Attitudes Towards Communism

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by DwayneGAnd, Jan 17, 2018.

  1. DwayneGAnd

    DwayneGAnd Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 12, 2016
    There seems to be so much negative attitudes towards communism and those who believe in it. What exactly is communism and why do so many people hate those who agree with this ideal? Seriously, what's the big deal?
     
  2. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    So I'll try to explain this with as little bias as possible:

    Communism is an ideology MOSTLY based around the ideas of the philosopher Karl Marx(The term was coined before him, but Marxist Communism is when it first became mainstream, and almost all modern communists are marxist communists, so I think I may as well mostly explain that version), and to simplify things is based on the premise that under a capitalist system(A system where property is owned privately), an elite wealthy class(Or as he called them, the bourgeoisie) will end up taking control, and using their wealth and power over property to oppress the poorer members of society who will be made to work in conditions that don't reflect how much value they add to society. Marx therefore thought the workers should unite and "Seize the means of production", basically meaning take the excess property from those in power and use it towards the common good of society.

    This is a VERY simplified explanation though, If you want a full overview, I'd recommend reading The Communist Manifesto

    This ideology spread to many countries, and there were communist revolutions in places like Russia and China, and after said revolutions often "Vanguard" governments were established(Governments designed to put the ideals of Marx in to practice), and many of said governments were often hijacked by extremists like Stalin and Mao(Who were massive authoritarians and responsible for lots of death), this is the main reason lots of people have negative attitudes towards it, because there have been multiple occasions that dictators have arisen out of countries that have had communist revolutions

    TL;DR: Communists want a society where workers unite and overthrow the powerful, there are negative attitudes because of past dictatorships.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  3. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    I had a discussion with a good friend of mine several years ago and in short he said "communist have never been tested because it allways gets abused" I turned this around and used that same line as why communism is bad and it still holds up.

    It is a dreamy scenario that will never work/happend and as the previous poster said just like the nazis the communism countries ends up with a lot of dead people and abuse of power.
     
  4. Unorthodox Outlander

    Unorthodox Outlander It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Aug 28, 2017
    The fact of the matter is that the idealized society of everybody being equal doesn't really work in practice. You'll still need some level of administration to keep everything in order as opposed to turning into a state of anarchy, and these positions are just as vulnerable to abuse as any other form of government. You will still have your rich individuals--usually high-ranking members of the administration, as well as other friends of the regime. Thus far, the precedent is significant abuses of power and resultant dictatorships that, while potentially successful from an economic point of view, tend to result in all sorts of autocratic nonsense that people seem fond of pinning on any supposed "fascists" nowadays while turning a blind eye to the same things occurring quite often in most Communistic regimes throughout history.

    Thus, we have a situation where Communism doesn't work because people are people; some might talk about how it all should work out on paper, but in practice the results are a bloody mess. Even some of the more successful examples have since moved towards more of a mixed-market economy, unless I have been misinformed on the matter.
     
  5. Fins

    Fins It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 31, 2017
    It's quite a big deal, yes.

    Communism is one very simple idea (despite what was said above). Namely: "every thing except personal posessions is owned by the community rather than specific person(s)". In other words, communism is the way to live without private property to things which serve whole communities. Factories, lands, roads, companies, etc - nothing of those sorts can be private property. Simple, isn't it?

    Largest capitalists were always affraid that "masses" would revolt and take control. This happened more than once through history, notably in France, Russia, China among many other countries. Every such time, capitalist elites did their best to corrupt and/or eliminate any communistic societies forming up. They are generally successful in doing so, to this day.

    Now i'm not saying communism is all good and dandy, though. It's not. It spawns many problems, like corruption and citizen's willingness and widespread ability to steal parts of "community's property" to their own personal possession, among others. Also numerous and huge-scale "tragedies of commons" occur. Personally, i deem all forms of communism being utterly inappropriate social principle for any society bigger than a small village.

