I 'Defend' Communism...

[eyrei]

But to leave where? A real communist society has by defintion to be all encompassing. At least this world, to prevent the obvious "I'd go to the Klingons" answer...

I don't really see that as true. Communes exist as isolated societies in many of the countries of the world. What I am talking about as something worth trying is this on a national scale. Communism as a world government is a somewhat different concept, and has its own set of problems and benefits.

 

[Free Enterprise]

is because I know of a number of communities which have been more 'true' - or, perhaps, Marxist - Communist, and are quite successful, happy, and otherwise healthy - and without recourse to abuse.

More communists should distance themselves from Marxism which has a very staunch anti-religious stance. If they did so they would earn less contempt (though would still be unpopular). The main issue that would have to be dealt with when doing this is that a person who rejects Marxism would have to call themself something other than communist since the term itself is really based on Marxism. There are other forms that people should call themselves rather than just "communist".

 

[Aphex_Twin]

I'm guessing you already know the answer to that, but of course. At least that is the way I see it. Why bother keeping people in that are just going to be detrimental to the commune?

So I take it the answer is yes, they are free.

The distinction is important: world-wide, all-encompasing Communism vs. self-sufficient communities. In the first variant individual freedom (perhaps man as we see it) would be irrelevant and in the second we only see an example of free choice.

 

[10Seven]

I'm guessing you already know the answer to that, but of course. At least that is the way I see it. Why bother keeping people in that are just going to be detrimental to the commune?

Thus the benefit of acceptance - where two differeing societies might neighbour - the choice would exist to remain, or no.

It also highlights one of the biggest areas of hypocracy, by both sides in the Cold War - also one of the key areas of the so-called Communist 'betrayal', if you will, of Communist ideal - Imperialism.

 

[luiz]

Heh, the CFC Thread Cycle is doing it's thingy again.
Right now, "Commie threads" are quite popular.
I wonder how long it will take untill someone opens a "Prove X exists" or abortion threads.

1. People seem so hooked on the 'Reds under the bed' myth that they appear unable to consider the form without erronous and emotive - such as 'Communism killed millions of people'. All the while such forms as Capitalism which might similarly be attributed are conveniently ignored.
Why? Because of illogical and irrational anti-Communism bred through the Cold War 'reds under the bed' rhetoric.

Regimes that called themselves communists and that were widely supported by people who called themselves communists indeed killed millions.

Even if today Stalin is widely regarded as a monster, it was not like that in the past. He was idolized by large parts of the european and latin-american Lefts. In fact, when he died, only 3 people in the French Assembly refused to stand up for a homage.

So don't pretend as if the USSR and China was never regarded as "true communism" by the western leftist stablishment, because they were.

2. I maintain that it has some good ideas - as does Libertarianizm - where, in fact, these also feature some similarities, even as they, in many respects, represent two extremes of a spectrum - one defining individual rights paramount, and the other, social rights paramount.

Which ideas?
I never saw a single idea in Communism that is any better then the ideas that an average 5 year old can come up with. I mean "Justice and Equality for All" is not exactly hard to think of. Creating a far-fetched utopia is simple and does not require great intelectual ability.

3. And, no, Soviet Russia and China are not most excellent examples for Communism - as such features as genocide, mass slavery, and tyranny are very much against key tenets of Communism - to such a point as to invalidate virtually all tenets. In fact, they would be most excellent examples of Tyranny. There's an interesting reason why it was called SOVIET Russia...

Please answer me this time.
Why should I believe your definition of what is Communism, when the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao read much more marxist literature and wrote much more marxist literature then you ever will?
Lenin, particularly, was easlily as prolific as Marx himself in number of books published on the issue.

BTW, "Soviet" means something like a "council". Hardly it is anti-communist.

Conclusion
So, ultimately, I speak 'for' Communism due to the massive error of most anti- argument - which so overwhelmingly tends to be based on that simple Cold War rhetoric and in relation to the Soviet - which use of the communist persona was a clearly cynical tool through which control would be exerted.

Out of personal experience, the anti-communist people usually understand more of communism then the "pro" people.

