Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

Well, clearly becoming a communist is what caused your recent earthquake problems...And you always thought it from Christians not praying hard enough....nope...communism...

I always thought (soft?) socialism sounded more attractive. Anyway, good luck Comrade/Mate and all that. Watch out for a few funny folk around here on Dakka though.

Communism isn't a bad thing, just with bad reputation what with Stalin n all... but that's Lenin's work turned into totalitarianism.

I am myself a socialist in terms of ideology.

With regards communism, I have one question:

How do you overcome the inherent human instinct to compete and dominate?

Communism doesn't work, pure and totally balanced notions of a sharing state where all are equal citizens is a utopia that cannot exist whilst humans are pack animals with inbuilt competing for resources and not ants. When you look to communist states, consider that they are actually dictatorships and became them very quickly after overthrowing constrictive monarchy or colonial imperialism.

Consider the title 'Supreme Soviet' for example and how entirely against the purest form of communism that is. Much like when I talk to 'anarchists' who actually don't get that pure chaos is a horrific way to live your life, given the base behaviour of the human animal.

So, communist ideals are great, but it's an impossible mode of governing large groups of people imo.

I actually have something constructive to add now, rather than a crack. Mate, if your interested in reading a bit more about communism, or rather socialism then read this book.

Dark Continent : Mark Mazower

It's a good summary of modern European history from a writer that is considering their view from a more socialist viewpoint.

I realize the irony of suggesting an academic book that is more social, but if you actually read history books widely then you'll enjoy the difference.

It's also fairly accessible for a Uni text, I read it when I was studying to be a history teacher and just remembered it then. I fancied myself a communist back then, unfortunately I sold out and got a cool job far away from the Proletariat. I still rage darkly against the system though, but less from protests, and more from watching tv and news!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I am myself a socialist in terms of ideology.

With regards communism, I have one question:

How do you overcome the inherent human instinct to compete and dominate?

Communism doesn't work, pure and totally balanced notions of a sharing state where all are equal citizens is a utopia that cannot exist whilst humans are pack animals with inbuilt competing for resources and not ants. When you look to communist states, consider that they are actually dictatorships and became them very quickly after overthrowing constrictive monarchy or colonial imperialism.

Consider the title 'Supreme Soviet' for example and how entirely against the purest form of communism that is. Much like when I talk to 'anarchists' who actually don't get that pure chaos is a horrific way to live your life, given the base behaviour of the human animal.

So, communist ideals are great, but it's an impossible mode of governing large groups of people imo.

It's more like anarchy than you think, what communists propose is "anarchy" we merely have different ways of reaching it, the socialist states are only intended to be a transitional phase in between communism and capitalism and by no means have to include supreme soviets and honourable chairmen, they can be as democratic as you like.

as leon trotsky said socialism needs democracy like the human body needs air.

Ah yes, but remember, air is full of oxygen which eventually helps to destroy the human body...

Anarchy is not the same as chaos. Chaos is a lack of organization, while anarchism is organization without centralized authority. In a very strong sense most Western Liberal-Democracies and Republics are hybrids of anarchic and archic systems, with the archic part taking the position that we need to build strong institutions just in case we need them, and the anarchic part taking the position that such institutions should be created on an ad hoc basis. It's similar to the Conservative/Liberal split in that both sides regard themselves as being more practical while the virtues that they emphasize as complementary rather than contrary.

I would say rather that institutions are necessary for a variety of reasons.

For example, the justice system is needed to restrain the operation of unfettered individualism, and the banking system is useful to reduce transaction costs and allow the economy to operate more efficiently.

Killkrazy:

Indeed, except that when your justice system is being employed in a social engineering role it's no long a justice system and instead a "restrain individualism" system. Likewise a banking system may be employed to increase the efficiency of an economy, but then what you have is a financial system (banking, insurance, investments, and other financial products). And once you have these systems in place you may be inclined to reform them from time to time, while new institutions grow up to perform services that they do not. Maybe it was just my experience in finance, particularly given the way the modern finance system is bringing together financial products as branded packages, but I couldn't help but notice that the Canadian financial system as a set of institutions is constantly under a tumult of self-regeneration, development, and so on. The fact that you think of the banking system as an institution rather than a confluence of several institutions suggests to me that you're on the side of institutions for the sake of institutions rather than for the particular set of circumstances they might be set up to handle.

