Are/were Russia and China really communist?

[MrBogosity]

In the US, 40,000 die in car accidents every year, which ends up being .013%. So .5% is rather high!

[Gumba Masta]

Amateurs. I bet could singlehandeldy rise that figure to 45 percent.

[AHPMB]

I can't speak for the Chinese, but I can for the Soviets.  I study the Cold War, and am forced to immerse myself in Leninist/Marxist philosophy.  The Soviets called themselves Communists politically, believed in Communism, and ran a government controlled by Communists, but they would and did argue that they were not living in a Communist society.

Marx predicted that society would go into several phases, each progressively transitioning into the next.  First you have feudalism, then capitalism, then a violent proletariat revolution followed by what Lenin called a dictatorship of the people, then Communism.  The dictatorship of the people was meant to be a socialist state in which the last trappings of capitalism would disappear, and state power, which had previously been all-consuming, would gradually fall away society transitioned into the so-called "new men," basically individuals who lived for the community and were free of self-interest or individualism.  The state would be ruled by enlightened leaders who would pave the way for their own demise.

Unfortunately for the Soviets, Marx really ended his analysis at the fall of capitalism.  He never explained how society would transition from socialist dictatorship to communist utopia, or how changing an economic system would fundamentally alter human nature.  The Soviets had no idea either, so they instead talked about a constant "Socialist Project."  Lenin's idea was basically to use brute force to shape people into the Communist idea through any means necessary.  It was a very millennial concept.  Basically we all sacrifice now, the Russians were told, so that our children will live in the utopia, never mind that we have no idea how to get there, it will just naturally happen, after all, Marx said it would and he was clearly right about the Revolution.  So they had to keep making excuses.  They began by torturing and imprisoning large portions of their own population.  Then they argued that outside influence had to be stamped out in the form of either global Communist revolution, or censorship.  Finally, after 1968 it became abundantly clear that the USSR was just a crack pot dictatorship, and by the late 70s, 80s few Soviets actually bought the line.  Furthermore, any Russian or member of the Warsaw Pact who had access to the West, could clearly see that, while the East was continuing to rot and stagnate, Western standards of living were steadily increasing.

So in 1991 when the Soviet Union finally fell in on itself you get this interesting paradox.  From the outside everyone saw this massive military complex and believed it would last forever, and yet, everyone was so convinced that Soviet Communism was intellectually bankrupt that no one was actually shocked when it died.

[Travis Retriever]

I can't speak for the Chinese, but I can for the Soviets.  I study the Cold War, and am forced to immerse myself in Leninist/Marxist philosophy.  The Soviets called themselves Communists politically, believed in Communism, and ran a government controlled by Communists, but they would and did argue that they were not living in a Communist society.

Hence many of their constant whining of "Oh well TRUE Communism has never been tried".  Just like when a Christan says, "But the Crusaders weren't TRUE Christians!!!"

Marx predicted that society would go into several phases, each progressively transitioning into the next.  First you have feudalism, then capitalism, then a violent proletariat revolution followed by what Lenin called a dictatorship of the people, then Communism.  The dictatorship of the people was meant to be a socialist state in which the last trappings of capitalism would disappear, and state power, which had previously been all-consuming, would gradually fall away society transitioned into the so-called "new men," basically individuals who lived for the community and were free of self-interest or individualism.  The state would be ruled by enlightened leaders who would pave the way for their own demise.

So basically, it's a fantasy.

Unfortunately for the Soviets, Marx really ended his analysis at the fall of capitalism.  He never explained how society would transition from socialist dictatorship to communist utopia, or how changing an economic system would fundamentally alter human nature.  The Soviets had no idea either, so they instead talked about a constant "Socialist Project."  Lenin's idea was basically to use brute force to shape people into the Communist idea through any means necessary.  It was a very millennial concept.  Basically we all sacrifice now, the Russians were told, so that our children will live in the utopia, never mind that we have no idea how to get there, it will just naturally happen, after all, Marx said it would and he was clearly right about the Revolution.  So they had to keep making excuses.  They began by torturing and imprisoning large portions of their own population.  Then they argued that outside influence had to be stamped out in the form of either global Communist revolution, or censorship.  Finally, after 1968 it became abundantly clear that the USSR was just a crack pot dictatorship, and by the late 70s, 80s few Soviets actually bought the line.  Furthermore, any Russian or member of the Warsaw Pact who had access to the West, could clearly see that, while the East was continuing to rot and stagnate, Western standards of living were steadily increasing.

In short, they propose a system with zero freedom, and through some unspecified miracle, it transforms into a paradise of freedom and happiness.  It's a religious/cult belief.  Nothing more.
I've had this problem with Anarcho Communism/Socialism/Syndicalism; long before I ever even became an Anarcho Capitalist.

So in 1991 when the Soviet Union finally fell in on itself you get this interesting paradox.  From the outside everyone saw this massive military complex and believed it would last forever, and yet, everyone was so convinced that Soviet Communism was intellectually bankrupt that no one was actually shocked when it died.

Well, The latter (ones who weren't surprised it failed) have Mises' book "Socialism" to thank on the intellectual part, whether they're aware of it or not.
That, and the fact that the regime had to be constantly propped up by the West in order to even maintain itself (according to Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's book "Healing our World")

[AHPMB]

Hence many of their constant whining of "Oh well TRUE Communism has never been tried".  Just like when a Christan says, "But the Crusaders weren't TRUE Christians!!!"

Well it's absolutely true that "true communism" has never been tried, but only because it's utterly inconsistent with reality.  But again, I would challenge any Communist to explain the process of going from a proletarian socialist dictatorship to "true communism" as Marx describes.  Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh all talked a great game, but every single one that's tried to pull it off has failed miserably.  Of course when you mention this, they always fall back on their patron saints like Allende. 

