties, and was left with 10 million refugees, one million war widows, 880,000 orphans, 362,000 war invalids and three million unemployed. US high explosives destroyed more than five million hectares of forest. The economy was left in ruins, with inflation running at 900%. Rice paddies were destroyed, leaving Vietnam to import rice. During peace talks, the US agreed to pay $3.5 billion in reparations, but never paid up, instead it went on to impose a trade embargo. Following the war, the Vietnamese government confiscated personal land holdings, forcibly acquired produce from farmers at very low prices and forced people into labour. Dissenters and many South Vietnamese were imprisoned, tortured and subject to inhumane treatment.
Vietnam, like other nations, modelled itself on Stalinism, not Marxism. However, it did include Marxist elements in its economy, which strengthened its rebuilding efforts. For instance, in 1975 there was 70% poverty. By 1992 this had reduced to 58% of the population, and by the year 2000, it had dropped to 32% (Davies 2015). The government built dozens of primary and secondary schools, and established a free healthcare framework. Since 2000, the government has become increasingly capitalist, which caused some to become wealthy, while the gap between the rich and poor continues to increase. Corruption has increased as capitalism expands, with the problem exacerbated by the selling of state-owned companies. British academic, Martin Gainsborough, described Vietnam's corruption: '
Rather than being inspired by reformist ideals, officials have been motivated by much more venal desires … What we often refer to as ‘reform’ is as much about attempts by rival political-business interests to gain control over financial and other resources' (Davies 2015). Capitalism has continued to destroy the economy, with around 70% of people losing their land by 2010, employees no longer paid a living wage (which they had been getting in 1990), health and schooling no longer free, and poverty increasing dramatically, (Davies 2015). While people fear communism, it is capitalism that has stolen the property and dreams of the Vietnamese.
Vietnam was styled on Stalinism, rather than Marxism. Marxism's basic tenet was '
from each according to their ability, to each according their need'. Vietnam and many of these so-called communist or socialist governments nationalised industries and took wealth from workers, but did not redistribute to those in need, nor did they empower workers. This wasn't Marxism.
The apparent failure of Marxist states is less to do with Marxism, and more to do with corruption, greed, lust for power, mismanagement and external hostile forces. Additionally, revolutions are often not well planned '
because of divergent visions of how to remake society and unequal capacities to make those visions prevail' (Foran 2009, p. 20). Many of the revolutions were not well thought through. It's one thing to overthrow a corrupt government, it's another thing entirely to replace it with, and maintain, a new government and economic model.
There were interesting contradictions in the Soviet Union, post-Lenin. While Stalin dismantled much of what was achieved in the October Revolution, the nationalised planned economy remained, which helped to strengthen the Soviet Union's growth, while maintaining little to no inflation and almost full employment (Woods 2017). Ted Grant, one of the most important Marxist writers since Trotsky, detested Stalin but saw the benefits of socialism in the Soviet Union, despite the counter-revolutionary efforts of Stalin, '
Russia is a workers' state because the land, mines, banks, factories, railways have been taken out of the hands of the capitalists and have been nationalised' (Grant 1941).
Unfortunately, Stalin's heavily bureaucratic and increasingly corrupt regime (which was anathema to Marxism), saw much of the benefits of the planned economy accumulated by bureaucrats, while the workers continued to suffer and be deprived. Post-Stalin, the corruption, waste and mismanagement continued, while choking the progression once achieved by the planned economic model. Just like in capitalist countries, the Soviet Union experienced an increasing gulf between the rich and the poor (Woods 2017). Similarly, the countries behind the Iron Curtain experienced economic growth through planned economies, but were undermined by corrupt bureaucracies that were not Marxist. '
Genuine socialism is incompatible with the rule of a privileged bureaucratic elite, which will inevitably be accompanied by colossal corruption, nepotism, waste, mismanagement and chaos' (Woods 2017).
Trotsky had articulated the need for socialist internationalism, when he wrote, '
The socialist revolution begins on the national arena, it unfolds on the international arena, and is completed on the world arena. Thus, the socialist revolution becomes a permanent revolution in a newer and broader sense of the word: it attains completion only in the final victory of the new society on our entire planet' (Trotsky 1906).
