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.

Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

I'm not sure what Domino effect you're refering to...but post WWII history was never something I knew a great deal about.

How exactly is Communism workable? The onus is on the reds to explain that position, or any other political position that involves changing the status quo. We can't judge it positively based on past performance, though I give you that you can't say it might not work tommorrow.

Do you think there is any parallel to be drawn here between Communism and National Socialism? I hear young people all the time pratter on about how Communism is workable, but if anyone suggests Nazism is "workable", then all of a sudden that whole freedom of speech thing goes right out the window ( most of whom are bourgoise college students, which I always have a little inward giggle at ). To some extent are they not two sides of the same totalitarian coin?

What happens in your ideal, abundant, globally united society when I decide not to participate? The bottom line is that men with guns are going to come and force me to. You can't have universal participation in something like that without the threat of force.

Men with guns is quite a leap in logic. Just because pretty much all sides have done that so far is no guarantee that the future would be the same.

The idea with Communism is that nobody would really want to opt out. After all, if every has the same amount of everything they need, and nobody wants for anything (hence the requirement for an abundant soceity) why would people need more?

Generally speaking, the most ruthless, and thus successful, people seem to come from fairly simple Roots, and it was the drive and determination of either their ancestors or themselves (depending on the case) that elevated them from having nothing. This then breeds further ambition, and eventually, ambition gives way to outright greed. With Abundant Communism (I may have just invented a new offshoot!) nobody would be coming from such deprived Roots, and thus, the drive and ambition to escape such social and economic restraints would not be necessary.

And the main thing I would challenge is the idea of Communism as an alternative to Democracy. Communism is an alternative to Capitalism. You can still have a Communist Democracy, and indeed, Democracy is at the very core of the Communist agenda, with everyone having not just an equal share, but an equal say.

However, as a species, I think it's fair to say that outright Dictatorship is probably the 'natural' order. Consider Pack Animals. There is the Alpha Male and Female who take, to coin a phrase, The Lions Share and lead the pack, and various ranks inbetween down to the poor old Omega. Human soceity is still the same beast, just with different prey. Where once the Alpha would tend to be the fittest in the pack, we have perverted it somewhat so that Alpha Status is easier maintained by a certain bloodline, regardless of how fit the current head of that Household is to lead. Add social strata introduced by Business, where the loss of key staff to a competitor can severely change it's prospects, and things get even weirder.

Having studied Marx for a year under an expert, I have to say that your take on Communism is interesting and wildly divergent from the original texts and comments. It's really more of a overly idealized neo-communism.

Or as when even Marx said to his friends "I am no Marxist".

Grignard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I still don't understand the USA's aversion to Communism.

Because some people feel that it is a soul crushing concept that requires the sacrifice of the individual for someone else's opinion of what the common good is. It has a pretty bad track record, which perhaps is an unfair association with the Soviet Union and the PRC, of respect for individual life and liberty.

Also Cambodia. Really especially Cambodia, relative to population there hasn't been a greater bodycount.

It is a philosophy that reduces everything down to a struggle between those who own the means of production and those who actually do the producing. That is a little one dimensional.

Many people in countries with an aversion to Communism are religious, and would have an issue with the atheism associated with it. ( Its been a long time since I've read the Manifesto, does anyone who knows more about it know if that is a Communist thing or just a PRC/Russia thing?)

I have poor playground skills and I don't like to share.

It's hard to get a full view of communism from Marx' writings. He spent most of his time on historical inevitability and analysis of capitalism (much of which is remarkably valid, even today). He didn't spend much time at all talking about the future communist state.

While state owned capital, the core element of communism, isn't inherently undemocratic or oppressive, there's no denying communism keeps leading to undemocratic, oppressive states. There are elements and ideas in communism that seem to lead to oppressive governments, Orwell is probably the best known author who has written on the subject.

One of the biggest condemnations of communists today is that there has been no attempt to address exactly what part of communism has led to so many horrible governments. They simply discard each attempt as a perversion of true communism and move on.

Grignard wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Communism *is* a workable system. However, it needs to be a global effort, and done in an abundant soceity.

But the Domino effect predicted during the Cold War? What a load of bunkum if you ask me.

