Communism

[697134002]

After reading the Communist Manifesto, I've been wondering... what do people actually have against communism? I see people say 'AAH COMMUNISM' or 'DIE COMMIES' whenever it's mentioned, but never truly figured out why.

And before you say the (possibly biased point of view on my part) american anti-communism point of view, which is that they are a threat to the united states, keep in mind that I'm asking about the philosophy of communism, not the not-too-well carried out forms.

[Cho]

The issue is that the whole basic principle of communism - of sharing equally - is never really the case. Just read about the Soviet Politburo, and decide for yourself if they were sharing equitably with the general populace.

[Preston_Brooks]

Marx assumes a massive change in the nature of humanity (elimination of greed, envy, ect). Without this change communism is impractical if not impossible. One of the many reasons people often dislike communists is because they often forget that this change is needed before a Marxist society can be established. Aka, in our world today Marxist systems would not work.

[Onecanofsprite]

The ideas behind Communism shows deep thought, but in actual practice it has yet to prove successful.

[random980]

No one likes communism because every time it has been executed, it has basically always turned out to be a dictatorship. Communism also means everyone is equal, equal pay, equal power, ect. If a doctor and a carpenter got the same pay, no one would want to be a doctor. The idea of it is very well thought out except for the inclusion of human nature.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

COMMIES

[Cho]

COMMIES

very erudite, Lord...

[Sir_Luke]

COMMIES

This is all that should be said.

[Tomenaki]

In principle, communism isn't a bad idea. It would be nice if humans could get along with each other and actually spread the wealth around equally to everyone. Unfortunately human nature isn't really inclined to that, especially when someone comes into "power" in order to make it work.

[Eddietester1066]

When all the participants freely choose to live communally, it can work. The trouble begins when the system is imposed on people. Inevitably, there will be some who realize that they will still eat even if they do no work. This will grate on the hard workers: "Vanya does no work, yet enjoys the fruits of my labor. This is unfair!" The discord must be resolved by either the expulsion or reform of Vanya or the collapse of the system. And who polices this? Again, on a small scale the entirety of the group can meet and act collectively, but it does not scale. As soon as a select few are empowered with the ability to direct others the door is opened for abuse.

I think the underlying reason the USA felt so strongly about "defeating communism" was that the Soviets were hell-bent on exporting their system. Political and social systems cannot be imposed from without, but must be chosen from within. (On a side note, this is also why I feel all our flailing about in Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya" is doomed to fail.)

[Sti_Jo_Lew]

I personally feel that communism, no matter how well it is implemented, is a bad idea. In the end, it will just promote laziness because people won't want to work harder for the same payout. It's just human nature, and no governmental system can change it. If everyone truly tried their hardest and spread the wealth and labor equally, it would work great. But that's just an impossibility. People should get what the work for, and earn their keep.

[makkaal]

I say, nowadays a lot more things get called "communism" that, even superficially, aren't. So there's that. The word has been ascribed to things certain people don't like.

I believe the reason why the concept is so despised is because it cannot be established by any other means than (social) violence. Marx himself stated that (and in this he may be right) humanity has lived through various social developments by revolutions, or at least a shifting of the ruling class. So, and here's the kicker, he argued that communism would root from a revolution beforehand, to eradicate the ruling capitalist class and empower the suppressed proletariat.
What he did not consider, as Preston_Brooks stated, is that for the system to work, we would have to erase certain parts of human nature if we were not to suffer a strict government to suppress these parts of ourselves.

One might argue that this erasing could mean we were evolving, but as history has shown, that is clearly not the way to go.

[Jesus Christ]

I say, nowadays a lot more things get called "communism" that, even superficially, aren't. So there's that. The word has been ascribed to things certain people don't like.

