What exactly is so wrong with communism?

[holy king]

you just dont get what a "class" is defined as in marxism, do you?

 

[Flying Pig]

Same as usual, isn't it?

 

[Camikaze]

An officer is to a private like a heriditary peer is to me - I could theoretically become equal to him, but in practise it's not going to happen - and he started out above me. Their army proved that you can't have a system where everyone's nose is at the grindstone, because someone has to turn the handles

But if the police are directly accountable to the people, and directly carry out the people's will, there will be no inequality, because the police have no power to arrest you, or do anything adverse to you, unless, of course, you are breaking the law. They do not, theoretically, hold any extra power than do other people, because it is from the people that their power comes. It is just another delegation of responsibility amongst the populace.

As for military, the same applies, but perhaps it would be a bit harder to achieve. In a more utopian representation of a communist society, there would be no problems with forming a co-operative military, under the guidance of the people. There wouldn't be classes in the military, and the sheer fact of someone working for the defence sector of the economy (if you will), as opposed to, say, the agricultural sector, would not make them of a different class, so to speak.

 

[holy king]

a military doesnt produce anything.
an officer is not in possession of any kind of means of production, thus surely not a part of the capitalist class.

 

[Flying Pig]

We can use it as an analogy, though - if we say that dead enemies, taken positions or whatever are a form of goods, then it is easy to see how it applies

 

[holy king]

and an officer gains what surplus value from those "goods"?

 

[Flying Pig]

Promotions? Anyway, can't you see the point rather than arguing details?

 

[holy king]

no.

army officers (as long as there is social mobility within an army) do not constitute a class.

we are not "arguing details", we are arguing whether army officers could be viewed as part of the capitalist class.
for this reason we are trying to apply the definition (details!) of the capitalist class to army officers.

as we can see, the definition of the capitalist class and the reality of army officers do not match.

 

[Flying Pig]

No - the point is that they found that a system where everyone is engaged in making the product or doing the primary job 'on the ground' doesn't work.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This thread got excessively stupider since the last time I was here.

 

[BasketCase]

Why does the institution of a military or police force automatically preclude the possibility of a classless society?

Because military and police ARE a class. They have guns, the power of law enforcement, or both. You end up with one class that has more power than another, and to see the results of that you need do nothing more than look around the real world and note how many backwards Third-World countries are being run by the military. Such as Honduras.

And surely in a utopian society, power would not corrupt

As the saying goes, "power corrupts". There ARE no exceptions.

and defence and law enforcement would be purely to carry out the will of the people, which would be to maintain law and order.

And when the People disagree on what that law and order should be....?

Then you get law and order for HALF the People. The other half become the Lower Class. And there you have it--a class system again.

The United States is already trying to do it your way--as are all other Free Nations on Earth. The inevitable result is that the voters disagree and whoever wins the elections imposes law and order against the will of those who lost the election. For the last eight years, George Bush carried out a war in Iraq, against the will of half the voters. Today, Obama is imposing his will against the other half. For the last eight years, the dominant class was conservatives. Today it is liberals. Four years from now it will be conservatives again, and four to eight years after that it will be the liberals--again.

If the people's will is carried out without any corruption of power, how is there any class system created?

Simple: the people charged with preventing corruption of power become the ruling class.

There's a reason the Romans never solved the problem of "who watches the watchers": because the problem has no solution. The only way to control rulers is with somebody more powerful--and those people with that greater power become the rulers.

But if the police are directly accountable to the people, and directly carry out the people's will,

Right now they're doing exactly that: part of U.S. law says marijuana is illegal, and I already know most people reading this thread think it should be legal. The people disagree on what "the peoples' will" should be.

 

[Camikaze]

Because military and police ARE a class. They have guns, the power of law enforcement, or both. You end up with one class that has more power than another, and to see the results of that you need do nothing more than look around the real world and note how many backwards Third-World countries are being run by the military. Such as Honduras.

In what way do police and military represent a clearly different socio-economic demographic? It is just a different occupation within the single class construct. Having power coming directly from the people does not mean that that power will be abused, which leads to...

As the saying goes, "power corrupts". There ARE no exceptions.

...a rather pessimistic view. Power always corrupts in the same world that not everyone wilfully participates in a communist economic system. If you can get total agreement on one front, then surely you can on the other.

And when the People disagree on what that law and order should be....?

Then you get law and order for HALF the People. The other half become the Lower Class. And there you have it--a class system again.