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

Please justify the inherently undemocratic nature of the vanguard party. Because the capitalist denies education and enfranchisement to the proletarian, for any communist movement to succeed if it must be lead by an advanced, educated cadre that is better positioned to understand the proletarians struggle than the prole himself. This is the van garde, and it has existed in all successful communist movements (here I'm defining success as "managing to wrest control from the capitalists").

Yet paradoxically, to create the idyllic socialist state, the van garde must impose its plan for a new society on the proletarian, who by constitution cannot understand the means or ends of the van garde (otherwise they would, ipso facto, be the van garde) and thus -- true to human nature as predicted by Marx -- rebels against the van garde. Unable to effectively lead, the van garde must always reorganize and entrench, which is why to date all attempts at revolutionary socialism have ended in antidemocratic totalitarian governments.

Given that the van garde is not democratic and appears to always lead to tyranny, how can communism be justified by an appeal to the inherent freedom and dignity of the proletarian? Is not the van garde always promising only to replace the capitalist's chains with those of authoritarian socialism?

Oh, Snap, that's a good question! I wish you'd been in a lot of my history tutorials about ten years ago!

Communist would be a good idea if everyone who was in charge wasn't corrupt.

Maybe local communisums could work. But you can't run a country on communist values because thier will always be higher class people and lower class people.

Look at China for example they claim to be communist but its only the common folk who really are communist not the heads of the Chinese goverment.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

Please justify the inherently undemocratic nature of the vanguard party. Because the capitalist denies education and enfranchisement to the proletarian, for any communist movement to succeed if it must be lead by an advanced, educated cadre that is better positioned to understand the proletarians struggle than the prole himself. This is the van garde, and it has existed in all successful communist movements (here I'm defining success as "managing to wrest control from the capitalists").

Yet paradoxically, to create the idyllic socialist state, the van garde must impose its plan for a new society on the proletarian, who by constitution cannot understand the means or ends of the van garde (otherwise they would, ipso facto, be the van garde) and thus -- true to human nature as predicted by Marx -- rebels against the van garde. Unable to effectively lead, the van garde must always reorganize and entrench, which is why to date all attempts at revolutionary socialism have ended in antidemocratic totalitarian governments.

Given that the van garde is not democratic and appears to always lead to tyranny, how can communism be justified by an appeal to the inherent freedom and dignity of the proletarian? Is not the van garde always promising only to replace the capitalist's chains with those of authoritarian socialism?

I think a large part of this problem is the tendency for socialist academics to treat the 'proletariat' as children. Telling people what is good for them and imposing it upon them rarely ends well. It's just paternalism. Modern capitalist society works because everyone has equal opportunity for education, and accumulation of wealth. We have a choice.

@OP- Socialism leads to greater oppression than capitalism. Discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also add that you probably have decided to become a communist because you have the luxury of living in a country in which you have a choice in the matter. I wonder if you'd be so enthusiastic if you lived in ONE OF THE MANY COUNTRIES IN WHICH COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED, RESULTING IN DEATH AND MISERY FOR MILLIONS.

I think when you get to the extreme end of almost any ideology, you start to see the cracks. Extreme, unregulated capitalism, and extreme, pure communism are both (From my perspective) pretty flawed and lead to a lot of misery.
I think most societies go for some sort of balance between the two- the exact composition of the balance is generally up to a lot of stuff like the culture's attitude to authority and individual rights over collective needs.
It's all very interesting, and after years of scientific training I find myself more and more interested in knotty questions like this, even though I find them really difficult to think about.

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

How can a single person be a communist if it relies on many people being equal?

Ive been told that people that dont like cherry pie, are communists. That true?
Ive been told that if you hate hotdogs, your a commie. That true?
Basically if you dislike anything un American, and bad, your communist. So that must be true right?

Albatross wrote:
I would also add that you probably have decided to become a communist because you have the luxury of living in a country in which you have a choice in the matter. I wonder if you'd be so enthusiastic if you lived in ONE OF THE MANY COUNTRIES IN WHICH COMMUNISM HAS BEEN TRIED, RESULTING IN DEATH AND MISERY FOR MILLIONS.

To be fair, most of those countries weren't exactly wonderful places to begin with.