    That said, i don't deem capitalism any more appropriate, too, since it also spawns critical flaws - as Noam Chomsky points out, it leads to inverted totalitarian states, also spawns opression, injustice, neglect and other bad things. So far, mankind did not evolve into _any_ proper social structure large-scale...

    But capitalists won't tell you any of that (i wonder why, but they just don't). Instead, they'll invent all sorts of half-truths or outright lies trying to blame communism being things it is actually not. This is why lots of people will say differently than i do, but those are either ones brainwashed, or ones with some hidden agenda. Think yourself. Study. Heck, apply common sense, too - the term "communism" itself is quite self-explanatory, isn't it. Much the same way "capitalism" term is, if you see what i mean.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  6. Fins

    Fins It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 31, 2017
    One excellent example of misunderstanding (at best) or intentional misleading (at worst) on the matter. Who said communism means "everybody being equal"? Quite the opposite, even before the Karl Marx and all the way to modern libertarian communism, the opposite is being one of cornerstones of the communistic schools of thought. Expressed by the famous saying: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". It recognises that everybody is different, in both abilities and needs.

    Equality in terms of certain specific rights and duties is entirely different subject, and must always be evaluated on case by case basis. Also such equalities are not "communistic" thing exclusively - capitalistic societies adopted many such equalities as well, such as women emancipation, anti-racism principles, non-discrimination on religious and other important grounds, etc etc.

    It's true that people need to change in order for communism to actually work any large-scale; given freedom to be themselves, masses can't do large-scale communism, it quickly transforms to a fake one. It's quite possible such a change in all the people won't ever happen, too.

    It can be forced, though. Stalin's system did it for a time, however bloody it had to be. Result being, a country which was largely one huge 3rd-world bunch of peasants in 1920s - wiped out one of Europe's most advanced and certainly most militarily powerful nation at the time. That was World War 2, also known as "war of motors". 12 years later, those "peasants" launched 1st artificial Earth satellite, etc. Bit soon after Stalin's death, things started to go south, for USSR - human nature prevailed, the whole thing became progressively corrupted from both within and by West's influences and agents. So rather quickly, USSR became progressively fake and failing. Quite according to figuratively made Dulles' plan, by the way.

    So, i wouldn't understimate the power of practical communism. Whenever practically implemented, it allows any kinds of "means of production" to expand exponentially, because nobody rips most or all resources produced for personal gain - thus allowing whole thing to skyrocket. This is how it can be immensely powerful if/when communism actually works, for however short duration it may. As is price for any practical implementation of it, though - you gotta physically remove those who attempt to corrupt such a system, or it simply won't work. Thing is, there are possible (and quite likely at that) future circumstances which may see similar kind of state powers emerge and prevail (however label they would be marked by - "police state" may end up being quite similar, for example; 1984, etc).

    And that potentially immense power of people is surely one thing smart capitalists are affraid of (and rightfully so). They know they couldn't compete long-term with such a system, because they know their own businesses can't develop nearly as fast exactly because they capitalists take their lion's share, thus slowing development down. They can't stop taking it completely, since they need to spend quite much to keep themselves - small elites, - at controls. I.e., capitalistic systems inherently are less capable to perform fast growth. And this is not only theoretical construct - suffice to look at China's growth during recent decades. And that's with only partial implementation of principles of communism, see. Still very powerful.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  7. DwayneGAnd

    DwayneGAnd Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 12, 2016
    There was a movie released sometime ago about a screenwriter who was actually blacklisted, had his contract cancelled, and lost his girlfriend, all because he was suspected of being a communist. Talk about unfair!
     
  8. shihonage

    shihonage Made in USSR

    May 8, 2007
    Anyone who believes in communist/socialist ideas is a hopeless cretin, whose views were allowed to fester at a safe, big, comfortable distance away from any country which has tried to implement these ideologies into practice as its main system.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  9. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    That isn't case for Communism. People have good reason to dislike Communists especially because they want to instigate in-fighting either by class, race, religion, etc.
     