There have been attempts at socialism and communism, but much of those were shut down very quickly by capitalist nations, particularly the United States. It is no secret that the US created the School of the Americas to train right-wing terrorists to fight and overthrow any attempts at left-wing governments in South America. Chile's President Allende is a case in point. His left-wing government attempted to control production, improve workers' conditions, care for the poor and redistribute wealth more equitably. This was abhorrent to the greed and self-serving nature of capitalism, so the US funded a coup that brought in the brutal right-wing dictator, Pinochet, who subsequently massacred thousands of Chileans (Blum 2004). But hey, it was now a capitalist country.
In Venezuela, Chavez was elected in 1998 on a platform of anti-corruption and nationalised private industry, redistribution of wealth and empowering the people. However, Chavez went on to nationalise private industry without warning and without cooperation of the people, instead confiscating or expropriating companies (Carillo 2016). Chavez's plans to end poverty never happened because of his inability to properly implement a Marxist system and his economic incompetence.
It should be noted that each of these states were not truly Marxist as none of them established workers' states, none of them gave power to the working class; instead each was run by someone who did not adequately represent the workers and who did not empower workers to run the government. Ted Grant (1941) summarised Lenin's conditions for a workers' state, as being:
1. All officials to be elected with right of recall through workers' Councils (Soviets).
2. The abolition of the standing army and its substitution by the armed people.
3. No official to receive a wage higher than that of a skilled worker.
4. Administrative posts to be filled gradually in rotation so that no permanent officialdom could be formed
Clearly, none of the so-called socialist or communist nations, satisfied these conditions because of stringent and corrupt bureaucracies. Their totalitarian regimes established permanent officialdom and standing armies.
Marx did not envision a sudden replacement of capitalism with communism. Instead, he believed that a transition period would be necessary in which there would be elements of communism and capitalism before finally achieving a truly communist state. This would transition through hybrid systems to socialism and ultimately, to communism.
Capitalism requires workers to work long hours for the lowest possible wages that an employer can get away with, while the company makes exorbitant profits that are not adequately shared with the workforce. Socialism allows a greater sharing of the wealth, with what's earned being shared among the workforce. Under Communism, workers have full access to all that is produced with no need for wages.
Ask capitalists to explain what socialism is. This is where the fun really starts. There are so many different answers and almost all are wrong. I'll dot-point a few for brevity.
- 'The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'. Umm ... no. This little gem is courtesy of former UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher. She was obviously thinking of capitalism. Ever been to an investment or business seminar? Invariably, the speaker will smugly claim that the best way to get rich is by using other people's money. Robert Kiyosaki, author of the best-selling Rich Dad, Poor Dad, says exactly this. In fact, he calls it 'Rich Dad OPM' ... opium or Other People's Money (Kiyosaki 2019). Many people venerate capitalism like a religion, and as Marx pointed out, 'religion is the opiate of the masses'. It is capitalism that aims to part people from their money. That is the very essence of consumerism: get people to give their money to wealthy, in exchange for some perception of success, e.g. having the latest smartphone. And that wealth is accumulated by individuals, instead of being shared with the people who actually created the products.
Socialism is not about using other people's money, but about workers retaining and sharing in the money earned. For instance, recently there was a strike at General Motors in the United States. The strike cost GM up to $100 million per day (CBS News 2019). The CEO earns almost $22 million per year, around $423,000 per week or more than $60,000 per day (Klayman & Shumaker 2019). The CEO's daily wage is more than many GM workers earn in a year. The CEO is turning up to work every day during the strike, but can't produce the $100 million per day that is being lost. Clearly, it's not the CEO or the highly paid executives producing GM's earnings, it's the workers. This illustrates that capitalism is the ideology that gets rich on other people's money, on other people's labour.
