Why aren't you all Communists?

[AdamCrock]

After watching that video I can definitely tell some similarities between Pripyat and my city (Rzeszów) from around the 80's - mainly the blocks and residential areas, also sidewalks, shops and parks were very similar. On a side note I have a feeling like I've seen that swimming pool somewhere... hmm It's eerily similar to the pool form "Die Hard 5" movie (action took place in Chenobyl - the scene when they blew up some MiL-Mi "Crocodyl" copter and McLane have fallen into the pool)
Now more seriously - You're right the tragedy is very sad and to watch this vid makes You feel for all those people that lost their homes overnight. I remember having to drink powdered milk cos' people were scared of the radioactive grass that the cows might have eaten after the rainfall from clouds that were moving from Chernobyl.

---
Edit - Here's a picture of my city from around the 60's - 70's I think... with it's trademark monument "The Victory" dedicated to the victory of the red army over the nazi occupant. Due to the similarity to some certain organ our citizens call it differently thoug ...
Edit 2: Sorry was mistaken it's dedicated to "the revolutionary deed" always thought it was victory though - it supposed to represent bay leaf anyway

 

[Hehehe]

I already gave my definition. Generally speaking the dictionary is a horrible source for the definition of words like "communism" that are subjects of long-standing academic contention.

And this is why I asked for people's own definitions of communism.

I'd imagine you'd find yourself in trouble after the first person you shoot for coming onto "your" land.
If there is no state, how would you decide to "privately own" anything in the first place?

So basically anarchy it is?

nah

Yuh-huh

Definition of Communism (no source, made by me):

1. A socioeconomic organization of the human population in which resources are collectively produced and consumed, and in which there are no economic, social, or political classes (the latter means statelessness)
2. Any ideology which upholds the values of [point 1], especially when believing revolution is the only means of attaining this structure

I have some many questions about this. What benefits does communism offer? Why would I, or anyone else, want this, even if it were to work as it would in your dreams? What benefits would it offer over a social democracy for example? How can you guarantee that communism won't fail this time, like it has failed every other time? Why would you want a revolution? Would this revolution turn bloody? Would us non-communists get the bullet in the revolution? If this communist system is supposed to be stateless, how would you enforce the rules of communism?

Depends on actual implementation, but I would suppose you will be allowed to keep reasonable amount of land as personal property (reasonable in sense that it won't interfere with other people's right to also have some personal land). Growing and selling stuff from home farms would be allowed too. But owning large farms and having employees working there for you won't be allowed, just as now it is forbidden to have slaves. Even without state, some sort of law enforcement will be in place, because crimes won't magically disappear.

Without the state, who handles law enforcement? Is it roaming mobs who lynch people suspected of crimes? What if I have my farm, but owing to my hard work, I produce too much food? Will the food that I produce get confiscated? If yes, wouldn't that mean that I would be exploited by the communists? What about people who do not share the communist ideology? Is it going to be enforced upon us? Also, "depends on the actual implementation"? Shouldn't communists have this stuff figured out, or is it like "we'll make it up as we go along" type of thing?

 

[Akka]

Well, if you're not going to continue, I'm content to rebut you with, "There's not."

You're wrong, and it's such a stupid argument to make that it doesn't even deserve a more developped reply.

By the way, there is also no Earth. Because I said so.

 

[Lexicus]

So basically anarchy it is?

No 'communist' system worth its salt is going to help you enforce your 'private ownership' of your land, whether there's a state or not. You wanna do that, you'll have to do it yourself somehow. Presumably that would mean using violence against whomever presumed to violate your property rights.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

You all are not communists living in a communist paradise, because capital owns you, each and everyone of you.

And individually, you, Westerners, are not communists, because any of the following: (a) you are brain-washed against it (just re-think how you've just reacted on the phrase "communist paradise"), (b) you are pressed/hated/punished by your society and system even for sympathising, (c) the reptile part of your brain tells you, that communism means no neocolonialism and exploitation of other nations (what you call a post-industrial society), and so it means less well-being for you. Any other reason is not fundamental or is an excuse.

