[PhiloChan]

I have been wondering if in typical communist praxes, do the people as default become property of the state. Common ownership is a strong element of any socialist worldview and the extent of it varies but the general perception is that communist theory tries taking it to the utmost maximum.
Is it inevitable that the people become the de facto property of the state as witnessed in history or is it merely the byproduct of the dictatorial governments that immediately seized control?
Also what qualifies as property to begin with!?

[ComradeTim]

I would say the opposite. Namely, that if a democratic worker's state, run by the workers organs in parallel with the Communist parties, has really been established, (as opposed to a vanguard-controlled "dictatorship of the proletariat") then the state (once a capitalist/bourgeois tool of oppression) becomes the property of the people . I think this difference in attitude is extremely important, one of the biggest in Communism and one to which the variance in the fates of the nations which used them, can be strongly attributed.

This can be seen most clearly, I think, in the areas run by the Leninist Russian government of the 30s and the Anarcho-Syndicalist East-Spanish government of the 1930s. In one, the people were seen as tools of the state, to be used as the Communists saw fit, to build Socialism according to their dogma. Thusly, the worker's organs were brought under the control of government.The Trade unions and the Worker's Soviets were neutered by nationalising industry under the All-Russian Council of the Economy (VSNKh).The strong factory committee movement that had sprung up, from workers occupying workplaces, was replaced by an allegedly Communist, out/of-touch bureaucrat-class. This massive dissconcect between the actual workers and their supposed representatives", directly led to the tragi-comidic spectacle that was the 5 year plans, (where targets were set so high they were completely impossible to complete), the seven day work week, the illegality of strikes, the total lack of consumer goods, the nonsense babble of "Trotskyite wreckers", a culture of constant lying and betraying your co-workers and lots of other good stuff.

Compare that to the situation in the Syndicalist held territory's, where the CNT (itself an actual workers organ rather than the largely bourgeois Bolshevik party), actually allowed the workers to remain in direct control of the means of production, working alongside them not ordering to produce ridiculous amounts or threatening them with imprisonment. In the relatively short time it existed, In 1937, by the central government's own admission,the war industry of Catalonia (the main area of their strength) produced ten times more than the rest of Spanish industry put together and that this output could have been quadrupled if Catalonia had the access to necessary means of purchasing raw materials. All that and more, accomplished by treating the workers as human beings, not numbers.

[Vera Politica]

that communist theory tries taking it to the utmost maximum.

By 'it' we mean the abolition of private property. But this does not entail the abolition of all property. I retain my personal property rights over this pen. If you take it from me, without my permission and without the intent to give it back, that is theft.

People are no longer property, thanks to capitalism. I think the issue is moot.

So when you say 'people become property of the state' I think you are using the word 'property' in a way that is distinct from either the Marxist or Liberal use of the term. Or perhaps I am missing something entirely.

[Gletkin]

I have been wondering if in typical communist praxes, do the people as default become property of the state. Common ownership is a strong element of any socialist worldview and the extent of it varies but the general perception is that communist theory tries taking it to the utmost maximum.
Is it inevitable that the people become the de facto property of the state as witnessed in history or is it merely the byproduct of the dictatorial governments that immediately seized control?
Also what qualifies as property to begin with!?

I seem to remember Marx condemning that as "crude communism".

Yeah I think it's in his "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844":

Physical, immediate possession is the only purpose of life nd existence as far as this communism is concerned; the category of worker is not abolished but extended to all men; the relation of private property remains the relation of the community to the world of things; ultimately, this movement to oppose universal private property to private property is expressed in bestial form – marriage (which is admittedly a form of exclusive private property) is counterposed to the community of women, where women become communal and common property. One might say that this idea of a community of women is the revealed secret of this as yet wholly crude and unthinking communism. Just as women are to go from marriage into general prostitution, so the whole world of wealth – i.e., the objective essence of man – is to make the transition from the relation of exclusive marriage with the private owner to the relation of universal prostitution with the community. This communism, inasmuch as it negates the personality of man in every sphere, is simply the logical expression of the private property which is this negation. Universal envy constituting itself as a power is the hidden form in which greed reasserts itself and satisfies itself, but in another way. The thoughts of every piece of private property as such are at least turned against richer private property in the form of envy and the desire to level everything down; hence these feelings in fact constitute the essence of competition. The crude communist is merely the culmination of this envy and desire to level down on the basis of a preconceived minimum. It has a definite, limited measure. How little this abolition of private property is a true appropriation is shown by the abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilization, and the return to the unnatural simplicity of the poor, unrefined man who has no needs and who has not yet even reached the stage of private property, let along gone beyond it.

(For crude communism) the community is simply a community of labor and equality of wages, which are paid out by the communal capital, the community as universal capitalist. Both sides of the relation are raised to an unimaginary universality – labor as the condition in which everyone is placed and capital as the acknowledged universality and power of the community.

Which sounded nice and all, but in practice it seemed "universal prostitution" was inevitable. All those who attempted "communism" remained communities of labor and wages.

