Communism

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.

**micahaphone**

Meh. Works on paper, not in reality. Humans are corruptable, other such arguments for why it won't work. Socailism, a la Sweden/Norway ( I think...) seems like a much better alternative.

to summarize:

works in theory, not in practice

/thread.

**Monster Rain**

Da Boss wrote:It's a running joke in OT to try and derail threads with pictures of daschunds, probably because Frazzled owns a couple.

I'm a bit disappointed with the fervour that some of you have tried to derail this thread- I'm pretty sure it is violating the much vaunted rule 1. I also don't think anyone will do anything about it though. If the OP asks, seriously, for people to stop the jokes, it's polite to do so.

I thought he was just sort of playing the "straight man" if you will.

If I actually upset anyone, I apologize. It certainly wasn't my intention. :0

**micahaphone**

If the state owns everything, then you'll be forced to share your toy soldiers with those annoying little kids.

**Nurglitch**

Doesn't work on paper either...

You can tell who's read Das Kapital by the people able to list the theoretical absurdities that Marx piles on. Problem was that dialectical material was basically Hegel turned on his head, which is like crazy squared from a logic perspective.

**Ma55ter_fett**

In all seriousness communism (IMO) works well on paper and in small isolated settings, however the natural tendency of human nature towards greed prevents it from becoming a viable base around which to build a government.

**Nurglitch**

Wrong - communism doesn't work well on paper, and rings a false positive only in some small isolated and artificial settings.

I don't know what bothers me more, that somebody thinks communism is a good idea, or someone that doesn't understand why communism is a bad idea despite agreeing that it is.

I mean it's bad enough that people keep slinging around cliches like "It works on paper.." or "At the end of the day..." but when cliche replaces the capacity for critical thought the communists might as well have won.

**BluntmanDC**

ShadowZetki wrote:Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive?

No you will find that hundreds of thousand years of evolution and thousands of years of civilisation has caused the 'competative mindset' humans have, empires and kingdoms have risen on this, our species advanced on this, not only did they compete, they out competed every other intelligent biped.

Humanity is made up of alot of humans of varied ability with different strengths and weaknesses, no one is equal, if we were we would all look the same, all have the same physical and mental strength and abiliies. it is the inequality by birth and setting that leads to humanities best (inventive leaps in science, great leaders, arts) and worst (poverty, starvation, war) aspects.

Communism has never worked, there has been no example of a true working communist state:
The sovient union failed with poverty, starvation, corrupt goverment and police, terror of the people.
Cuba has lead to one of the highest literacy rates of a country but massive poverty.
China is founded on the graves of millions of people and is now requiring capitalism to stay afloat, they also still have outbreaks of the plague.
North Korea has massive state censorship human rights violations a mountain high.

Communism fails because it relies on a blatent misconclusion that everyone thinks the same, that everyone wants the same thing. We don't and until the day we all get brainslugs/body snatched/hive minded we won't.

I do believe that utilities such as health, power and water should be owned by the state to protect the people from being abused for the interest of a few shareholders.

**Frazzled**

Monster Rain wrote:

A snake came at me, GC, Shanker, and Tbone Friday night, right out of a front yard. It was crazy. Captain dumbass (the Shanker ) ran right past it without noticing and I pushed GC out of the way. TBone caught air as he was attached to GC via harness. TBone was not a happy camper.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:

I'm sure frazzled would be able to tell us more about this.

Wait, who snapped a pic of the WeinerDog / Kangaroo genetics program. Quick to the weiner car! Wait, stop someone hit the brakes!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:It's a running joke in OT to try and derail threads with pictures of daschunds, probably because Frazzled owns a couple.

I'm a bit disappointed with the fervour that some of you have tried to derail this thread- I'm pretty sure it is violating the much vaunted rule 1. I also don't think anyone will do anything about it though. If the OP asks, seriously, for people to stop the jokes, it's polite to do so.

Actually thats not rule #1 its more rule #2 or #3, both have which are regularly rolled like a Chicago politician at a Texas rodeo.

