Misplaced Pages

Criticism of communism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:54, 21 July 2005 editUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 edits More categories, see also← Previous edit Revision as of 06:12, 21 July 2005 edit undo172 (talk | contribs)24,875 edits restoring Mihnea's good faith attempt to make this a quality, readable and NPOV articleNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TotallyDisputed}} {{totallydisputed}}
{{original research}} {{original research}}
:''Note that Communism is a branch of ]. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See ] for a discussion of objections to socialism in general.''
{{clean}}
{{twoversions|19257701}}
Criticisms of ] can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century ]s, and those concerning themselves with communist theory.


Criticisms of ] can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century ]s, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are quite distinct: One may agree with communist principles but disagree with many policies adopted by Communist states (and this is quite common among communists, particularly in the case of ]), or, more rarely, one may agree with policies adopted by Communist states but disagree with communist principles.
== Real-world failures ==
=== Criticism of science, arts, and environmental protection in the Communist states ===


== 20th century Communist states ==
The Communist states censored the ], usually only allowing ]. Some Communist states have been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: ] (planned destruction of historical centers of most towns — partially achieved in Bucharest), ] (repression of ]an culture, destructions during the ]) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandon or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples
Strictly speaking, the term "Communist state" is an ], since the communists themselves define communism as a social system that has abolished ], ]es, and the ] itself. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist state". However, during the ], the term "Communist state" was coined in ] to refer to ]s where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to ]. It is these "Communist states" that are the targets of criticism presented below.
], ] started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The ] and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry.</p>


''For related information, see the discussion regarding the ].''
<p>Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame and actually had a food surplus. The Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of ], but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. The famine of ] was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the White territories, the Reds seized the Whites' grain reserves, although they primarily sent them to cities with less hunger but more political clout. Some relief organizations suspended help when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are 3-10 million. Lenin was also responsible for starting the slave labor camp system and for 100000-500000 summary executions of "class enemies" Sources and estimates of the number killed: </p>]]
The Communist states also censored ]. One example is ] and ] of history. Research was suppressed in ] and ] (]), ] (]), ], ] and ], and even ]. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like ] - which was only recognized in Communist states - and incarcerating them in ]. See also ].


=== Anti-communist critique of Communist states ===
Also pointed out is environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the ] in today's ] and ], which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production.
Critics start by pointing out that the Communist states often practiced ]. The level of censorship varied widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always existed to a greater or lesser extent. The most rigid censorship was practiced by hardline ] or ] regimes, such as the ] under ] (1927-1953), ] during the ] (1966-1976), and ] during its entire existence (1948-present). This censorship took various forms:


*Censorship of the ], for example by allowing only ]. Some Communist states have also been involved in the destruction of cultural heritage: ] (planned destruction of historical centres of most towns &mdash; partially achieved in Bucharest), ] (repression of ]an culture, destruction of cultural artefacts during the ]) and the Soviet Union (destruction, abandonment or reconversion of religious buildings) are the most cited examples.
===Human rights violations===
*Censorship of ]. One example is censorship and ] of history. In the Soviet Union, between the late 1920s and early 1960s, research was suppressed in ] and ] (]), ] (]), ], ] and ], and even ]. In some Communist states it was common practice to classify internal critics of the system as having a mental disease, like ] - which was a disease only recognized in Communist states - and incarcerating them in ]. See also ].
(See references below)
*Censorship of ]. Many of the Communist states used an extensive network of civilian ] to spy on their peers. This created a society where no one would dare criticize the government in public (and, in the extreme cases, not even in private), for fear that they might be reported to the ].


On a related note, the ]s of many of the leaders of Communist states and the fact that in some cases the leadership of the state has become inherited has also been criticized. Critics have also argued that a new powerful class of party bureaucrats emerged, and exploited the rest of the population. This ] is usually called the ].
Many of the Communist states used an extensive network of civilian ] to spy on their own population. This created a society where no one could trust other citizens, who might report real or fabricated criticism of the Communist system to the ].