  10. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    because it's shit.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  11. Makta

    Makta The DICKtator

    Jul 29, 2010
    "Swedish socialism" was actually really good untill around the 80's and that comes from someone who is quite far to the right. Sadly the thing we have in Sweden today is some really horrible crap.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  12. shihonage

    shihonage Made in USSR

    May 8, 2007
    Swedish socialism only lasted even that long, because they still had some capitalism backbone in there generating the wealth.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  13. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dark side in da houssah

    Nov 22, 2009
    Btw I don't necessarily agree with you, just giving some respect to an 'old timer'. :D
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  14. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    @Fins I appreciate what you are saying, but if you want to make a further point after already posting, edit it in to your previous post.

    This site has rules against double posting(Posting twice in a row)

    Anyhow
    Still undoubtedly unfair for a guy to lose everything good in his life after being blacklisted as a communist.

    No matter how you frame it, McCarthyism was still an oppressive period of censorship, where people had their lives destroyed simply for having views.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  15. Eshanas

    Eshanas Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Jul 6, 2016
    There's no Socialism in Sweden nor in First World Europe. It's a Social Democratic Nordic-Model Welfare State that's built on top of Capitalism. It's a bloody monarchy, remember. Socialists and Communists detest Social Democrats for compromise and keeping Capitalism, and the two split in the 1880s when SocDems were a sort of DemSoc and now they're different, though often party together in some cases, but not in others. (In France the Socialists hold both, in Spain and Portugal just SocDems).

    Communism, as Marx also put it, was built for INDUSTRIALIZED, eg, DEVELOPED countries. But the people in those countries don't see their relationships with their employers as something to be gotten rid of. They do want limits put on their employers: taxes to support community and nation, fair wages, logical wages in the first place. Thus emerges the catch 22: if Communism is only for developed nations, and developed nations don't turn communist, then is Communism not D.O.A? The closest we've seen it occur was the German and Hungarian civil wars, and in both cases the Conservative-Liberals-Monarchists-Social Democrats stomped them out.

    The most horrendous forms of Communism emerged in undeveloped nations. Mao's China. Pot's Cambodia. Lenin and Stalinist Soviet Union. And when their attempts at Communism, often labelled Socialism or some school of the two, did grant wealth and development to the undeveloped countries, we saw faux capitalist models and relationships grow, and when the U.S.S.R fell and took many of its satellites with it, we saw at the least nationalism and greed prey on unprepared and unsupported citizenry.

    Some places were objectively better than other places, if by low body counts and developments in HDI. Vietnam. Cuba (which almost collapsed post U.S.S.R). Yugoslavia (started to break up and collapse in the 80s and 90s in a brutal conflict). But compared to states with Capitalist systems, it can be mused that they could had done far more with far less, and few would desire to be a denizen of Cuba or Vietnam today, despite their steadfastness.

    Capitalism rips the earth and kills millions, yes. It can go to dark places. South Korea, the Congo crises, the end of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Africanism, the Central American Crisis, the propped up dictatorships such as Pinochet especially are black blots of its history. But Capitalism in other forms has given more people a better standard of living, chance, and clout than Communism ever has.

    Capitalism won, it faces the problems of the world now, and I think that it can be adequate to face those problems.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  16. Jogre

    Jogre It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    While full on revolutionary communism has it's issues, I wouldn't say we should just accept Capitalism as brute fact.

    We should strive for a better system where property and profit aren't above everything else.

    I'd say it'd be far better to look at the issues with communist/socialist governments of the past and try and create a better system from that than to just accept the flaws of capitalism.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  17. Fins

    Fins It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 31, 2017
    Well said, and i agree with everything except the last line, which is good, but not good enough.