I'm not sure what Domino effect you're refering to...but post WWII history was never something I knew a great deal about.

How exactly is Communism workable? The onus is on the reds to explain that position, or any other political position that involves changing the status quo. We can't judge it positively based on past performance, though I give you that you can't say it might not work tommorrow.

Do you think there is any parallel to be drawn here between Communism and National Socialism? I hear young people all the time pratter on about how Communism is workable, but if anyone suggests Nazism is "workable", then all of a sudden that whole freedom of speech thing goes right out the window ( most of whom are bourgoise college students, which I always have a little inward giggle at ). To some extent are they not two sides of the same totalitarian coin?

No, their similarities are vague and superficial.

What happens in your ideal, abundant, globally united society when I decide not to participate? The bottom line is that men with guns are going to come and force me to. You can't have universal participation in something like that without the threat of force.

Not necessarily. Required participation isn't really an issue. The state controls all key resources, if you didn't want to take part you'd be on your own, poverty stricken. This is no different to any other economic system.

Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

Big Bad Communists are just like Big Bad Younameit.

Scenario 1: Government controls everything, but is kind of corrupt and/or wants everyone involved.
Oops.

Scenario 2: Government controls roads, water and electricity, communication, whatever, but taxes people who have to work for a shrinking number of Big Evil Companies who are allowed by financial means to do pretty much whatever they want. Somehow government is still in charge of inflation because they couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the Big Evil Companies. Sometimes they can still afford to go to war.
Oops.

Scenario 3: Israel.
Oops.

Scenario 4: Elvis returns, everyone boogies. The old people boogie and the knee doctors boogie. Wait a second, Elvis was more rock-and-roll than boogie-woogie...
Oops.

People who don't want to participate AT ALL in the society that THEY'RE IN are very definitely selfish, and should generally be hated by the sorts of people that hate things. If you don't want to work at all and expect to get anything, you're a piece of turd. You don't have to work in the service industry or anything - even spending helps the local community. It doesn't matter who has the most money, because if they're participating with it then it's everyone's wealth.

In the end I hate the white-obese-and-lazy and the daddys-rich-and-so-am-I far more than I hate those with the guts to support... hell, even _defend_ their community and way of life.

You don't need to fear punishment to be a good person - you have to be shown examples of good itself. I'm not a religious person. But selfishness is selfishness.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

Big Bad Communists are just like Big Bad Younameit.

Scenario 1: Government controls everything, but is kind of corrupt and/or wants everyone involved.
Oops.

Scenario 2: Government controls roads, water and electricity, communication, whatever, but taxes people who have to work for a shrinking number of Big Evil Companies who are allowed by financial means to do pretty much whatever they want. Somehow government is still in charge of inflation because they couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the Big Evil Companies. Sometimes they can still afford to go to war.
Oops.

Scenario 3: Israel.
Oops.

Scenario 4: Elvis returns, everyone boogies. The old people boogie and the knee doctors boogie. Wait a second, Elvis was more rock-and-roll than boogie-woogie...
Oops.

People who don't want to participate AT ALL in the society that THEY'RE IN are very definitely selfish, and should generally be hated by the sorts of people that hate things. If you don't want to work at all and expect to get anything, you're a piece of turd. You don't have to work in the service industry or anything - even spending helps the local community. It doesn't matter who has the most money, because if they're participating with it then it's everyone's wealth.

In the end I hate the white-obese-and-lazy and the daddys-rich-and-so-am-I far more than I hate those with the guts to support... hell, even _defend_ their community and way of life.

You don't need to fear punishment to be a good person - you have to be shown examples of good itself. I'm not a religious person. But selfishness is selfishness.

You should be able to communicate in a more sophisticated manner than personal attacks and stereotypes.

I did in all the other threads. Read first line. Appreciate that I don't usually use these stereotypes and I'm demonstrating the futility of the discussion. What the hell was your point?

Oh yeah, something about communism involving men with guns coming to force you to do things. I also caught a 'red' in there.