The restriction of ] has also been criticized, the most prominent example being the ].
Many of the leaders of Communist states cultivated an extensive ]. In some cases the leadership of the state has become inherited. Critics have also argued that a new powerful class of party bureaucrats emerged which exploited the rest of the population. This ] is usually called the ].


Communist states often engaged in rapid ], and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the ] in today's ] and ], which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production.
The ], the ], and the ] can be seen as ] wars where military force crushed popular uprisings against the Communist system. There were also many internal uprisings suppressed by military force, like the ] and the ].


The ], the ] and the ] have been criticized as ] wars where military force crushed popular uprisings against the Communist state. There were also a number of internal uprisings suppressed by military force, like the ] and the ].
The Communist states had strict restrictions on ], the most prominent example being the ].


Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in these states, particularly during the regimes of ] and ], but shown to have started immediately after the ] during the regime of ] and to have continued to occur in all communist states during their existence. Most prominent being deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in '']'' and the references below). Other widespread criticism concern the documented lack of ] in Communist Party regimes, religious and ethnic ]s, lack of ] and systematic use of ]. Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in Communist states, particularly during the regimes of ] and ], but shown to have started during the ] and to have continued to occur in most Communist states during most of their existence. Most prominent being deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in '']'' and the references below). Other widespread criticisms concern the documented lack of ] in Communist Party regimes, religious and ethnic ]s, lack of ] and systematic use of ].


Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers. However, past evils in an old regime can hardly be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of ] could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the ] in Africa. Some advocates of Communist states find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist revolutions. Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones, while advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.


Advocates of Communist states often praise them for having leapt ahead of contemporary capitalist countries in certain areas, for example by offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.
''See also: ]


Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their ]. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union. See Gregory J. Massell, ''The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia: 1919&ndash;1929'', Princeton University Press, 1974, hardcover, 451 pages, ISBN 069107562X. Finally, in the first half of the ], ], with a largely collectivised agriculture, exported more agricultural products than ] from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French ''(FAO production, 1986, FAO Trade vol. 40, 1986)''. Critics, however, cite counter-examples: the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War), as well as the continued poverty of other Communist states such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China. Indeed, they point out that China only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms &mdash; a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is ], which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to ], but fell behind the West in the post-war era. Finally, critics also note that some Communist states do not compare favourably with other countries with similar culture and economic development: see ] vs. ] and ] vs. ]. To this point, advocates of the Communist states respond by drawing comparisons of their own, for example between ] and ] or other Central American countries.
===Economic and social development===


Supporters of the Communist states note their social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. Western critics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views.
Advocates of communism praise Communist parties for running countries that have sometimes leapt ahead of contemporary "capitalist" countries, offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics of communism typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.


''See also: ]''
Supporters of the Communist states note the social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out to the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. However, Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views. The Communist states do not compare favorable when comparing states with similar culture and economic development before the Communist takeover. Examples include ] vs. ]; ] vs. ] and ]; and ] vs. ].


=== Communist critique of Communist states ===
After 1965, life expectancy began to decline in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increases in Western Europe. This decline accelerated after the change to market economy in the states of the former Soviet Union but has now started to increase in the Baltic states. In Eastern Europe, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism. The continued poor situation in Russia and Ukraine has been strongly linked to alcoholism.
Not all those who criticize Communist states are anti-communists. Some are communists themselves, who disagree with some or most of the actions undertaken by communist states during the 20th century. Many of the anti-communist criticisms presented in the above section (for example, criticisms of violations of human rights) are shared by the communist critics. One specifically communist critique, however, is the allegation that the "Communist states" of the 20th century grossly violated communist principles, and were therefore only partially communist at best or completely un-communist at worst.


Firstly, all communists agree that democracy (the rule of the people) is a key element of both socialism and communism - though they may disagree on the particular form that this democracy should take. The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "]" or the "]". Supporters of communist states have always argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate). Thus, communist critics of Communist states argue that, in practice, these states were not democratic and therefore not communist or socialist.
Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their ]. Another example touted by Communists is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union.. However, these examples are anecdotical and there are counter-examples: the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War), as well as the continued poverty of other Communist states such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China. China only achieved high rates of growth after introducing Capitalist economic reforms. Another example is ], which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to ], but fell far behind the Western nations under the Communist rule.