- Socialism doesn't make profits. This furphy follows on from Margaret Thatcher's quote about other people's money. It presupposes that socialism doesn't sell things at a profit, yet it has no issue with making a profit (or surplus value as Marx called it), just not profits that are excessive or based on exploitation. After all, if there is no profit or surplus value, how can there be wealth or necessary commodities to share among the workers. Various economic models were proposed for socialist economies, including profit-based ones and the utopian concept of a planned economy obviating the need for commodities, value, prices, wages and ultimately, money itself (Nove 1987, pp. 53-64). Different models were operated with a degree of success in East Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia and other countries to that in the Soviet Union (Stephanson 1984). Marx identified that this profit or surplus value is appropriated by capitalists at the expense of the workers who produced it. A pure Marxist economy would have no need for money at all, as production would be designed to meet the needs of society.
- Socialism will steal all of your property. Noooo ... again, you're thinking of capitalism. Socialism and Communism differentiate between public property, private property and personal property. Public property is self-explanatory. Socialism and Communism do not abolish personal property. You can still own your clothes, TV, mobile phone, car, house and so on (Hiley 2018).
The private property that Marx referred to was the factories and the banks. In 1847, Frederick Engels wrote, 'This industrial revolution was precipitated by the discovery of the steam engine, various spinning machines, the mechanical loom, and a whole series of other mechanical devices. These machines, which were very expensive and hence could be bought only by big capitalists, altered the whole mode of production and displaced the former workers, because the machines turned out cheaper and better commodities than the workers could produce with their inefficient spinning wheels and handlooms. The machines delivered industry wholly into the hands of the big capitalists and rendered entirely worthless the meagre property of the workers (tools, looms, etc.). The result was that the capitalists soon had everything in their hands and nothing remained to the workers. This marked the introduction of the factory system into the textile industry'. Engels went to explain how this enslaved the working class to the big industrialists. It also differentiates between private property and personal property, by discussing the equipment workers owned. Engels promoted the concept of personal property, when he wrote, 'The manufacturing worker of the 16th to the 18th centuries still had, with but few exception, an instrument of production in his own possession – his loom, the family spinning wheel, a little plot of land which he cultivated in his spare time. The proletarian (working class) has none of these things' (Engels 1847). The manufacturing class had been overtaken and virtually enslaved to the industrialists, losing their personal property. It was this theft of personal property, livelihood and freedoms that incensed Marx and Engels.
Marx and Engels did not believe that it benefited society for industry to be in the hands of big industrialists, of capitalists. Instead, they called for industry to be owned by the people, the workers. Engels further explained, '... private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods' (Engels 1847).
We've seen the debacle that ensues when services, such as hospitals, schools, prisons, gas and utility companies, and public transport are privatised. They end up costing far more, while being less reliable than when in public ownership. Marx stated, 'Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations' (Marx 1848, p. 24).
- Socialism is not democratic. Well, in point of fact, socialism is more democratic than capitalism. When the people are controlling the means of production and the government, they get to have a true say in how things are run. Unlike capitalism, in which people have an illusion of democracy because they cast a vote once every few years to elect politicians, who often then go on to do things that the people had no say in. In a capitalist state, it is the wealthy who have the most influence. Large companies and industry bodies don't contribute to political parties simply out of ideology. After all, many contribute to all the major parties with the intention of influencing public policy in their favour. That is plutocracy not democracy, and it is plutocracy that flourishes in capitalist states.
- Socialism wants to make everybody the same. This is not the case. The basic tenet of Marxism, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', acknowledges that people have different abilities and needs. It isn't about making everyone the same, but it is about no person being more favoured over others. It is about ensuring people have the same opportunities in life, even if this means that they require more attention to achieve that, then someone else. For instance, someone with a disability may need more assistance in achieving educational outcomes. Perhaps, someone from a disadvantaged background, who lives in poverty and has little education, may require more assistance than someone who already has a good education.