    See, i am sure mankind is heading to disaster. It's not just pollution, economic problems, depletion of soils under industrial agriculture methods, catastrophic climate change or continuing proliferation of mass destruction weaponry, but it's very nature of modern societies, especially their educational systems and mass media, which make me sure that existing civilization is heading to ultimate depletion of habitability of most Earth's human habitats. It won't happen tomorrow or next year, but some time in this century, i am quite sure mankind won't dodge some global bullet. Increasingly fragile and logistically "tender" fabric of human enterprise will collapse, world-wide. And that demands a kind of government humans never used before, if they are to live through.

    Traditionally, collapses of civilization typically had some portion of people surviving by moving some place else and/or by returning to small-scale farming communities. Neither seems any reliable option for incoming ordeal, though: there is no practically available "some place else" for global civilization, since space colonization remains a fairytale in practice, and returning to small-scale farming is problematic in a world of rapidly changing climate, unprecedented levels of soil contamination for most of arable land, and rapidly deteriorating ecosystems which go through already started 6th Great Extinction of Species.

    Thus, like it or not, it will be simply a matter of survival - at some point, - to create entirely new kind of government, one which allows quick adaptation to rapidly changing environment, does not supress anyone's creativity and ability, allows societies to withstand largest shocks possible. Neither communism nor capitalism can provide such features for any large society. It probably will start with some form of martial law, and then develop into a system where power is given to those who can solve problems better than others, and in particular those who are able to adapt existing and invent new technology which allows to do so, and apply such modified and new technologies to solve problems quickly and effectively. So, it will be some or other sort of technocracy. I think it is inevitable this kind of government will after some point become universally accepted and practiced - and for a long time. Soon after lean times start and people start to die by the billions, that is.

    Which is why IMHO it makes sense to start considering, even now, about how technocracy works, what its drawbacks and benefits are, how could it be improved and what kinds of problems are likely to happen during practical implementation of technocratic governments of all scales - rather than try to "fix up" existing global society via attempting to merge certain elements of centuries-old concepts like capitalism and communism.

    P.S. Ok, copy about double posting - didn't know. Will not do it anymore. Thanks!


    That's another reason some "communism regimes" existed were rightfully hated at some point, yes - but only after they were much corrupted and rotten. It's not communism itself that makes people get aggressive. Red terror was always only a reaction to hostilities and/or opression made by other parties, not a goal in itself. True communists have no reason whatsoever to attack anybody else as long as nobody attacks them. They don't need it.

    Imperialism is what should be blamed here, instead. Imperialism can manifest itself in both capitalistic and fake-communistic societies when certain power structures of those societies get big and powerful enough. It should be recognised as such. Nowadays corporations keep this sad tradition, seeing whole globe as one huge "colony" of sheeple they aim to exploit for profit.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  18. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    Well, yes. At that point, I usually use my "extreme" analogies to make my case but I didn't really want to invoke an emotional response. Something like getting someone fired just on the suspicion of being a child molester is wrong but it doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong with being a child molester. Why I was afraid to say that is I didn't wanted people to think that I equate Communism to something like child molestation. That is why calling someone a Nazi shouldn't be an argument. Do I think that the man should have been fire if he really was a Communist? No, but it isn't out of respect for Communism.

    Communism is too idealistic and goes too far from human nature. The violence of class warfare is inherit to Communism even in its purest and idealistic form. The most generous interpretation that I can give is akin to those Baptists that are excited for the End of the World so that they would be raptured to heaven. Communism ignores the idea of hierarchy which exists in humans and animals which goes against the idea that Primitive communism even existed.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  19. Fins

    Fins It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 31, 2017
    Please, give me your sources. I wonder how you get such ideas.

    Here's one practical example of actual fully implemented communism on the scale of one single village. It is quite successful. And it is peaceful. It exists for decades. I fail to see any record of any "class warfare" in that village available. And those people certainly do not look any upset about the lack of "hierarchy", to me.


