Communism

[allan]

"Any of you are welcome to disagree, but I feel a lot of the anti-communists are indoctrinated, propaganda spewing, "keep the status quo", stuck up old farts that have been either screwed by the system they wish to protect, or lifted on a pedestal because of the "luck" they have under the system."

Excuse me, but don't even try to speak for my experience and knowledge. I used to be a lefty who flirted with the ideas of communism and socialism. And you presume to call me "indoctrinated"? I learn from life experience, from constantly questioning my own previously held and even present beliefs.

But there is only so much looking and relooking at facts and self-evident truths one can do concerning one subject (communism in this case) before one must conclude that there is no hope for it. I believe you said you were 19--well, I'm 33, so I've had 14 more years to analyze it than you.... And I have tried, with politeness and respect (albeit bluntly at times, simply because I'm an honest, blunt kind of guy, nothing personal, just stating facts), to present you some insight into my many years of analyzing this issue in my head.

So really, it is unbecoming to resort to cheap insults and presumptions when one has been driven into a corner by the facts of an argument. Not that I intended to corner you--you've always had the chance to move out of the corner you've been backing yourself into, and I would have welcomed it if you had done so with some grace....

"People fear change and it's this change that is necessary!!"

Change can be good, or it can be bad. Depends on what it is. I've given my arguments on why I think the change you've proposed is futile at best, insidious at worst.

You shouldn't want change simply because it is CHANGE.

"People would rather live a marginal existence then to take a risk!!!"

Again, risk, like change, is not something that is desireable for its own sake. I.e. sober, rational minds may take risks with good odds, but not risks with poor odds. And frankly, based on what I know about human nature, communism is a risk with VERY poor odds of success. And not only me but many others here have provided you with good reasons why we feel that's the case.

So gamble with your OWN money and your OWN life, but leave the rest of us out of it. Especially when you want to gamble on such long odds.

Go buy an island. Start a communism there....

"Capitalism and democracy were once a glimmer in the eye of a philosophy, people told him he was crazy, but this is the system we live in today. So why do people denounce communism so readily."

Yes, I know you say Soviet Communism wasn't really communism--but the goal in the beginning WAS communism. Have you ever asked yourself why that goal faltered? Could it be in part because the goal is humanly impossible? So the track record we have so far is bad.

But notice that, in my arguments, I haven't ever alluded to Soviet communism, but simply responded directly to your own ideas about communism. I'd say I refuted them soundly. I don't think I denounced your communism "readily", but very deliberately. With some damned long posts, too.

Basically, you have failed to effectively argue your case about communism, so now you are stomping off... yet again.... Deja vu. Why do you keep getting yourself into these kinds of messes?

"Is it the change you fear?? And I think that is it......you fear the unknown and would rather be miserable then to take a risk."

In other threads, I have proposed Libertarianism as an ideal government (and have alluded to it briefly in some of my recent arguments with you). THAT has truly never been tried. THAT you may likewise view as a risk (but for good reasons, it has a much better chance of success and human betterment than communism does). If you would like, I will start a thread on it, but THIS thread is about communism, so therein lies the focus. To you, it is probably getting to be UNWANTED focus though, I suppose....

"And what is mankind without risks??? Lobotomized Primates. That's what we are. Primate animals, afraid to venture out of our caves and discover fire."

Risk of death DOES increase when the cave exit is a 50-foot dropoff, doesn't it? Again, risks CAN be good, but WISE people weigh the risks, based on whatever information they have.

"Well I'm sick and tired of the backward looking thinking of people of this forum!"

Again, when reason fails, there are always insults. Thank God for that!

"Capitalism and Democracy WILLNOT last forever. I don't care what mental world you choose to live in...it won't!"

Gee, are you a prophet or something? You are certain of the future?

"What's the problem with people looking toward the future??"

I DO look forward to the future--a future of increased individual freedom. responsibility, and accountability. Probably won't happen, but I am willing to argue, persuade, and even fight for it because that is what I believe in. You believe in something else. So we have different visions. Deal with it.

However, consider that, under my vision, you and all those who agree with you would still be free to set up whatever mutually-agreed-to communistic arrangement among yourselves that you want to--but it would be VOLUNTARY. Individuals who choose not to participate wouldn't be forced to. All a libertarian government would do is prevent you from using force or fraud on others.

"Instead of denouncing it at every turn, why not start a discussion on a BETTER form!! Huh??"

Well, now I've started to. But the thread is about communism, therefore that is what we have been discussing.