I believe the reason why the concept is so despised is because it cannot be established by any other means than (social) violence. Marx himself stated that (and in this he may be right) humanity has lived through various social developments by revolutions, or at least a shifting of the ruling class. So, and here's the kicker, he argued that communism would root from a revolution beforehand, to eradicate the ruling capitalist class and empower the suppressed proletariat.
What he did not consider, as Preston_Brooks stated, is that for the system to work, we would have to erase certain parts of human nature if we were not to suffer a strict government to suppress these parts of ourselves.

One might argue that this erasing could mean we were evolving, but as history has shown, that is clearly not the way to go.

COMMIES

[697134002]

I say, nowadays a lot more things get called "communism" that, even superficially, aren't. So there's that. The word has been ascribed to things certain people don't like.

I believe the reason why the concept is so despised is because it cannot be established by any other means than (social) violence. Marx himself stated that (and in this he may be right) humanity has lived through various social developments by revolutions, or at least a shifting of the ruling class. So, and here's the kicker, he argued that communism would root from a revolution beforehand, to eradicate the ruling capitalist class and empower the suppressed proletariat.
What he did not consider, as Preston_Brooks stated, is that for the system to work, we would have to erase certain parts of human nature if we were not to suffer a strict government to suppress these parts of ourselves.

One might argue that this erasing could mean we were evolving, but as history has shown, that is clearly not the way to go.

COMMIES

One would think someone like YOU would like Marx's communism.

[aflycon]

What really bothers me is that Americans nowadays (especially kids) are in a mindset that basically says communism = evil, even though these kids have absolutely no idea what communism is. It's come to a point where talking communism down is "cool", and hating commies is the way to go.

This simply isn't right. Communism is an excellent idea in theory, but a few key points were overlooked. That's all there is to it, and as whoever said earlier, the US government is (was? Not sure how big this whole debate is currently) against communism because of the Soviet Union's intentions to export the system around the world. People just need to open their eyes and realize that they're wrong.

I don't know if this is a good or valid example to bring up, but it's a bit like what South Park did to the word "Jew". Cartman calls Kyle a stupid Jew, it's funny, and people blow the term into a terrible insult. America gets up-in-arms against communism, people take it entirely the wrong way, and it becomes "cool" to hate communism.

I feel sorry for those who are so ignorant.

/rant

[Milo_Windby]

I don't know... that whole "Cold war" thing kind of made people look at the whole thing as bad.
And I would say that it is mostly due to said "Cold war" that America looks down on Communism, not because they are arrogant but because they still remember and Teach the next generation the "evil" of Communism and Soviet Russia.

[jonnybo72]

the two things that went bad were
1:no one wanted to do the high paying(now not high paying)hard work
2:the government took more of the money and gave less back to the people

[superglitch]

From what I understand about Communism is that it removes the barrier between goverment and citizen, and everyone becomes part of the government. It works very well in small situations, like a small village, where things are decided faster and it is very tight-knit. In fact, some games seem to make the pc's hometown as a kind of communistic place when there isn't a big government. In theory, it works perfectly and is the best system for a nation, but to be frank, there has never been a pure communistic nation as far as I am aware. The problem with it is what fuels Capitalism, greed. It is a very weak state of government and it is extremely easy to take over. It produces an almost identical picture as pure capitalism. Which is why most Nations today go somewhere in between.

[Zehydra]

A good and thoughtful idea in theory, but the problem is, is that Communism has no real system in place against abuse of power. Democracies, and their various forms were designed to combat abuse of power.

Many Communists in positions of power have shown to favor the ideology of Communism and party politics than the actual good of the people that Communism is supposed to work for.

Basically, the only way a Communist society will work, if it is comprised of willing participating members. There are currently no such countries that are comprised of willing participating members.

[marurder]

For an example of a functional Socialist Democracy, look at Denmark. I have lived there.

