Thoughts of a Disillusioned Communist

[Commodore]

Okay, let me start this off by stating that I am, obviously, a Communist. With that said, in resent months I have started to seriously doubt the ideology to which I once dedicated my life. The thoughts I am about to share are the thoughts that have crept into my head and not only apply to Communism, but its various offshoots (Socialism, Anarchism, Stalinism, etc...) as well.

1) Now, this first thought is going to run along the logic of the most prevelent thought currently in my head: the assumption that Communism is completely and totally wrong. My logic on this one is, well, everyone around me (including the people on this site) repeatedly state that only evil things spawn from Communist theory; so if everyone seems to think it is so wrong, then it must be. I mean, what if the Capitalist society we curently live in is as good as it's going to get? What if we are free already and Communism is the real enemy of freedom? What if it is Capitalism that creates equality? What if Communism is the true exploiter of the masses? If this is the case, then all Communists (seeing as we claim to be all about freedom and equality) should give up the fight, as it will only lead to more hardship.

2) This next one goes off the assumption that Communism is not wrong, but is still not worth fighting for. This is simply based on the odds of victory. If the vast majority of the world is dead-set against Communism, then it doesn't matter if we are in the right, as our defeat will always be inevitable. Now, why should we continue a fight that we have absolutely zero chance of winning?

Now that you have heard my thoughts on the matter, let the discussion commence.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Forget ideologies, they'll always dissapoint you in the long run, if youre a thinking person. Focus on truth instead. Truth can sting, but it'll never lie to you.

 

[Commodore]

Forget ideologies, they'll always dissapoint you in the long run, if youre a thinking person. Focus on truth instead. Truth can sting, but it'll never lie to you.

I fully agree with you. With that said, my problem stems from the fact that after much thought, I agree with many of the basic ideas of Communism, but it seems to yield horrible results in the real world.

EDIT: Perhaps you are right Bozo, in that I find myself dissappointed in Communism because I am a thinking person.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I fully agree with you. With that said, my problem stems from the fact that after much thought, I agree with many of the basic ideas of Communism, but it seems to yield horrible results in the real world.

Then think of communism like a religion. Religions can have great meaning for people on a personal level, even if they have nothing to do with the real world. Stay a communist at heart, but when trying to improve the human condition, seek out good results, and emulate whatever was done to achieve them.

EDIT: Perhaps you are right Bozo, in that I find myself dissappointed in Communism because I am a thinking person.

You must be, because youre able to question and look objectively at your own deeply held beliefs. You see the world as it is, not how you wish it to be

 

[superisis]

Communism hasn't only produced bad results... look at the Jewish kibbutz as an example. A lot of the problems with communism are centered around the centralisation of government, the entire intelligentsia working for the interest of the masses, etc. There are communist ideologies that don't incorporate this.

As to your second point, one should never give up, whatever the odds. But do mind the results. If you can't help a person because you cannot agree on ideologies (even though you might agree on a certain type of action in a situation), then you're fighting the wrong fight. It's not about who has the right ideas, but what get's the right results.

 

[Che Guava]

I fully agree with you. With that said, my problem stems from the fact that after much thought, I agree with many of the basic ideas of Communism, but it seems to yield horrible results in the real world.
.

I think that you are looking at the problem in the wrong way. Rather than focus on the means, look at the ends. For instance, don't start with "I beleive in socialized medicine", start with "I beleive that everyone should have medical coverage regardless of thier situation"

Take that beleif, look at what has been tried, what works best, and how it could be improved. If you start thinking about what is socialist, what is capitalist, etc, you'll just end up blinding yourself to the possibilities that our society holds...

 

[luiz]

Communism hasn't only produced bad results... look at the Jewish kibbutz as an example.

The kibutz only work because people there are almost fanatically commited to a cause and the survival of the group.
Another little mentioned fact is that kibutz are only prosperous because there exists an external capitalist society that buys their exceeding production.