Do laws currently reduce the socio-economic standing of criminals? They may, but they do not by definition. Disagreement over laws, again, in this society of total agreement mentioned above, wouldn't really occur. I assume everything would be based on natural and inherent moralities, which everyone would come to an agreement on during the revolutionary phase.

The United States is already trying to do it your way--as are all other Free Nations on Earth. The inevitable result is that the voters disagree and whoever wins the elections imposes law and order against the will of those who lost the election.

Are you attempting claim that if your candidate doesn't win an election, you automatically become disposed to disregard the right of the opposition to conduct law and order?

For the last eight years, George Bush carried out a war in Iraq, against the will of half the voters. Today, Obama is imposing his will against the other half. For the last eight years, the dominant class was conservatives. Today it is liberals. Four years from now it will be conservatives again, and four to eight years after that it will be the liberals--again.

You are referring to policies having nothing to do with law and order, and defence (not attack), which would be the strict domain of the police and military within a communist state.

Simple: the people charged with preventing corruption of power become the ruling class.

Why is this necessarily so? These are people that are included in the whole that wants a perfectly functioning communist state. Due to these desires, they will not do anything to jeopardise that. So, there wouldn't be any reason for them to use their power corruptly.

There's a reason the Romans never solved the problem of "who watches the watchers": because the problem has no solution. The only way to control rulers is with somebody more powerful--and those people with that greater power become the rulers.

But we are talking about a purely communist society here, with perfect cooperation by the people and all in it. And, of course, you are forgetting that there is something with more power than any police or military institution; the people.

Right now they're doing exactly that: part of U.S. law says marijuana is illegal, and I already know most people reading this thread think it should be legal. The people disagree on what "the peoples' will" should be.

Again, if you are trying to get everyone to agree on working in a communist system (which is the premise), then this is the least of your worries.

 

[BasketCase]

In what way do police and military represent a clearly different socio-economic demographic?

Because they have guns.

...a rather pessimistic view. Power always corrupts in the same world that not everyone wilfully participates in a communist economic system. If you can get total agreement on one front, then surely you can on the other.

I'll just delete everything else, because the entire rest of your post has the same problem:

This total agreement you mentioned several times over in your post will never happen. It's a baseless claim which you cannot substantiate. The people have always disagreed, and will always disagree, on what is naturally and inherently moral. I say homosexuality is naturally and inherently immoral. I say marijuana is naturally and inherently immoral (DON'T MESS WITH THE BRAIN). I say blasting the crap out of Iraq in 2003 was naturally and inherently awesome.

I have been arguing these things in CFC for years, and many other members violently disagree with me. They and I will ALWAYS disagree. Always. Nothing will ever change it.


If the People can't agree on what is moral, beneficial, and ideal, then they cannot cooperate. This perfect cooperation you postulate is IMPOSSIBLE.

Edit: You don't want to get into an argument against me on this, Camikaze. Just drop it. I've done all of this before in another thread, a thread that ran for the full ONE THOUSAND POSTS. If you keep pressing, this thread will get basketcased.

 

[Camikaze]

Because they have guns.

Oh, I see! Is that why America allows guns to be in the hands of the population? To artificially construct a higher socio-economic class among the portion of the populace who

1. can afford to own, AND
2. have the right to own, AND
3. want to own

a gun. It all makes sense now! The 2nd Amendment is actually about the creation of societal division and conflict!

I'll just delete everything else, because the entire rest of your post has the same problem:

This total agreement you mentioned several times over in your post will never happen. It's a baseless claim which you cannot substantiate. The people have always disagreed, and will always disagree, on what is naturally and inherently moral. I say homosexuality is naturally and inherently immoral. I say marijuana is naturally and inherently immoral (DON'T MESS WITH THE BRAIN). I say blasting the crap out of Iraq in 2003 was naturally and inherently awesome.

I have been arguing these things in CFC for years, and many other members violently disagree with me. They and I will ALWAYS disagree. Always. Nothing will ever change it.

If the People can't agree on what is moral, beneficial, and ideal, then they cannot cooperate. This perfect cooperation you postulate is IMPOSSIBLE.

But then why do you pick the small tidbit of police and military as the number one reason why communism would not work, and not this?

 

[BasketCase]

Oh, I see! Is that why America allows guns to be in the hands of the population? To artificially construct a higher socio-economic class among the portion of the populace who

No. The opposite: the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to minimize the impact of the higher social class formed by the military. Three hundred million people armed with crappy little .22 caliber pea shooters has a better chance (actually a much better chance) against a rogue military than three hundred million people armed with absolutely nothing.