[One Degree]

Comrade Tim,

I was intrigued by your references to the CNT in Catalonia. My internet searches were useless.
What does CNT stand for?

[ComradeTim]

Comrade Tim,

I was intrigued by your references to the CNT in Catalonia. My internet searches were useless.
What does CNT stand for?

Confederación Nacional del Trabajo or "National Confederation of Labour" in English

Revolutionary Catalonia

More info

[mikema63]

Which sounded nice and all, but in practice it seemed "universal prostitution" was inevitable.

What makes you say inevitable? Is it truly impossible in your mind to learn from past mistakes?

As for the OP, no, of course not.

[Gletkin]

What makes you say inevitable? Is it truly impossible in your mind to learn from past mistakes?

Well thus far no one's been able to transcend the sort of "exploitation" Marx wrote about.
Over and over again, attempts at socialism in practice ended up government monopolies of wage labor.

[Conscript]

Well thus far no one's been able to transcend the sort of "exploitation" Marx wrote about.
Over and over again, attempts at socialism in practice ended up government monopolies of wage labor.

They also never rose above the national scale (or were even explicitly nationalist/anti-colonial revolutions). I think Marx would regard them as DotPs (the only thing that can really exist on a national level) and thus can't be anything but economically capitalist (the law of value).

I think others raise the issue of Lenin conflating socialism with the dotp, but this only really became an issue with Stalin, who took it a step forward and claimed the law of value could exist under socialism (not to mention classes and class struggle).

[Eauz]

Is it inevitable that the people become the de facto property of the state as witnessed in history or is it merely the byproduct of the dictatorial governments that immediately seized control?

The historical communist revolutions have to be placed into context that they had links to nationalist movements against imperial forces. The successful government that claimed socialist revolution, was by default, declaring ownership over the land and developed a new nationality, structured around a socialistic socioeconomic system. The people on the ground, were as much owned by the state as they were in Western societies. It was a socially constructed ideology of nationalism, founded upon artificial means of the worker. What was lacking, was the actual ability for people under the state to take control over the ownership of the means of production and ownership over the defense against the state controlling the people. In terms of communism, the concept of worker, would hopefully be destroyed (class), which in turn would empower the people to maintain control over their society, in a socialistic socioeconomic system.

[PhiloChan]

To me it seems inevitable that some portion of people acquire this status because of what they do. The agrarian societies created by many revolutionaries seems to treat the people as property of the state in a sort of defaulted manner. The most notorious example is Mao of course and Pol Pot to some degree. The masses are dependent upon those who keep the food industry alive and their work is essentially required in a socialist society.
They become the backbone of the scale that determines life or death. It seems inevitable that these people become property of the state merely out of necessity.

Maybe I am looking to deep into this because I am having impressions of catastrophe.

[Gletkin]

They also never rose above the national scale (or were even explicitly nationalist/anti-colonial revolutions). I think Marx would regard them as DotPs (the only thing that can really exist on a national level) and thus can't be anything but economically capitalist (the law of value).

Another common criticism of (attempts at) communism is its apparent fragility. Capitalist nations can endure or even prosper regardless of whether this or that country undergoes socialist revolution but it seems socialist nations need greater numbers. But through out the Cold War, almost 40 countries were at least somewhat communist. Critics do seem to have a point when they remark "Seriously, how many countries do you need? Is it not going to work unless the whole world's Red?".

I think others raise the issue of Lenin conflating socialism with the dotp

Maybe during the "war communism" during the civil war but he did pass the "New Economic Policy" afterwards.
Also some, though not all, communist parties redefined "socialism" as the transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Similar to how "mercantilism" was between feudalism and capitalism. I don't know how widely this new definition was accepted amongst the Leninist parties though. I think the SED did, but the CPSU itself didn't.

[mikema63]

I just find it odd that having communist countries that failed or fell for various reasons somehow means that it can never exist and it's inevitable. Why not learn from our mistakes?

Liberalism has existed for a few hundred years in hundreds of countries, communism was tried for a few decades in 40 countries. They were actively opposed by some of the most powerful countries in the world desperate to turn them all into liberal capitalist countries. As far as I know the great superpowers during the time liberalism began to spread through the world were liberal countries during their time. The British empire for example, by the time other Ideologies actually cropped up after feudalism fell liberal capitalism was already extremely established in some of the most powerful countries in the world. Communism on the other hand cropped up in Russia and China which were relatively poor and industrialized. Frankly the fact that these countries were able to develop so quickly and cause so much trouble for capitalist countries before falling says something about their resilience in the face of quite extreme opposition and challenges.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms we could level against communist countries under the likes of Stalin or Mao, but I do not see why these are not mistakes to learn from and not inevitable results.

[One Degree]

Frankly the fact that these countries were able to develop so quickly and cause so much trouble for capitalist countries before falling says something about their resilience in the face of quite extreme opposition and challenges.

Is it possible that this is actually the cause of it's failure?
The rapid spread of Communism was frightening to the West especially in such large countries.
Perhaps if it had proven it's success in smaller countries first and evolved past the top down control, if would not have met such resistance.