To answer the OP, yeah you should give up.
There's no need even to get into the merits(or lack) of the communist system. Fact is it is a system supposed to serve "the masses", and "the masses" do not want it. Communist parties perform very poorly in the overwhelming majority of democracies.

I suggest you tone down your left-wing ideology, or even better, get rid of it altogether.

 

[colontos]

Communism is a dying ideology, and your disillusionment is a small part of its gradual death. The facts are, as you said, that it doesn't work and, not only that, but it actually produces negative results in 100 PERCENT OF AVAILABLE TEST CASES. Small communes like the kibbutz can survive, but we are talking about communism as a political ideology, a way to run a country (or the world). It doesn't work, and it is evil.

 

[Che Guava]

Oh, don't buy that 'communism is evil' deal. No political ideology is 'bad' on its own, its what people do with it that makes it count. Look at how long democracy lay dormant in the backwater of history before making a comeback.

Maybe our society isn't ready for something so drastic, maybe its usefullness has expired, or maybe we just haven't come up with the right way to apply its principles. THe only way we'll really lose out is if we don't consider all the posibilities when faced with the problems of the future.

 

[Commodore]

Oh, don't buy that 'communism is evil' deal. No political ideology is 'bad' on its own, its what people do with it that makes it count. Look at how long democracy lay dormant in the backwater of history before making a comeback.

Of course no ideology is bad or evil by itself, the problem lies in the question of whether or not some ideologies more easily allow tyranny to rise. Using the history that we have, it would seem that Communism allows for evil people to come to power and strip people of every last freedom, while operating under the guise of "liberating the Proletariat."

Also, as a sort of extension to the second thought in the OP; even if someone found a way to implement Communism on a massive scale, what does it matter if the people don't want it? As was previously stated, Communist politicians in democracies are rarely elected, so why try to force something on people that they don't want, even if it might be in their best interest? If we start forcing Communist ideology on people, then do we not become just as bad as the "tyrants" we are trying to expel?

 

[zulu9812]

My logic on this one is, well, everyone around me (including the people on this site) repeatedly state that only evil things spawn from Communist theory; so if everyone seems to think it is so wrong, then it must be.

Evil things only spawn from Communism when certain aspects are promoted above others. For example, Communists believe that theirs' is a universal truth - hence only one political party. China takes this to the extreme: if there is only one truth and you can't be persuaded of that truth, the logical explanation (according to this line of thought) is that there must be something wrong with you. Hence the Chinese putting their political prisoners in mental 'hospitals'. However, communism is fundamentally concerned with the material well-being of the people in society. There is certainly nothing written by Marx, Lenin or even early-Stalin that suggests that political opposition should be eradicated (the closest they get is saying that burgeoisie opposition should be eradicated).

I mean, what if the Capitalist society we curently live in is as good as it's going to get?

This is quite a common theory amongst Capitalist political scientists. Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed that the end of the Cold War signalled the 'end of history'. I personally know people who believe that humanity has reached the peak of civics: that, whilst capitalism might not be perfect, there is nowhere to go from here. These people are all morons, for reasons which shall be explained now:

What if we are free already and Communism is the real enemy of freedom?

People today are NOT free. In almost every election of almost every country, the people are asked to choose between social elites. Whether the candidates were born elite, or became that way through hard work is neither here nor there - they belong the upper middle class or higher and do not represent the majority working class. Capitalists like to explain this away by saying that there is no working class anymore, that everyone has been 'promoted' to the middle class. This is nonsense. Whilst traditional industrial jobs have left these countries, this has not been accompanied by an influx of well-paid jobs. The working class, who used to be blue collar miners and so on, now work as shop assistants, office admin, telephone operators, etc.