The 'Big Bad Communists' are the stereotype you're working with. I don't think there's a government in the world that could handle Communism. But that's because it has nothing to do with government - the community is right here. But governments that embrace social services are well on the way to actually treating people fairly rather than as resources. Giving people a vote in a capitalist system... It's an illusion of service when you're voting for celebrities. I have to say, there are countries and regions that will elect leaders because of their economic tactics and so on...

The problem is always that the wrong sorts of people are often the ones compelled to have power, and they're usually the ones that get it.

Basically no one is going to come and get you with a gun for any non-reason. Be realistic. Your paranoia is astonishing.

I'm also going to restate my wilder stereotypes something from earlier...
I hate all fat and lazy people. Not just white ones. If you serve your community, you rock. Otherwise, screw you, you blob of human cancer. Your car uses more petrol because you're bigger than you're supposed to be. You drive to the supermarket more often. You don't even desrve a car - you should be buried under a tree. Admittedly some people are fat because they've driven a truck for ten years or whatever. No problem there. If someone can convince me that obese people keep the price of food down, I might change my mind...

Now GRIGNARD, did anyone deserve to hear that?

Possibly. I'd rather not spread the gore first post, but by all means ask me to expound.

I also hate rich, snobby, stupid people. It doesn't need to be said, but I said it. I even hate snobby smart people, and it doesn't matter how wealthy they are.
I'm sure you're a decent person, Grig. If you're rich, I hope you worked hard, and I'm sure your friends and community benefit from your 'wealth'. They wouldn't be your friends if they were nothing but saps.

You have to be pretty damned humble to waste money on imported British poly though. I know I am

Arctik_Firangi wrote:governments that embrace social services are well on the way to actually treating people fairly rather than as resources.

That's the best laugh I've had in awhile, thanks!

Don't make me stereotype you too.

American.
Thread-sniper.

If you feel belittled by only being a number in a computer system, I can't help you. But that's got nothing to do with you. So maybe the highest mark is where the governing body is self-sufficient, and we don't pay them taxes? It isn't going to happen, I know. Marxism is a crock too. Not everyone wants to be in the same club... but Warhammer has brought us together, despite our political views.

Of course, in here you're a number in a system too, with a very clearly defined definition and content. Google makes money because people use this site and most people don't understand why - it just happens.

Don't mean to rage - someone dented my steam-valve. I find laughing at horrible things is the best way to deal with them too. It's also a good way to miss details you've previously misconceived.

Oh god your naivete is still cracking me up. Please tell me more about me, Internet Tough Guy™. Everyone is deluded but you, after everything has happened in this world and all the scholarship and views, you have all the answers and know how Things Are And Ought To Be. Tell us more about how we can live up to your enlightened perspective.

Cordially, 118745274

In Britain, we made a move towards a more socialist state following the Second World War.

We now have an NHS. Sure, it doesn't work as well as it could, but it is a nominally free service, though drastically underfunded following decades of neglect at the hands of various Governments.

But I would rather have a slightly wonky, free Health Service, than have Paramedics check my wallett before my pulse.

Governments *should* be elected to serve their people. Most however, including my own, seem best suited to serving themselves, and the corporations that hold far too much sway.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Just becasue this is definitely a vent topic, here goes.

What's superficial about the similarities between communist thought and national socialism? It's not like they don't go together a treat.

A communist state holds the welfare of its people as the primary aim. This is based almost entirely around material measures, hence the fixation most communist nations have shown for production measures and five years plans. A nationalist socialist state holds the state and nation as the primary aim. In the case of Germany, the Nazis focus was the apparent manifest destiny of the aryan race.

The key assumption of a communist country is the class struggle and dialectic materialism (the idea that one economic model creates conditions that lead to new model, serfdom to mercantilism, mercantilism to capitalism, capitalism to communism). It is very much focussed on the idea of history shaping the individual. National socialism, facism, is based around the idea of the will of the individual, on the idea of the individual shaping history.

Facism developed largely as an opposing movement to communism. All those street battles weren't because they were arguing over calling themselves communist or facist. They were fighting for fundamentally different belief structures.

sebster wrote:

A communist state holds the welfare of its people as the primary aim.

HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH

-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

jfrazell wrote:-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need to try reading. If you had, you'd have noticed I already pointed out the atrocities in Cambodia. I'd already pointed out the inevitability with which communism creates oppressive governments.