Another point that strengthens my desire to challenge such errors - even as I disagree with a number of key points to Communism, especially in relation to some key aspects of Libertarianizm - is because I know of a number of communities which have been more 'true' - or, perhaps, Marxist - Communist, and are quite successful, happy, and otherwise healthy - and without recourse to abuse.

Unless you're talking about primitive agricultural societies, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no single succesful communist society on a post-agricultural level.

 

[AVN]

I don't really see that as true. Communes exist as isolated societies in many of the countries of the world. What I am talking about as something worth trying is this on a national scale. Communism as a world government is a somewhat different concept, and has its own set of problems and benefits.

If you consider communism as isolated communities, or maybe even organised on a national level then I agree. People should be free to leave the commune or country.

 

[10Seven]

More communists should distance themselves from Marxism which has a very staunch anti-religious stance. If they did so they would earn less contempt (though would still be unpopular).

I hadn't thought of that aspect - I don't see the point in the anti-religious stance - mine would probably be best described as agnostic - I think the word is. Undecided but open, anyway.

This must be a big issue against Communism - overtly 'good for people' and yet trying to impose Communism as a religion against all others. It's a recipe to encourage extremism and imperialism, I think.

It seems interesting that the major philosophies such as Communism and Capitalism are generally around 150 years old - I see such discussions as this as a healthy progression - where we can evaluate and debate their success' and failures.

It would be foolish, for instance, I think, to continue to consider Marx and other such philosophers as gospel - like the generals of WW1 using Napoleon and the other guy - as their benchmark, despite the world and warcraft having change so...

 

[eyrei]

Regimes that called themselves communists and that were widely supported by people who called themselves communists indeed killed millions.

Why don't you try approaching the subject without that bias, as the rest of us are? It might actually make for an interesting dialogue...

Even if today Stalin is widely regarded as a monster, it was not like that in the past. He was idolized by large parts of the european and latin-american Lefts. In fact, when he died, only 3 people in the French Assembly refused to stand up for a homage.

So don't pretend as if the USSR and China was never regarded as "true communism" by the western leftist stablishment, because they were.

They made a mistake, partially because they were not completely aware of what else was going on in the USSR, but partially because they like the 'idea' of communism. This is precisely why people still talk about it.

I never saw a single idea in Communism that is any better then the ideas that an average 5 year old can come up with. I mean "Justice and Equality for All" is not exactly hard to think of. Creating a far-fetched utopia is simple and does not require great intelectual ability.

Then why aren't there more theories like this? It may seem simple to you, but thinking outside the box for the first time is rather difficult, particularly if you are the first to really 'flesh out' an idea. Regardless, establishing a society that has hopes for utopia is a challenge, and one worth pursuing, in my opinion.

Please answer me this time.
Why should I believe your definition of what is Communism, when the likes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao read much more marxist literature and wrote much more marxist literature then you ever will?
Lenin, particularly, was easlily as prolific as Marx himself in number of books published on the issue.

They tried and failed to establish a utopia. Of course, they may have just been pursuing personal power from the outset, and seized their oppurtunity.

Out of personal experience, the anti-communist people usually understand more of communism then the "pro" people.

Sorry man, but that is just plain ridiculous. I do hope you realize the absurdity of statements like that...

 

[Free Enterprise]

It would be foolish, for instance, I think, to continue to consider Marx and other such philosophers as gospel - like the generals of WW1 using Napoleon and the other guy - as their benchmark, despite the world and warcraft having change so...

I agree that some communists have revised their ideas in light of the problems with Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maosim. Also, this link might be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_communism
So it should be possible to allow freedom of religion under communism. Therefore communists should reject Marx's thesis that religion cannot exist in a communist society. I think socialist ideologies are more of a realistic policy than a communistic paradigms. They are more debatable as a result since no communist society has every really be formed except perhaps on a very small scale.

 

[10Seven]

LUIZ
I feel you tend not to read people's posts, but skim them for keywords from which to abuse.

Consider the following statements by yourself:


1.

So don't pretend as if the USSR and China was never regarded as "true communism" by the western leftist stablishment, because they were.

2.

BTW, "Soviet" means something like a "council". Hardly it is anti-communist.

