Why is true communism utopic?
- Thread starter thestonesfan
- Start date
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Er, no. The denial of the blank slate is precisely the claim that it doesn't help targeting kids - there are constants to human psychology that are not open to change by indoctrination.
The Last Conformist said:
OK, so maybe 1 out of 10 kids will resist indoctrination.
Regardless of what psychologists might say, we do know that the majority of kids educated in schools in Nazi Germany turned out to support Hitler, and the majority of kids educated in marxist schools turn out to support marxism. The 10% that don´t is just a minority that ends up in concentration camps.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
I don't think anyone is saying you cannot indoctrinate someone to be a Nazi. Nazism mostly encourages things that humans are prone to do anyway; us-them thinking, supremacism, following charismatic leaders.
Communist utopia requires rather more; you need eliminate competiveness without eliminating the willingness to work, enforce universal sympathy, and eliminate free-riding (in a system that makes free-riding very attractive). A success rate of 90% or 99% isn't enough, since true capitalism is supposed to be for everybody.
Communist utopia requires rather more; you need eliminate competiveness without eliminating the willingness to work, enforce universal sympathy, and eliminate free-riding (in a system that makes free-riding very attractive). A success rate of 90% or 99% isn't enough, since true capitalism is supposed to be for everybody.
"Communism was supported by the dirt poor working class so they could get more money, they figured if everything was spread equally they would get more. Communism came about because of the greed. It didn't work out though."
I think it's more likely, from history, that Communism rose from the widespread oppression of a 'peasant' class - conditions in Tzarist Russia - from which a large portion of Communist theory came, were appalling - actual slavery - peasants were resources/objects/property. I think it quite rude, then, to suggest that the popular support was greed for money based - more likely greed for freedom. How disgusting.
"You don't own anything in communism. Everything belongs to the state. "
State and Communism are not one and the same.
In soviet russia, state was paramount, and very quickly became tyrannical. It was touted, however, as a democratic state based on communist ideals.
The breakdown of society in the USSR was not directly through communism however, but the usurpation of this democratic principle, which is one of the foundations of communism.
The outcome is just as it would be in the USA if this democratic principle broke down to the same degree - the communism aspect is entirely beside the point.
It's also fair to say that, in general, the everything does NOT belong to 'the state' but, rather, to EVERYONE.
These are the fundamental differences between Libertarianism and Communism - this vastly different emphasis between Individual and Community.
But these are only one aspect of the two philosophies - otherwise they maintain many similarities
just as 'low fat' 'high-carb' normal fat foods are pretty much the same bar a few key differences.
"Communism just can't work. It had more than a century to evolve - may I remind you that Karl Marx made his "Kommunistisches Manifest" in the 19th century? Communism didn't evolve to a better system, it evolved to a worse one (e.g. Cambodia). It failed and its time is over."
Just like in the USSR - and yet such abuses are not aspects inherant to Communism, but are, instead, of sociopathic and abusive individuals and governments.
"Communism depends on concentration of power to the government so that this government can transform a nation into a communist society. But when people gain so much power - they never give it back. "
Take a look at any country in the world, and this concentration will be evident to varying degrees - and yet not all of these countries would be considered Communist.
Ultimately, such a concentration of power is NOT a feature of Communism, but, rather, a feature of some societies - I am particularly aware that some Communist communities never resorted to force/power to become, or even maintain their Communism. Some, current communities remain, basically, Communist, and still have not utilised such a method.
"Those schools have names like "Mao tse-tung" and "Ernesto Guevara", and it´s needless to say they indoctrinate the kids more then Goebbels would have dreamed."
This is also an issue with other 'schools of thought' who promote other economics and ideals. It's nothing, really, to do with Communism, but with people who wish to manipulate children into their beliefs - I'm also of a mind of religious schools - and let's then discuss the murder of people on religious grounds shall we?
Ultimately, Communism is flawed, just as Libertarianism, and, actually, for the exact same reason.
The key is to keep an open mind, and, I think, to make something of a mix of all.
I think it's more likely, from history, that Communism rose from the widespread oppression of a 'peasant' class - conditions in Tzarist Russia - from which a large portion of Communist theory came, were appalling - actual slavery - peasants were resources/objects/property. I think it quite rude, then, to suggest that the popular support was greed for money based - more likely greed for freedom. How disgusting.