"Or how about how to improve existing forms. Like for example when allan proposes that we would all have tracking chips installed at one point....why don't we discuss how to avoid this instead of just saying that's they way it will turn out and the only way to avoid it is to keep the status quo."

My argument there has to do with the "boiling frog" phenomenon. Ever heard of the experiment, with two frogs: one is placed in a cup of already boiling water, and it immediately jumps out of the cup. The other is placed in a cup of room-temperature water, which is very gradually heated to boiling. The heating is so gradual, the frog doesn't notice the temperature increase, and stays in the cup until it is boiled to death.

This is a lot like how government power expands--in gradual steps, each taking a little bit of freedom here or there so that not too many people complain, and most people don't really even notice. But at the point where people finally notice that "the water is boiling", i.e. that they are no longer free, that the government has gone "too far", it is too late.

The best remedy for that is to stop heating the water before that happens--and ideally, bring it back to room temperature. I.e. restore the government to within the limits it once had.

Government has demonstrated time and again (to those who have been paying attention) that is often is deceitful, power-hungry, and having a tendency to slowly chip away at individual freedom. Therefore, to those who value liberty, it is not to be trusted. But since it is necessary, we must work to keep it within strict limits, giving it no more power than it really needs--which is a lot less than it has even now. Dilute most power into the hands of 280 million, and use the government simply as a referee to protect people from violence or fraud (nothing more), and there is no danger of abuse of power.

And any government that can't trust me, doesn't deserve MY trust either. Why would it?

Surveillance THIS, beeyatch :midfinger (not you, Corn, but the government)

"Well....I've had enough of this crap."

Have I been giving you crap here, Corn? Or just giving you reasons why I disagree? Or are those two things the same to you?

"And no point in responding to the post...."

Yeah, like seemingly everything else I've patiently said to you, it'll probably just go in one ear and out the other....

"I'm taking a vacation from the OT for A LONG TIME!!! Except to BAN people or CLOSE topics....I will be invisible because I can't take all the negativism anymore!!!"

Disagreement=negativism. *I* see how it is....

"You people make me sick. And it's not all of you, it's not even the ones I disagree with, it's people like Juize, SunTzu, sonorakitch, people that critize without coming up with solutions!!! Communist are always on the defensive.....and frankly I want to get a nuke and nuke Capitalism!!! (And no...I'm not going to kill anybody. ) Anyway.....I will talk to you guys in a few weeks (Unless it in another forum or when I'm banning you/closing your topics.)"

Three words: Prozac and Valium. Or just a chill pill will do. You are the only one in a rage here.... Stop and take a breath. I for one certainly haven't been unreasonable with you, and I don't really see where others have been either.

If you want to debate people, be prepared for disagreements.

"Tata....."

Bye. Again.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Well.
There is a lot of material to work with here.

"Any of you are welcome to disagree, but I feel a lot of the anti-communists are indoctrinated, propaganda spewing, "keep the status quo", stuck up old farts that have been either screwed by the system they wish to protect, or lifted on a pedestal because of the "luck" they have under the system."

I would not characterise myself as any of the above, and I could be described as non-communist, or even anti-communist. Resorting to tirades of personal abuse does nothing to improve the argument that you are presenting.

On the matter of the argument, I would not classify it as communist as such, but rather as utopian socialist. You are calling for absoltuely fundamental changes in society and human nature, without any assurances except a vague exhortation of the inevitability of change. That may be the case, but it does not logically follow that the establishment of communism is the natural and only future. It may in the self fulfilling attempts of Marxian thought, but a great deal of that has been refuted by history.

"Well I'm sick and tired of the backward looking thinking of people of this forum! Capitalism and Democracy WILLNOT last forever. I don't care what mental world you choose to live in...it won't!"
Again, we will need more proof than a petulantly toned assertion. these are issues that are important, relating to the well being of ourselves, our families, friends and communities. We would like to see something tangible on the matter, we would like to have more info on this 'system' that will inevitably control us all, irrevocably. The only previous examples we have of it are flawed dismal failures, including the much vaunted Cuba. In addition, the presumption that it is others who are backward looking can be challenged. Certainly, adherents of Fukyama would disagree. All philosophies claim that the future belongs to them.