3.

Unless you're talking about primitive agricultural societies, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no single succesful communist society on a post-agricultural level.

1. For instance, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I made no such suggestion.

2. Your simply repeating the dictionary definition shows that you chose not to consider why I might suggest that the 'Soviet' aspect was "interesting".

3. In this situation, although you might like for it to be untrue, I, however, have the evidence of my own eyes - untroubled by previous reply you have made sarcastically asking me if I lived near Laos.

Thus it is hardly suprising that you say:

Out of personal experience, the anti-communist people usually understand more of communism then the "pro" people.

When you appear to simply deny the presentation of opinions differing to your preferred world view.

Less abuse and more open-minded consideration would be useful - unless you subscribe to the belief that your own opinion is paramount, and possessed knowledge perpetually superior...

 

[Double Barrel]

Self respect? The respect of one's peers? The possibility of getting a more interesting job? Communism doesn't completely remove people's ability to get ahead, it just changes the reward from monetary to psychological and/or sociological.

eyrei, with all due respect, these motivations do not hold water. I could really care less what other people think of me, so there goes that motivation. Self respect? I get that from being a good person, not working to let lazy people sponge off of my hard work. The only thing that happens (to me, at least) is I get pissed off when I'm having to work for other peoples' laziness. And a more interesting job? What about 10 years of college for a doctor? Where is the incentive? I'd rather be a professional guitar player, so I suppose in a communist society everyone could support me while I diddle away my days strumming my instrument?

And we've got to get on the same page in defining "communism", because I feel like we are talking about different concepts.

I am assuming that the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is the holy grail of communism. Am I correct? Someone mentioned "Marxism" like it is separate from communism, but didn't Marx create the ideology to begin with?

So let's go with the universally accepted definition for the purpose of my post:

"system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. "

Is this a correct definition of "communism" accepted by communists?

I do not think real communism can exist without the enforcement power of an authoritarian government. Please elaborate and explain if I am misunderstanding the nature of your points. I need to understand how communists define the ideology before I can prove that it will never work.

Thanks!

 

[Hitro]

eyrei, with all due respect, these motivations do not hold water. I could really care less what other people think of me, so there goes that motivation. Self respect? I get that from being a good person, not working to let lazy people sponge off of my hard work. The only thing that happens (to me, at least) is I get pissed off when I'm having to work for other peoples' laziness. And a more interesting job? What about 10 years of college for a doctor? Where is the incentive? I'd rather be a professional guitar player, so I suppose in a communist society everyone could support me while I diddle away my days strumming my instrument?

Well, it is quite commonly agreed that taken to the extreme Communism does not work because of what you say there, that some people (many, probably) aren't fit for it.

But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if people were fit for it. It also doesn't mean that everyone is unfit for it...

 

[eyrei]

eyrei, with all due respect, these motivations do not hold water. I could really care less what other people think of me, so there goes that motivation. Self respect? I get that from being a good person, not working to let lazy people sponge off of my hard work.

Then you are among a very small majority. Having actually spent some time studying psychology and sociology, I can tell you with some degree of expertise that most people care a great deal what others think of them.

The only thing that happens (to me, at least) is I get pissed off when I'm having to work for other peoples' laziness. And a more interesting job? What about 10 years of college for a doctor? Where is the incentive? I'd rather be a professional guitar player, so I suppose in a communist society everyone could support me while I diddle away my days strumming my instrument?

So you get pissed at other people's laziness? Don't you live in a democratic/capitalist society?

And we've got to get on the same page in defining "communism", because I feel like we are talking about different concepts.

I am assuming that the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is the holy grail of communism. Am I correct? Someone mentioned "Marxism" like it is separate from communism, but didn't Marx create the ideology to begin with?

So let's go with the universally accepted definition for the purpose of my post:

"system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. "

Is this a correct definition of "communism" accepted by communists?

Not by this 'communist'. Marx wanted to start a revolution, so much of what he wrote is very exaggerated. At any rate, his theory (and this was exactly what it was), like any theory, can certainly be redefined by those who come afterwards, like us. And we don't have to agree with people like Stalin and Lenin to do so.