**micahaphone**

I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.

Y'all just got hit by Godwin's law.

**BluntmanDC**

its safe to say that Marx was an a grade ****head, he believed that everyone is equal but not those he thought were subhuman.

and that as a mod frazzled should be setting a better example in how to act in the forum.

**Monster Rain**

micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.

Y'all just got hit by Godwin's law.

**micahaphone**

Godwin = FTW. They even rhyme.

**Albatross**

...But then this happened:

**Da Boss**

Why...why is he naked?

**Frazzled**

BluntmanDC wrote:its safe to say that Marx was an a grade ****head, he believed that everyone is equal but not those he thought were subhuman.

and that as a mod frazzled should be setting a better example in how to act in the forum.

Didn't you know, I'm the acclaimed Worst Mod Evah!

**dogma**

Nurglitch wrote:Wrong - communism doesn't work well on paper, and rings a false positive only in some small isolated and artificial settings.

I don't know what bothers me more, that somebody thinks communism is a good idea, or someone that doesn't understand why communism is a bad idea despite agreeing that it is.

I mean it's bad enough that people keep slinging around cliches like "It works on paper.." or "At the end of the day..." but when cliche replaces the capacity for critical thought the communists might as well have won.

Its almost as if someone was posting in this thread on my behalf.

Communism is the political theory version of "Step 1, Step 2, Profit". Marx had no idea how to realize his utopia, and it shows in his writing.

**Kragura**

micahaphone wrote:I'll just have to shut this all down by saying that Marx was both a factory owner and anti-semitic. Therefore, he is a Hippocrate and a nazi. and the Nazis were lead by Hitler.

Y'all just got hit by Godwin's law.

Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this. second Marx didnt own a factory he lived in an English slum. In "on the Jewish question" the pamphlet that proves marxs anti-Semitism It's true he states that jews are apparently profiting most off of capitalism or something to that effect but as he was born Jewish i'm not absolutely convinced that he hated himself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BluntmanDC wrote:
ShadowZetki wrote:Well I mean it CAN work people are simply so devided they dont really see where it currently is working. Now we as humans do we truly compete as a species? Or has the modern mentality made us adapt to become competitive?

No you will find that hundreds of thousand years of evolution and thousands of years of civilisation has caused the 'competative mindset' humans have, empires and kingdoms have risen on this, our species advanced on this, not only did they compete, they out competed every other intelligent biped.

Humanity is made up of alot of humans of varied ability with different strengths and weaknesses, no one is equal, if we were we would all look the same, all have the same physical and mental strength and abiliies. it is the inequality by birth and setting that leads to humanities best (inventive leaps in science, great leaders, arts) and worst (poverty, starvation, war) aspects.

Communism has never worked, there has been no example of a true working communist state:
The sovient union failed with poverty, starvation, corrupt goverment and police, terror of the people.
Cuba has lead to one of the highest literacy rates of a country but massive poverty.
China is founded on the graves of millions of people and is now requiring capitalism to stay afloat, they also still have outbreaks of the plague.
North Korea has massive state censorship human rights violations a mountain high.

Communism fails because it relies on a blatent misconclusion that everyone thinks the same, that everyone wants the same thing. We don't and until the day we all get brainslugs/body snatched/hive minded we won't.

I do believe that utilities such as health, power and water should be owned by the state to protect the people from being abused for the interest of a few shareholders.

Id like to attempt something, can you tell me what YOU think communism is, and I'll correct anything you get wrong.

Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?

**dogma**

Kragura wrote:
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.

Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.

Kragura wrote:
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?

We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.

Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.

**Kragura**

Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.

Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.

Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.

**Monster Rain**

Kragura wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.

Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.

Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.

I think it's pretty spot on.

The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.

**Kragura**

dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.

Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.

Kragura wrote:
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?

We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.

Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.

Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.

Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.

Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.

Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.

I think it's pretty spot on.

The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.

The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole

**dogma**

Kragura wrote:
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.

Both of those systems got quite a few people killed and have been largely phased out by the nations that practiced them.

