Why won't the nightmare dream of communism die?

[Regular_Atheist]

I’m not redefining it. I’m a Marxist, and the way I’m defining it is based on the work of Marx and other writers. Of course the communist movement is distinct from these people and exists independantly. The way people are using it here is a more recent appropriation of the term. It is worth noting that countries such as the USSR and PRC would not have claimed to be communist, and still do not today. They justified the existence of capital by proclaiming the necessity of a number of stages of “socialism” that had to be advanced through before communism could be reached.

Communism being defined as “total state control of the economy” is an anti-communist myth that obscures the real nature of the eastern bloc economies, the history of how they came to be, and the way in which the state and capital are inherently bound together. Even if we defined communism this way then the USSR would not be communist - only heavy industries existed under direct state control, while much of the economy operated independently.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

“My definition and idea for communism would totally work even though it’s failed every time and killed 10s of millions of people”

Just admit your ideology is a failure. Find something a little more practical that doesn’t result in mass murder every time it’s attempted.

 

[mkoopman]

I expect that the quantum basis for the multiverse can paradigm shift and bring reality into alignment with your vision. Soulless persons devoid of special creation but clay reformed by speculation on special relativity have yet to cause true communism to appear.
And Linus still waits with you in the pumpkin patch. Did you pack a lunch for the wait?

 

[Brendan_64]

Give one example where Communism has resulted in a better, fairer, more humane and freer society.

The reality is that Communism has to be imposed by force, allows no dissent and dissenting citizens are crushed mercilessly. Human beings in a Communist system have value not as individuals, but only in terms of their contribution to the system. Those that dissent, or are deemed to have little value, can be eliminated.

Communism has been around for 100 years and there are no positive examples of its implementation (and not far off 100 million innocent deaths under this system, depending on what source is used).

If some positive examples of Communism having worked to benefit humanity could be shown over the past 100 years then perhaps that might help its case, but all many supporters of Communism say seems to be, “It hasn’t been done properly so far”. Well you would have thought that 100 years should be a long enough period of time for someone to implement it properly.

The fact is that Communism doesn’t work and only brings misery and harm. The historical record shows this.

 

[Annie]

You are not redefining Marx? What about the revolution that must occur, where the workers throw off their chains? What about the period of socialism that must occur before the state withers away?

I worked with groups which considered themselves non-hierarchical: the members were deluding themselves. There was hierarchy in each one, and usually unopposed. The end was a type of undisciplined democracybut not a non-hierarchical group. And these were small groups of fewer than 50 people.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I’m not trying to come up with my own personal blueprint for a society that needs to be imposed onto the world. I don’t think communism was implemented incorrectly - I don’t think communism is implemented at all. Communism is not the positive implementation of a blueprint for a new world, it’s the radical destruction of the present one, the abolition of all that stands in the way of man living a society based on the direct and free association of individuals. As Marx wrote:

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”

Communism isn’t an ideal society, but a movement that destroys the present world. Communism is based on a radical critique of the current world, and does not waste time trying to imagine a perfect one.

People in Russia in 1917 did not revolt because they were convinced communism was a good idea which needed to be implemented. They revolted against the old world which oppressed them, and sought to destroy it. They revolted against the fact that they were subjected to and subservient to capital, and sought its abolition. They failed to do this however, and the USSR instead universalised the laws of capital across the country.

 

[Brendan_64]

Communism is not the positive implementation of a blueprint for a new world, it’s the radical destruction of the present one,

And if that includes the killing of many millions of innocent people because they are deemed to be standing in the way of, or impeding the progress of, the destruction of the present world then so be it, eh? These people therefore are part of (and cling to) the present world so they too ought to be eradicated?

Communism has no regard for the individual and humans only exist to further the system. Communism is an ammoral system within which individual human beings have no inherent value. If humans have no value as individuals then killing millions of them, if it benefits ‘great march forward’, becomes nothing to lose too much sleep over.

 

[mkoopman]

It appears there is a blueprint for communism. I think you nailed it.

