Communism (Continued from Standoff Forum)

[Delance]

Originally posted by PopsiclePete
Hey, I am not 100% against him either. I agree that every implementation of communism have failed miserably... and that it's an utopy. That's exactly what Needaham45 and I are saying from the begining.

It's not a utopia, is an ideology about a theoretical social system. Its failure doesn't turn it into a "utopia", but on a dystopia. Again, read 1984 .

The only thing in everything he said I don't agree with is the "Communism killed 100 million people" easy sentence that is like he read in a book and that may make him look intellectual.

Oh, please. Communism is the opium of the intellectuals. The fact that I'm not foolishly defending it, by itself, is more then enough evidence against that. In fact, talking nonsense about things they know nothing about is what you get from the generic pseudo intellectual communist trying to pass for an intellectual, randomly quoting Che, Fidel, Marx, Mao, or the like.

And don't trivialize the genocide that Communism was. 100 million lives is not a book quote. It's actual 100 million humans who were murdered. It's genocide. But since you mentioned it, there are several academic works describing the horrors of communism. Perhaps the most notable is The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. You could probably benefit from reading this book.

I just wanted to remind him that every other system has it's share of deaths too.

So because no system is perfect, it's OK to have any system, however how brutal and totalitarian. Nice logic.

The only advantage of capitalism as it's mainly done in the western countries is that the power is divided into more people, thus making the emergence of a dictator much more difficult.

The "only" advantage? It means there are personal freedoms, and that the power of the State is limited. That include it is not a totalitarian regime, and cannot plan and commit genocide, horror, mass murder, and the sort of thing. If you want to minimize that and think it's a small thing, than it's your choice, really.

BTW Frosty, I don't talk about communism with my pals. I just felt Delance's statements where too bold and unfair, that's all. He seems to think that communism=totalitarian=deaths. That's an easy link to make, but it not true either.

Well, my statements are backed up by history. I've even presented a couple of books. If you think it's not true, you could be so good as to please explain why, since so far all you have done was to hang on to the magical sophism were communism is pure and good because all communist nations were totalitarian.

I am no communist, but I don't like people bashing things simplisticly, saying something is black and the other white. It's oversimplistic. Everything's not that simple and you can't ignore the facts that won't help you prove your point... but reading the other threads were Delance has posted it would seem he does for a variety of subjects.

Ah, a personal attack. How nice of you! Well, I honestly ask you to, please, point out the facts that I'm alleged ignoring here on this thread, so I could address them properly.

Oh, and Delance, please don't reply to this with like a quote for each sentence and then giving your response for each, I don't like arguing that much. I gave my opinion, that's all.

You have every right to give your opinion, as I have right to give mine. It's called free speech. That's one of those personal freedoms we have on a democracy.

 

[Needaham45]

I really hate repeating myself, but I think I'm going to have to.

Communism and Democracy are related in no way. Communism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system. Political and Economic sytems are not dependant of each other. You can have Democratic Capitolism, or a Capitolist Dictatorship. You can have a Communist Dictator ship, or a Democratic Communism. There's 2 spectrums - Political and Economic. They are as follows (these are simplified versions):

Political:

Dictatorship - Monarchy - Republic - Democracy

Economic:

Feudalism - Capitolsim - Socialism - Communism

You can mix and match from the two catagories. Certain things have never been tried, or may not complement each other perfectly, but you can pick one from one list, and one from the other to come up with a system.

In it's original theory, Communism was proposed under a pure Democracy. The way this would work is the government controls the economy directly, and the people are directly the government. This would be an ideal situation, and has nothing to do with lack of individuality, rights, etc. That becomes problems when you have a Communist Dictatorship, which is what all Communist governments have been.

In theory, a Democratic Communism would be perfect. The people would be the government, and would control the economy. Everyone is equal, everyone is happy, everything is done to better mankind as a whole rather than self. The problem isn't with Communism, but with the politics it has run under. You can say a Communist Dictatorship is horrible, and I will agree with you 100%. But there is nothing wrong with Communism itself. It's an idea - an idea that still hasn't been tried the way it was proposed, under a Democratic political system. Don't critize communism until we see what happens when it's carried out as Marx said it should be - under a Democracy. Until that time, I'm forced to say it's good when humans reach the point at which they can accheive it, because the theory itself is very promising.

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by Needaham45
Communism and Democracy are related in no way.

That is correct, in fact, one excludes the other.

Communism is an economic system, Democracy is a political system. Political and Economic sytems are not dependant of each other. You can have Democratic Capitolism, or a Capitolist Dictatorship. You can have a Communist Dictator ship, or a Democratic Communism. There's 2 spectrums - Political and Economic. They are as follows (these are simplified versions):

Political:
Dictatorship - Monarchy - Republic - Democracy

Economic:
Feudalism - Capitolsim - Socialism - Communism

You can mix and match from the two catagories. Certain things have never been tried, or may not complement each other perfectly, but you can pick one from one list, and one from the other to come up with a system.