I do not think real communism can exist without the enforcement power of an authoritarian government. Please elaborate and explain if I am misunderstanding the nature of your points. I need to understand how communists define the ideology before I can prove that it will never work.

Thanks!

I don't think that human society can exist in any enlightened way without some sort of authority. Without it you have anarchy, which is desired by only a very few. So, yes, any 'communistic' society would need a strong government.

 

[10Seven]

eyrei, with all due respect, these motivations do not hold water. I could really care less what other people think of me, so there goes that motivation. Self respect? I get that from being a good person, not working to let lazy people sponge off of my hard work. The only thing that happens (to me, at least) is I get pissed off when I'm having to work for other peoples' laziness. And a more interesting job? What about 10 years of college for a doctor? Where is the incentive? I'd rather be a professional guitar player, so I suppose in a communist society everyone could support me while I diddle away my days strumming my instrument?

I think Eyrei was talking more about self-respect for being lazy or not, not whether you would feel self respect working your behind off to support someone lazy.

Why not consider the scenario I suggested...

"system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people."

I wouldn't accept that as a definition as I think it's obviously a reference to such 'examples' as the USSR - which are, I think, entirely imperfect examples.

They contradict some key aspects of Communism - which preclude genocide and tyranny.

Roughly, I would define Communism as - without being anal about particular definitions - collective property, greater responsibility to society but with protection of personal rights - and such rights as food and shelter. Then the usual 'each according to ability and each according to need'.

It's probably a good idea to discuss it especially where I generally object the the absurd definition - Communism = overwhelming and abusive state and automatic slaughter of millions and destruction of the individual.

There is a risk in trying to nail it down too anally...

 

[10Seven]

I agree that some communists have revised their ideas in light of the problems with Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maosim. Also, this link might be interesting: ....

Thanks for the link - it's pretty funny the aethiest stance in relation to this background

 

[luiz]

LUIZ
I feel you tend not to read people's posts, but skim them for keywords from which to abuse.

1. For instance, if you had read my post, you would have seen that I made no such suggestion.

2. Your simply repeating the dictionary definition shows that you chose not to consider why I might suggest that the 'Soviet' aspect was "interesting".

3. In this situation, although you might like for it to be untrue, I, however, have the evidence of my own eyes - untroubled by previous reply you have made sarcastically asking me if I lived near Laos.

When you appear to simply deny the presentation of opinions differing to your preferred world view.

Less abuse and more open-minded consideration would be useful - unless you subscribe to the belief that your own opinion is paramount, and possessed knowledge perpetually superior...

You did not answer my questions. I will repeat them.

1-Why is your definition of Communist the "true" one, and not the definition of noted marxist authors and leaders such as Lenin or Mao?

2-Where is the exemple of the succesful, post-industrial communist society that you speak of?

 

[eyrei]

You did not answer my questions. I will repeat them.

1-Why is your definition of Communist the "true" one, and not the definition of noted marxist authors and leaders such as Lenin or Mao?

2-Where is the exemple of the succesful, post-industrial communist society that you speak of?

You don't seem to be getting the point. This thread is not about who holds the Truth about communism, or the history of communism. It is a dialogue...get it?

 

[Colonel]

well if you guys didnt notice no goverment type works by itself, you need to mix it with some other form of goverment. For a communistic goverment on a national scale you need some sort of Democratic Communism, This would allow all power to rest with the people while still haveing everyone be equal

 

[Free Enterprise]

3. And, no, Soviet Russia and China are not most excellent examples for Communism - as such features as genocide, mass slavery, and tyranny are very much against key tenets of Communism - to such a point as to invalidate virtually all tenets. In fact, they would be most excellent examples of Tyranny.

I do agree with this. I do not hold entire ideologies (or schools of though) to account if radical/treacherous wings carried out inhumane acts (unless the ideology specifically supports such an action). Eurocommunism is an example of attempts to reform communism.

 

[andrewgprv]

Just Curious how many of you defending communism are completely responsable for yourselves. Meaning no help from parents or guardians. You work and pay for your rent/house, food, clothing, luxuries all out of your own pocket?