"You don't own anything in communism. Everything belongs to the state. "
State and Communism are not one and the same.
In soviet russia, state was paramount, and very quickly became tyrannical. It was touted, however, as a democratic state based on communist ideals.
The breakdown of society in the USSR was not directly through communism however, but the usurpation of this democratic principle, which is one of the foundations of communism.
The outcome is just as it would be in the USA if this democratic principle broke down to the same degree - the communism aspect is entirely beside the point.
It's also fair to say that, in general, the everything does NOT belong to 'the state' but, rather, to EVERYONE.
These are the fundamental differences between Libertarianism and Communism - this vastly different emphasis between Individual and Community.
But these are only one aspect of the two philosophies - otherwise they maintain many similarities
just as 'low fat' 'high-carb' normal fat foods are pretty much the same bar a few key differences."Communism just can't work. It had more than a century to evolve - may I remind you that Karl Marx made his "Kommunistisches Manifest" in the 19th century? Communism didn't evolve to a better system, it evolved to a worse one (e.g. Cambodia). It failed and its time is over."
Just like in the USSR - and yet such abuses are not aspects inherant to Communism, but are, instead, of sociopathic and abusive individuals and governments.
"Communism depends on concentration of power to the government so that this government can transform a nation into a communist society. But when people gain so much power - they never give it back. "
Take a look at any country in the world, and this concentration will be evident to varying degrees - and yet not all of these countries would be considered Communist.
Ultimately, such a concentration of power is NOT a feature of Communism, but, rather, a feature of some societies - I am particularly aware that some Communist communities never resorted to force/power to become, or even maintain their Communism. Some, current communities remain, basically, Communist, and still have not utilised such a method.
"Those schools have names like "Mao tse-tung" and "Ernesto Guevara", and it´s needless to say they indoctrinate the kids more then Goebbels would have dreamed."
This is also an issue with other 'schools of thought' who promote other economics and ideals. It's nothing, really, to do with Communism, but with people who wish to manipulate children into their beliefs - I'm also of a mind of religious schools - and let's then discuss the murder of people on religious grounds shall we?
Ultimately, Communism is flawed, just as Libertarianism, and, actually, for the exact same reason.
The key is to keep an open mind, and, I think, to make something of a mix of all.
The Last Conformist said:
Agreed, "true communism" goes against some basic human instincts.
However that's not the strategy of the marxist brainwashers. They like to focus on very appealing marxist claims, like: "the rich bastards are exploiting us, we should kill them!", "the land does not belong to anyone, let's occupy it!", "since property is theft we can take it!", and so on.
luiz said:
Interesting that this aspect is something AGAINST Communism, and yet you appear, currently, to be on the Libertarianism fuge - which features at least as much of such deception...
It's all about style - and Communism is no longer 'in'.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
But then, as history teaches us, putting Marxists in power causes neither utopia nor true communism.luiz said:
The Last Conformist said:
I don't think it would be accurate to label Lenin and Stalin, for instance, as Marxists - as Marxism featured pretty strong human rights themes, and yet these two are some choice historical figures when thinking of human rights abuse...
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Does the Marxists luiz spoke of sound like they have any very great respect for human rights?
They're not Marxists then are they - whether they claim to be or not.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well, then I would argue that they've lost thier humanity. The losing of what makes us human is distopic.The Last Conformist said:
Gelion
Retired Captain
What do you mean by humanity? People don't have to be the same under a true communist system. There are jobs for everyone. Think what you will, but work if you can. Only those who are greedy or want power instead of achievments should be unhappy under true communism.Perfection said:
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
That's to say, humans as we know them would be unhappy under true communism.Gelion said:
Gelion
Retired Captain
I so agree 
. But I will fight for the idea that if people change true communsm will be the ideal "life organisation" (not even government). I believe it is possible to change people, but that will take 1000 of years so that "all-loving, hardworking etc" priniples are well incoded in the DNA.
EDIT: Tolkein Elfs would be good commies.
. But I will fight for the idea that if people change true communsm will be the ideal "life organisation" (not even government). I believe it is possible to change people, but that will take 1000 of years so that "all-loving, hardworking etc" priniples are well incoded in the DNA.EDIT: Tolkein Elfs would be good commies
.