Well, The latter (ones who weren't surprised it failed) have Mises' book "Socialism" to thank on the intellectual part, whether they're aware of it or not.

They weren't the only ones.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was predicting the fall of the Soviet Union decades before it actually collapsed.  Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn ended up on the wrong side of the political spectrum of most Western intellectuals so he was lampooned out of academic circles not long after Gulag Archipelago came out in print.

[Travis Retriever]

Unfortunately, Solzhenitsyn ended up on the wrong side of the political spectrum of most Western intellectuals so he was lampooned out of academic circles not long after Gulag Archipelago came out in print.

What do you mean, "Wrong side of the political spectrum"?

[AHPMB]

Solzhenitsyn became big right around the time Reagan took office.  He managed to get Gulag published and was going on speaking tours around America and Europe, even bought a house in Vermont.  He was absolutely uncompromising about the fact that the Soviet Union was an evil blight that needed to be pushed into collapse sooner rather than later, and he argued that any power that would compromise with evil of their caliber was demonstrating moral weakness.  This made him very popular with the Reagan administration, especially after Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik Talks.  Western intellectuals circles during the 80s was dominated by a resurgent neo-liberalism and they treated any encouragement of Reagan, even though Solzhenitsyn never endorsed Reagan's policies as basically advocating for nuclear war.

[Travis Retriever]

Solzhenitsyn became big right around the time Reagan took office.  He managed to get Gulag published and was going on speaking tours around America and Europe, even bought a house in Vermont.  He was absolutely uncompromising about the fact that the Soviet Union was an evil blight that needed to be pushed into collapse sooner rather than later, and he argued that any power that would compromise with evil of their caliber was demonstrating moral weakness.  This made him very popular with the Reagan administration, especially after Reagan walked out of the Reykjavik Talks.  Western intellectuals circles during the 80s was dominated by a resurgent neo-liberalism and they treated any encouragement of Reagan, even though Solzhenitsyn never endorsed Reagan's policies as basically advocating for nuclear war.

So basically, he was an interventionist who played lip service to the free market and wanted a much bigger government.

[Travis Retriever]

What was his reason for why communism wouldn't work?

[Gumba Masta]

Not enough hair care products. It definatly would lead to my collapse.

[AHPMB]

Not really no.  He didn't argue that the West had a duty to intervene directly in Soviet affairs, but he saw detente and the SALT talks as essentially a form of pandering to evil for the sake of security.  Solzhenitsyn would have rather the U.S. refused to even have those discussions.  Discussing disarmament with a power that was essentially holding half of Europe captive, he argued legitimized their power and upheld the status quo.  The Russians it turns out agreed with that.  Jeremi Suri has argued, using some of Brezhnev's paper's that after Prague Spring, the Soviets kept reaching out to the West because they saw high level diplomatic talks as a way to prop their public image up.  Solzhenitsyn was absolutely scathing about intervention in his essays, especially with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or any form of Empire building.  

And actually Solzhenitsyn argued for a much smaller government.  He said that the only legitimate form of government was on a face to face municipal level, since that was the only way to keep leaders invested in their people and that in contests between national and local power, local power should always win.  Small local governments would protect ethnic and religious minorities.  This made him extremely unpopular in the East after the fall of the Communists as all those former KGB agents began scooping up government contracts and setting up their own little mafias with the tacit blessings of the Yeltsin government.

[AHPMB]

What was his reason for why communism wouldn't work?

Basically that the Soviet Union was based on a bankrupt idea.  He tended to argue it more from a moralistic perspective than the free market economists.  He spent years in a Soviet Gulag because he happened to write the wrong thing in a letter home, and his writing tend to be broken up into these great little parables where he used a story from the camps to make his point.  What made Solzhenitsyn's work ground breaking, at least in the West, was that he took on Lenin as well as Stalin.  A lot of western intellectuals at the time made, and still make the tired old canard that, "well Stalin just screwed up Lenin's vision.  He was evil, the idea was good."  Solzhenitsyn demonstrated conclusively that Stalin's actions were merely the logical conclusions of Lenin's ideas, and that far from being a self-interested dictator, as he's commonly portrayed, Stalin was actually trying to bring about the Communist ideal in the only way he knew how, by killing everyone that didn't conform to the impossible dream.

[Travis Retriever]

So Ludwig von Mises in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (first published in 1922 according to Wikipedia) gave the entire idea of collectivism (not just socialism/communism, but also corporatism and syndicalism) a thorough debunking, while Solzhenitsyn specifically showed that the case in the Soviet union was also bogus (as you've stated).
Nice.

[AHPMB]

Exactly.  I can't recommend reading Gulag Archipelago enough, it is without a doubt the most amazing book a Russian has ever written, and that's counting Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekov.  It is the most scathing denunciation of collectivism ever written from a guy who has been there, and it's actually captivating to read (unlike Ayn Rand IMO).  I recommend you get the new abridged version though as the full thing weighs in at 3 volumes and about 15,000 pages.

[Travis Retriever]

Well it's absolutely true that "true communism" has never been tried, but only because it's utterly inconsistent with reality.  But again, I would challenge any Communist to explain the process of going from a proletarian socialist dictatorship to "true communism" as Marx describes.  Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh all talked a great game, but every single one that's tried to pull it off has failed miserably.  Of course when you mention this, they always fall back on their patron saints like Allende.

Reminds me of the crap thrown out by gmanos007 on this video:  Captain Capitalism: Nightmare of Red Xmas
I would read the rest of the comments he posted, but sadly, my eyes started bleeding and I thought I should stop.