More to the point, if you're going to argue that all you're really doing is saying that utopia is good, and that we should try to make the world a utopia. No one is going to disagree with that argument because, ultimately, Marx's communist utopia is really, really generic and does not appear especially distinct from any other, even a Randian one.

Kragura wrote:
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous because there is no meaningful reason to select people based on the size of their ears (barring some weird fetish).

Were there a meaningful reason to do so it wouldn't be ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think it's pretty spot on.

The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.

There are tons of really good arguments predicated on the idea that revolutions, as we understand them, aren't about changing the system of governance but the nature of the elite class.

**Kragura**

dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.

Both of those systems got quite a few people killed and have been largely phased out by the nations that practiced them.

More to the point, if you're going to argue that all you're really doing is saying that utopia is good, and that we should try to make the world a utopia. No one is going to disagree with that argument because, ultimately, Marx's communist utopia is really, really generic and does not appear especially distinct from any other, even a Randian one.

Kragura wrote:
Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.

Its only ridiculous because there is no meaningful reason to select people based on the size of their ears (barring some weird fetish).

Were there a meaningful reason to do so it wouldn't be ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
I think it's pretty spot on.

The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.

There are tons of really good arguments predicated on the idea that revolutions, as we understand them, aren't about changing the system of governance but the nature of the elite class.

To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world. I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.

Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.

**dogma**

Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

Kragura wrote:
In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.

It doesn't, not directly. The collective benefits come from the maintenance of social order, and the division of labor.

Kragura wrote:
I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.

I don't agree, actually. But then I have a much broader definition of what constitutes rewarding someone. I'm probably not going to make millions with my PhD when I get it, but I'm not terribly concerned with that because what I'm really after is the lifestyle that a PhD provides. Sure, money is related to that, but its not the sum of it.

Also, I have to say that if your desire is to end social economic stratification (there will always be a social hierarchy, so there's no point in fighting that), then you have a serious uphill battle. Quite simply, no society has ever managed to do that, and I'm fairly confident that it isn't possible given our current technological frontier.

Kragura wrote:
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.

There's never been a difference between the government and the powerful, in part because the the authority to govern makes one powerful, but more directly because the powerful have no reason to allow themselves to be governed without input.

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.

**dogma**

Ah, that clarifies things.

**Kragura**

dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

Left communism is an ideology that emphasises direct worker control over the means of production and the establishment of true soviet democracy, although still a communist ideology it is probably closer to the form of anarchism practised by the CNT-FAI during Catalonias anarchist phase in the Spanish civil war.

Kragura wrote:
In our current society the best way to make money is to climb up the corporate ladder as it were and I don't really see how that benefits anyone but the person moving up in the world.

It doesn't, not directly. The collective benefits come from the maintenance of social order, and the division of labor.

I'm going to come out and say it, I Have only just read the Wikipedia page for division of labour and so I don't know all that much about it, but from what I took from wikipedia I see no reason why this couldn't occur minus the big corporate heads.

Kragura wrote:
I could accept slight social stratification if it were to the benefit of all by means of increasing our progress in science and technology, but you must agree that our current society neither attempts makes everyone equal or explicitly rewards those who are making advances in medicine or agricultural studies. it would seem we have the worst of two worlds.

I don't agree, actually. But then I have a much broader definition of what constitutes rewarding someone. I'm probably not going to make millions with my PhD when I get it, but I'm not terribly concerned with that because what I'm really after is the lifestyle that a PhD provides. Sure, money is related to that, but its not the sum of it.

Also, I have to say that if your desire is to end social economic stratification (there will always be a social hierarchy, so there's no point in fighting that), then you have a serious uphill battle. Quite simply, no society has ever managed to do that, and I'm fairly confident that it isn't possible given our current technological frontier.

I see what you mean when you talk about reward I to hope I can mange to gain a PhD one day and I know I don't want it for the money. but a monetary reward is still a reward and they are still being given out unessasarily (excuse my spelling) to factory owners, Movie stars and the like.

