(November 24, 2017 at 1:06 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(November 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: IMO it never had a chance of working in Cuba. The Leninist model specified by the OP has been the template used by all Marxist revolutions (aside from Spain) and they ALL resulted in totalitarian regimes. I consider myself a Marxist, but NOT ONE SINGLE communist regime established on planet earth is one in which I would chose to live under.
Marx wasn't just a utopian. He had great faith in mankind-- way too much faith if you ask me. The system he envisioned is one where the workers organized a system of production themselves. He did outline a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but this phase was supposed to be temporary AND it was supposed to be a government body of WORKERS not Communist Party leaders. Lenin replaced a capitalistic elite with a bureaucratic elite. It could be argued that right there he departed from Marxism.
To say communism "would have worked" in Cuba if only the US had left them alone is false. I read propaganda that says this sort of stuff all the time. Bullshit. There are problems with Marx's original theory. Leninism should be tossed out the window. The only way I see a Marxist system actually working is if it
1. Guarantees inalienable rights (free speech etc. to all citizens)-- otherwise you get dictators
2. Adopts republican democracy (with a balance of powers) instead of authoritarian bureaucracy
3. Allows a robust capitalistic enterprise to thrive within its borders (so long as capitalism isn't the most powerful economic influence present)
4. Ensures the complete education and provides healthcare for all citizens
To the argument that this system doesn't sound "Marxist" but more "Democratic Socialist" I beg to differ, but my reply is lengthy. Short answer is: it has a strong libertarian element which differentiates it. Also, it is based on collective need first; capitalism is there to give people what they want. You also can't pin me to any present day Marxist ideology.
Since I have kinda suggested that I find myself on the libertarian left, I want to say that anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism etc. are all pipe dreams. Even if you could get these societies to work, they would implode within hours-- they are highly unstable and have no central stabilizing force present to ensure they last.
Even my iteration of Marxism might not work today. Perhaps people aren't ready for it. But maybe they will be in, say, 500 years (hopefully sooner). All I'm saying is that, if it can be made to work, it is a better system than capitalism.
Communism was designed to be introduced in a fully first world country, the ideal at the time he wrote it would have been Germany or England. Unfortunately its only ever been tried in agricultural and struggling nations.
Like trying to cross the sea on a small inflatable giraffe. It may take you some of the way but its not really what it was designed for.
The only real difference a first world nation would make is much more infrastructure and capital assets in place to squander. The fundamental reason why doctrinal communism is not as competitive as against some versions of capitalism has nothing to do with how much resource is there. It has everything to do with how efficiently each system can use its own resource.
As a matter of fact, communism had proven to be more competitive when implemented in agrian developing states than amongst advanced developed economies. Take for example Taiwan and China, and north and south Korea. In both cases, the rival systems were implemented in backward agrian states around late 1940s to 1950. In both cases the Communist states initially outpaced their capitalist rivals, and were able to expand the overall size of the economy and improve the average standard of living faster.
Then, after reaching a certain level of development, capitalist states took off and left their Communist rivals in the dust in terms of economic output, basic development, and standard of living.
Mainland China only became competitive again by de facto abandoning communism economics. North Korea is till in the dust.
The reason for this is not hard to find. Communism is very efficient in forcing things on people and drafting people into large scale programs and projects. When a country is poor and underdeveloped, a lot of natural and human capital is lying around unusedvir minimally used. Communism is very effective in dragooning these unused or underused resources into the service if the state, hence the state and economy grows quickly.
However, once a state reaches a certainly level of development, most of unused or underused resources are now in use. The low hanging fruit are all claimed. Now, further growth must come from utilizing resources already in use more efficiently. Here communism is uncompetitive. Capitalism with its capital markets proved much better at allocating available resources to maximize return than communism.
Hence Marx was wrong. He felt communism needs a fully developed economy to thrive. Reality proved a fully developed economy is precisely where the strength of communism can find no application and the weakness of communism is most consequential when compared to capitalism.