I have a question. If you put your hand into a blender, turn it on, and your hand gets all cut up, do you decide "Oh, I didn't place my hand properly in the blender THIS TIME, but next time I will put my hand in the blender and turn it on and it will be WONDERFUL!"? Every time a country has attempted to have a Marxist revolution and institute the good 'ol dictatorship of the proletariat to prepare everyone for the coming utopia, they've ended up killing huge chunks of the country's population both to establish the new government and to get rid of people who resist, plus set up 'reeducation' facilities to torture people into accepting communism.

I'm presuming you're not in favor of torture and mass murder, so why do you support a form of government that universally results in torture and mass murder when implemented in the real world? Why should I not treat you as a person who supports torture and mass murder, so either avoid you if you're 'just some guy' or fight against you if you appear to be closer to achieving your goals?

Aside from the whole murdering and torturing thing, what job do you think you will have based on the 'from each according to his abilities' part - do you think you'll be stuck as the sewer cleaner, or will you get to be a poet, leader, philosopher, musician, or some other fun job? How do you expect to fill all of the jobs that aren't poets, leaders, philosophers, writers, musicians, artists, etc, since very few people actually enjoy drudge work - will there be some kind of mechanism to force people to work at jobs that no one wants to do when they could sit around and play guitar all day? Capitalist and mixed-socialist systems solve this by paying more for crappy jobs than the education/skill level would warrant (garbage collectors make damn good money for a job that requires no education and no real skills), Communist societies in theory don't seem to solve the problem, and in practice tend to solve this by telling someone 'do this job or I'll shoot you'.

Read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't. Then tell me how you feel about Communism.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:Read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't. Then tell me how you feel about Communism.

Read it, still a supporter of uncorrupted Communism.

Communist, eh? Cool. I give you props for going on dakka.

Incidentally, 1984 is a jab at the totalitarian system that communism always seems to turn into. The class systems are more prominent then ever, and maybe I'm just dumb, but I still like uncorrupted communism.

On a side note, this is surprisingly mature. You wouldn't believe how anti-communist high school students who don't know what communism is are (did that make sense?).

Ya dirty commie rat bastard.

GTFO dakka, right now.


I prefer cults of personality type communist states mysef.

North Korea, Soviet Russia with Stalin, Cuba with Castro.

Ya know, the really fun kind of places to live.

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

Manchild, go visit a gulag, then tell me you're a communist. Go visit the death prisons in Cambodia and tell me you're a communist.

TherVadam wrote:Incidentally, 1984 is a jab at the totalitarian system that communism always seems to turn into. The class systems are more prominent then ever, and maybe I'm just dumb, but I still like uncorrupted communism.

Right, there's a commentary on that in the book. However, if it usually turns into a totalitarian system that's corrupt, why would you support it?

Communism is a nice idea.

It utterly fails in practice though.

Frazzled wrote:

Kragura wrote:A few of you might remember way back when (like 1 month ago) I started a thread on dakka's view of communism to take some viewpoint from a mostly unbiased and fair group. well although dakka's view on it was resoundingly negative It did not deter me from further learning and research and now I am unapologetically communist and as a thought exercise for me I would like to know if dakka could give me it's viewpoint once more and I will try to stand-up for my new belief's.

So without further adieu, ask away.

Manchild, go visit a gulag, then tell me you're a communist. Go visit the death prisons in Cambodia and tell me you're a communist.

I think there is a false association between communism as an economic/social model for the usage of resources, and the totalitarian regimes responsible for the gulag, or the 1984 mentality. It isn't necessary to have harsh social control and human rights violations, in order to evenly distribute resources amongst a population. They are unrelated concepts, it just so happens that the previously mentioned 'big evil' commie states happen to coincide with communism.
Likewise, Capitalism does not necessarily create 'freedom', and 'democracy' does not mean 'capitalism' either. Too often these terms get intermingled in usage giving a false sense of 'communist dictatorship' versus 'capitalist democracy' when the first word is an economical/social form and the second word is a form of government. It is quite possible to have a capitalist dictatorship (hey, money talks!).
I believe we actually live in one now, under the clever disguise of a democratic right to vote (which changes very little, measured against the weight of media, money, and a public kept largely ignorant of the real issues their vote concerns) or bear arms (which could not stand up to a government crackdown) or speak freely (as if the decision makers care what one voice thinks). The united states is ruled by an often vicious, ignorant mob and the politicians who pander to it. If one is not part of that mob mentality, one is enslaved to the will of the masses, whether or not it is right or wrong. SO if it is possible to be oppressed in a capitalist society, why is it so hard to envision a free comminist society?