A lack of democracy implies a lack of a mandate from the people; as such, communist critics argue that the leadership of Communist states did not represent the interests of the ], and it should therefore be no wonder that this leadership took actions that directly harmed the working class (for example Mao's ]).
Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro .


], in particular, have argued that ] transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive state, and that all subsequent communist states ultimately turned out similar because they copied his example (]). There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states; see ], ] and ].
===Were the Communist states communist?===
Some supporters of communism argue that a "Communist state" is an impossibility according to communist theory. They claim that communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states. However, Marx’s dream of a socialist revolution involved a transitory phase known as the ]. Later, Marx reasoned, the state would "whither away". The Communist states claimed to be in this transitory phase and to be "working towards communism". It can thus be argued that the Communist states followed Marx's theory and that it failed to work in the real world.


While Trotskyists are ], there are other communists who embrace classical ] and reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of ] was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism.
] argue that the bureaucratic and repressive nature of Communist states differs from Lenin's vision of the socialist state. However, the large scale humans rights violations started immediately after the Communist takeover during the regime of Lenin.


Finally, it should be noted that many of these communist criticisms draw counter-criticisms from anti-communists, many of whom have attempted to establish a direct link between communist principles and the actions of Communist states. Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental disagreement between communists and anti-communists as to what those 'communist principles' actually ''are''. A glaring example is the issue of democracy: Communists claim that democracy is an essential part of their principles, while anti-communists claim that it is not.
Many Marxists and some Marxist-Leninists argue that most Communist states do not actually adhere to Marxism-Leninism but rather to a perversion heavily influenced by ]. But many of the Communist states were often critical of Stalin and tried many variants of communism beside Stalinism, with little success. Those variants that were more successful resembled capitalism, like Lenin's ].


== Marxism and communist theory ==
Some communist supporters argue that the Communist states were not communist since they were not democratic. However, Marx never insisted on this and he rejected the concept of ]. That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism.
See ] for a general critique of socialism. The following sections of this article deal with criticisms that are specifically raised against Marxist theory.


=== Historical materialism ===
Thus, as a defense of communism, it is claimed that so-called "Communist states" are unrelated (or only distantly related) to an ideal communist society. Therefore, it is argued, the failings of these states should not be taken as failings of communism ''per se''. Critics of communism find fault with this reasoning, noting that this argument cannot be falsified and is therefore not scientific. Were it valid, they argue, it could similarly be applied to capitalism, fascism or other ideologies.
] is normally considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.


Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists. Some, such as ] and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a ] because it is not ]. Marxists respond that ]s in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via ]s (in the way ] can be tested).
===Marx's predictions===
Marx made numerous predictions. He thought that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies.


Based on historical materialism, Marx made numerous predictions. For example, he argued that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies.
Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: ], ], the rise of ] and ] in the West (that introduced the concept of ], thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), ] and finally the ]. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore Marxist theory is not a reliable method of making predictions.


Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: ], ], the rise of ] and ] in the West (that introduced the concept of ], thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), ] and finally the ]. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore historical materialism is not a reliable method of making predictions.
Lenin noted that the predicted increasing class polarization and Communist revolution had failed to occur in the developed world. He then attempted to explain this by stating that ] is the highest stage of capitalism, and that developed countries had created a ] content with capitalism by exploiting the developing world.


The second communist argument is a specifically ] one. Lenin, in his book '''', argued that capitalism must be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism worldwide. From this point of view, Lenin goes on to argue that rich, developed capitalist countries "export" their poverty to poorer countries, by turning those countries into colonies (hence 'imperialism') and exploiting them as sources of cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from this exploitation are then shared with the workers from the developed countries, in order to keep their standard of living high and thus avoid revolution at home.
After the Western nations voluntarily gave up their colonies, supporters of communism had to invent still another stage, sometimes called ], arguing that the Third World is exploited even without formal empires. For criticism of this, see ].


