« Coming Anarchy on Slate | HomePage | Evolution from Communism »
Thursday, May 05, 20051115311800
Evolution from Communism
Chirol at Coming Anarchy is busying graphing the collapse of Communism. Here's a different model.
Slide 1:
Slide 2:
What's happening?
The process begins 1989, when functioning Communist Cores existed. The largest of these was the Soviet Union and its satellites, but the Communist Cores extended into China, Korea, and other states. The states in the Cores were tied together through industrial exchange and foreign aid
After the collapse, every Communist state faced a basic question: stay with Communist economics or not? Answering yes were Cuba and North Korea. These Communist states still needed money, and so the next question was how to acquire capital. Cuba opted for peaceful links with Europe and eroticommunism, while North Korea chose its Army-First Juche Idea "threaten to kill everyone" plan.
If a state ditched Communist economics, they still were faced with a Communist/authoritarian political structure. The next question was whether to liberalize politically or maintain "Communist" politics. Keeping the old ways were "communist" China and Vietnam. Both of these states are going through an unsteady process of liberalization while maintaining the authoritarian regime.
Even if a state ditches Communist politics, the journey is still not over. The necessary reforms are painful, and states may continue or ditch reforms policies. Most eastern European states continued on, becoming functioning democracies.
Those states that ceased reforming had to return to repressing their people. The next question is one of competency and execution: were the states effective or ineffective at repression. Those that weren't engaged in counter-effective repressions or encouraged wars to unify their people. These regimes fell, and their people (such as in Ukraine and Serbia) are now back at the "Maintain Reforms" stage.
On the other hand, Russia is an effective repressor. States like Russia have backslid into the "Communist politics" stage, becoming authoritarian regimes. Will they maintain authoritarianism and grow like China, or ditch authoritarianism and try again?
The only method known to work for creating a full democracy is No to Communist Economics -> No to Communist Politics -> Maintain Reforms. Any other path is speculative in this context.
The chart I created is also available in >PDF and >ODG [OASIS / OpenOffice 2.0] format.
11:50 Posted by Dan tdaxp in History | Permalink | Comments (13) | Email this | Tags: chirol, communism
Comments
Only a remark. Russia has not gone back to the "Communist politics" stage. Russia is now a sort of mix of democratic reforms (pre-Putin) and authoritarianism: in any case a softer kind of authoritarianism.
Communism was (is) something very different.
Best.
Enzo
Posted by: 1972 | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Thanks for the comment!
I was basing my remarks on Russia on their Freedom House downgrade (http://www.freedomhouse.org/media/pressrel/122004.htm). However, you are right that repression is not as bad as during most of Communism's reign.
The worst aspects of Communism came from its economic policies.
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, May 05, 2005
The worst aspects of Communism came from the mix of ruinous economic policies and awful political repression.
The essences of a totalitarian system.
Best.
Enzo
Posted by: 1972 | Thursday, May 05, 2005
I think we largely agree. The problem with Communism's economic control is that it oppresses even people who were not political. In authoritarian regimes you can get on just fine as long as you do not politically agitate. But the Soviet Union repressed consumption, assigned careers, etc. There was little freedom even for "average people." Basically, a huge plantation.
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, May 05, 2005
This is exactly the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian system.
Soviet Union and communist regimes in general were (are) totalitarian exactly because the control pervaded every aspect of economical and political life, every aspect of social and individual life.
But control was economical AND political AND ideological. Three faces of the same repression machine.
Orwell's 1984 was totalitarian Communism.
BTW, I think your model is more intelligible and realistic than Coming Anarchy's one.
Best.
Enzo
Posted by: 1972 | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Agreed! On a different tanget, what is your opinion of the government and society in "Brave New World"?
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, May 05, 2005
I think "Brave New World" at a first reading looks like a sort of "1984" but in fact you can find some basical differences: for instance, from the Utopian point of view the notion of "utilitarianism" and from the victims point of view a more intense struggle to preserve their individuality. More, an awful notion of science and modernity.
In general I prefer Orwell's work because there's no indulgence towards a totalitarian nightmare. I don't know any "benevolent dictatorship": Huxley seems to suggest it could exist.
Best.
Enzo
Posted by: 1972 | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Thanks for your review!
What struck me reading BNW was how sustainable the society was. While 1984 relies on explicit vertical controls to maintain order, the totalitarian state in BNW has adapted itself to fit human nature. BNW might recognize a "final society" -- a new order that can sustain itself indefinitely.
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Let's hope not!
Best.
Enzo
Posted by: 1972 | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Wonderful graphs. Glad to serve as your muse my good sir. I'll have up a third graph soon.
Posted by: Chirol | Thursday, May 05, 2005
Excellent! I love these blog discussions. So creative!
Posted by: Dan | Thursday, May 05, 2005
I think that there is something more that is lacking before you get to sustainable liberal democracies. You need to achieve a sort of cultural reform that sustains the rule of law, otherwise you collapse back into authoritarianism during adversity. So long as liberal democracy is a sort of fairy tale experiment, it remains vulnerable to relapse.
In explicit communist terms, the creation of homo sovieticus is not entirely an economic, political, or legal construct but rather something deeper that also needs curing. The closest that I've seen anybody address this problem in a profound way is the Catholic call to consecrate Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary as first expressed at Fatima. Even if you don't buy into the Catholic stories of apparitions and the events of Fatima in 1917, it's a remarkably farsighted call to cultural change to reform a rabidly dysfunctional society.
Another case is the France of 1940 (and possibly today). It had the political, economic, and legal forms necessary for liberal democracy. But unlike WW I where it fought with distinction WW II saw it quickly collapse into the nasty Vichy regime. When your flowchart can capture that problem, you'll have explained the problem set to a much better degree.
The cultural problem is much less defined, is much touchier, much wilder, much harder to analyze rationally. This makes it no less real. A France's collapse into Vichy is no less in need of explanation as Russia's collapse into Putin's "tyranny of the law".
Posted by: TM Lutas | Friday, May 06, 2005
TM Lutas: Agreed. Horizontal controls are very important, and as social networks become more peer-based they are becoming even more critical.
I like the Fatima analogy. You present a profound way of thinking about it.
Posted by: Dan | Sunday, May 08, 2005