I think China has proven it does work. A couple years ago they had the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, for example. But it has also proven that communism, like all grand collectivist ideologies, is tantamount to state capitalism. So long as the republican form of government is the framework upon which they build their dreams, it will never come to anything else.

The Chinese Communist Party does believe it is really doing Marxism.

Xi Jingping has said: "We should review the fresh experience gained by the people under the leadership of the Party, constantly adapt Marxism to Chinese conditions and make contemporary Marxism shine brighter in China."

Of course, "Western" Marxists see little Marxism in the "constantly adapting" Marxism of the CCP. :wink:

I think China has proven it does work. A couple years ago they had the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, for example. But it has also proven that communism, like all grand collectivist ideologies, is tantamount to state capitalism. — NOS4A2

I'm glad you pointed out China is really just a perverse form of capitalism.

China doesn't really prove anything in favour of or against communism, imo, for that very reason. China is not a country which can honestly truthfully be said to be communist in anything but name.

Even if The Chinese Communist Party is now only communist in name, The Chinese Communist Party proper survived for around 70 years, as did the USSR. Does this speak to communism being fiscally workable, or does their failures speak to it being fiscally unworkable?

It’s communist in name, intention, ideology, belief, and practice. It’s just that “capitalism” is largely a bugaboo. No economic system which is not capitalist has ever existed anywhere in history of states, the only difference being in who ought to manage it.

What makes anyone think that there is a system that works? What even is the measure or criterion of 'working'? What constitutes failure? Are you and yours the measure of success?

The fact that democracy hasn't yet worked doesn't mean that it couldn't.....

What makes anyone think that there is a system that works? What even is the measure or criterion of 'working'? What constitutes failure? Are you and yours the measure of success? — unenlightened

Good point. I'm not sure that I would argue that capitalism is working, but as you say, what constitutes failure or success? No doubt anything can be spun in any direction.

The fact that democracy hasn't yet worked doesn't mean that it couldn't..... — Pantagruel

Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote:

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.

:up:

That’s a good point. I mean, slavery works. Utilitarianism can justify injustice so long as the greatest number are happy.

What makes anyone think that there is a system that works? What even is the measure or criterion of 'working'? What constitutes failure? Are you and yours the measure of success? — unenlightened

While it's a matter of perspective, some examples are more explicit.

Considering the USSR ceased to exist, I think it is safe to say that it failed. The question is, did it fail because of its economic system.

Economic crises in countries such as Cuba and Venezuela hint to communism's failure, but these must be measured in degree and number against the crises experienced in countries with alternative systems (namely capitalism).

Economic crises in countries such as Cuba and Venezuela hint to communism's failure, — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not so much, if you consider the amount of outside interference to make sure they failed.
https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-cuba-relations
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14263/

Success and failure can be fairly judged if the attempt is given a chance. The inability to defend against aggression,sabotage and corruption is not the failure of the idea; merely weakness on the part of those implementing it. No historical example of a socialist or communist system that I know of was given a fair trial. Some of the prehistoric or extra-historic (undocumented by European conquerors) may have succeeded. The Huguenots and Cathars were religious movements attempting some form of Christian communism and were persecuted to death by the Catholic church.
Capitalists yell a lot about competition but will stop at nothing to achieve monopoly. (Worst board game ever invented. Not very good as a social system, either.)

Lots of good points here.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism, pure socialism, pure communism, or pure democracy. Social and political organization is generally a mix of various systems. The Scandinavian countries have elements of capitalism and socialism in a democratic political system. That might be as close as we get to socialism. Even the uber-captialist country, the U.S., has a large social welfare system, so we're not pure evil. (Jamison and Zizek said it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.)

I don't count the USSR or PRC as communist or socialist, despite their names. Cuba gave it a go but did so in a particularly disadvantageous environment (enforced by the US). Venezuela?

Is it worth succeeding at "socialism" or "communism" if the people are impoverished? Is capitalism a success if the people are impoverished? (Sure, because capitalists don't care if you are starving,)

Sure, because capitalists don't care if you are starving, — BC

Actually, capitalism prefers that people are well nourished because a full belly is much more productive and better for the bottom line.