- Socialism promotes genocide through class warfare. So how does this explain the genocides caused by capitalist countries? Marx does not call for genocide. Capitalist states create class warfare, socialism dismantles the class structures that are inherent in capitalism; the class structures that create division, hatred, greed, envy, fear and identity politics. In capitalism the wealthy deliberately divert middle-class angst against the poor and exploited, rather than against those who do the exploiting. The accumulation of wealth in capitalist states has caused gross economic inequality, and subsequently, political inequality and exploitation. It is that capitalists exploit to coerce workers to fight against each other, to 'volunteer' to serve militaries that invade and kill civilians across the globe.
Capitalists take the high moral ground, pointing to millions dead under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. In doing so, they ignore or justify the crimes of capitalism, such as Churchill who allowed millions of Indians to starve to death so he could ensure Britons were fed during World War II. The British were responsible for many massacres and famines, killing millions of people globally. The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1849 was deliberately caused by British economic policy that took land off the Irish and put it in control of British absentee landlords (Thornton 2017). More than one million people died. In Iran during 1917-1919, following the Russian Revolution, the British forces based in Persia, deliberately blocked imports of wheat and grain into Iran, creating genocidal conditions to destroy Iran and give Britain power over the area (Abbesi 2019).
Many of the wars waged by the US following World War 2, were based on their paranoid 'domino theory', which feared that if one nation fell to Communism, many others would too. The United States waged wars and sponsored right-wing despots, such as Pinochet, Suharto, Somoza and Nicaraguan death squads, the Argentinian Junta, while waging or sponsoring wars based on lies and propaganda, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea and Guatemala, resulting in the deaths of millions (Blum 2004). The US sponsored the overthrow of the communist government of Indonesia's President Sukarno and replaced him with a right-wing despot, President Suharto. Communists were executed across the country, with estimates of more than one million victims of Suharto, of capitalism. But at least Indonesia was no longer communist. This was all part of a plan by the US and the UK to impose a global capitalist economy on Asia that benefited western nations and subjugated eastern ones (Pilger 2003). Is it any wonder that the bulk of today's slavery is based in Asia. The US funded terrorism in Afghanistan during the 1980s, which led to the horrendous terrorism of today (Cooley 2002). These wars were based on capitalist ideology with no concern for the devastating impacts on people.
Name a successful
capitalist country. The United States? Yeah, how's that working out for the millions in poverty because they can't afford health care, because the minimum wage is not a living wage, because they're forced to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, because they can't afford housing. The US has no public health system, so people, particularly those unemployed or on lower wages, often cannot afford treatment or life-saving medication, such as insulin (Prasad 2019).
How about Philippines? An incredibly poor nation that was 'liberated' by the United States following centuries of Spanish colonisation. The Philippines economy is based on the US model: user-pays for health and education, with no social safety net for the unemployed. Many Filipinos are unable to find work, let alone cover the costs of education and health. But hey, they're not communists.
What about countries like Great Britain, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan? These are social democracies, not exclusively capitalist. They have taken some of the elements of socialism in order to temper the excesses and self-gratification of capitalism to ensure that even the poor can benefit from universal health care, public education, welfare, public housing. These countries are far more economically stable than the United States, with a much lower rate of poverty. Former Australian Prime Minister, Paul Keating, described the benefits of social democracy, when he stated, '
Social democratic states very properly have another objective: to guarantee that working people are able to enjoy a living wage, one that lifts them and their families above the poverty line. This can take the form of a legislated minimum or a basic award but, in whatever form, it provides the foundation of a civil society. We should always remember that the point of economic policy is economic wealth and social progress. It should never be about top-end wealth provided off the back of an army of working poor, denied the kind of wages and conditions that are conducive to the sustenance of families' (Keating 2008).
Socialism saves the day.
Capitalism is a highly exploitative ideology. The old anarchist saying, 'Property is theft', is self-evident in the exploitative supply chains of almost every product and service consumed in the modern world. As Marx stated, '
Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in the form of capital' (Marx 1887, p. 451).