My reason for not being a real communist is b. But if ever there is a solid and true communist power, I would support it. And this is not only about communism being a fair system – communism is existentially superior to any other system. If a modern person could get into a communist environment of the future, it would be like awakening.

 

[Hehehe]

You all are not communists living in a communist paradise, because capital owns you, each and everyone of you.

And individually, you, Westerners, are not communists, because any of the following: (a) you are brain-washed against it (just re-think how you've just reacted on the phrase "communist paradise"), (b) you are pressed/hated/punished by your society and system even for sympathising, (c) the reptile part of your brain tells you, that communism means no neocolonialism and exploitation of other nations (what you call a post-industrial society), and so it means less well-being for you. Any other reason is not fundamental or is an excuse.

My reason for not being a real communist is b. But if ever there is a solid and true communist power, I would support it. And this is not only about communism being a fair system – communism is existentially superior to any other system. If a modern person could get into a communist environment of the future, it would be like awakening.

I think that what really brainwashed me against communism was seeing communists repeatedly try to implement their system and fail horribly. It's almost as if those people had no grasp on reality.

But maybe it could work in a hypothetical post-scarcity society, if it's ever possible to achieve such a society. But until we get there, I just don't consider it a serious option.

 

[red_elk]

Without the state, who handles law enforcement? Is it roaming mobs who lynch people suspected of crimes?

What about... I don't know... may be police department? Which is handled by closest administrative office?

What if I have my farm, but owing to my hard work, I produce too much food? Will the food that I produce get confiscated? If yes, wouldn't that mean that I would be exploited by the communists?

I answered this question right in the post you quoted. You can sell your homegrown food. If money will still exist.

What about people who do not share the communist ideology? Is it going to be enforced upon us?

Probably yes, in the same sense as every US president is enforced on people who voted for other candidate.
Or just by hordes of Russian invaders.

Also, "depends on the actual implementation"? Shouldn't communists have this stuff figured out, or is it like "we'll make it up as we go along" type of thing?

There are different schools of thought with different ideas about implementation. The same is also true for anarchism and what you call liberal democracy.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that what really brainwashed me against communism was seeing communists repeatedly try to implement their system and fail horribly. It's almost as if those people had no grasp on reality.

Most "communist" projects were orchestrated by nationalists who saw Marxism-Leninism, or similar models of state-socialism, as pragmatic nation-building choices. They weren't zealots or idealists, even if some of their followers may be. They repeatedly tried to implement their system because it was a system which seemed to work, which seemed to guarantee economic development and relative national autonomy. When it began apparent that it was not an effective long-term solution, most of these regimes began to abandon it, in practice if not in name.

Sometimes, it even kinda-sorta worked: for all the catastrophic mismanagement of Mao's regime, the Communist Party has been the most effective modernising force in Chinese history, far more so than the Qing, Republic or KMT ever managed to be. If we measure success in how far a country comes to resemble the capitalist West, and that seems to be the accepted wisdom, then Chinese Marxism-Leninism has been immensely successful.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well the KMT didn't have nearly as long to try and have done an ok job with Taiwan, to be completely fair.

Otherwise I completely agree.

 

[AdamCrock]

As the OP stated maybe rebranding "communism" to "utopia" or "paradise" would work ? It would only satisfy the zealots I'm affraid, the rest of us ignorants, philistines, couter-revolutionaries and reactionists would get the same cake in a new wraping, well ... "Let them eat cake !" as someone once said

I think that China has no other choice than running a regime based form of government - having to count votes or even establish some voting regions there would be a "horror" from the logistical point of view

 

[red_elk]

Most "communist" projects were orchestrated by nationalists who saw Marxism-Leninism, or similar models of state-socialism, as pragmatic nation-building choices.