I'm honestly sorry to say this, but this is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard on this forum.

So, you think it's a natural thing to have a Democratic Feudalism, or a Communism Monarchy? Really? Let's see. Democratic Feudalism. Everyone has all sorts of freedoms, but are servarts to a master they can't choose, who have absolut power of their lives. Nice.

Even better: The King of the Communists. There is no class, except for the King and the other nobles. All religion should be destroyed for they are inherently evil, except for the divine right of the King. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Also, if had any idea of what you were talking about, you would know that, for communists, socialism is merely a stage before the full implementation of the system.

You also made a hell of confusion. Republic is the political order. It means RES PUBLIC. It doesn't exclude being a Democracy, or a Dictatorship. The US was a Republic AND a Democracy. The CCCP was a Republic AND a Dictatorship.

In it's original theory, Communism was proposed under a pure Democracy. The way this would work is the government controls the economy directly, and the people are directly the government. This would be an ideal situation, and has nothing to do with lack of individuality, rights, etc. That becomes problems when you have a Communist Dictatorship, which is what all Communist governments have been.

First off, this is utopist socialism, not communism. It has little to do with communism, let alone Marxism. Also, the definition of "democracy" of such theory is a fallacy. In order to try to rise to power, communists go with the Marxists theory on any of it's incredbly numerous different revisionist interpretations.
This site alone, incomplete, has 141 different parties and factions. So you are talking about a theory dismissed by communists and socialists back in the 1800’s. It’s also wrong, so wrong in fact that the communists themselves dismissed it as wrong.

In theory, a Democratic Communism would be perfect. The people would be the government, and would control the economy. Everyone is equal, everyone is happy, everything is done to better mankind as a whole rather than self.

That might work for ants, but not for men. And it's a lie, too: if everyone is the government, there is NO government. That's anarchy, what is a totally different issue. The first thing that the Marxists threw out was this concept of "everyone is the government". Even people who doesn't want to be communists would be in the government? No, of course not. EVERYONE WILL WANT TO BE A COMMUNIST.

Also, nice thing that you say that people would be happy. So, finally, a regime that MANDATES citizen happyness. If someone is unhappy, send them to the a gulag in Siberia. Problem solved.

The problem isn't with Communism, but with the politics it has run under. You can say a Communist Dictatorship is horrible, and I will agree with you 100%. But there is nothing wrong with Communism itself. It's an idea - an idea that still hasn't been tried the way it was proposed, under a Democratic political system.

That's a big fat lie. Marxism/Leninism dictates a vilolent overthrown of the government, and a dictatorship afterwards. That's communism. After it failed, revisionism by people like Grasmsci dictated some new strategy, like to infiltrate key sectors of the society like the press, schools and universities in order to slowly condition the society in becoming first socialist, then communist. Of course a good coup'de'tat might come in handy if the opportunity presents itself.

Don't critize communism until we see what happens when it's carried out as Marx said it should be - under a Democracy.

I particularly like this piece of brainwashed newspeak. I am forbidden to even criticize communism until it has happened. You like to hide behind this magical sophism shield. Communism is immune to criticism, because it has failed. Until it succeeds, it cannot be contested in any way, shape or form. A communist will ignore and dismiss, in limine, without any examination, all criticism, theory, or evidence against communism.

It’s a dogmatic thing: Marx was right. If anything points out that statement is wrong, it’s automatically false. A self-fulfilling prophecy: until it happens, all evidence it’s wrong is evidence it’s right.

Until that time, I'm forced to say it's good when humans reach the point at which they can accheive it, because the theory itself is very promising.

Sure thing. Another favorite: blaming the victim. If millions died, is because they didn’t reach that wonder point in evolution Marx predicted. If someone doesn’t want to live under communist, it’s because they are not evolved enough. Of course, Marx and the other communists were able to arbitrarily make up a social and economic system that is the only possible course of evolution for man, and that would ensure nothing but happiness to the entire human race.

 

[Needaham45]

I can see there's no point in arguing this. We both have different views on what is the truth about what Marx said, we're probably both misinterpreting what the other said. We're not gonna convince eachother of our stance, therefore this arguement is pointless. I'm just gonna drop it before it turns into a flame war.

 

[redwolf]

Well I think I am just going to have to wade into the debate...

Communism in theory is not a bad idea at all. Think about it. Everyone shares in the resources. In theory no one goes hungry nor wants for anything.

Obviously we cannot provide that yet because human greed gets in the way and we cannot produce 6 billion Porches for the 6 billion people that live on the planet. However, we can provide a safety net for those that fall through the cracks and this is socialism.

Under a capitalist system, only those that control the factors of production that are in demand will survive. Quite bleak if you ask me. If you were unable to work, say you had a disability, you would quite simply starve. So the strong survive and the weak die, sounds like how the animal kingdom works. Once again, humans prove to be uncilivised brutes.

