Successful Communism

[Traitorfish]

I've seen you post a lot. What do you want from me?

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that.

 

[Stapel]

One might argue that true communism is not a system to be persued or created, but, according to Marx, a system that would be the logical result of industrialism. However, that never happened and therefor true communism never happened. Not that we should be sad about that.....

Many people claim that communism would be a great system, if only it would work. I disagree with that. Communism deprives people of personal liberties and is thus an immoral system. Even if it would result in a greater wellfare for all (it really never would), I would be strongly agaisnt it because handing over freedom is too much of a price for extra welfare.

 

[Merkinball]

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that.

It means that sometimes you post crazy things as fact. Therefore, I figured you were posting that is a reality of fact.

 

[Traitorfish]

One might argue that true communism is not a system to be persued or created, but, according to Marx, a system that would be the logical result of industrialism. However, that never happened and therefor true communism never happened. Not that we should be sad about that.....

You assert that something which has not happened has not happened, and so has not happened? Am I getting that right? I don't disagree, as such- it would be rather impossible- I'm just wondering what you meant by that, or what implications you think it has on Marxist theory.

Many people claim that communism would be a great system, if only it would work. I disagree with that. Communism deprives people of personal liberties and is thus an immoral system. Even if it would result in a greater wellfare for all (it really never would), I would be strongly agaisnt it because handing over freedom is too much of a price for extra welfare.

Perhaps if you were able to distinguish between "communism" and "cartoon Soviet villainy" you might understand that the position occupied by communists and their ilk.

It means that sometimes you post crazy things as fact. Therefore, I figured you were posting that is a reality of fact.

Then you either think very little of me indeed, or simply aren't using your nogging properly. I can probably guess which one you'd suggest.

 

[Stapel]

You assert that something which has not happened has not happened, and so has not happened? Am I getting that right? I don't disagree, as such- it would be rather impossible- I'm just wondering what you meant by that, or what implications you think it has on Marxist theory.

I just wanted to point out that communism could be regarded as communism, only if it is the logical result of industrialism. That never happened. And yes, therefor it thus cannot exist at all......

Never mind, I was getting abit philosphical there.

Perhaps if you were able to distinguish between "communism" and "cartoon Soviet villainy" you might understand that the position occupied by communists and their ilk.

Please explain yourself. I got the feeling your sentence is not yet completed??? Anyway, I don't get what you want to say here.

 

[Traitorfish]

I just wanted to point out that communism could be regarded as communism, only if it is the logical result of industrialism. That never happened. And yes, therefor it thus cannot exist at all......

I'm not convinced that actually follows.
"Communism" is a form of anarchist collectivism, encompassing end-stage Marxism, but not referring exclusively to it.
End-stage Marxist emerges from socialism, which itself emerges from capitalism. Industrialism is what tips the feudal stage into the capitalist stage, but is not synonymous with it, nor does it refer to a particular stage of history in Marxist theory.
We are still in the capitalist stage of history, by the Marxist understanding, and so the the possibility of socialism emerging has not yet been precluded.
Non-Marxist communism does not demand or predict this stagist progression, and so cannot be precluded in the same manner.

Please explain yourself. I got the feeling your sentence is not yet completed??? Anyway, I don't get what you want to say here.

I was implying that "communism", as you used it, seemed to bear more resemblance to Cold War stereotypes than to an informed understanding of anarcho-collectivism.

 

[Alassius]

To me collectivism suggests the obliteration of individuals in favour of the collective, and I don't think that's what Communism aims for. If the individual is not significant, what's the point of fighting for a better society? Who would that fight be for? The collective is a comprised of individuals, and to deny individuality for the collective would be to fall into the same pitfall of abstraction that capitalism/Utilitarianism is stuck in. Hence, I'd say that Communism is in fact aiming for the good of distinct individuals at the price of the unlimited accumulation of capital, the latter which isn't necessarily a loss to individuality.

Individual and individuality are not quite the same thing. Theoretically you can have a society where all (or most) individuals are better off, but individuality is suppressed.

But that is not the problem with communism. In practice, individual well-being was often taken to mean individuality. As a worker, ask for more milk and you are labelled a selfish individualist. A party bureaucrat on the other hand can claim that since he represents the collective, his well-being is not about his individual, but is essential for the collective, exactly as it happened in Animal Farm. This was the philosophical argument for the two-tiered society in communist countries. Denying individuality was precisely what was done. Indeed, to this day the word "individualism" is still derogatory in Chinese.

What communism aims for and what it leads to are often almost completely opposite of each other. The dichotomy between an anarchist heaven, and a dictatorship that was thought necessary to bring about the anarchy, is in a nutshell why communism failed.