I am not faulting your motivations, which seem to be quite good. Indeed, when I was younger, I thought the same way, and waxed lyrical on the inevitability of the communist state.I even felt frustrated at banging my head against the veritable brick wall of these fools who would not and could not see what was to me plain reality. Several considerations made me change my mind. Firstly, seeing the historical evidence, both in the forms of first hand looking at countries, and in looking at the very history of communist thought. It is a long process, but eventually, one came out with the conclusions that communisms and socialisms are inoperable due to human nature in their pure forms.

In addition, to successfully bring about communism, you would need to eliminate all capitalist states and entities, as well as all divergent ideologies. In short, the revolutionary process must adopt a completely oppressive and totalitarian nature until it has eliminated all competition. The capitalist states and entities quite naturally would oppose the rise of a communist state, and conflict is inevitable. What we saw in the Soviet Union was not a corruption of communism, it was its natural progression. Stalinism is the natural and only heir of Marxism-Leninism.
It is the only way of survival, short of the impossible task of world revolution. Thus, upon consideration, I realized that I did not want to associate myself with such a process, as it infringes on the very freedoms it purports to defend and uphold. All revolutions will become corrupted, because power corrupts. It would take a perfect individual, an incorruptible one to resist these temptations of corruption, but this type in turn would be alienated from reality as was Robspierre. Either and any way, it leads to terror. Death. Oppression. Slavery.

In addition to this, was the essential matters of the economics just not adding up. We cannot embark upon what would be the biggest and most ambitious endeavour in history with an amateurish 'make it up as you go along" outlook. Asserting that we can change society in such a manner without incredibly prepared infrastructure, which cannot be created except when in power and experience, is fundamentally contradictory.

Furthermore, the present system has its flaws, but they are not of the same character as the flaws of communism. We have inequality, but we have the ability to do something about it, and we do not have the shadow of oppression over us. Thus, I would choose freedom over what is offered. If this makes me an indoctrinated stuck up old fart who only wants to defend my own position, then so be it

Instead of discussing how to improve a model that is not in existence, I prefer to think on ways to improve the current state of affairs, without the damage and dangers of a revolution. Society does have the mechanisms for change, and if enough people support them, they happen. Seeking to bring about democratic communism requires its adherents to PROOVE its virtues and CONVINCE people why they would be better off. Giving up after only a few years of argument, let alone a few thousand posts, is not the way to go about implementing such a state of affairs. The onus of proof lies upon the positive case in this debate, and I am yet to see anything to change my opinion or beliefs.

We do not fear change, but rather, we want to know what we are getting into, as would any rational being. We are not inclined to throw our lives away for a notion that has been refuted by history and people quite convincingly without some rather convincing arguments. Resorting to browbeating and abusing the very people who thou seekest to lead down the glorious path to communist paradise is not convincing.

The reason that people favour the status quo is partially inertia, but it is also the fact that it serves their needs best, and even perhaps they have done some thinking for themselves and come out in favour of their own beliefs. The presumption that the proponents of communism are intellectually and philosophically superior to the ignorant masses, who need to be led against their will is a big problem. Certainly it is a notion which comforts and distracts people from the flaws within their argument.

The cases offered by all communists, not just the one who posted above one here, are not convincing in that they dodge the real issues and concentrate on glowing rhetoric. But then, so does capitalist extremism, fascism, religion, and all sorts of belief. There is merit in some of the notions presented by socialism, and these can be of use in society, although doubtless the Off Topic republican party would disagree. But a mixed approach has served my country, and a lot of Western countries well, IMO. Which is all that I can offer on this matter- my opinion. I do not claim it to be superior, historically inevitable fact, nor that any differing opinions are the product of diseased minds ( At least, not on this subject. On sport, that is a different issue )

Idealism is common among youth, and this is a good and healthy thing, but it shouldn't be seen as a substitute for reality.

Edit: Allan did cover a lot of what I was trying to say, and I endorse what he says as well. Hmm...democracy...Its already 2 to 1

 

[sonorakitch]

I find it appropriate to respond considering the citation Mr. Master made of me as one who finds no solution.

I would like to respond by saying I am not an advocate of finding any solution because I feel there is no problem. Capitalism is the finest economic system on the planet, and it is exhibited everyday in many nations across the globe. Even Europe, which are considered by many as "socialist" systems, still rely heavily on market forces and the freedom of workers to choose their own destiny. When one states that communism works, they are merely presenting a visionist attitude, considering communism has never worked in any application. So it is one thing to be realistic, and quite another to be ideolistic. So in short, I think that claiming to fix a problem that doesn't exist with solution that failed miserably because of its problems is a wrong way of thinking. But hey, it is just my opinion.