And if you think China isn't to be included in the list of disasters, I'm not really sure what you're criteria might be. In terms of the welfare of its people, it's certainly no better than the USSR in the 80s, and that's after you consider how much more China benefits from the global markets Russia couldn't access.

Honestly, if you want to talk about this, cool. If you want to quote a couple of sentences out of context and head off on a rant, I've got better things to do.

Our Governments are oppresive as well, as Taxation is little more than money with menaces.

Only difference is, we kept getting told we are free, and examples of far harsher regimes constantly used as comparisson.

sebster wrote:

jfrazell wrote:-The Communist state is like every other state. Its sole existence is to gain and retain power for those in charge.
-Theory is wrong but also irrelevant. In practice, in over what 30 countries and a century, its proved to be a complete disaster. The exceptions are China and (now) Vietnam. However, thats only becuase both are moving towards classical fascist models and are becoming communist in name only.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need to try reading. If you had, you'd have noticed I already pointed out the atrocities in Cambodia. I'd already pointed out the inevitability with which communism creates oppressive governments.

And if you think China isn't to be included in the list of disasters, I'm not really sure what you're criteria might be. In terms of the welfare of its people, it's certainly no better than the USSR in the 80s, and that's after you consider how much more China benefits from the global markets Russia couldn't access.

Honestly, if you want to talk about this, cool. If you want to quote a couple of sentences out of context and head off on a rant, I've got better things to do.

And I don't mean to be rude please show me something, anything anywhere, where a communist government cared about its people. The statement "lacks merit" on its face.

jfrazell wrote:And I don't mean to be rude please show me something, anything anywhere, where a communist government cared about its people. The statement "lacks merit" on its face.

Cuba is an oppressive dictatorship which constantly ranks among the worst in the world for media and political freedom, but to argue that it's medical and welfare programs don't show a genuine interest in the welfare of the people. Your question was basically a gimme, but it was also irrelevant to the discussion here, on whether communism is fundamentally different to fascism.

Thing is, the theory that the two are the same only really works if you say 'both political systems likely to fail and probably get a bunch of people killed along the way'. But that's a very superficial reading.

Fascist states fail because nationalist, expansionist governments inevitably bite off more than they can chew, and because the draw of the great leader only lasts as long as things are going well.

Communist states consistantly fail as well, but the reasons are very different. There's no doubting that the large state planned economies suffer crippling economies of scale, but not every communist government has to be a state planned economy. Rather, they fail because communism, whether as an inherent part of the system or just because, been undemocratic. It is impossible to maintain and undemocratic government while simultaneously attempting to meet the needs of the people. Inevitably you have to give absolute control or give up trying to help people... human nature being what it is, the controlling party typically gives up trying to help people long before they give up power.

Actually fascist states fail generally because their leaders had a bad tendency to go to total war with the USSR. Those that didn't: Spain, Argentina, now China, generally and unfortunately do much better.

jfrazell wrote (on the first page of this threat):
What Beef do people have with Sauerkraut?

Thick pieces of boiled ham or german sausages. And mashed potatos.

jfrazell wrote:Actually fascist states fail generally because their leaders had a bad tendency to go to total war with the USSR. Those that didn't: Spain, Argentina, now China, generally and unfortunately do much better.

Fair point. I'd argue that extreme nationalism and believing that anything can be done by men of real will tends to lead towards doing very silly things like going to war with the USSR.

That still leaves Spain and the like as having carried on a little longer, but I'm not sure just hanging around is really that good a metric of success. The USSR started before Franco and lasted longer, but I don't think we should be calling that a success. Cuba is still going, but I don't think they're all that much of a success either. I think in additional to durability, you also have to look at living conditions and whether the state managed to meet the principles it was founded under.

I'm also not sure I'd call China a fascist state. It's economic system has fascist trappings, but there's a lot more to fascism than just economics.

Anung Un Rama wrote:

jfrazell wrote (on the first page of this threat):
What Beef do people have with Sauerkraut?

Thick pieces of boiled ham or german sausages. And mashed potatos.

you sir, just saved me my lunch time.

Really? I hate it.