 

[Stapel]

I'm not convinced that actually follows.
"Communism" is a form of anarchist collectivism, encompassing end-stage Marxism, but not referring exclusively to it.
End-stage Marxist emerges from socialism, which itself emerges from capitalism. Industrialism is what tips the feudal stage into the capitalist stage, but is not synonymous with it, nor does it refer to a particular stage of history in Marxist theory.
We are still in the capitalist stage of history, by the Marxist understanding, and so the the possibility of socialism emerging has not yet been precluded.
Non-Marxist communism does not demand or predict this stagist progression, and so cannot be precluded in the same manner.

Fair enough.

I was implying that "communism", as you used it, seemed to bear more resemblance to Cold War stereotypes than to an informed understanding of anarcho-collectivism.

The only stereotype I used was that communism deprives people of personal liberties. That was certainly the case with Cold War communist regimes. And, tbh, that is also the case in other forms of communism, such as anarcho-collectivism. IMO, any sort of collectivism comes at the price of depriving people of liberties.

Would you disagree with that?

 

[Traitorfish]

Individual and individuality are not quite the same thing. Theoretically you can have a society where all (or most) individuals are better off, but individuality is suppressed.

But that is not the problem with communism. In practice, individual well-being was often taken to mean individuality. As a worker, ask for more milk and you are labelled a selfish individualist. A party bureaucrat on the other hand can claim that since he represents the collective, his well-being is not about his individual, but is essential for the collective, exactly as it happened in Animal Farm. This was the philosophical argument for the two-tiered society in communist countries. Denying individuality was precisely what was done. Indeed, to this day the word "individualism" is still derogatory in Chinese.

What communism aims for and what it leads to are often almost completely opposite of each other. The dichotomy between an anarchist heaven, and a dictatorship that was thought necessary to bring about the anarchy, is in a nutshell why communism failed.

It's possibly worth noting, at this point, that what you are actually referring to is state socialism, not communism, and that Animal Farm was written as a critique of authoritarian socialism by a libertarian socialist. Corrupt dictatorships based on a deformed version of Marxist theory cannot be seen as representative of the entirety of anarcho-collectivist thought.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The only stereotype I used was that communism deprives people of personal liberties. That was certainly the case with Cold War communist regimes. And, tbh, that is also the case in other forms of communism, such as anarcho-collectivism. IMO, any sort of collectivism comes at the price of depriving people of liberties.

Would you disagree with that?

I'm sure it does. But reckless and rampant individualism deprives more people of more liberties, even though it greatly enhances the liberties of a very small minority.

This is what Lenin meant by saying that "freedom is so precious it must be rationed." Because freedom is, essentially, like wealth. When piled in the hands of one or a few, it is terribly destructive and oppressive; but the most fair and just of systems aims to create the most amount of freedom for the most amount of people. That might mean the lessening of some liberties in some areas (like picking your health provider or abstaining therein), but in other areas liberties are greatly expanded (education, political power, social security [lowercase] ) in ways that could never exist in the hierarchical systems like capitalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

The only stereotype I used was that communism deprives people of personal liberties. That was certainly the case with Cold War communist regimes. And, tbh, that is also the case in other forms of communism, such as anarcho-collectivism. IMO, any sort of collectivism comes at the price of depriving people of liberties.

Would you disagree with that?

Well, yes and no. Any free society demands that "individual liberty" comes with limits, anything else is chaos. "One man's freedoms ends where another's begins", as they say. That's not necessarily the same as being oppressive, nor does it constitute "handing over freedom". It's simply inter-reliant co-existence, the principal which any functioning society is based upon. Without such principals, you are left with little more than might-makes-right, which hardly guarantees "freedom" in the long run. Collectivist ideologies merely acknowledge this, and seek to turn it to a positive, ethical and consistent end. Some fail, some become deformed, but that only reflects poorly on the mechanics, not on the ideals.

This is what Lenin meant by saying that "freedom is so precious it must be rationed."

That quote sums up the principle very well, and it's always annoyed me that people insist on misrepresenting it as a some sort of totalitarian doublespeak.

 

[Merkinball]

It is totalitarian double speak any way you slice it. Chopping one man's freedom down on the premise of propping up another is totalitarian.

 

[Alassius]

I'm not convinced that actually follows.
"Communism" is a form of anarchist collectivism, encompassing end-stage Marxism, but not referring exclusively to it.
End-stage Marxist emerges from socialism, which itself emerges from capitalism. Industrialism is what tips the feudal stage into the capitalist stage, but is not synonymous with it, nor does it refer to a particular stage of history in Marxist theory.
We are still in the capitalist stage of history, by the Marxist understanding, and so the the possibility of socialism emerging has not yet been precluded.
Non-Marxist communism does not demand or predict this stagist progression, and so cannot be precluded in the same manner.

