Someone asked me some questions in advance of preparing a presentation that would address a possible future podcast dialog and I dashed off some responses, understanding that I am a registered Democrat who would like to support the efforts of groups like Progressive Democrats of America.
I do have some political beliefs that I was happy to share, understanding that they are all subject to change considering the political situation in the US requiring more popular front activity in the face of rising right-wing movements. Suffice it to say, ideological constructions will also wither away when the world can live in peace and harmony. And likely I dodged some questions because they need further thought. Also, the podcast form has discursive limits.
Q1: Also there’s the fact that a lot of socialism has been quashed before it’s had a chance to thrive (mostly by the US in Latin America - perhaps this exemplifies how such governments can’t exist alongside capitalism)
It may be that ideological purity in any politics is never possible whether ISIS or the Catholics. There’s no issue of parallelism when democracy rather than nationalism is a guiding principle. Nothing should stand against democracy.
Q2: In the Marxist post-revolutionary society, are industries owned by the workers? (Not a government that represents them?) I’m having trouble finding sources that don’t conflate with Bolshevism etc. who supervises the distribution of goods in a Marxist society?
This is a big question on public ownership of the means of production but property should disappear- see Fully Automated Luxury Communism. It may be glib, but conventional forms of revolution may not be available, as the historical situation may require new formulations, especially given the history of Bolshevism in Russia.
Distribution will take care of itself, because necessity will redefine itself within any society that understands its needs in an ecosocialist context.
Q3: In communism, is the idea more or less the same except with a government acting on behalf of the people?
As above we don’t quite know what it will look like but it will be more equitable. “government” should not be confused with governing the governed. One assumes that it will be accountable, transparent, and subservient to the people rather than the other way around. In the historical context. the standard version (assuming the Leninist line on “dictatorship of the proletariat” , the state remains in the form of the party (for a while) see critiques of the Soviet Union and the PRC as both forms of “state capitalism”. That state, like capitalism itself should wither away because there should be no reason to have one even as globalization has made the world system more integrated and interoperable.
Q4: In your opinion, did countries like the USSR, China, and present day North Korea create something that’s un-Marxist by having a government that has dominion over the people? It seems like they’re only communist in that there’s nationalized means of production.
There is no true functioning communism (nor has there ever been, despite attempts at utopian socialism) because the globe hasn’t (yet) become socialist. The global mode of production is capitalist, declaring oneself “capitalist” has as little effect as declaring oneself “communist”. Calling myself democratic socialist is largely aspirational.
They’ve rationalized their respective rule in the form of state capitalism described above but have gone too far with cults of personality that evolved from historical necessity, civil wars, and world wars. They did institute land reform and seized the property of the ruling classes, installing single party rule backed by the military. Marxism is merely a school of thought and not a governing principle for popular rule. Governmentality is about the people first. The climate crisis may yet fully engage the world governments in planetary defense. Coordination and cooperation should rule before any institutions or entities.
Q5: Besides Nordic socialism and revolutionary Catalonia, what do you consider to be successful examples of socialism or Marxism? Brazil? The kibbutzim seemingly had a good run and I wonder if there were external factors that led to financial issues and defeatism. Might the takeaway be that any ideology can only thrive in pluralistic governments?
There probably is no purely socialist society (there are mixed ones that are even nominal monarchies, like the Scandinavian ones (see happiness indices). Since we haven’t gotten to global socialism, achieving a semblance of a “successful” socialism is difficult, but there are economies that redistribute income to democratize welfare (high taxes with free health, education, regulation/ownership of key industries). Everyone likes to use Spain’s Mondragon as an example of collectivized industry, but the issue is that the global market is still a capitalist one.
The PRC is closer but constrained by its massive population scale and historical corruption and they haven’t worked out the state ownership problem and class divisions, considering the numbers of counter revolutionaries and fascists who want to reenact or reinstate the corruption of the interwar period in China as a agglomeration of oligarchic warlord regions. Other troubles include the relations of ethnic minorities and their own quasi-colonial actions in places like Africa.
Pluralism was a good first step for many democratic experiments but the real variables are power and political communication and as we’ve seen recently the rule of law. There can be socialism with American characteristics but we’ve a lot of work to do.