 

[jfz178]

Communism is not the positive implementation of a blueprint for a new world, it’s the radical destruction of the present one, the abolition of all that stands in the way of man living a society based on the direct and free association of individuals.

That’s actually comforting. I have some fear of radical Islam, but I have no fear of what you said ever happening. What I see is communism getting its butt kicked all over the globe and/or being co-opted into capitalism. So that’s one less thing I have to worry about. Rant on!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

You are not redefining Marx? What about the revolution that must occur, where the workers throw off their chains?

What about it? I don’t deny the necessity of revolution to overthrow capital.

What about the period of socialism that must occur before the state withers away?

This was an idea that emerged from the USSR and “Marxism-Leninism” to justify the existence of capital in the USSR. It is not an idea that is consistent with Marx or communism as the abolition of the present world.

I worked with groups which considered themselves non-hierarchical: the members were deluding themselves. There was hierarchy in each one, and usually unopposed. The end was a type of undisciplined democracybut not a non-hierarchical group. And these were small groups of fewer than 50 people.

I wouldn’t describe communism as “non-hierarchical” and I wouldn’t describe communism as being opposed to “hierarchy.” Honestly I don’t think the term is always particularly meaningful.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is not an idea that is consistent with Marx or communism as the abolition of the present world.

In that abolition of the present world, is it justifiable to include the elimination of people who oppose or stand in the way of this abolition? Do people have an intrinsic individual value of their own or is their value only what they can contribute towards the system? Are human beings simply another commodity? What is morality in the development of a Communist system? Is there any such thing as morality in a system where the ends justify the means?

 

[AlNg]

Some bad ideas just keep on going. Why?

Why are people still attracted to communism? I think it is more like a preference for socialism rather than communism. Why are people attracted to socialism?

1. The high cost of medical care. Hospitals charge you $30 for one aspirin. An ambulance ride to the hospital costs $6500. For a doctor in ER to look at a patient with a stomach ache cost $24000. Under communism, all medical care is free.
2. The high cost of college education. The local private college here charges $60000 per year for tuition, fees, room and board. It does not allow living off campus for the first year. And books, clothing and other things like transportation are extra. Some books now cost $250 for one book because they include a CD to be used on the web and this CD can be used only by the person purchasing the book, so you can’t rent this type of book. Suppose you have five children. How are you going to afford these prices. And the system discriminates against you if you are an Asian male. If you are Asian you have to score a lot higher on the SAT to get admitted in comparison with other races. Communism treats everyone fairly regardless of race.
3. The continuing number of wars and the thousands of billions of dollars spent by the US to intervene in other countries and wage war . There was the Vietnam war, the Dominican civil war, the Cambodian civil war, the war in south Zaire, the Lebanese civil war, the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the Tanker war, the Tobruk encounter, the invasion of Panama, the Somali civil war, the Bosnian war, the intervention in Haiti, the Kosovo war, the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq war, the war in NW Pakistan, the Somali civil war, the Libyan civil war, Syrian civil war, Yemeni civil war, when will these wars end? And who benefits from these wars except for the military industrial complex and the weapons manufacturers. Take the Vietnam war? Massacres, atrocities, tortures, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, 7 million tons of bombs dropped on Vietnam, napalm dropped on children, and the result? The other side won and now the US is friendly toward the former enemy. So what was accomplished? The total death toll was 3 million people in just one war? Who profited except the weapons industry and the military industrial complex.
4. When large corporations fail, the government bails them out and those in charge of the failed companies keep their salaries and bonuses. $29 billion for Bear Stearns, $345 billion for Citigroup. The Federal Reserve put up $600 billion to guarantee money market deposits, etc. You try to make capitalism softer by introducing quasi-socialist measures but it isn’t fair because the big boys get to keep their huge salaries and bonuses whether their company profits or fails.

 

[Brendan_64]

I think it is more like a preference for socialism rather than communism.

I think you are right.

A major difference is that Socialist ideas can be implemented within moral framework of care for others. Within such a framework humans can be valued as having intrinisic worth.