Critics point out that the European colonial empires of Lenin's time have all dissolved during the ] and ], as part of the ] process. Communists maintain that economic exploitation of poor countries continues even in the absence of direct political control (see ] and ]).
==Theoretical criticisms ==
See ] for a general critique of socialism. There are also some specific criticisms of Marxist theory and and use in academia.

=== Historical materialism ===
] is normally considered the intellectual basis of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.

However, it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists.


=== Labor theory of value === === Labor theory of value ===


Fundamental to Marxist theory is the ]. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, ]) of an item is determined by the ] required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is ], and that it may not be reflected by the ] of the object in question (since price is determined by ], and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first put forward by ], and later adopted by ]. Fundamental to Marxist theory is the ]. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, ]) of an item is determined by the ] required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is ], and that it may not be reflected by the ] of the object in question (since price is determined by ], and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first put forward by ], and later adopted by ].


By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the ], which states that the value of an object is always identical to its price on the market (and is therefore subjective). By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the ], which states that the value of an object is always identical to its price on the market (and is therefore subjective).


=== Pseudoscience ===
] and others have argued that Marxism and Historical materialism are a ]s because they are not ]. Marxists respond that ]s in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via ]s (in the way ] can be tested). One response is that many social sciences like psychology, economics, and ] are increasingly being tested, for example by statistical methods.

=== Useful idiots ===
The phrase ] is claimed to have been coined by Vladimir Lenin to describe western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West. However, Lenin never wrote it in any published document.

Lenin did state the following:
:"The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....

:"A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but from a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory....

:"We must:

:"(a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf- mutes will believe it.

:"(b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.

:"Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above- mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide."(''Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives'', 1997, Edvard Radzinsky)(The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8). .

In political jargon, the term "useful idiot" is also used to describe communists in western countries (particularly in the United States). The implication of this is that the communist in question was naive, and that he or she was being cynically used by the Communist states.

According to ] and ], writing in their book ''In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage'', many ] studies in the field of ], especially in the area of ] have generally taken a benign view of the Party while minimizing ] atrocities and the ] nature of the movement. Haynes and Klehr attribute the biased stance of these historians, many of whom entered academia during the Vietnam War era, to anti-American and anti-capitalist sentiments. Haynes and Klehr characterize them as ]. There have also been similar criticisms of other fields in academia .
<!-- Most of this is already mentioned in Criticisms of Socialism <!-- Most of this is already mentioned in Criticisms of Socialism
=== "Human nature" === === "Human nature" ===
]s and other critics of communism (such as ] capitalists) see self-interested behavior as a ] ]. They claim that communism removes ]s necessary for human ]. Indeed, they argue that workers have to be rewarded with currency according to their immediate contribution to production. They thus reject a gift economic view of work with respect to incentive, which is less immediate and more collective-based. Their view on "]" is, therefore, not shared by Communists, who take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society. Communists claim that if the material conditions changed so that competition and greed were no longer necessary, mass behavior would change accordingly. ]s and other critics of communism (such as ] capitalists) see self-interested behavior as a ] ]. They claim that communism removes ]s necessary for human ]. Indeed, they argue that workers have to be rewarded with currency according to their immediate contribution to production. They thus reject a gift economic view of work with respect to incentive, which is less immediate and more collective-based. Their view on "]" is, therefore, not shared by Communists, who take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society. Communists claim that if the material conditions changed so that competition and greed were no longer necessary, mass behavior would change accordingly.


Communists have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. They usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, that shapes a person's character. Also, according to them, the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them. Communists have a disdain for the concept of 'human nature' or an invariable 'human condition' which exists throughout all human beings. They usually take the view that it is the material conditions which surround a person, such as their environment, that shapes a person's character. Also, according to them, the 'nature' of human beings is not determined by an underlying, constant condition which is present in all humans, but instead by the social and economic factors which surround them.