Apparently the communists didn't care about starvation when millions died in the great chinese famine

and (Good points ssu, I was thinking the same, sort of).

Firstly, none Communist country has really applied Marxism into practice. They were countries influenced by or based by Karl Marx, but they hardly understood what he meant. Some nations, like Cuba or North Korea, followed up the path of their respective dictators, creating and establishing a self-basis of Communism.

Nonetheless, it is true that China is a good example of a successful nation. Thanks to Deng Xiaoping revolution in the 1990's, China has been becoming one of the main countries of the world. I think they were very clever, because, as ssu pointed out, they are always adapting their system to new challenges. Yet, I do not know if we should consider them as Marxists, because their main role and leader is Maoism. We can conclude that while Western or Eastern European Communism has failed dramatically, Chinese Maoism remains.

I wish @Hailey and @guanyun could log in and express their opinion on this.

Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote: — Tom Storm

Chesterton is an old favourite, very human and a great writer. But the Christianity he was talking about is not a system at all. In the hypothetical evolutionary marketplace of social systems, forgiveness, and love cannot compete with rape and pillage. Here is a fable.

An idea arose and became ubiquitous in Europe, beginning in Britain especially, that combined empiricism and rationality in a form that excluded morality and feelings. It was called "science". This philosophy discounted empathy entirely and as it became dominant, state sponsored piracy developed into an industrialised slave trade and worldwide exploitation that led to the industrial revolution as commodities became more and more plentiful. The modern US and Canada are of course off-shoots of this global exploitation that encompassed The americas and the Caribbean, almost the whole of Africa, India, Australia, NewZealand, large parts of the far East, and the subjugation though never the conquest of China. This triumphant system can be be called "Utter Ruthlessness", or "The British Empire" or "The White Man's Burden" and has been adopted by every other country as the only way to survive in a world where it has arisen. The only weakness is that the lack of all feeling allows it to literally destroy the whole of the global environment on which it depends.

not practice really, we both know that. It's not communist in practice.

it means whatever China is actually doing, that isn't communism, is "workable" by some metric. Though almost certainly not optimal

Yet, I do not know if we should consider them as Marxists, because their main role and leader is Maoism. We can conclude that while Western or Eastern European Communism has failed dramatically, Chinese Maoism remains. — javi2541997

Marxism was always meant to be put into action. Maoism is the Chinese version, like Leninism was the Russian version. Neo-Marxism is the western european and american version. When Marxism is put into practice, it adapts to the character of the respective culture, but the core principles of each version derive directly from classical marxism.

Yes, 'it was meant to be put into action', but everything remained in theory, and as you said, each country had their own 'version' of Marxism. I don't deny that they are based or influenced by Marxism, but it is clear that those countries hardly put it in practice.

Not so much, if you consider the amount of outside interference to make sure they failed. — Vera Mont

Yes, that's what complicates the question even more - all of the communist countries mentioned in my OP were being undermined by the western capitalist countries both overtly and covertly. I knew about Cuba, but reading your second link about Venezuela, it's almost unbelievable how cruel the west were.

As for the USSR, I have seen from interviews a lot of people in the poorer regions look back fondly on it.

Perhaps like Christianity, Marxism too has not been tried because it was found difficult.

I don't count the USSR or PRC as communist or socialist, despite their names. Cuba gave it a go but did so in a particularly disadvantageous environment (enforced by the US). Venezuela? — BC

From the link provided by @Vera Mont it doesn't look like Venezuela was given a fair chance either.

The Scandinavian countries have elements of capitalism and socialism in a democratic political system. That might be as close as we get to socialism. — BC

That might be where we first see UBI. Even if a nation is not in favour of guaranteeing its citizens enough to stay alive, UBI may become the cheaper option as automation continues to accelerate.

Scandinavian countries are not really socialist in principle, they've just been more democratic than the US - no classes of citizen excluded from the political system, no concerted effort to squash trade unions, and therefore more of the services and social welfare programs that working people want. There is a further advantage of monolithic populations (until recently, and look what happens when a different ethnic element is added) They've also had excellent education, resulting in well-informed, liberal-minded and enterprising citizenry - until recently.
Remember, the USA has been governed by plutocrats from its inception. It has always had a diverse, mutually hostile and ruthlessly stratified population and very spotty record in public information. Add the aggressive religious movements and a culture of hero-worship and factional scapegoating - how can democracy stand a chance?
Social progress is made for disenfranchised segments of society only when there is a major shock to the economic and political elite.