Bolsheviks seem to be an exception. Lenin didn't initially plan to build nation state, the idea of socialism in one country appeared later.

 

[Hehehe]

What about... I don't know... may be police department? Which is handled by closest administrative office?

I thought you said that there would be no state? Are these not branches of the state?

I answered this question right in the post you quoted. You can sell your homegrown food. If money will still exist.

Does it only turn into evil exploitative capitalism if I hire other people to work for me? If the communist government takes property from me, are they not exploiting me? At least assuming that I myself created that wealth which the government is taking?

Probably yes, in the same sense as every US president is enforced on people who voted for other candidate.
Or just by hordes of Russian invaders.

US president is voted on, but even the US president has a lot of limitations as to what he can and cannot do. Americans have many rights which the president isn't allowed to infringe upon. The reason I ask is because the feeling I get from many communists is that it seems like a Robin Hood system (steal from the rich, give to the poor) with no forethought as to how it's implemented. It seems to me that it is bound to create a chaotic mess. Also, some of these people seem to think that a revolution is a desirable way to achieve their utopia. I mean I sort of get it if people vote on it and the majority agrees, but a revolution?

There are different schools of thought with different ideas about implementation. The same is also true for anarchism and what you call liberal democracy.

Liberal democrats can usually at least tell me what they want. Also, I don't consider anarchism to be a serious political philosophy.

Most "communist" projects were orchestrated by nationalists who saw Marxism-Leninism, or similar models of state-socialism, as pragmatic nation-building choices. They weren't zealots or idealists, even if some of their followers may be. They repeatedly tried to implement their system because it was a system which seemed to work, which seemed to guarantee economic development and relative national autonomy. When it began apparent that it was not an effective long-term solution, most of these regimes began to abandon it, in practice if not in name.

Maybe I should try to find communist intellectuals, if such people exist, and talk to them. But modern day communists, or at least the ones I've talked to, don't seem very convincing to me. Nothing about modern day "real" communism suggests to me that it would work in practice, and I see no real benefits to this system.

Sometimes, it even kinda-sorta worked: for all the catastrophic mismanagement of Mao's regime, the Communist Party has been the most effective modernising force in Chinese history, far more so than the Qing, Republic or KMT ever managed to be. If we measure success in how far a country comes to resemble the capitalist West, and that seems to be the accepted wisdom, then Chinese Marxism-Leninism has been immensely successful.

I'm not sure if China can be considered a great success for communists. China is communist in name only, or at least the economy functions pretty much according to capitalist principles, and most of the economic growth was achieved operating under those capitalist principles.

But then again I guess that depends on your standards. You could argue that rank 80 at GDP per capita is impressive for a "communist" system.

 

[red_elk]

I thought you said that there would be no state? Are these not branches of the state?

No, law enforcement and local administration are not necessary branches of state.

Does it only turn into evil exploitative capitalism if I hire other people to work for me? If the communist government takes property from me, are they not exploiting me? At least assuming that I myself created that wealth which the government is taking?

You are asking the same questions over and over again. In third time - if you created something by your own hands, nobody is going to take it from you.

 

[Hehehe]

You are asking the same questions over and over again. In third time - if you created something by your own hands, nobody is going to take it from you.

Just checking, since I am unfamiliar with neo-communism. So private production is ok, but it turns to exploitation if I hire people. Ok, sure.

So did I get this right, if someone works for a private employer, that is exploitation, even if that person chooses to do so voluntarily? What about working for the state/communist collective/whatever? How is that not exploitation then?

 

[AdamCrock]

I think that communists are very jealous about who controls the means of production - if it's You than You're an enemy of the state (or in a non-state scenario "enemy of the people") and no-good bourgeoisie who will exploit them workers like some 19-th century factory owner at some point - so they need to eliminate You in order to liberate the workers .... but if it's them controling means of production (like in some sort of low-paid, "near-slavery" collective farm thing - exploiting workers) then it's all just lovely and peachy isn't it ?