[Drlee]

Over and over again, attempts at socialism in practice ended up government monopolies of wage labor.

Well there was one fairly successful attempt at some far-reaching socialist programs that did not have this effect.

The United States, just before and after World War II had some very successful programs aimed directly at improving the lot of the everyday man at the expense of the government. We "socialized" schools, massively funded education through the GI Bill of Rights and other programs, made home ownership affordable through government subsidized loans, paid for health care for all retirees and enhance a universal retirement program for all workers. We built the Interstate Highway System and greatly enhanced government/the people's ownership of property and its management.

Of course now some fools are trying to dismantle these highly effective programs because just one billion dollars is not enough for them, so we will see.

[mikema63]

Perhaps if it had proven it's success in smaller countries first and evolved past the top down control, if would not have met such resistance.

Communism would always and will always remove the very types of people that run the US from power, namely the capitalist class. Do you really think the corporations that run the US will just happily hand over their keys and property?

Communism represents and existential threat to the capitalist order, that's why it was opposed.

It's odd to me that you would suggest communists should have planned which countries they would make communist first. These revolutions were organic not controlled, I don't see how communists would be able to make Lichtenstein communist first and then after a few successful years try Poland and work their way up to a larger state.

[One Degree]

Marx was German and formed his ideas in England.
I was simply wondering what would have happened if his ideas had caught on in a smaller country first.

[Gletkin]

I just find it odd that having communist countries that failed or fell for various reasons somehow means that it can never exist and it's inevitable. Why not learn from our mistakes?

Liberalism has existed for a few hundred years in hundreds of countries, communism was tried for a few decades in 40 countries. They were actively opposed by some of the most powerful countries in the world desperate to turn them all into liberal capitalist countries. As far as I know the great superpowers during the time liberalism began to spread through the world were liberal countries during their time. The British empire for example, by the time other Ideologies actually cropped up after feudalism fell liberal capitalism was already extremely established in some of the most powerful countries in the world. Communism on the other hand cropped up in Russia and China which were relatively poor and industrialized. Frankly the fact that these countries were able to develop so quickly and cause so much trouble for capitalist countries before falling says something about their resilience in the face of quite extreme opposition and challenges.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms we could level against communist countries under the likes of Stalin or Mao, but I do not see why these are not mistakes to learn from and not inevitable results.

Yes I know.....I've used these same arguments myself back when I was still in this ideological camp.

Well, I suppose people will always be free to try (mind you, the socialist party in question may not grant the freedom to stop trying should it fail for the umpteenth time. Especially if they take DOTP rhetoric seriously. "Forward ever! Backward never!").
Chavez declared "21st Century Socialism" but I don't see much difference from "20th Century Socialism".

Well there was one fairly successful attempt at some far-reaching socialist programs that did not have this effect.

The United States, just before and after World War II had some very successful programs aimed directly at improving the lot of the everyday man at the expense of the government. We "socialized" schools, massively funded education through the GI Bill of Rights and other programs, made home ownership affordable through government subsidized loans, paid for health care for all retirees and enhance a universal retirement program for all workers. We built the Interstate Highway System and greatly enhanced government/the people's ownership of property and its management.

Of course now some fools are trying to dismantle these highly effective programs because just one billion dollars is not enough for them, so we will see.

Well I suppose that's part of "American exceptionalism" especially on the topic of "Why doesn't the USA have a mainstream socialist party?".
If regulated capitalism is sufficient, and "social democrats" and sometimes even "communists" behave no differently than "modern liberals", then "modern liberal regulated capitalism" it is. Doctrinaire socialists can and have criticized the programs you mentioned as falling short of "workers control" and whatnot. To which New Deal liberals et al. simply reply that they never claimed or strove for such lofty revolutionary goals in the first place. If the American working class really wanted "proletarian revolution" it would've happened by now (ditto American businesses and "libertarianism").

I was about to say that by sticking with liberal reformers, we get to avoid No True Scotsman arguments between radical rivals over "genuine" socialism, but nowadays it's all the rage for the reactionary opposition to label everyone else besides themselves "socialist" anyway.

[mikema63]

Yes I know.....I've used these same arguments myself back when I was still in this ideological camp.

Well, I suppose people will always be free to try (mind you, the socialist party in question may not grant the freedom to stop trying should it fail for the umpteenth time. Especially if they take DOTP rhetoric seriously. "Forward ever! Backward never!").
Chavez declared "21st Century Socialism" but I don't see much difference from "20th Century Socialism".

I can only do and hope for the best I can. The world can be better, and I will try and make it better.

[PhiloChan]

Marx was German and formed his ideas in England.
I was simply wondering what would have happened if his ideas had caught on in a smaller country first.

This is how I felt about Fidel and Cuba. So much potential but it was wasted on a grudge he had with the US. Fidel wanted to have no dealing with a country he deemed imperialistic and above all else capitalistic. Closing dialogues with the US was not exactly a great thing since it put him in the international political circle.
let's face it, getting involved with the UN is like getting involved in a circus group. Nothing is funny about a circus determining the fates of billions.