I don’t think China has became a Maoism country, the shape of current state of China is more like capitalism with one ultimate authority.

communism doesn't work because humanity doesn't operate as a "perfect community".

This can work on a small scale. The "everybody knows everybody" scale. Tribality. Where empathy can play a large role in shaping a small community.
But on a global scale, the ignorances, biases and prejudices between whole groups of people against other groups keep us divided and distrusting and leads to imbalances in how we value eachother, both what entitlements each person ought to have, and which opinions are valid.

Communism takes perfect cooperation, unanimity and persisting sense of equality/fairness, or at the very least it takes extensive propaganda, fear and silencing of opposition/revolutionaries. Neither case is promising.

Secondly, hierarchy of power directly contradicts communisms ethos that everyone is on a level playing field with equal empowerment. Someone has to enforce policy, but enforcers exert influence over their subjects, meaning there's a power dynamic, furthermore those in power are hardly "slumming it". They're "so important" to maintaining status quo that they are kept very well indeed.

'State capitalism', where the state is the largest (or only) company of which everyone is an employee describes both the USSR and China (plus NK and Cuba). There is nothing about that arrangement which is particularly socialist or communist (per Marx). As such, were (are) they successful? The USSR is kaput, but China is successful. The USSR was able to marshal its resources to turn back and defeat the Nazi invaders, no small accomplishment.

In addition to despotism (thinking of Stalin) the major problem in the USSR and China were episodes of very bad management. Bad management happens under every kind of economic / social / political system, and it is a major contributor to bad outcomes. The great weakness of state capitalism is the potential for bad policy without effective resistance.

Capitalism is no less plagued by bad management, but has a better chance of effectively dealing with failing companies. That said, comparing allegedly communist countries with capitalist examples like the USA reveals plenty of failures here, too. Lots of wealth by abysmal distribution. On the other hand, there's nothing utopian about capitalism. It's designed around accumulation of wealth.

Does this speak to communism being fiscally workable, or does their failures speak to it being fiscally unworkable? — Down The Rabbit Hole

CCP is quite alive and kicking.

Yet in the Chinese example one has to remember what they have experienced: The "Great Leap Forward", which ended in mass famine, and the Cultural Revolution were huge disasters. The textbook Marxism that we call Maoism had come to an end when ideologically and physically as chairman Mao died and Deng Xiaoping took over. Boluan Fanzheng campaign was launched to "correct the mistakes of the Cultural Revolution" and get rid of the craziest excesses of Maoism of the Cultural Revolution. And this is what some typically Western communists totally disregard as some still cling as nearly an religious artifact to the purity of the words and ideas of Karl Marx himself and make the delusional argument that Marxism has simply not been attempted anywhere in earnest. The Chinese have had their share of ideological dogmas and I would dare to say have learnt their lesson from them.

Still in China, the official policy of Socialism with Chinese characteristics has been successful, has brought one billion people out of poverty and is de facto responsible of the historical Chinese economic growth as it is quite clear that it is the CCP that is in charge of China. Xi Jingping has himself said that Chinese socialism isn't and will not keep fixated in Marxist dogmas, but still is Marxism.

I think it has been arrogance and simply ignorance of the West not to see and understand that China won't somehow turn into a liberal western capitalist state once they open up their economy for global trade and that the "Chinese Socialism" is at least what the CCP genuinely believes in. After all, they do have achievements that they can show to their people. And the CCP has been all along what it stands for, they haven't changed.

Capitalism is no less plagued by bad management, but has a better chance of effectively dealing with failing companies. — BC

The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes.

As such, were (are) they successful? The USSR is kaput, but China is successful. The USSR was able to marshal its resources to turn back and defeat the Nazi invaders, no small accomplishment. — BC

The USSR's huge contribution to the war was one of things at the forefront of my mind, along with it beating the west to space.

The answer to why it failed looks quite complicated, but arguably it survived long enough for us to say it is an example of a non-capitalist country that is strong and powerful.