"So why do people denounce communism so readily. Is it the change you fear?? And I think that is it......you fear the unknown and would rather be miserable then to take a risk. "

I denounce it because it counters every human instinct.
I don't fear change unless it is changing something that works to something that doesn't.
I am not miserable because I struggle to achieve on my own, and I believe a risk is not worth taking if the new route is a proven failure. I ask, Why?

"Well I'm sick and tired of the backward looking thinking of people of this forum! Capitalism and Democracy WILLNOT last forever. I don't care what mental world you choose to live in...it won't! What's the problem with people looking toward the future?? Instead of denouncing it at every turn, why not start a discussion on a BETTER form!! Huh?? Or how about how to improve existing forms."

It is not backward to defend a system that works from sabotours who want to bring back days long failed.
You are right; capitalism will not last forever. There is nothing wrong with change, as long as its forward-thinking and not stuck in the Marxist nineteenth century.
Improving existing forms? Sure. Lets do it.

" And it's not all of you, it's not even the ones I disagree with, it's people like Juize, SunTzu, sonorakitch, people that critize without coming up with solutions!!!"

Sorry you feel this way. I thought I presented my opinions on why communism won't work. I suggest you read back one more time. I only criticized you because I think you are wrong, and did so on a civil basis. If you don't like this, or if I upset you, than I am really, really sorry.

"Communist are always on the defensive.....and frankly I want to get a nuke and nuke Capitalism!!! (And no...I'm not going to kill anybody. ) Anyway.....I will talk to you guys in a few weeks (Unless it in another forum or when I'm banning you/closing your topics.)"

I am sorry if you will percieve this as a critical remark, but you really damage your credibility with such idiotic statements. It is one thing to have a genuine argument about the tenants of Marxism; quite another to result to childish rants. So I suggest that you consider your own principles at work before you question others.

If you don't like capitalism, then I suggest you leave Florida and the capitalist world you enjoy today. I am not sure why you are here; it is not my position to guess. But I would venture it has something to do with improving your future in the land of the great white north. I would propose that you continue your thinking, and maybe you can start up your own country somewhere...I know that St. Helena isn't needed by the Brits anymore. I just hope you succeed, and everything works out, and you will be happy. My thoughts are with you.

Good luck, and will be watching the news.

~Chris

 

[PinkyGen]

1. If humanity survives, capitalism as we know it will will eventually be replaced.

2. It will not be replaced by communism.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
What we saw in the Soviet Union was not a corruption of communism, it was its natural progression. Stalinism is the natural and only heir of Marxism-Leninism.
It is the only way of survival, short of the impossible task of world revolution.

Yes, I'd agree, although surely Marxist-Leninism isn't the only heir of Marxism? The way in which Lenin utterly bended marxist theory to fit the Russian situation was to a scenario never really invisaged by Marx. Really, Russia just wasn't ready start working any form of communism envisaged by Marx. The structures weren't in place. Capitalism had barely started to flourish in Russia, a country, whose peasants, let us not forget, had been serfs until the later 19th century. The use of means of violence to achieve aims that is so prevelant in Marxist-Leninism is really abhorent. Trotsky, Lenin et all essentially created a situation in which Stalin could grow, which is the really ironic thing.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Hmmm...damn lot of reading here guys. Anyways, down to buisness

It's all well and good slagging off us communists but what are you gonna be saying when the next wall street crash (or similar disater) occurs? 'That will never happen' I here you cry, yeah I bet thats what they thought back in the 20s but then looked what happened.......everything went crap. Were not saying all capatilist companies should be destroyed just that maybe it's time people woke up and realised that capitilism DOESN'T work, if it did then why does poverty exist all over the world?

The cold war is over, the Russian threat is gone, well rather the way I see it the American threat became reality, there is two sides to a coin ya know. The fact is that western governments made it quite blatant from the start that they hated Russia and in the civil war actually sent armies to invade, using the 'peace with Germany' excuse. Anyways there is no reason to fear the dictatorship based Bolshevikism any more so why do people still use any excuse possible to insult communist beliefs?

'Democratic communism' quite simple really, the leader is elected. Don't see how you can't work that out.

I also find it quite funny about that Governmet lying stuff, I live in Britain for feth's sake our government's always bloody lying and the people get quite annoyed at it. And seeing how Britain is 'supposed' to be the US's best bud you better rethink this argument. Note: the other questions have been answered well all reay so i'll leave 'em at that.