Today there are more than 40 million people in modern slavery. This is more people in slavery than at any point in history. The main differences between modern slavery and traditional slavery are that under traditional slavery, legal ownership of slaves was asserted, there was a high purchase cost, limited sources of potential slaves, slaves were kept for the long term, they were maintained by their owners, and their cultural/ethnic differences were important because owners did not want slaves who looked like them. Today, slavery is illegal everywhere in the world, so ownership of slaves is denied, yet there is no shortage of slaves as they can be of any cultural or ethnic background, so purchase price is very low. They are kept for the short or long term, and they are disposable as they are just one more resource to be consumed and disposed of in the capitalist system.
Remember back in the day, when HR departments were called 'Personnel'. At some point, it was realised that people were just commodities, resources, a line on a balance sheet. 'Personnel' was replaced by 'Human Resources' and workforces became expendable in the pursuit of 'efficiency' ... whatever that is. Companies off-shored their workforces to lower cost countries where they could exploit vulnerable people who were trapped in poverty - remember the Philippines mentioned earlier? Because of the high cost of necessities and the difficulty securing work, people will often allow themselves to be exploited so that they can pay the bills and put their children through education. This drives the spiralling increase in modern slavery. Welcome to capitalism.
Off-shoring, coupled with casualisation of employment drives the shrinking of domestic workforces, resulting in higher unemployment, lower wages growth and ultimately to many businesses unable to survive because of uncertainty, job insecurity and lack of disposable income in their customer base. In other words,
capitalism is eating itself.
Sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu called this out in his criticism of economic globalisation and labelled the casualisation of the workforce as being '
flexploitation', while today's proletariat has been referred to as the '
precariat', because of their insecure employment, unstable income and unsustainable debt (Nolan & Boersma 2019, p. 27).
Many people equate capitalism with freedom, yet for many it is slavery, exploitation, poverty. The working class, the proletariat, are enslaved to the industrialists who own the means of production, the private property. Engels wrote, '
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general' (Engels 1847).
Yes, some people will prosper in a capitalist economy, but it is often at the expense of someone else. Capitalism does not represent freedom. The US and the UK have propped up many a fascist government because it served capitalist ideology, including the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Suharto, Pinochet and so on; not blinking an eye at the millions killed or tortured.
Capitalism is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The private ownership of the means of production is increasingly in the hands of larger corporations and fewer people. A recent study found that the richest 1% in the US has gained $21 trillion since 1989, while more than half of the nation lost almost a trillion dollars and owns less than nothing because they owe more than they own (Johnson 2019).
Today's capitalism is empowered by the public policy of neoliberalism. Former Australian Reserve Bank governor, Bernie Fraser, describes neoliberalism as favouring '
the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of community interests, [which] can lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes' (Nolan & Boersma 2019, p. 28).
The solution to the world's environmental and economic woes is socialism on a global scale. While corporations own the means of production, people and the environment will continue to be exploited, to be just another disposable resource. Anthropogenic causes of climate change can be better controlled and reduced through a socialist system that values people and the environment, that doesn't rely on over-consumption and the production of unnecessary levels of commodities that end up in land-fill.
And then there's the future of employment. Digital disruption, the rise of artificial intelligence, automation and robotics. Reports suggest up to 40% of could be lost in the next 15 years, through automation (Reisinger 2019). This is a trajectory that will likely continue to increase rather than decrease. Some people will be retrained, but there will be many others who simply do not have the education, skills or opportunities to find work suitable for them, resulting more unemployed and unemployable people, increasing poverty rates. One solution may be a universal basic wage, which some countries, such as Finland, are trialling ... socialism saving the day. Or another solution is to go full-blown Communism and replace monetary systems with the Marxist ideal of enough products available to meet everyone's needs without the need for money. Our robot overlords could utilise AI and big data analytics to forecast needs in each part of the world and ensure manufacturing and services meet those needs.
But back to the original question about naming a successful socialist country. This question presupposes that socialist countries are successful in their own right as stand-alone economies. However, Marx specifically stated that socialism would not succeed in one country alone. The world has not seen true Marxism in action, apart from the initial years following the Russian Revolution and even that was hampered by war and the inheritance of a weak economy, then usurped by Stalinism.