Karl Marx never thought modern welfare state would've been possible. His argument for the inevitability of communism goes like this: economic crises were becoming more frequent and more devastating (in mid 1800s); workers were becoming poorer and poorer. Because economic crises and workers being exploited were necessary consequences of capitalist mode of production, they were bound to get worse. Since things were only getting worse, there must be a day when it's just not possible to go on any more. That would be the time for a revolution which would enable a more advanced mode of production.

Today's capitalism has avoided that fate. It's already beyond Marx's capitalist stage, without crippling itself enough to cause a transition to communism. Those who say you need a rich country to achieve true communism are mistaken. What you need, according to Marx, is a rich country where people are extremely poor. That's just not going to happen today. Sorry to disappoint, but we're in uncharted territory now.

 

[Dachs]

tinsel

YAY TINSEL

tinsel

 

[Traitorfish]

It is totalitarian double speak any way you slice it. Chopping one man's freedom down on the premise of propping up another is totalitarian.

No, it's not. And I don't just mean ideologically so, I mean in terms of simple dictionary definitions. Look- it takes a very liberal interpretation to turn anything here into "being told not to go around kicking people". You wouldn't approve of me beating you to death with an old loaf of bread, I can only assume, and to that end we establish law courts and enforcement agencies to prevent that from happening, limiting my freedom to beat you to death with an old loaf of bread. That's not "totalitarianism", it's just society.

Karl Marx never thought modern welfare state would've been possible. His argument for the inevitability of communism goes like this: economic crises were becoming more frequent and more devastating (in mid 1800s); workers were becoming poorer and poorer. Because economic crises and workers being exploited were necessary consequences of capitalist mode of production, they were bound to get worse. Since things were only getting worse, there must be a day when it's just not possible to go on any more. That would be the time for a revolution which would enable a more advanced mode of production.

Today's capitalism has avoided that fate. It's already beyond Marx's capitalist stage, without crippling itself enough to cause a transition to communism. Those who say you need a rich country to achieve true communism are mistaken. What you need, according to Marx, is a rich country where people are extremely poor. That's just not going to happen today. Sorry to disappoint, but we're in uncharted territory now.

That rather naively assumes that Marx's ideas referred to individual countries, as if they existed in blissful isolation, rather than to the global society which was emerging and which he knew was emerging in his own day. There is still a huge economically and politically disenfranchised proletarian class in the developing world; indeed, bigger than ever and still growing! Welfare capitalism only provides for the "upper" proletariat of the developed world, an entitled minority who existed in Marx's day. Granted, the geographical dissonance has disrupted the emergence of class consciousness in the developing world and suppressed it the developed, but it has not precluded the development of socialism. Something is emerging more slowly than originally predicted does not mean that it will not emerge, let alone that it has been entirely superseded.
We are in a rich world where people are extremely poor. That the despots chose to mark their territory with lines and flags means very little to the socially concious individual.

 

[Alassius]

It's possibly worth noting, at this point, that what you are actually referring to is state socialism, not communism, and that Animal Farm was written as a critique of authoritarian socialism by a libertarian socialist. Corrupt dictatorships based on a deformed version of Marxist theory cannot be seen as representative of the entirety of anarcho-collectivist thought.

Sadly, dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed a part of Marxist theory. It's not deformed communism. It's the practical outcome of a theory (of the dictatorship) put into practice. Can you actually name the difference between the ideal and the reality that did not conform to Marx's guidelines for his socialism stage?

That rather naively assumes that Marx's ideas referred to individual countries, as if they existed in blissful isolation, rather than to the global society which was emerging and which he knew was emerging in his own day. There is still a huge economically and politically disenfranchised proletarian class in the developing world; indeed, bigger than ever and still growing! Welfare capitalism only provides for the "upper" proletariat of the developed world, an entitled minority who existed in Marx's day. Granted, the geographical dissonance has disrupted the emergence of class consciousness in the developing world and suppressed it the developed, but it has not precluded the development of socialism. Something is emerging more slowly than originally predicted does not mean that it will not emerge, let alone that it has been entirely superseded.
We are in a rich world where people are extremely poor. That the despots chose to mark their territory with lines and flags means very little to the socially concious individual.

We're in a world where some countries are rich and some are poor. The "poor" in the rich countries are what would be middle class in the poor countries. That global society of proletariat never came into being, because there is no longer an "under" proletariat in the rich world. Everyone is at least in "upper" proletariat now. It's not that the international proletariat is growing slower than Marx thought. It's that the proletariat has been doing the opposite: shrinking. And as the developing world progresses, is there any reason to think they will not follow suit and get past the stage of class warfare?