Cornmaster is totally right in all he said down in that last post, i'm saying this to show he's not the only one that thinks that way.

Well can I just say one last thing 'graon moan go on then'.
It is this, the next time you get an urge go do some research first, read the history books, if i recall correctly Simon Darkshade is a history teacher no (meaning I respect his opinion etc etc whereas I find SOME poeple just giving the propaganda line)?

 

[VoodooAce]

Posted by Allan:"How about the Anti-Communist's be quite to allow the Communists answer first. Considering that's the opinion rmsharpe asked for."

Gee, no sense of humor--typical lefty.... Anyway....


Geez, Allan, he was just joking....have a sense of humor.....typical righty.

 

[VoodooAce]

Fact is, neither communism nor capitalism works completely....

With communism you have the incentive and lack of competition issues. Our military power was always dominant over the USSR's because of competition between the manufacturers of military weaponry. The competition factor extends all teh way down the line, thus the quality of life in a capitalist society is likely to be better.

With capitalism, you have the fact that the common man gets screwed over on a regular basis by 'the man'. Oh, and you end up having the rich basically in control of the government. BTW, who was it that just purchased Bush, err, Enron?

BTW, if you thought I was going to offer up a sollution, too bad......

 

[sonorakitch]

"It's all well and good slagging off us communists but what are you gonna be saying when the next wall street crash (or similar disater) occurs? 'That will never happen' I here you cry, yeah I bet thats what they thought back in the 20s but then looked what happened.......everything went crap. Were not saying all capatilist companies should be destroyed just that maybe it's time people woke up and realised that capitilism DOESN'T work, if it did then why does poverty exist all over the world? "

Commie (oops, I mean Comrade )

Another crash like 1929 is highly, highly unlikely. In 1929, the stock market was largely institutional and wealthy investors, who pulled and pushed the strings in tandem. Today, the market consists of individual investors...people like old grandma down the street. There is just a huge amount of money in there, and it is constantly shifting. It has become a real institution now.

And also, there is poverty all over the world because there is NOT capitalism all over the world. Examine the true capitalist nations and you will find something different. True, there is poverty in the U.S., but there is a heck of alot more in N. Korea, Cuba, and even the former S.U.

~Chris

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Fact is, neither communism nor capitalism works completely....

I agree.We have to stop living in the past and invent new social ,economical ,political and productional systems.for me ,both capitalism and communism are systems of the 20th century.The present and future state of the world will eventualy work towards a new system ,maybe not perfect ,but in some ways better than the previous systems.Evolution is is a part of human nature ,and in history there were some key moments when social evolution broke through ,like for ex. the french revolution.

And the new system is an evolution itself ,it's something not constructed or invented in one day.Humankind has evolved more technologicly than socially through history.and social evolution is much harder than technoligical evolution.But social evolution become's important in this globalizing world, it's something to think about.

Conservatism is the archenemy of evolution.
But please ,don't see me as a communist.I think that most left wing idioligy's don't agree with the repressive system of Russian communism ,but only believe in the idea's of socialism.
SOCIALISM IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMUNISM.

 

[ComradeDavo]

sonorakitch - I think you missed my point, it may be like that now but how are you going to possibly know the situation in 50 years time? And financial disasters happen on a personal level too, remember things that go up must come down.

As for there not being capatilism all over the world, that argument does not work because because third world nations are prevented from developing because whatever goods they have to sell have an extrememly high tax put on them by the western governments who wish to protect there own industries.

Poverty in Cuba is down to American sanctions, poverty in former Soviet Union is worse than it was before the collaspe of Soviet rule and as for North Korea their not as bad as they are out made to be ya know!

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
as for North Korea their not as bad as they are out made to be ya know!

Would you want to take a vacation there?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
Poverty in Cuba is down to American sanctions, poverty in former Soviet Union is worse than it was before the collaspe of Soviet rule and as for North Korea their not as bad as they are out made to be ya know!

Last I read in the Economist recently, the Russian economy was actually slowly picking up and capital flight was going down as confidence returned to the country. Also business ppl were buying up state businesses and turning them around and running them nowadays, as compared with earlier days when they bought them at cheap knock-down prices, took them apart and sold off their assets. Seemed like Putin brought in much-needed discipline to the economic reforms.
As for N Korea, the country's on a lifeline. Hundreds of thousands of N Koreans had secretly fled into bordering Manchuria for food. and many of those still at home were subsisting on grass, rocks, whatever at times I read. Things are that bad.