Many of the countries who tried socialism or communism, failed because of their inability to implement processes that would enable transition to a communist state. Many of these communist revolutions occurred in economies that were already weakened by corrupt and exploitative governments. It was obviously futile to expect that a new economic model could simply be dropped over the existing systems and immediately turn them around. Additionally, those economies which lasted for many years were operating a form of Stalinism, that had little to do with true communism.
It's not Marxism that failed, but the implementation of it and the betrayal of its basic principles by many of those who claimed revolution in its name.
To truly understand if socialism can succeed, requires an internationalist base in which socialist states are able to operate openly and freely. But capitalism won't allow that as it is founded in avarice and selfishness, driven by vested interests. Capitalism is not democratic, it is plutocratic. Communism, true Marxist communism, is the epitome of democracy, with workers ruling, their labour truly valued.
The rise of populist parties and politicians is a response to the exploitative practices of capitalism, which has seen low wages growth, rising unemployment and erosion of democracy. Unfortunately, many of these parties and politicians are right-wing and have used this discontent and fear to scapegoat minorities, fomenting racism and bigotry, so that the discontented blame the victims of exploitation, rather than the exploiters. The main-stream media is owned by oligarchs with vested interests in controlling government, so they push the agenda of turning workers against workers.
Nothing attracts the fearful like identity politics; having a party that 'identifies' with their particular race, religion, nationality or creed. It is the same psychology that attracts people to gangs; the sense of belonging, the security created by expressing those fears, bigotry and narrow-mindedness with like-minded people. Ironically, many of those who support these populist parties blame socialism for class-based differences, while it is the conservative, capitalist parties that are dividing society along identity lines. Populism has turned workers against each other, allowing the rich to continue exploiting them unchecked.
Capitalists and their media mouth-pieces continue to demonise socialism and communism by equating them with Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-Un. It is not that capitalists are opposed to the terrible human rights abuses under these despots, particularly when one looks at the human rights abuses that capitalist regimes have and continue to perpetrate. Instead, the horrendous crimes of Stalin, Mao and Jung-Un serve capitalist obfuscation very well for scaring workers away from Marxism (Woods 2017). Driven by power and greed, capitalism is more closely aligned to Stalinism and Maoism, then is the equal rights, democracy and economic sharing model espoused by Marx and Engels. Not that capos want you to know that. Stalin was very effective at deception, obfuscation and denunciation, similar to the capitalist propaganda that has demonised Marxism for decades. Marxism is a long way removed from Stalinism.
Marxist parties have an opportunity to increase their popularity by explaining the benefits of socialism and communism and addressing the fear-mongering and lies that right-wing parties have been spreading. Once workers understand who the real threat is to their livelihoods, then maybe we can see a communist revolution in which people across the globe replace corrupt capitalist systems to work together towards a global communist community committed to improving social conditions, implementing truly democratic systems of society and production, ending exploitation, treating everyone equally, and valuing the environment.
Someone once stated, '
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'.
Only when workers understand the rotten core of capitalism that exploits them, will we realise the inherent success of communism.
To paraphrase Marx's classic statement from
The Communist Manifesto, '
Workers of the world have nothing to lose, but their chains. Workers of the world, unite'.
 |
| Capitalism, Socialism and Communism |
References
Abbesi, S 2019, 'British government killed 10 million Iranians in 1919',
Geopolitics, 12 July, viewed 8 October 2019,
https://geopolitics.co/2019/07/12/british-government-killed-10-million-iranians-in-1919.
Blum, W 2004,
Killing Hope: US Military Interventions and CIA Interventions since World War II, Common Courage Press, Monroe ME.
Carillo, P 2016, 'How today’s crisis in Venezuela was created by Hugo Chávez’s ‘revolutionary’ plan',
The Conversation, 6 July, viewed 6 October 2019,
https://theconversation.com/how-todays-crisis-in-venezuela-was-created-by-hugo-chavezs-revolutionary-plan-61474.
CBS News 2019, 'UAW strike could cost GM up to $100 million per day', 17 September 2019, viewed 4 October 2019,
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gm-strike-uaw-strike-could-cost-gm-up-to-100-million-per-day/
Cooley, J 2002,
Unholy Wars - Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, 3rd edn, Pluto Press, Sterling VA.