I'm sure it does. But reckless and rampant individualism deprives more people of more liberties, even though it greatly enhances the liberties of a very small minority.

This is what Lenin meant by saying that "freedom is so precious it must be rationed." Because freedom is, essentially, like wealth. When piled in the hands of one or a few, it is terribly destructive and oppressive; but the most fair and just of systems aims to create the most amount of freedom for the most amount of people. That might mean the lessening of some liberties in some areas (like picking your health provider or abstaining therein), but in other areas liberties are greatly expanded (education, political power, social security [lowercase] ) in ways that could never exist in the hierarchical systems like capitalism.

So true, except that you missed one small detail: freedom is rationed only for the proles. It wouldn't make sense to ration freedom for the Party, would it? That would be like restricting the freedom of everyone, which evidently is wrong. Since the collective must take precedence in a conflict of freedom, individual freedom would have to take the second place. And because it happens that your commissar represents the collective, your liberties of education, political power, social security, or food rations will have to be sacrificed for the greater requirement of the commissar. Indeed, this is the kind of liberties that could never exist in capitalism!

 

[spryllino]

It is totalitarian double speak any way you slice it. Chopping one man's freedom down on the premise of propping up another is totalitarian.

It is an extremely good idea if you prop up the other man's freedom more than you reduce the first man's.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Sadly, dictatorship of the proletariat was indeed a part of Marxist theory. It's not deformed communism. It's the practical outcome of a theory (of the dictatorship) put into practice. Can you actually name the difference between the ideal and the reality that did not conform to Marx's guidelines for his socialism stage?

Dictatorship of the Proletariat simply means a situation where the proletariat is in charge. It does not denote what we consider today to be a "dictatorship." See Karl Kautsky's pamphlet by the same name for further explanation.

We're in a world where some countries are rich and some are poor. The "poor" in the rich countries are what would be middle class in the poor countries. That global society of proletariat never came into being, because there is no longer an "under" proletariat in the rich world. Everyone is at least in "upper" proletariat now. It's not that the international proletariat is growing slower than Marx thought. It's that the proletariat has been doing the opposite: shrinking. And as the developing world progresses, is there any reason to think they will not follow suit and get past the stage of class warfare?

You don't know what you're talking about. This whole paragraph is hogwash.

So true, except that you missed one small detail: freedom is rationed only for the proles.

Of which anyone can join, simply by will.

It wouldn't make sense to ration freedom for the Party, would it? That would be like restricting the freedom of everyone, which evidently is wrong. Since the collective must take precedence in a conflict of freedom, individual freedom would have to take the second place.

There you go again, building the strawman than the collective is greater than the individual. That's not what anyone here has argued.

And because it happens that your commissar represents the collective, your liberties of education, political power, social security, or food rations will have to be sacrificed for the greater requirement of the commissar. Indeed, this is the kind of liberties that could never exist in capitalism!

Cute. But I am not amused.

 

[aelf]

Individual and individuality are not quite the same thing. Theoretically you can have a society where all (or most) individuals are better off, but individuality is suppressed.

But that is not the problem with communism. In practice, individual well-being was often taken to mean individuality. As a worker, ask for more milk and you are labelled a selfish individualist. A party bureaucrat on the other hand can claim that since he represents the collective, his well-being is not about his individual, but is essential for the collective, exactly as it happened in Animal Farm. This was the philosophical argument for the two-tiered society in communist countries. Denying individuality was precisely what was done. Indeed, to this day the word "individualism" is still derogatory in Chinese.

What communism aims for and what it leads to are often almost completely opposite of each other. The dichotomy between an anarchist heaven, and a dictatorship that was thought necessary to bring about the anarchy, is in a nutshell why communism failed.

If society can suppress individuality so that individuals are absolutely better off then the political economy fails as long as society does not head there. Why would individuals not want to be better off?

I think what you fail to realise is individuality is endogenous to individual benefit. That is, people value individuality and therefore don't find it to their benefit to suppress to it to a significant extent. Certainly there can be societies where conditions are so bad that suppression of individuality may be one of the least of the people's problems, and if that is so and the suppression of individuality will help individuals become better off, then why shouldn't they do that?

Honestly, I'm slightly baffled about having to say this to someone who surely knows his market economics.

And while you deny that individuality and individual benefit has anything to do with each other, you seem quick to equate individuality with individualism.

Need I say more?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is an extremely good idea if you prop up the other man's freedom more than you reduce the first man's.

Not at all.

This does not work, because then the government has a say in freedom, meaning it isn't free, among other reasons. Restricted freedom is not freedom.