    P.S. Also, you are not doing any good job if you're trying to say humans should stick to any kind of "hierarchy" because animals do. For more than one reason, even: 1st, humans are substaintally more socially developed than most animals, and what's good for animals should not be expected to always remain also good for humans; and 2nd, nope, hierarchy does not exist in all animals - only in some. In many animals, there is no hierarchy at all. Most kinds of fish, for example, don't have any hierarchy whatsoever. Bears, afaict, also don't have any. Even some of most socially advanced and smart animals do not have hierarchies, like orangutans, who are known to have no hierarchy to talk about. Any conflict they get gets solved "then and there" and the winner is simply one who's stronger at the time.

    P.P.S. Oh, and about "human nature". It's vastly diverse. It's an error to judge all humans' nature based on yourself, even based on your own society. In particular, small communities, - often up to towns some ~50k people large, - often have dramatically differently "natured" humans than megapolises. I was lucky to live in all kinds of human settlements, all sizes. I know it form personal experience.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
  20. mithrap

    mithrap Ring a ding-ding, baby

    May 17, 2016
    "The cleansing of the Russian land of any harmful insects, swindler-fleas, wealthy bugs and so on and so on. In one place, they should imprison a dozen wealthy people... in a fourth place, one out of every ten people guilty of parasitism should be executed on the spot!" (Lenin, 1918).
    That's litteraly a call for the decimation of its own land. What followed was death camps, and about 4 million people killed just to make a point.
    Then, there's the civil war, the extermination of the cossacks etc.
    As soon as they got into power in 1917, Lenin and Trotsky abolished the right to strike, abolished the free press, abolished the right to emigrate, abolished the right to freedom of religion and abolished workers trade unions (which were a thing under the tsars, surprisingly)
    Maybe there's a reason why communist countries were rightfully hated before they even formed a proper government, since any kind of doctrine that calls for the decimation of your own country is fundamentally brutal.

    Economic prosperity? Russia applied Marx's centralized economy idea, which made the ruble lose 96% of its value by 1919. He then thought it was a good idea to weaponize starvation to starve out the enemies of the regime. Same thing happened in Cuba. 30 000 makeshift ships left for Florida, led by people who were starving.

    Progress? The pseudoscience of Lysenkoism was enforced in schools and universities in the Soviet Union, and scientific dissenters were executed.

    "Merciless war against these kulaks! Death to them!" (Lenin, 1918). About what, 4 million people killed?
    You can't install a communist government without people resisting, since you are attacking their private properties by the mere existence of the philosophy behind the state. Unless you are bringing an era of peace and prosperity, if you try to nationalize my business, I'll salt the ground it stands on. Try to force me into a philosophy, I'll resist. That's human nature.
    The mere existence of communism calls for an opposition, because human nature. We value what we own, wether it's objects, funds, rights, activity or structures.
    THEN, you have to make sure resistance doesn't kick in, because if you don't, resistance WILL kick in. So what, democides like in every single communist state ever made?
    El Salvador, Somoza, The Sandinistas, the Guatemalan, the Russian, the Cubans, the Chinese... every single communist entity went through democide.

    Agreed, absolutely. But, something else is happening with economic imperialism: We should get to 3% of poverty by 2050, when it was about 80% about a century ago. That's the first real significant, global poverty decline in human history.

    On the scale of one single village, and information can be quite hard to combine when we talk about China.
    Also, communism fully understands hierarchy. Just ask Marx about the slavs, or ask Lenin about the kulaks.

    Fish don't have sex the way we do.
    Fish don't fuck.
    That changes everything when it comes to social structure, and therefore, they can't be used as comparison.

    Bears are solitary animals, while humans are not.

    Not quite. Their structure is based on pure raw strength, and they acknowledge "social classes" based on that. That's why they are the species known for hiring "hitmen" orangutans to kill female rivals. They have a hierarchy, based on who they fuck, and based on how strong they are.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 2