Critics point out that 'human nature' is at least in part influenced by genetic factors, which make some characteristics of human nature indeed partly invariable. Some also point to the ]s and other ]s, which can also engage in selfish and greedy behaviour. The rebuttal to this criticism given by Communists is that natural selection favours the collective in the survival struggle, rather than the individual; This would constitute an "evolutionary incentive" for gift economics. However the so-called ] view of evolution is that natural selection acts on genes rather than collectives, and so such cooperation can be mainly expected in genetically related societies. This, however fits the ] species as the species is very young and highly related in itself. Critics point out that 'human nature' is at least in part influenced by genetic factors, which make some characteristics of human nature indeed partly invariable. Some also point to the ]s and other ]s, which can also engage in selfish and greedy behaviour. The rebuttal to this criticism given by Communists is that natural selection favours the collective in the survival struggle, rather than the individual; This would constitute an "evolutionary incentive" for gift economics. However the so-called ] view of evolution is that natural selection acts on genes rather than collectives, and so such cooperation can be mainly expected in genetically related societies. This, however fits the ] species as the species is very young and highly related in itself.


Communists believe, however, that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, selfish desires and greed will recede from the forefront of societal conditioning. They foresee a society where the desire for personal gain is interconnected with the atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, making self-interest and the interests of the collective one and the same. Capitalists reject this as far-fetched - from here the argument breaks down into elements of ] versus ]. Communists believe, however, that once capitalism has been destroyed, and socialism has been established, selfish desires and greed will recede from the forefront of societal conditioning. They foresee a society where the desire for personal gain is interconnected with the atmosphere of mutual assistance and co-operation, making self-interest and the interests of the collective one and the same. Capitalists reject this as far-fetched - from here the argument breaks down into elements of ] versus ].


It is also possible to argue from games theory such as ] that in some cases the 'best course' for an individual may be to defect from such mutual assistance. In such a case the society might enforce the status quo by coercion, which may be provided by ], compatible with an egalitarian gift economy. This would produce a society with values dedicated to mutual benefit, in addition to a default ] of defectors in a gift economy that would discourage so called "freeloaders". It is also possible to argue from games theory such as ] that in some cases the 'best course' for an individual may be to defect from such mutual assistance. In such a case the society might enforce the status quo by coercion, which may be provided by ], compatible with an egalitarian gift economy. This would produce a society with values dedicated to mutual benefit, in addition to a default ] of defectors in a gift economy that would discourage so called "freeloaders".


However, the minimal requirements of a communist society only require internal mutual benefit, and does not mean such a society is prevented from fighting with and competing with other external societies, as long as the society itself remains communal and non-competitive. An example of this are societies of ], which often have shared ownership of possessions and extremely high peer pressure, often have a very high degree of violence since it is often beneficial for the tribe to exploit other tribes. The issue among many communists of whether humanity should cooperate as one ultimate collective or not appears to be a further ideological splitting point. However, if the size of the society increases then peer pressure decreases and it becomes increasingly more tempting to defect from mutual assistance. --> However, the minimal requirements of a communist society only require internal mutual benefit, and does not mean such a society is prevented from fighting with and competing with other external societies, as long as the society itself remains communal and non-competitive. An example of this are societies of ], which often have shared ownership of possessions and extremely high peer pressure, often have a very high degree of violence since it is often beneficial for the tribe to exploit other tribes. The issue among many communists of whether humanity should cooperate as one ultimate collective or not appears to be a further ideological splitting point. However, if the size of the society increases then peer pressure decreases and it becomes increasingly more tempting to defect from mutual assistance. -->


== See also == == See also ==
*] *]
*] *]
*]