The burgeoisie have labelled us as "free" because we can vote and because we have a certain amount of income to spend privately that we did not have 40 years ago. But nor do we have the public services that we used to have. Britain, for example, has the worst public transport system in Europe (but among the highest taxes in the world). Healthcare is piss-poor shape. House prices are so high that to buy one involves placing yourself in economic slavery for 30 years. Do not forget that Marx said that the workers should be paid a wage that allowed them to live a lifestyle comparable to their employers: if, for example, 9 hours work amounted to the wage equivalent to merely 1 hour of work by the employer, then the worker has only been paid fairly for 1 hour and has spent the remaining 8 in slavery. That is not freedom.

What if it is Capitalism that creates equality?

Capitalism does not create equality. In order for there to be rich people, there must (by definition) be poor people. The common answer to this is that "a rising tide floats all boats". But of course, because of the way that the market works, if you pay people more than prices go up (thus negating the pay increase). The rich stay rich by increasing their share of the pie in excess of that of inflation, leaving the working class to take up the slack. Thus, whilst wages can go up, the buying power of the working class remains the same. Capitalism institutionalises poverty.

What if Communism is the true exploiter of the masses? If this is the case, then all Communists (seeing as we claim to be all about freedom and equality) should give up the fight, as it will only lead to more hardship.

What do you mean by this? How does communism exploit the masses? Explain, please.

This next one goes off the assumption that Communism is not wrong, but is still not worth fighting for. This is simply based on the odds of victory. If the vast majority of the world is dead-set against Communism, then it doesn't matter if we are in the right, as our defeat will always be inevitable. Now, why should we continue a fight that we have absolutely zero chance of winning.

There is only one truth in what you have said: if you do not fight, then you will not win. Granted, the burgeoisie control the media, the military, the police, the government, and so on. But remember this: power is never taken, it is always given. It is given away by those too weak, too afraid, too stupid or even too lazy to know any better. Ghandi brought the British Empire to its knees simply by instructing the Indian workers to just...stop working. The burgeoisie are nothing without our labour, and that power is stronger than their guns and lies.

 

[amadeus]

The kibutz only work because people there are almost fanatically commited to a cause and the survival of the group.
Another little mentioned fact is that kibutz are only prosperous because there exists an external capitalist society that buys their exceeding production.

Both excellent points, but there's also the fact that living on a kibbutz is voluntary. When a communist government comes into power, you're forced into submission.

 

[Commodore]

What do you mean by this? How does communism exploit the masses? Explain, please.

What I was going off of from that were the numerous "Communist" nations. With the exception of the Soviet Union and China, all "Communist" nations were/are third world with crackpot dictators and a ruling elite treating their people a lot worse than any current Capitalist nation. Basically, given enough time, "Communist" nations become even more capitalist than Capitalist nations.

 

[zulu9812]

What I was going off of from that were the numerous "Communist" nations. With the exception of the Soviet Union and China, all "Communist" nations were/are third world with crackpot dictators and a ruling elite treating their people a lot worse than any current Capitalist nation.

Here is where Communism and I have a disagreement. During a revolution, the strongest person will become leader. That is an unfortunate fact. Whilst the leader will be strong, he might lack other characteristics (such as sanity). The chaos of a revolution means that such a person can take advantage of the situation and eliminate his intellectually superior, but militarily weaker comrades (e.g. Staling and Trotsky). Revolutions are not condusive to furthering freedom, equality and solidarity and thus do not seem compatible with Communism (despite what Marx said). Thus I am not a Capitalist, but a Socialist. I am still committed to the vision of a classless world, but violent and bloody revolution would simply divide society, not unite it.

Secondly, Communism wasn't supposed to work in the countries that you mention. When those revolutions happened, China and Russia weren't even industrialised. You cannot force Communism on those do not want it (it's not exactly fraternité, is it?). A country has to go through all the stages of capitalism, become completely oppressed by it, know that they are oppressed and see that the solution is Communism. Marx's theories were written for a country like Britain, not a country like Russia.

 

[Che Guava]

Of course no ideology is bad or evil by itself, the problem lies in the question of whether or not some ideologies more easily allow tyranny to rise. Using the history that we have, it would seem that Communism allows for evil people to come to power and strip people of every last freedom, while operating under the guise of "liberating the Proletariat."