I don't seek to completely destroy all heirachy however I do believe that we can come pretty close to eliminating economic stratification. also I realise that this wasent the basis of your argument but just because no ones ever done something that doesn't make it impossible.

Kragura wrote:
Finally in almost all society up till now there hasn't really been a difference between the government and the ruling class, which is one reason why we seek to eliminate them both.

There's never been a difference between the government and the powerful, in part because the the authority to govern makes one powerful, but more directly because the powerful have no reason to allow themselves to be governed without input.

**dogma**

Kragura wrote:
Left communism is an ideology that emphasises direct worker control over the means of production and the establishment of true soviet democracy, although still a communist ideology it is probably closer to the form of anarchism practised by the CNT-FAI during Catalonias anarchist phase in the Spanish civil war.

You should look into Mondragon. Its basically what you're describing, and its pretty ugly.

Kragura wrote:
I'm going to come out and say it, I Have only just read the Wikipedia page for division of labour and so I don't know all that much about it, but from what I took from wikipedia I see no reason why this couldn't occur minus the big corporate heads.

It certainly could, if the people controlling everything weren't interested in their own well being just like everyone else.

Kragura wrote:
I see what you mean when you talk about reward I to hope I can mange to gain a PhD one day and I know I don't want it for the money. but a monetary reward is still a reward and they are still being given out unessasarily (excuse my spelling) to factory owners, Movie stars and the like.

It isn't necessary to give anyone anything in most cases. The powerful don't have to give workers anything without cause.

Don't mistake a distribution that you like for a distribution that is necessary,

Kragura wrote:
I don't seek to completely destroy all heirachy however I do believe that we can come pretty close to eliminating economic stratification. also I realise that this wasent the basis of your argument but just because no ones ever done something that doesn't make it impossible.

Of course not, but it begs a certain question regarding human nature.

**ShadowZetki**

Kragura wrote:
dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Okay look, first off communism is not when the state owns everything nowhere in the communist manifesto does marx even imply this.

Very true, but given that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is never explicitly defined it doesn't really matter.

Kragura wrote:
Final point you say that humans have different abilities and a system which forces us to utilise them is good? How about if instead of intelligence of work drive or luck we created a system that rewarded peoples good looks would you support this?

We have that already. Its called the entertainment industry.

Being attractive is useful to the attractive person, and anyone who might employ them.

Your correct the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't defined at least not by Marx. this however is where we other communists step up to the plate and how things like Leninism left communism and Maoism (of which i suspect the OP is a fan) step up to the plate.

Okay fine you got me on the attractiveness thing but what if I changed it to length of ears or something equally ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:
Kragura wrote:
Frazzled wrote:If you going to argue the merits of seomthing you need to actually know what those merits and limitations are. Animal Farm was an allegorical critique of communism.

Raul Castro said recently that they needed to start privatizing or Cuba would not survive.

Animal farm is not exactly that great of a critique, honestly some posters here can do a lot better than Mr Orwell. And cuba privitising what did you expect? we are very famously a global movement and if theres one thing the USSR proved it's that socialism in one country=bad idea.

I think it's pretty spot on.

The pigs start acting like the humans that they hated so much in the first place.

The problem is that it doesn't show any specific reason why the pigs did this apart from really, Napoleons a douche. it's more of critique of Stalinism then the communist movement as a whole

Umm Actually I wouldnt say that I'm a fan of maoism at the beginning I was asked what sepcifics so I just went with maoism because it is rather flexible other than that I'm mostly just marxist with different influences, though I gotta admit I'm not as good with maoism as I should have been for this topic

And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

**Monster Rain**

Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:
Kragura wrote:
To the best of my knowledge left communism has never been attempted?

Left communism? I'm not sure what you mean.

He means a true communist Scottsman. You know, sure, there have been communist countries and attempts at communism, but there hasn't been any true attempts at it.

Scottish Communism: You're doing it wrong.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShadowZetki wrote:And why is there a picture of obama naked riding a unicorn?

Why wouldn't there be?