Red Threat
52ª brigata Garibaldi
Communism is not "love and good". That's should be true Christianism.
Communism is not an ideology: it is a kind of society that, according to Marx, will come in the future AFTER A LONG LONG LONG TIME OF SCIENTIFIC; ECONOMIC, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS, NOT WITH A SUDDEN REVOLUTION: SO OCTOBER REVOLUTION IS WRONG AND 1990 RUSSIA IS RIGHT. Bolscevians were heretic marxists.
Communism won't come soon after the necessary (according to Marx and me, because nothing lasts forever) downfall of Capitalism. Before Communism there is Socialism, which is the State's control on the Free Trade.
The "new man" is not the good and lovely man without willing of power. He is a not-capitalistic and not-alienated worker who can exercise all his intellectual potential in work, science, art in all the limits. The true "free" man.
Communism is not the State Rule. That's bolscevism. Communism is the workers' control on factories and economy, by direct democracy. In this case free trade it is necessairy.
Communism is, finally, an ideal excuse to justify that, as it must be, MIDDLE CLASS MUST BE DESTROYED AND THE WORKING CLASS WILL RULE.
It seems not a "good and love" utopia. it seems you guys don't know well Marx.
Communism is not an ideology: it is a kind of society that, according to Marx, will come in the future AFTER A LONG LONG LONG TIME OF SCIENTIFIC; ECONOMIC, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS, NOT WITH A SUDDEN REVOLUTION: SO OCTOBER REVOLUTION IS WRONG AND 1990 RUSSIA IS RIGHT. Bolscevians were heretic marxists.
Communism won't come soon after the necessary (according to Marx and me, because nothing lasts forever) downfall of Capitalism. Before Communism there is Socialism, which is the State's control on the Free Trade.
The "new man" is not the good and lovely man without willing of power. He is a not-capitalistic and not-alienated worker who can exercise all his intellectual potential in work, science, art in all the limits. The true "free" man.
Communism is not the State Rule. That's bolscevism. Communism is the workers' control on factories and economy, by direct democracy. In this case free trade it is necessairy.
Communism is, finally, an ideal excuse to justify that, as it must be, MIDDLE CLASS MUST BE DESTROYED AND THE WORKING CLASS WILL RULE.
It seems not a "good and love" utopia. it seems you guys don't know well Marx.
Gelion
Retired Captain
Ideally "true Christianity and true communism" have a lot in common even if some refuse to addmit it...
@Red Threat
How can you, or Marx, be so sure that the Downfall of Capitalism is certain to happen? And how can you be so sure that Communism will be the system to replace Capitalism?
And even more disturbing, how can you both be so sure that Communism will be the final stage in the human social evolution?
The doctrine that Marx based himself in to make those false prediction is known as Historicism. Historicists like Karl Marx believed that by identifying some historical patterns one could predict future developments, as well as the final outcome of historical and dialectical proccess.
Today Historicism is vastly discredit and ridiculised. A must-read on the subject is Karl Popper's classic The Poverty of Historicism. Fact is the ammount of variables on human social activities are so immense that it's impossible to predict our future, much less our final outcome.
Even though you tried to rationalise Marx by saying that he claimed that it would take a long time before Communism, fact is Marx repeatdly suggested that the revolution would come soon to the industrialised nations of the world. This, and all of his other predictions failed because well, he was a big and arrogant fool.
How can you, or Marx, be so sure that the Downfall of Capitalism is certain to happen? And how can you be so sure that Communism will be the system to replace Capitalism?
And even more disturbing, how can you both be so sure that Communism will be the final stage in the human social evolution?
The doctrine that Marx based himself in to make those false prediction is known as Historicism. Historicists like Karl Marx believed that by identifying some historical patterns one could predict future developments, as well as the final outcome of historical and dialectical proccess.
Today Historicism is vastly discredit and ridiculised. A must-read on the subject is Karl Popper's classic The Poverty of Historicism. Fact is the ammount of variables on human social activities are so immense that it's impossible to predict our future, much less our final outcome.
Even though you tried to rationalise Marx by saying that he claimed that it would take a long time before Communism, fact is Marx repeatdly suggested that the revolution would come soon to the industrialised nations of the world. This, and all of his other predictions failed because well, he was a big and arrogant fool.
Similar threads