- [Very] High tax rates on everyone (income earned and on services/goods purchased)
- Provided welfare
- Good hospitals (I had the unfortunate first hand experience with one)
- Good public transport
- Large bureaucracy (can be good or bad, depends on what you need)
- The government employs a large amount of the population, so it can control the economy with monetary policy (rather than interest rates).
- Relatively low crime rates (most people have employment or do not have a need to commit crime), that said most of the crime is committed by foreigners (again had this experience - for me it was Russian students)

So in itself, a communistic solution isn't bad, only when you consolidate it into one enforcement system (one government/dictatorship). And then the old argument of absolute power corrupts absolutely comes into play. Not saying DK is perfect. But it is a system that does work.

[yabai_ninja]

Communism is always judged by the leaders. The leaders are always such brutal fascistic people that everyone else finds it nearly impossible to look past the atrocities, and actually examine the core ideaologies with a cool head. Anyway, i think it's sill a good idea in theory, but not in a pure and moneyless way. Getting rid of capitalism altogether is the mistake that all the failed soviet countries made. Lenin got it right with the NEP, then he died, and the any hope of a good USSR died right there.

[697134002]

Communism has no leaders. Communism has no government. All they've been able to achieve was socialism without democracy.

[Wildwill002]

Communism also didnt have chuck norris.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

Lenin got it right with the NEP, then he died, and the any hope of a good USSR died right there.

Lenin didn't really have a choice in the matter. The NEP was introduced mainly because of the negative impact of "war communism", as it was called. Even then it wasn't fully successful, though admittedly part of that was to do with the NEP having little to do with heavy industry policy whilst putting its focus on agriculture.

[yabai_ninja]

Lenin got it right with the NEP, then he died, and the any hope of a good USSR died right there.

Lenin didn't really have a choice in the matter. The NEP was introduced mainly because of the negative impact of "war communism", as it was called. Even then it wasn't fully successful, though admittedly part of that was to do with the NEP having little to do with heavy industry policy whilst putting its focus on agriculture.

Yeah I agree, the NEP wasn't perfect, but most of the lower classes in the Ukraine and southern Russia started doing nicely for themselves, which is, I think the whole point of communism. Stalin is the one to blame for all the PR negativity towards communism.

[697134002]

I'm gonna revive this thread rather than create a new one at Vallorn's bequest.
So, Lord said Interra was taking a while because he needed money in his crack fund. Furd said communism would slow it down further. I argued otherwise. Vallorn said some things about communism being dead, then afly said to stop discussing it.

My case: Communism, whilst unfeasible on a large scale, could work easily on a small scale and it is far better than pure capitalism. Pure capitalism would lead to a society ruled, more or less, by mega-corporations. I acknowledge that communism could never be implemented on an existing society in a matter of years, but it could be done over time.
In nature, animals that cooperate generally do better than ones that just leach off of others. The leeches do better at first, but then everybody becomes a leech and only those who cooperate selectively (i.e. not with the leeches) survive.
In addition, communism in its pure form has never existed on a large scale. Many places claiming to be communist (China, North Korea, not the USSR - They were socialist) were dictatorships instead of democracies. On the other hand, pure communism does occur at a small scale. Australian aborigines, Kalahari bushmen and some native american tribes (prior to mass contact) could be argued to be communist.

[Preston_Brooks]

An interesting claim 697134002, but I feel that your argument was presented without evidence. For example, you said that "Pure capitalism would lead to a society ruled, more or less, by mega-corporations." This is a pretty brazen claim to make without any evidence behind it. A true capitalist system has never been established in our history, and as such I don't see how you can foresee that it would end in corporatism. If you have any sources that suggested this, please let me know, I would be interested to read them.

To be honest, without any government intervention in the economy corporations would find it a great degree harder to assume any sort of unbalancing control over an economic system. If you look at the various monopolies and mega-corporations that have existed throughout modern history you will notice that many of them actually were able to gain an unfair market share thanks to subsidies and favorable policies instituted by the governments in their nation of origin. For a good example of this, look at the era of the monopolies around the turn of the 20th century in America (to narrow it down, look at the trusts broken up by Teddy Roosevelt, nearly all of them relied on gov't sanctions to gain control of the economy).