Or, we can provide some basic necessities for those that cannot work for whatever reason. We can feed, clothe and shelter them, prove we are not greedy, selfish organisms. That's not capitalism my friends....thats that EVIL, EVIL word, SOCIALISM.

What's required at this point in human cultural evolution is the best of both worlds. We need the economic growth that capitalism provides, yet we need to take care of the disadvantaged, which socialism provides. Both have nothing to do with democracy as that is a political term, as has been correctly stated.

The strengths of a capitalist/socialist(mixed) economies are great. Look at Australia and most of the countries in Western Europe. Sure they may not be the economic powerhouses the United States is, but I would stake my entire worth that there is less crime, less environmental pollution and a greater sense of egalitarianism (hence, true democracy) than in the United States. Surprise, surprise, Australia and Western Europe are mixed economies!

 

[Delance]

Originally posted by redwolf
Communism in theory is not a bad idea at all. Think about it. Everyone shares in the resources. In theory no one goes hungry nor wants for anything.

You should think about it. It's a terrible theory. It was made up by very few people like Marx on the 1800's, and is based on completely erroneous historical assumptions. Marx analysis of history and sociology was seriously mistaken, and that has been proved over and over again. The theoretical system based on this is, by consequence, completely equivocated. Communism is based on collectivism. It denies individuality. It denies free will. There's no room for dissidence. Communism, in theory, is a dystopia.

Both in theory and in reality, a collective planned economic system theory is incredibly bad and results in massive hunger.

Obviously we cannot provide that yet because human greed gets in the way[/B]

That's a long standing lie. What gets in the way is HUMAN FREE WILL. Communism hates it. Marx did nothing but try to deny it. The entire communist theory is structured in a way to deny individualism and free will.

Communism also dictates all forms of religion must be exterminated, with extreme prejudice, in order for this wonderful world of bliss to become reality. Religion is the opium of the people, always gets in the way. Another thing that gets in the way and must be destroyed is the entire moral and cultural system of the western civilization. Bourgeois morality, as they say. It serves only the EVIL capitalism, so it must be brought to an end.

Under a capitalist system, only those that control the factors of production that are in demand will survive. Quite bleak if you ask me. If you were unable to work, say you had a disability, you would quite simply starve. So the strong survive and the weak die, sounds like how the animal kingdom works. Once again, humans prove to be uncilivised brutes.

That has nothing to do with capitalism. The conduct you described is not caused by capitalism, and in fact happens more often on non-capitalistic societies. A democratic liberal regime, OTOH, have massive food productions, using only a small part of the population.

Or, we can provide some basic necessities for those that cannot work for whatever reason. We can feed, clothe and shelter them, prove we are not greedy, selfish organisms.

And, again, you say people who don’t want to live under communism are greedy and selfish. Yeah, the human desire of individuality, free will, that’s very greedy. It’s a nice opportunity to see the world from the lens of communism. You see, not being greedy and selfish is something ONLY a communist can. They concentrate all good qualities on themselves. Everyone else is a greedy selfish bastard. They also have no defects, they are perfect: if something bad results from communism, it’s because of the damn selfish and greedy evil capitalists. That are so greedy and selfish, while communism is so good and devoid of defects. All evidence against this is an evil plot from the greedy and selfish capitalists. And I’ll repeat that non-communists are greedy and selfish until someone gets too bored to think and starts agreeing with me.

That's not capitalism my friends....thats that EVIL, EVIL word, SOCIALISM.

Haha, how incredibly absurd. That has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with socialism, at all. Socialism in the way communism understands it is a temporary stage before the revolution is consolidated. Unless you think every country that gives some form of help for the poor is about to have a revolution. So, this “socialism” here is not communism. It’s something else, off-topic and completely unrelated to communism. But let’s continue.

Modern LIBERALISM dictates exactly that people beyond the poverty line should receive assistance from the society. If you want a place with free enterprise where the State helps the disadvantage. SOCIAL DEMOCRACY is similar, so it’s not something exclusive to theories with the word "social".

What Socialism dictates is to for the government to control society and the economy. The idea is not giving food for those who can't find work, since everyone has government-sponsored jobs.

What's required at this point in human cultural evolution is the best of both worlds. We need the economic growth that capitalism provides, yet we need to take care of the disadvantaged, which socialism provides.

What you say is that a nation with free enterprise, as opposed to government-controlled economy, is the best way to go. We agree. J. Rawl’s take on liberalism is exactly this: help the people that are poor beyond a certain point, and let the rest of the society free.

You can also go the social-democracy way, which is similar. But I think the great point here is that free enterprise should be the center of the economy, not governent planning. Individual freedoms MUST be respected. The name of this is democracy, so, I do think we agree on this one too.

 

[Mav23]

Delance just might be my new favorite person politics wise on this board.

 

[ChrisReid]

Yeah really, when did Delance learn this stuff?