Was the Soviet Union ever a communist regime? Has China ever been communist? Both were socialist, yes, but never communist. A communist society is supposed to be ‘stateless as well as classless, and would allow a system of commodity production to give way to one geared to the satisfaction of human needs.’ (Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies: An Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 123.)
The workers of the newly industrialised states were exploited by the bourgeoisie, the elite. Yet the first successful socialist revolution took place in a backwards agrarian country that had barely begun to industrialise, namely Russia. Vladimir I. Lenin’s notion of a ‘vanguard party’ leading the proletariat is arrogant – the typical arrogance displayed by socialists who think they know what is best for the ‘ignorant’ masses.
But life in the Soviet Union was bleak, a so-called ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ but really just a dictatorship. Instead of the bourgeoisie exploiting the masses, it was the communist elite. Society was not stateless, nor was it classless, nor were human needs met.
Has China ever seen full communism? Or is it another example of seemingly perpetual dictatorship of the proletariat? The idea of a ‘Communist Party’ is an oxymoron; it implies the presence of a state and also exclusion (that is, inequality). These two things are what communism is not. Indeed, the economic growth China is experiencing is due to liberal economic policies as opposed to central planning.
Regimes that claim to be communist have not promoted equality more than the regimes that came before them. The bourgeoisie of old are simply replaced by the communist elite who, despite their claims, care not for the people. What we see is simply a dictatorship run by elites.
It is true that the idea of communism has been twisted and used by countries to suit the elite. In soviet Russia for example especially under Stalins rule people were taken to the Labour camps if they were seen as being a threat to the regime in place. That is clearly not the signs of a classless society. Human needs were clearly not met with many people going hungry and starving while others, mainly in the urban cities
ReplyDeletelived a high quality of life. That is why communism in Russia failed as the state couldn't provide for its people, the economy was in a bad state and people wanted change.
China has not seen full communism. It has always had the been a dictatorship run by elites like like when Chairman Mao was in power. Many of the human needs were not met under that regime, many people died of starvation like under the Stalinist regime. China is only doing well economically lately because of it's liberal economic reforms.
Where there has been a communist regime in place it fails to meet all the requirments to be a communist regime and this is what leads to its downfall. Russia couldn't meet the needs of it's people and with Gorbochevs democratic reforms it lead the way for opposition and the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. China looks like it is heading toward a more democratic regime as well which will spell the end of socialism in that country in the not to distant future.
In the words of George Orwell, history has never seen a society where the domination of 'the Low' has not taken place. In the very rare circumstances when the status quo is overturned (ie 'the Middle' and 'High' minority), the new ruling clique must turn to traditional methods of domination to maintain power.
ReplyDeleteThis model was very obviously followed in early Soviet Russia, where Lenin and his Bolshevik party seized power under the guise of ruling 'with the people' but quickly re-established a regime not unlike the old Tsarist system.
In reference to Chris K's point about the standard of living in Soviet Russia, often it is in the interests of autocratic rulers to keep living conditions dire, so as to ensure that life for ordinary citizens is always a struggle, thus leaving them no time to engage in political activities or gain higher education. This, combined with a rigorous propaganda machine, ensures that citizens are more afraid of those outside the regime rather than those in it!
China's current govt has recently released statements that strongly denounce democracy, as discussed here: http://politicalpathologies2.blogspot.com/2009/03/chinese-government-arguments-against.html
Personally, I feel that the degree to which the Chinese Communist Party holds power over its' citizens and over pro-democracy advocates show that there will be no change in the country's political environment for the foreseeable future.
I certainly think that a case can be made for the fact that communism as it was tried (in countries that were mainly poor and relatively unindustrilised (Apart from St Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad and Moscow in Russia/USSR)) didn't make much difference in the lives of the everyday people and in some cases, such as under Stalin in the USSR where approx 20 million people were killed during his reign including 8 million Ukrainean peasants (An area that was particularly opossed to communist rule) in the early 1930's through starvation from a famine while he was still exporting grain to the West, were worse for the ordinary citizens compared to the reactionary regimes that preceeded it.
ReplyDeleteHowever we've got to remember that Marx's theories were meant for industrilaised nations such as the UK and Germany. Indeed the 1st govt that might be called communist was the Paris commune of 1871 (I certainly think that a case can be made for the fact that communism as it was tried (in countries that were mainly poor and relatively unindustrilised (Apart from St Petersburg/Petrograd/Leningrad and Moscow in Russia/USSR)) didn't make much difference in the lives of the everyday people and in some cases, such as under Stalin in the USSR where approx 20 million people were killed during his reign including 8 million Ukrainean peasants (An area that was particularly opossed to communist rule) in the early 1930's through starvation from a famine while he was still exporting grain to the West, were worse for the ordinary citizens compared to the reactionary regimes that preceeded it.
However we've got to remember that Marx's theories were meant for industrilaised nations such as the UK and Germany. Indeed the 1st govt that was regarded by many as what would now be called communist was the Paris commune of 1871 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune for more info) and was used as an ideological basis by many future communist leaders including Lenin, Trotsky and Mao.
The Soviet Union was "the Union of Soviet Socialist republics"; their leaders did not say it was a fully communist society, only that they were transitioning towards full communism. Does this affect your point?
ReplyDeleteGood point. But the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics was governed by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Also, the transition towards full communism was taking an awfully long time, was it not? It seemed the Communist Party was more interested in proving it's superiority in an arms race with the United States it could never win, than improving the lives of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the former Soviet Union and China are called communist, despite not having actually transitioned to full communism.
But I highly doubt that the ruling elite of the Soviet Union would have been able to give up their power for a stateless, classless society.