Davies, N 2015, 'Vietnam 40 years on: how a communist victory gave way to capitalist corruption',
The Guardian, 22 April, viewed 29 October 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/22/vietnam-40-years-on-how-communist-victory-gave-way-to-capitalist-corruption.
Engels, F 1847,
The Principles of Communism,
Selected Works, Volume One, p. 81-97, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969, translated Paul Sweezy,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm.
Foran, J 2009, Theorizing the Cuban Revolution,
Latin American Perspectives, Issue 165, Vol. 36(2), pp. 16-30.
Grant, T 1941, 'Why USSR is suffering reverses - Internationalism has been abandoned',
Socialist Appeal, Vol. 4, No. 1, October 1941,
http://tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1941/10/ussr-internationalism.htm.
Hiley, S 2018, 'Abolition of private property?', 4 January, viewed 27 October 2019,
https://www.cpusa.org/interact_cpusa/the-father-of/.
Johnson, J 2019, ''Eye-Popping': Analysis Shows Top 1% Gained $21 Trillion in Wealth Since 1989 While Bottom Half Lost $900 Billion', 14 June, viewed 5 October 2019,
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/14/eye-popping-analysis-shows-top-1-gained-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half.
Keating, P 2008, 'Financial Innovation and Labour Reform in the Post Industrial Age', presented at Chosun Ilbo—Asian Leadership Conference, Seoul, South Korea, 21 February 2008, viewed 2 November 2019,
http://www.keating.org.au/shop/item/financial-innovation-and-labour-market-reform-in-the-post-industrial-age---21-february-2008.
Kiyosaki, R 2019, 'Rich Dad Fundamentals: Other People’s Money (OPM)', 14 May, viewed 4 October 2019,
https://www.richdad.com/other-peoples-money-real-estate.
Klayman, B & Shumaker, L 2019, 'GM CEO Barra's pay dipped slightly to just under $22 million in 2018',
Reuters, 19 April, viewed 2 November 2019,
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gm-compensation/gm-ceo-barras-pay-dipped-slightly-to-just-under-22-million-in-2018-idUSKCN1RU2AY.
Marx, K 1848,
The Communist Manifesto, Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf.
Marx, K 1887,
Capital - A critique of political economy, Volume 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Russia,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf.
Nolan, J & Boersma, M 2019,
Addressing Modern Slavery, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Nove, A 1987,
Socialism, Economics and Development, Allen & Unwin, London.
Pilger, J 2003,
New rulers of the world, Verso Trade.
Prasad, R 2019, 'The human cost of insulin',
BBC News, 14 March, viewed 2 November 2019,
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47491964.
Reisinger, D 2019, 'A.I. expert says automation could replace 40% of jobs in 15 years',
Fortune, 10 January, viewed 30 November 2019,
https://fortune.com/2019/01/10/automation-replace-jobs/.
Serge, V 1930,
Year One of the Russian Revolution, Victor Serge Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2005, Translation, editor’s Introduction, and notes © 1972 by Peter Sedgwick,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/index.htm
Stephanson, A. 1984, Feasible Socialism: A Conversation with Alec Nove,
Social Text, Vol. 11, pp. 96-109.
Tharoor, S 2017,
Inglorious Empire: what the British did to India, Scribe Publications, London.
Thornton, M 2017, 'What caused the Irish potato famine?',
Mises Institute, 17 March, viewed 8 October 2019,
https://mises.org/library/what-caused-irish-potato-famine.
Trotsky, L 1906,
The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects, transcribed for the Trotsky Internet Archive by Sally Ryan 1996, viewed 5 October 2019,
https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/pr10.htm
Woods, A 2017, 'What the Russian Revolution achieved and why it degenerated', 27 January, viewed 20 October 2019,
https://www.bolshevik.info/what-the-russian-revolution-achieved-and-why-it-degenerated.htm.
Updated 30 November 2019