But then why do you pick the small tidbit of police and military as the number one reason why communism would not work, and not this?

Because world history (and current events in places such as Honduras) show that this "small tidbit" about the police and military is neither small nor a tidbit. It's gigantic. It's the number one reason why communism will always fail.

Edit: I just discovered the web site's spell-checker knows the correct spelling of "crappy". I love how technology has improved our lives.

 

[Camikaze]

No. The opposite: the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to minimize the impact of the higher social class formed by the military. Three hundred million people armed with crappy little .22 caliber pea shooters has a better chance (actually a much better chance) against a rogue military than three hundred million people armed with absolutely nothing.

My point was not that the 2nd Amendment was actually designed for the purposes that I elucidated, but that the idea of the creation of a socio-economic (that would be dependent on income, economic stature, etc.) class through the place of guns in society is absurd. Again it goes back to the initial fact of agreement in society. Assuming that you are assuming in your musings as to the reasons why communism would fail that there is complete agreement amongst the populace as to the communist system, for otherwise it would be your number one reason (see below), then this corruption caused by the presence of guns would not be a problem, as the power would still lie with the people (who would all be in agreement), and those with the guns would be of the same mindset as the people, i.e. in agreement with them and not desiring of any abuse of power (for the system to work in the first place, people must not have delusions of grandeur or ambitions of power such as this).

Because world history (and current events in places such as Honduras) show that this "small tidbit" about the police and military is neither small nor a tidbit. It's gigantic. It's the number one reason why communism will always fail.

And the number one reason couldn't possibly be the disagreement amongst the population over the form of economy and the subsequent failure of the system due to that disagreement and lack of enthusiastic participation that you yourself are constantly referring to?

 

[BasketCase]

You're sure you really want to do this thing? Fine. Don't say I didn't warn you--and I hope you're good at typing because you will be writing literally hundreds of posts.

My point was <snip> that the idea of the creation of a socio-economic (that would be dependent on income, economic stature, etc.) class through the place of guns in society is absurd.

Take a look at the number of times throughout history that guns (or swords, for that matter), military force, and police have been used to control people against their will. It HAS happened, many thousands of times, throughout history, so whether you think it to be absurd is entirely unimportant. Every army, and every police force, automatically forms a ruling class unto itself, inherently, by virtue of being an army/police force.

-- Communist societies are classless.
-- A society must protect itself, or people like me will come along and bomb the crap out of it.
-- The people doing the protecting form a separate and more powerful class.

The contradiction inherent in communism cannot be resolved.

And the number one reason couldn't possibly be the disagreement amongst the population over the form of economy and the subsequent failure of the system due to that disagreement and lack of enthusiastic participation that you yourself are constantly referring to?

That's a loaded question--but I'll answer it anyway.

No. That cannot possibly be the reason. Lemme be real clear with big letters and boldface:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, NO SLIGHTEST GRAIN OF POSSIBILITY AT ALL.

But we are talking about a purely communist society here, with perfect cooperation by the people and all in it.

Show me some proof that such perfect cooperation would happen. Don't give me any hypothetical crap. I want PROOF and LINKS.

 

[RedRalph]

Another example would be the Red Army - they found that a system without ranks doens't work.

If you think military ranks is the same things as economic classes, then you probably should stay out of this thread

 

[nonconformist]

"Eh Yuri, Lieuteneant Bolshokov, that pig, has been hoarding bodies!"
"Vadim, I tell you, one day, we will be free of these shakles, and we will own everything, comrade, we shall own the very entrails of the bastards we kill!"

 

[Camikaze]

@BC- I don't think you quite understand what my point is. I am not saying that a truly a society with perfect cooperation can be achieved, I am saying the opposite of that. To make it clear: my point is that the biggest problem with a communism is the need for perfect cooperation, which is purely unattainable. So, if you didn't list that as the number one reason for why communism will not work, then I assume that you assumed it was the case, and are pointing to the problems supposing that unattainable goal has, in fact, been attained. And, under this perfect construct, it seems highly unreasonable to think that there will be any other real problems, such as corruption of power, or general disagreement amongst the populace, given the perfectly cooperative society already formed. i.e. Once you attain this unattainable thing, you wont have any more problems, making your reasoning as to the problems of communism outlined previously moot, assuming your assumption of the aforementioned.