Second, I am curious who considered "Australian aborigines, Kalahari bushmen and some Native American tribes" to be communist. If you could be more specific I would greatly appreciate it. I know that private property existed in several of these societies (Native American Tribes), which would put them closer to socialism than communism. Regardless, I think we can agree that they may have been closer to true communism than any of our societies today, they were not true communism. In addition, it may be unfair to apply modern Western economic theories to societies that did not even have Western concepts of ownership, property, or economics (though I would be interested in seeing an attempt to do so).

I agree with you that true communism, much like true capitalism, has never been established. However I believe there is a reason for this. As i mentioned earlier, Marx assumed a massive change in the nature of humanity (elimination of greed, envy, ect). Without this change communism is impossible. i submit to you that until humanity no longer experiences greed or envy true communism is impossible in any society. To be honest, this is very close to what Marx himself thought. You cannot force this change, nor can you rush it, it needs to happen organically, and until it does, any attempt to establish a communist system will result in a perverted distortion of Marx's ideals.

I hope this is the start of a well reasoned discussion 697134002, I am curious to hear your opinions on what I have brought up. I have always loved debating economic and political theories, so I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the subject!

[Invunarble]

-Information no longer relevant-

[random980]

Communism isnt just ruined by authority figures, the common lazy dick head ruins it to. He thinks 'why should i work when ill be rewarded the same for doing nothing?' then the doctor thinks 'how come im doing all this work and only earning the same rewards as mister lazy ass over here?' People will stop working, abuse the system because they can without any penalty, then the whole community falls apart. It will only work if the people involved are doing it in the name of communism, any other reward would be shared equally to all and not everyone in the system is equal with another. Not only that but everything is owned by the state, you cant really even get an advantage by saving more than the next guy.

Communism doesnt work because the only incentive that will work is 'for communism'. Any other incentive would have to be shared equally between non-equal members. (Causing a collapse).

[MrWhales]

I say, nowadays a lot more things get called "communism" that, even superficially, aren't. So there's that. The word has been ascribed to things certain people don't like.

I believe the reason why the concept is so despised is because it cannot be established by any other means than (social) violence. Marx himself stated that (and in this he may be right) humanity has lived through various social developments by revolutions, or at least a shifting of the ruling class. So, and here's the kicker, he argued that communism would root from a revolution beforehand, to eradicate the ruling capitalist class and empower the suppressed proletariat.
What he did not consider, as Preston_Brooks stated, is that for the system to work, we would have to erase certain parts of human nature if we were not to suffer a strict government to suppress these parts of ourselves.

One might argue that this erasing could mean we were evolving, but as history has shown, that is clearly not the way to go.

To ignore what everyone after makkaal said and to nerco a bit. I used to be commie is a theoretical sense. Now I feel more towards an objectivist economy (laissez-faire capitalism, google objectivist or ayn rand)

But I have read through a lot of Marx and what the Communist Manifesto speculates a lot on what exactly would happen if it ever came true in the correct sense. Marx and Engels died before the Russian/Soviet revolution started (Engels lived till 1894, about 20 years before it the first whispers of revolution. The Manifesto was first published in 1845. So it was old even in 1922(The Soviet's gained control). Marx (and by default Engels, although he didn't write the part I'm talking about) predicted only a Capitalist nation could successfully go to Communism(Marx was not a Marxist, he was a communist). Russia was a more traditional society with sparks of other systems, feudal capitalism you could say. One possible situation Marx predicted was simply that the coin would flip and the old proletariat would become the new bourgeois, and the old bourgeois would become the new proletariat. (You can see some of this in We the Living by Ayn Rand, which is about people's lives around the revolution.). The tide would simply change and while it would seem good for a short time, slowly it wouldreveal to be the same, and eventually it would flip back, etc and so forth.

Another idea was that is would work and people would get along and we'd all eat rainbows and poo butterflies. Then they died.