Communism on the other hand is a system where human beings seem to have no intrinsic worth other than how they can contribute to the implementation of the system. Communism does not appear to operate witnin a moral framework and seems to dehumanise human beings.

 

[DarkLight]

Why are people still attracted to communism? I think it is more like a preference for socialism rather than communism. Why are people attracted to socialism?

Definitely. And I think many people feel like modern capitalism is far too influenced by those with a lot of money, who then get laws passed that benefit them when they want to make more money and keep other people from challenging them. That’s one major issue with an overfocus on capitalism - that you can end up with people who use their money to keep other people from earning too much money because they don’t want competition.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I think you are right.

A major difference is that Socialist ideas can be implemented within moral framework of care for others. Within such a framework humans can be valued as having intrinisic worth.

Communism on the other hand is a system where human beings seem to have no intrinsic worth other than how they can contribute to the implementation of the system. Communism does not appear to operate witnin a moral framework and seems to dehumanise human beings.

Socialism has the same issue. In both socialism and communism, people only have worth if the state says they do. There’s nothing inherent in the system which places any value on the human being beyond their ability to produce for the state.

 

[Brendan_64]

Socialism has the same issue. In both socialism and communism, people only have worth if the state says they do.

The issue then is how do we define Socialism. What is Socialism and what is Social democracy? What is simply a compassionate arrangement where those less fortunate are assisted through social security and publicly funded services provide access for all to education, health etc and what is a something far beyond that where people are viewed effectively as state property? It depends on your definition.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

ProdglArchitect:

Socialism has the same issue. In both socialism and communism, people only have worth if the state says they do.

The issue then is how do we define Socialism. What is Socialism and what is Social democracy? What is simply a compassionate arrangement where those less fortunate are assisted through social security and publicly funded services provide access for all to education, health etc and what is a something far beyond that where people are viewed effectively as state property? It depends on your definition.

Well, i personally believe that socialism is a falsehood, and exists only as a stepping stone to eventual communism. It is the half-way state which cannot maintain itself for very long due to the nature of fallen humanity.

To me, socialism is where communists go before they’re willing to admit they’re communists. Socialism and social democracies still force charity through the means of the state, which violates the nature of charity, which cannot be forced. They take from those who have by force, and give to those who do not have. While this may seem positive to those who do not have, the fact is that their benefit it still obtained at the involuntary expense of others. Socialists attempt to justify it by saying that the other person can afford to have their money taken, but that doesn’t make it any different from the street thug who says that their need for money allows them to steal for someone else who looks better off than they are.

 

[DarkLight]

To be fair, I think that applies to any economic system. A common criticism of capitalism is that it has no concern for people beyond what they are able to produce that’s deemed of financial value. It comes up a lot when it comes to disabilities especially - capitalism by itself doesn’t have much use for people who can’t produce. It also doesn’t care about, say, religious orders that devote themselves to prayer. That all happens outside capitalism proper.

All that is to say that economic systems, by themselves, are ways of moving stuff around. We can move stuff around in ways that help people or hurt people.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

To be fair, I think that applies to any economic system. A common criticism of capitalism is that it has no concern for people beyond what they are able to produce that’s deemed of financial value. It comes up a lot when it comes to disabilities especially - capitalism by itself doesn’t have much use for people who can’t produce. It also doesn’t care about, say, religious orders that devote themselves to prayer. That all happens outside capitalism proper.

All that is to say that economic systems, by themselves, are ways of moving stuff around. We can move stuff around in ways that help people or hurt people.

I don’t disagree, however, Socialism and Communism are built on the concept of theft from those who have to support those who do not. Capitalism addresses this with the concept that when people are well off there are both more capable, and more likely, to help those in need. That concept may not always play out in reality (though is usually does. Most rich people are actually super generous with their money. That’s true on both sides of America’s political divide), but at least it is not founded on theft as its central tenant.

 

[DarkLight]

I think we’re back to the “is taxation theft” bit. As I’m pretty sure we’ve been over that about a dozen times already, I doubt another’s going to go anywhere. So I’m just going to leave some virtual beer here instead and go to sleep.