 

[red_elk]

Just checking, since I am unfamiliar with neo-communism. So private production is ok, but it turns to exploitation if I hire people. Ok, sure.

I'm unfamiliar with it too. There is a term neo-fascism, but I've never heard of neo-communism.

So did I get this right, if someone works for a private employer, that is exploitation, even if that person chooses to do so voluntarily? What about working for the state/communist collective/whatever? How is that not exploitation then?

There is nothing paradoxical in it. You can get a voluntary slave (if working for you, for instance, is the only way for him to survive), but it will be exploitation anyway. Working for collective is not exploitation, because profit is shared between members of collective. To put it in simple terms, preventing the situation when 1% of the richest collect most of income and build yachts and palaces for themselves while these money can be used to build schools and hospitals for everybody.

I'm not a communist, by the way, although I sympathize to their cause.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there wouldn't be money. But we have the secondary issue where we really cannot assume that net production will be high enough to afford schools and hospitals that are better than those created under progressive taxation.

 

[aelf]

I think that communists are very jealous about who controls the means of production - if it's You than You're an enemy of the state (or in a non-state scenario "enemy of the people") and no-good bourgeoisie who will exploit them workers like some 19-th century factory owner at some point - so they need to eliminate You in order to liberate the workers .... but if it's them controling means of production (like in some sort of low-paid, "near-slavery" collective farm thing - exploiting workers) then it's all just lovely and peachy isn't it ?

Funny, you just described the capitalist mindset. If someone else is holding a monopoly, then they are an enemy of competition and the free market... but if it's them holding the monopoly, then it's all just lovely and peachy, isn't it?

 

[red_elk]

Well, there wouldn't be money. But we have the secondary issue where we really cannot assume that net production will be high enough to afford schools and hospitals that are better than those created under progressive taxation.

This may be a valid point and I won't argue against it.
What I wanted to say is that communists address problems which are real. Such as income inequality, which was reducing in USA during Cold War (may be due to effect of USSR existing), but increasing last 30 years. Or other flaws of capitalism and market economy.

Communists point of view is that private property for the means of production always leads to exploitation and inequality and thus must be eliminated. Whether it's the best solution or not, I can't judge.

 

[Hehehe]

I think that communists are very jealous about who controls the means of production - if it's You than You're an enemy of the state (or in a non-state scenario "enemy of the people") and no-good bourgeoisie who will exploit them workers like some 19-th century factory owner at some point - so they need to eliminate You in order to liberate the workers .... but if it's them controling means of production (like in some sort of low-paid, "near-slavery" collective farm thing - exploiting workers) then it's all just lovely and peachy isn't it ?

Yes, this is exactly the feeling I get from a lot of communists. But nevertheless I can at least listen to their side of the issue.

I'm unfamiliar with it too. There is a term neo-fascism, but I've never heard of neo-communism.

Neo-communism was coined by me, but I feel like it is a fitting term. From what I understand, modern iteration of communism isn't going to be like the failed communist experiments of the past, at least according to proponents of such views.

There is nothing paradoxical in it. You can get a voluntary slave (if working for you, for instance, is the only way for him to survive), but it will be exploitation anyway. Working for collective is not exploitation, because profit is shared between members of collective. To put it in simple terms, preventing the situation when 1% of the richest collect most of income and build yachts and palaces for themselves while these money can be used to build schools and hospitals for everybody.

I'm not a communist, by the way, although I sympathize to their cause.

Well, in this communist utopia, is there any other way for me to survive, other than to work for this collective? If not, then how am I not a "voluntary slave"? Furthermore, I see no reason why exactly this would work. If for example Russia were to turn neo-communist, who gets to work in the lucrative oil industry? I mean I guess I'm not totally against people trying to implement this system, as long as they do it far away from me.

I guess I'm barking at the wrong tree here, asking people questions that they don't know the answers to. Are there intelligent neo-communists somewhere out there? Some material which would explain this neo-communism thing?