Communism

[aelf]

History? All communist regimes ever have been oppressive towards people who think the wrong thing. I'm not sure I believe the people who say 'ah, but it does not require the example to be followed' - I think the two are linked permenantly

So far, all experiments with Communism on a grand scale have led to nasty, nasty things

Not interested. Obviously humans are too flawed for Communism to work. Marx started with poor assumptions about human behavior

Or maybe you guys just don't know enough about Marxism and Communism as a whole? Just a thought.

 

[Cutlass]

Or it's just a stupid idea.

I wouldn't call it a stupid idea. Just a misplaced one. Theoretical communism is at heart a call for social and economic justice. But as JH and others have said, as I have said on other occasions, it doesn't work with real people. It has too many flaws in the understanding of how people really behave. It doesn't take into consideration the free rider problem. It doesn't understand the value of basic accounting practices. And that's just math and lists, no ideology involved. Communism, like all Utopian schemes, simply fails because people are not interchangeable and not perfectible.

And so, when people try to implement it, they're stuck with either doing so with a police state or giving up.

 

[aelf]

It has too many flaws in the understanding of how people really behave.

Seems to have had some success in parts of the world till today.

You realise that the Left in general owes quite a lot to Marxist traditions, right?

 

[Flying Pig]

Pray tell? Where?

 

[aelf]

Pray tell? Where?

Eurocommieland.

Have you had your eyesight checked lately, by the way?

 

[Flying Pig]

Sorry? Remember I trained as a sniper - I can see better than most people half my age

 

[aelf]

Sorry? Remember I trained as a sniper - I can see better than most people half my age

I find it amazing that you failed to read the sentence just below. When there are only two sentences.

Cognitive bias, maybe.

 

[Flying Pig]

I see what you mean - anyway, Marxism came after the left started, so it's the other way around

 

[aelf]

I see what you mean - anyway, Marxism came after the left started, so it's the other way around

I don't see why this proves me wrong. If you look at history, the evolution of even 'mainstream' parties like the Social Democrats have been influenced by Marxism.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

History? All communist regimes ever have been oppressive towards people who think the wrong thing. I'm not sure I believe the people who say 'ah, but it does not require the example to be followed' - I think the two are linked permenantly

And you would be thinking wrongly.

So far, all experiments with Communism on a grand scale have led to nasty, nasty things

Not interested. Obviously humans are too flawed for Communism to work. Marx started with poor assumptions about human behavior

As aelf said, conclusions like this come from an improper understanding of Marxist thought and theory. None of the "communist" nations in history has ever followed it.

I wouldn't call it a stupid idea. Just a misplaced one. Theoretical communism is at heart a call for social and economic justice. But as JH and others have said, as I have said on other occasions, it doesn't work with real people. It has too many flaws in the understanding of how people really behave. It doesn't take into consideration the free rider problem. It doesn't understand the value of basic accounting practices. And that's just math and lists, no ideology involved. Communism, like all Utopian schemes, simply fails because people are not interchangeable and not perfectible.

The difference between communism and other past utopian ideals has been implementation. Faurier, Cabet, More, Owen; these guys and their ideals were basically to try and create a perfect society in its entirety, a sort of prefabricated system that would run basically like a machine, and all you needed to add was the people. They were the true "utopians," and every time their ideas were tried, they ultimately failed, because they were too brittle, too rigid to be able to adapt to human flaws. It was a failure because they tried to take normal people and shape their society and relationships for them, imposing those relationships with their upper-class "wisdom."

The difference between their idealism and Marx's is that while theirs was utopian, his was scientific. Where they thought of these utopian dreamlands on a small, city-sized scale, and as prefabricated "perfect" societies, Marx and Engels (along with many others) saw things on a national and international level, described how such a society must be built from the ground-up by the people who will live in it, and how the present society can gradually evolve into that "utopia." Though calling it that U-word is really wrong anyway, since it isn't supposed to be a Perfect society, only a Just one.

EDIT: But at any rate, many of us argue for socialism, and not communism. Communism can come once we've gotten rid of the capitalist system and have socialism working alright. And socialism is by no means "utopian;" again simply more Just. If you're looking to pick a fight with someone who wants to immediately create a communistic society if the government were overthrown tomorrow, then you're looking for an Anarchist. But any and every socialist and most communists understand that its a very gradual process, one that could take hundreds of years, even, to progress into communism, if at all.

I don't see why this proves me wrong. If you look at history, the evolution of even 'mainstream' parties like the Social Democrats have been influenced by Marxism.

And many of the valued aspects of our society equally so: minimum wage, social security, child labor laws, hell, even Women's (and Black, in this country) liberation got a huge huge push from Marxism.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see why this proves me wrong. If you look at history, the evolution of even 'mainstream' parties like the Social Democrats have been influenced by Marxism.

Or they chose the same ideas from the ones that existed. At any rate, they don't adopt the fundamental principle

 

[Cutlass]

Seems to have had some success in parts of the world till today.

You realise that the Left in general owes quite a lot to Marxist traditions, right?

Yes, the theory of social and economic justice has had some success in mitigating the theory of might makes right. But that does not mean that we will ever evolve from there to real socialism or communism. Why can't there be a middle ground that people can live with?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah I love the smell of being ignored in the morning.

 

[Flying Pig]

It happens to most communists

 

[aelf]

Yes, the theory of social and economic justice has had some success in mitigating the theory of might makes right. But that does not mean that we will ever evolve from there to real socialism or communism. Why can't there be a middle ground that people can live with?

Perhaps. But I don't think that can be achieved without some sort of radical shift in the dynamics of present society, a shift that moderates might not be entirely comfortable with and might not ask for.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It happens to most communists

its a good thing I'm not a communist then.

 

[Cutlass]

Ah I love the smell of being ignored in the morning.

I didn't precisely ignore you, so much as we've been over the same ground before. And I don't really know what to add. Marx was no more "scientific" than Plato. There is no science behind it. It's just philosophy.

If you want to build something from the ground up that will stand the test of time you have to start with something that most of the people want. Socialists and communists haven't done that.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Silly thread, predictable thread, repetitive thread, in short: old porridge.
But it starts to get interesting.

its a good thing I'm not a communist then.

Can't be one either, then, since I usually seem to be in agreement with you.

I didn't precisely ignore you, so much as we've been over the same ground before. And I don't really know what to add. Marx was no more "scientific" than Plato. There is no science behind it. It's just philosophy.

This begs a few questions, just so an ignorant cove like me can be at least a bit enlightened.
- What works of Plato did you study?
- What works of Marx did you study?
- What part of philosophy did you specialize in?
- What is the criteria for being scientific?

If you want to build something from the ground up that will stand the test of time you have to start with something that most of the people want. Socialists and communists haven't done that.

Really? What do most people want then and what did socialists and communists start with then?
And what has really stood the test of time? Quite pompous expression that, by the way.

 

[thekaje]

LOL, I feel like conversations about "Marxism" and "Communism" are pretty comparable to conversations about the existence of God -- preteen faux intellectual debate requiring little but intuition and hearsay.

"Real" Marxism is a complicated and quasi-mathematical theory, not a blueprint for society. Marx predicts the direction of human history; he doesn't propose anything, really.

 

[aelf]

"Real" Marxism is a complicated and quasi-mathematical theory, not a blueprint for society. Marx predicts the direction of human history; he doesn't propose anything, really.

I would say so too, in a way.

LOL, I feel like conversations about "Marxism" and "Communism" are pretty comparable to conversations about the existence of God -- preteen faux intellectual debate requiring little but intuition and hearsay.

But this just doesn't follow. Talk about faux intellectual