SO let's keep in mind that communism is an economic, not political, concept. There is nothing in Karl Marx's works (at least that I recall) that calls for an authoritarian government. The fact that most communist-leading regimes of the 20th century happened to be single-party police states is morelikely due to the fact that most of the world is very resistant to a collective-property economic system, and so the only communist parties that wer able to get into power had to gain and maintain thier power through force.

There are still lots of socialist-leaning governments around the world, and the difference between socialism and communism is a muddy definition at best.

 

[amadeus]

Capitalism does not create equality. In order for there to be rich people, there must (by definition) be poor people.

That sums up your entire post, because all of you radicals are exactly alike: you all think the economy is a zero-sum game.

 

[zulu9812]

That sums up your entire post, because all of you radicals are exactly alike: you all think the economy is a zero-sum game.

At no point did I say that. It is a simple fact of language that rich people are considered rich because they have more money than others. The capitalist theory runs along the lines of "so what? If everyone is rich to certain degree, and no wants for anything, what's wrong with some having more than others?". However, lots of people do want for food, clothing, housing, healthcare and so on. And as I've already pointed out, because of market forces, prices and wages are dependent on each other. In fact, when the rich become richer in excess of inflation this can lead to an overall increase of wealth on society (thus defeating your 'zero-sum' argument) - but that wealth is concentrated in the few, whilst the buying power of the working class grows no larger.

 

[searcheagle]

SO let's keep in mind that communism is an economic, not political, concept. There is nothing in Karl Marx's works (at least that I recall) that calls for an authoritarian government.

I have not read Marx, so I can not comment on this. But on the other side, how does the economic system get implemented without a political force behind it. Communism, on a large scale, is not natural occurring. (I'm not sure if its possible on a small scale, either).

Trade (of which capitalism is a form) is natural because it makes sense that those who have something (such as sheep) will try to trade it to get some other commodity (such as grain). Therefore there does not need to be a polical system to create such an environment. (Trade does not need such support. However, political systems can SUPPORT trade by a number of different means, such as currency, standardizing weights, etc.)

Therefore, the economic system of communism requires a political system.

There are still lots of socialist-leaning governments around the world, and the difference between socialism and communism is a muddy definition at best.

Well, socialists still retain the concept of personal property. While socialists nations have nationalized a number of industries, personal property and the ability to produce more is retained.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Very interesting. Commodore, what was it about Communism does no longer fit with your perceptions?

so if everyone seems to think it is so wrong, then it must be

Conformity doesn't constitute reality. Is Communism simply unreacheable, or is there something inconsistent down to its root?

 

[Che Guava]

I have not read Marx, so I can not comment on this. But on the other side, how does the economic system get implemented without a political force behind it. Communism, on a large scale, is not natural occurring. (I'm not sure if its possible on a small scale, either).

No economic system (save complete lack of system) is 'naturally occuring'. It is implemented either through democratic process or by force. That has little if anything to do with its effectiveness.

Trade (of which capitalism is a form) is natural because it makes sense that those who have something (such as sheep) will try to trade it to get some other commodity (such as grain). Therefore there does not need to be a polical system to create such an environment. (Trade does not need such support. However, political systems can SUPPORT trade by a number of different means, such as currency, standardizing weights, etc.)

Trade is the backbone of all economic institutions and system, communism included. It all just depends on how it is regulated. Give your rep's in washington some credit: there has been a LOT of thought and effort put into creating the economic system that you enjoy. It didn't just spring out of the ground or occur as a natural state of human interaction. Unregulated trade is a nasty free for all....

Therefore, the economic system of communism requires a political system.

Just like properly working capitalism.

Well, socialists still retain the concept of personal property. While socialists nations have nationalized a number of industries, personal property and the ability to produce more is retained.

Lots of communist regimes still had some level of personal proerty involved, seeing as the most important part of communism (and socialism) is the state (or 'people's) control of the means of production (ie industry, services, etc)