== References and further reading == == References and further reading ==
===Anti-communist books===
=== References on human rights violations by Communist states ===
*Anne Applebaum, <cite>Gulag: A History</cite>, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561 *Anne Applebaum, <cite>Gulag: A History</cite>, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561
*Becker, Jasper (1998) ''Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine''. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688. *Becker, Jasper (1998) ''Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine''. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688.
*Conquest, Robert (1991) ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment''. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328. *Conquest, Robert (1991) ''The Great Terror: A Reassessment''. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328.
*Conquest, Robert (1987) ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807. *Conquest, Robert (1987) ''The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807.
*Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087. *Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). ''The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression''. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.
*Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) ''Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992'' Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568. *Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) ''Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992'' Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568.
*Jackson, Karl D. (1992) ''Cambodia, 1975&ndash;1978'' Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X. *Jackson, Karl D. (1992) ''Cambodia, 1975&ndash;1978'' Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X.
*Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)''Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982'' University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935. *Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)''Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982'' University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935.
*Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) ''The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)'' Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849. *Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) ''The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series)'' Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849.
*Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) ''The Great North Korean Famine''. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331. *Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) ''The Great North Korean Famine''. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331.
*Nghia M. Vo (2004) ''The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam'' McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145. *Nghia M. Vo (2004) ''The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam'' McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145.
Line 137: Line 107:
*Rummel, R.J. (1997). ''Death by Government.'' Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276. *Rummel, R.J. (1997). ''Death by Government.'' Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276.
*Rummel, R.J. (1996). ''Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917.'' Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873. *Rummel, R.J. (1996). ''Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917.'' Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.
*Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). ''Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.'' Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107. *Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). ''Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.'' Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107.
*Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). ''Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria''. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611 *Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). ''Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria''. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611
*Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.'' Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220. *Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). ''A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia.'' Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220.


== External links == == External links ==
*Anti-communist links:
*
* A Cato institute article, from a Capitalist point of view. ** A Cato institute article, from a Capitalist point of view.
* Chinese and general communism analysis ** Chinese and general communism analysis
* **
* **
* **

*Communists opposed to the 'communist states':
**
***
***
*** An analysis of ], from a ] point of view.
**


===Online estimates of how many the Communist states killed=== *Support for the 'communist states':
**
*
* **
**


*Neutral:
===Biographies===
**
*
**
*
*


] ]
] ]
]

Revision as of 06:12, 21 July 2005

Template:Totallydisputed

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Note that Communism is a branch of Socialism. This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to communism and not other forms of socialism. See criticisms of socialism for a discussion of objections to socialism in general.

Criticisms of Communism can be divided in two broad categories: Those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century Communist states, and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory. The two categories are quite distinct: One may agree with communist principles but disagree with many policies adopted by Communist states (and this is quite common among communists, particularly in the case of Trotskyists), or, more rarely, one may agree with policies adopted by Communist states but disagree with communist principles.

20th century Communist states

Strictly speaking, the term "Communist state" is an oxymoron, since the communists themselves define communism as a social system that has abolished private property, social classes, and the State itself. No country or government ever called itself a "Communist state". However, during the Cold War, the term "Communist state" was coined in the West to refer to single-party states where the ruling party officially proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism. It is these "Communist states" that are the targets of criticism presented below.

For related information, see the discussion regarding the definition of a Communist state.

Anti-communist critique of Communist states

Critics start by pointing out that the Communist states often practiced censorship. The level of censorship varied widely between different states and historical periods, but it nearly always existed to a greater or lesser extent. The most rigid censorship was practiced by hardline Stalinist or Maoist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin (1927-1953), China during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), and North Korea during its entire existence (1948-present). This censorship took various forms:

On a related note, the personality cults of many of the leaders of Communist states and the fact that in some cases the leadership of the state has become inherited has also been criticized. Critics have also argued that a new powerful class of party bureaucrats emerged, and exploited the rest of the population. This new ruling class is usually called the nomenklatura.

The restriction of emigration has also been criticized, the most prominent example being the Berlin Wall.

Communist states often engaged in rapid industrialization, and in some cases this has lead to environmental disasters. The most cited example is the disappearance of the Aral Sea in today's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Prague spring and the 1956 Hungarian Revolution have been criticized as imperialistic wars where military force crushed popular uprisings against the Communist state. There were also a number of internal uprisings suppressed by military force, like the Kronstadt rebellion and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.

Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in Communist states, particularly during the regimes of Stalin and Mao, but shown to have started during the Russian Civil War and to have continued to occur in most Communist states during most of their existence. Most prominent being deaths due to executions, forced labor camps, genocides of certain ethnic minorities, and mass starvations caused by either government mismanagement or deliberately. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is somewhat disputed, but extensive historical research shows at least tens of millions (see, e.g., the estimates reached in The Black Book of Communism and the references below). Other widespread criticisms concern the documented lack of freedom of speech in Communist Party regimes, religious and ethnic persecutions, lack of democracy and systematic use of torture.

Some advocates of Communist states find this approach simplistic, noting that executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist revolutions. Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones, while advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.

Advocates of Communist states often praise them for having leapt ahead of contemporary capitalist countries in certain areas, for example by offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards.

Central economic planning has in certain instances produced dramatic advances, including rapid development of heavy industry during the 1930s in the Soviet Union and later in their space program. Another example is the development of the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba. Early advances in the status of women were also notable, especially in Islamic areas of the Soviet Union. See Gregory J. Massell, The Surrogate Proletariat: Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia: 1919–1929, Princeton University Press, 1974, hardcover, 451 pages, ISBN 069107562X. Finally, in the first half of the 1980s, Hungary, with a largely collectivised agriculture, exported more agricultural products than France from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French (FAO production, 1986, FAO Trade vol. 40, 1986). Critics, however, cite counter-examples: the failure of the Soviet Union to achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War), as well as the continued poverty of other Communist states such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China. Indeed, they point out that China only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms — a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is Czechoslovakia, which was among world's most developed industrial countries prior to World War II, but fell behind the West in the post-war era. Finally, critics also note that some Communist states do not compare favourably with other countries with similar culture and economic development: see East Germany vs. West Germany and North Korea vs. South Korea. To this point, advocates of the Communist states respond by drawing comparisons of their own, for example between Cuba and Jamaica or other Central American countries.

Supporters of the Communist states note their social and cultural programs, sometimes administered by labor organizations. Universal education programs have been a strong point, as has the generous provision of universal health care. They point out the high levels of literacy enjoyed by Eastern Europeans (in comparison, for instance, with Southern Europe), Cubans or Chinese. Western critics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views.

See also: The Black Book of Communism

Communist critique of Communist states

Not all those who criticize Communist states are anti-communists. Some are communists themselves, who disagree with some or most of the actions undertaken by communist states during the 20th century. Many of the anti-communist criticisms presented in the above section (for example, criticisms of violations of human rights) are shared by the communist critics. One specifically communist critique, however, is the allegation that the "Communist states" of the 20th century grossly violated communist principles, and were therefore only partially communist at best or completely un-communist at worst.

Firstly, all communists agree that democracy (the rule of the people) is a key element of both socialism and communism - though they may disagree on the particular form that this democracy should take. The leaders of the Communist states themselves frequently announced their support for democracy, held regular elections and sometimes even gave their countries names such as the "German Democratic Republic" or the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". Supporters of communist states have always argued that those states were democratic. However, critics point out that, in practice, one political party held an absolute monopoly on power, dissent was banned, and the elections usually featured a single candidate and were ripe with fraud (often producing implausible results of 99% in favor of the candidate). Thus, communist critics of Communist states argue that, in practice, these states were not democratic and therefore not communist or socialist.

A lack of democracy implies a lack of a mandate from the people; as such, communist critics argue that the leadership of Communist states did not represent the interests of the working class, and it should therefore be no wonder that this leadership took actions that directly harmed the working class (for example Mao's Great Leap Forward).

Trotskyists, in particular, have argued that Stalin transformed the Soviet Union into a bureaucratic and repressive state, and that all subsequent communist states ultimately turned out similar because they copied his example (Stalinism). There are various terms used by Trotskyists to define such states; see state capitalism, degenerated workers' state and deformed workers' state.

While Trotskyists are Leninists, there are other communists who embrace classical Marxism and reject Leninism entirely, arguing, for example, that the Leninist principle of democratic centralism was the source of the Soviet Union's slide away from communism.

