Ask Lemmy

Because nobody’s claiming all this stuff that’s now just freely lying around. Someone better claim it before it gets gone.

Many informed responses already so I'll add my uninformed opinion.

Political change has never occurred in a vacuum. Communism is a direct threat to capitalism. So ~~the US~~ capitalists will do everything in their power to undermine and disrupt communism.

Because at its very base it’s conceived in violation of consent.

“From each according to his capacity” is the absolute essence of exploitation. Like, there’s no more straightforward way of saying “You look like resources and we’re gonna take everything you have”.

It’s only a “good idea” if you don’t think of people as having free will and the ability to consent. Communism is a great idea if you’re playing Command & Conquer and all your little units exist only to act as pawns in your game.

ITT

I'd ended up having a conversation with an archivist about the somewhat related question of "What was the Soviet Union's history of itself, absent the editorializing that the rest of the world has been doing?"

For example, Tamim Ansary wrote Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World through Islamic Eyes that explained a lot of things about the middle east through that sort of lens, so I was hoping that someone would write a history of the USSR in a similar fashion, which I didn't find.

One of the problems we have when approaching the more successful world governments is understanding ... well, I guess good intentions? There's kinda two sides to the story of Dear Leader. On one side, the self-aggrandizement as the father of the country, on the other side the act of actually trying to be the father of the country. Obviously a strongman today is mostly running the show almost entirely for selfish reasons but what you kinda see in the USSR and modern day China is at the same time an attempt to make the state better off. Which, of course, falls prey to effective use of power. "Do this or you will be executed" doesn't work very well.. not with the US approach to the death penalty, not to the totalitarianism of the attempted Communist state.

But, even today, there's tons of "Good idea, bad implementation" things that the Chinese government does where the rest of the world governments just let things get worse.

The vibes I was getting in the days of Lenin from my reading was interesting. Lenin was the leader of the USSR but not in the way that Stalin was. The Bolsheviks of the time insisted that things be discussed and debated and worked through and not even Lenin was above that. And there was a very forward-looking idealistic sort of viewpoint. They could reject everything and do things right for once and many of them were new to power so they were freed of that worldview. And a lot of those things didn't pan out as well as they wanted it to and people started to need to be "convinced" to do the new thing. First the "useless" hereditary upper-class, but then everybody else. And then eventually Lenin died and Stalin didn't have that much patience for the Bolshevik old-guard and took over.

tl;dr: In a sense, it's as if a bunch of Star Trek fans had toppled a government and were trying to build the best government ever for the future, using whatever means necessary.

Ultimately, it's because the foundational ideas of communism don't scale.

On Authority by Engels, question answered almost 200 years ago

What tends to emerge from the ashes of war and empire.

To simplify, two main reasons. First when done via revolutions it often causes economic and societal shock in which autocrates take the power away from the people. And second, when done peacefull, foreign intervention of secret agencies which again try to put autocrates in powerful positions.

First, and above all else, there are assholes (US) who will prevent you from having nice things. Democracy is the easiest vector to let CIA/money get a corrupt asshole into power. Democracy tends to be a fiction anyway. Money/CIA/Media control is just part of the reason. Should you let corrupt assholes vote or run for power?

A country that has an army has dictatorial power, whether there is a theater of elections or not. An autocratic chain of command controls it, and if you don't behave, regardless of your constitution, you get smacked by the army.

In the US, there is communism for the corporatist oligarchy. Government they own will protect them from competition and bail them out when they fail. The CIA/media defines the communists as anyone who is not as pro business as the most pro business corporatist oligarch. US is a pure dictatorship in that Israel first corporatist oligarchy is guaranteed to win every seat/election, or 95%+ of the seats anyway. Every NATO country has a CIA allegiant party leader is also guaranteed to produce a CIA allegiant government. CIA vets all appointments to EU government to be pro US dictatorial NATO. IMF has 50%+ of votes all from US colonies.

Celebrating media simplifications of Democracy vs. non-US-compliant is the wrong metric to apply to nations. Industrial policy meant to promote equitable prosperity or defense from Imperialist forces determined to subjugate them are more important to a nation than what US media describes them as. "Everyone" loved Russia when they had Yeltsin as a puppet privatizing everything cheaply to US interests, just as they love Zelensky for the same. Ukraine, since US coup, is an apartheid ethnostate, which cannot qualify for any objective definition of democracy (we praise it for it anyway), and recently has suspended all elections.

My bro your lucky you didn't ask this in lemmy.ml,hexbears and lemmygrad.

In Russia it's because of the cult of personality, or populism, that developed around Lenin and Stalin. Mao in China, pretty similar. You should appreciate how a country falls into chaos and madness when a populist takes power and ignores all legal and cultural norms and gets away with doing whatever they want.

Lots of good answers here - it's the kind of question where lots of explanations are partly correct. For me, the decision by early communists to advocate for violent revolution as the only or main way of bringing about communism is a key factor.

It's pretty common for revolutions to produce dictators, going right back to the fall of the Roman Republic. Ironically, the Roman Civil War that preceded the fall was won by the populares - the people's movement, as opposed to the optimates, the aristocracy. And yet, the end result was the abolition of the tribunes, which had been the people's branch of the legislature, and the establishment of the Dictatorship of Julius Caesar, then the Principate of his nephew, Augustus, who we now regard as having been the first Roman Emperor. It wouldn't be accurate to project back our exact ideas of democracy or class politics to the Romans, but it's pretty telling that one of the first explicitly 'class-based' civil wars in history turned out this way.

Many centuries later, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British Isles had a similar outcome: the royalists were defeated by the parliamentarians, only for the victorious generals to set up one of their own as what we would now call a dictator (Oliver Cromwell as 'Lord Protector'), who was virtually a king himself.

(Worth noting here that many people assumed George Washington would turn out to be another Cromwell. The fact that he didn't and the question of why he didn't, is not something I know enough to even begin to speculate about, but is definitely something to look into when trying to understand this topic.)

Most relevant for the early communists was the French Revolution, which led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte who, more or less explicitly imitating Caesar and Augustus, made himself sole ruler of France, first as 'Consul' (a title also borrowed from Classical Rome), then Emperor. He was also followed, a little later, by his nephew doing a very similar thing, again explicitly imitating the Romans.

Ironically, Marx himself wrote about this exact tendency, even calling it 'Bonapartism', to warn revolutionaries to try and avoid it. I don't know how exactly he missed the point that the very thing he elsewhere advocated for - violent revolution - was itself the cause of Bonapartism but it seems he did. Plainly, the early Marxists didn't sufficiently heed this warning, for whatever reason (and see other replies in this thread for many good suggestions!).

Basically, if you're going to advocate for the violent destruction of a system of government, you are running a major risk that in the ensuing chaos, someone very good at being violent and decisive will end with far too much power.

Thats like asking why North Korea became a dictatorship when it is a people's democracy.

Power gaps get filled, small states get conquered.