Finally, it should be noted that many of these communist criticisms draw counter-criticisms from anti-communists, many of whom have attempted to establish a direct link between communist principles and the actions of Communist states. Ultimately, this comes down to a fundamental disagreement between communists and anti-communists as to what those 'communist principles' actually are. A glaring example is the issue of democracy: Communists claim that democracy is an essential part of their principles, while anti-communists claim that it is not.

Marxism and communist theory

See Criticisms of socialism for a general critique of socialism. The following sections of this article deal with criticisms that are specifically raised against Marxist theory.

Historical materialism

Historical materialism is normally considered one of the intellectual foundations of Marxism. It looks for the causes of developments and changes in human history in economic, technological, and more broadly, material factors, as well as the clashes of material interests among tribes, social classes and nations.

Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists. Some, such as Karl Popper and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marxists respond that social sciences in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested).

Based on historical materialism, Marx made numerous predictions. For example, he argued that the workers would become poorer and poorer as the capitalists exploited them more and more; that differences between the members within each class would become smaller and smaller and the classes would thus become more homogeneous; that the skilled workers would be replaced by unskilled workers doing assembly line work; that relations between the working class and the capitalists would get worse and worse; and that the capitalists would become fewer and fewer due to an increasing number of monopolies.

Some of these are debatable, while others have been clearly proven wrong. This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory. Communists reply with two arguments: The first is that there were a number of major events and trends over the past century and a half which Marx could not have predicted: imperialism, World War I, the rise of social democracy and Keynesian economics in the West (that introduced the concept of redistribution of wealth, thereby narrowing the gap between rich and poor), World War II and finally the Cold War. In response, critics maintain that if so many unpredictable events have happened in the past, then an equal number could happen in the future, and therefore historical materialism is not a reliable method of making predictions.

The second communist argument is a specifically Leninist one. Lenin, in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, argued that capitalism must be viewed as a global phenomenon, and different capitalist countries must not be treated as if they are fully independent entities. Instead, one must look at capitalism worldwide. From this point of view, Lenin goes on to argue that rich, developed capitalist countries "export" their poverty to poorer countries, by turning those countries into colonies (hence 'imperialism') and exploiting them as sources of cheap unskilled labor and resources. Part of the spoils from this exploitation are then shared with the workers from the developed countries, in order to keep their standard of living high and thus avoid revolution at home.

Critics point out that the European colonial empires of Lenin's time have all dissolved during the 1960s and 70s, as part of the decolonization process. Communists maintain that economic exploitation of poor countries continues even in the absence of direct political control (see globalization and anti-globalization).

Labor theory of value

Fundamental to Marxist theory is the labor theory of value. It claims that the value (or, to be more exact, use-value) of an item is determined by the socially necessary labour time required to produce it. In other words, the greater the amount of work necessary to produce an object, the greater the value of that object. This implies that value is objective, and that it may not be reflected by the price of the object in question (since price is determined by supply and demand, and is not linked to the amount of necessary work that must be expended to produce the object). The labor theory of value was first put forward by Adam Smith, and later adopted by Karl Marx.

By contrast, most capitalist economists now use the subjective theory of value, which states that the value of an object is always identical to its price on the market (and is therefore subjective).


See also

References and further reading

Anti-communist books

  • Anne Applebaum, Gulag: A History, Broadway Books, 2003, hardcover, 720 pages, ISBN 0767900561
  • Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine. Owl Books. ISBN 0805056688.
  • Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Press ISBN 0195071328.
  • Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195051807.
  • Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674076087.
  • Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253207568.
  • Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975–1978 Princeton University Press ISBN 069102541X.
  • Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN 0520208935.
  • Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN 0300092849.
  • Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN 1929223331.
  • Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN 0786417145.
  • Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN 0679761845.
  • Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009276.
  • Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN 1560008873.
  • Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN 3825840107.
  • Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271019611
  • Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN 0300103220.

External links

Categories:
Criticism of communism: Difference between revisions Add topic