Attitudes Towards Communism

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

  1. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    It is an argument against the idea of primitive Communism, the idea that Communism existed in Hunter Gatherer societies, existed. It was not an argument that people should emulate animals.
    Fish eat each other. A lot of animals developed traits or techniques to preemptively show their superiority to avoid needless violence. If it works how you said that it does, animals wouldn't need to develop those traits or learn to detect whether an animal is stronger.

    For humans, the most common and oldest hierarchy is of elders. A child is generally a lower rank than the parent.
    I'll probably watch the video when I have the time but title sounds clickbaity.
  2. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    Fish eat other species of fish, not the same species.

    Also most intelligent animals are naturally altruistic towards others of their species, so why is the hierarchy the most defining part of human nature and not the natural altruism?

    And a capitalist system, while it does embrace heirarchy, means the highest position belongs to whoever has the most capital
    Primitive Communism means that the resources of hunger/gatherer societies would be shared among the tribe rather than be used for the sole benefit of the hunter/gatherer who collected them.

    Marx wasn't suggesting they have no hierarchy, so much as they'd need to share extra resources or they'd starve
    Are you aware of how Bonobos(Humans closest living ancestors) resolve conflicts?

    They don't resolve it through shows of superiority, quite the opposite really.
  3. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    It didn't say it the most defining feature. Also, people generally care more about their families and friend over strangers. I think that the most defining part of human nature is self awareness.
    I know what are Bonobos. I also read about monkeys preforming prostitution. All that I'm saying is that I don't think Hunter-Gatherers were strictly Communists.
  4. Alphons

    Alphons National Beholder

    Aug 9, 2017
    Communism sounds great on paper, but it was enforced by people lusting for power (which is opposing the core of communism).

    Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Minh and Red Khmers are responsible for mass starvations, POWs and civilians mass executions, half of the XX century wars, setting half of the world 50 years back in comparison to the rest of the world.

    I would argue that they were worse than Nazis in many ways.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  5. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    Let's put it this way, while communism is a nice thing on paper, it is a concept and theory that is very easily twisted and abused into an oppressive regime.
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  6. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    I would like to bring up Lysenkoism. It was the Communists' version of Scientific Racism in terms of being ideologically driven pseudo-science.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  7. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan

    May 27, 2004
    All attempts are creating a communist utopia have resulted in horrendously warped dystopias. (one might say the same for any other attempt of creating utopias, by the way. it's only natural, as one person's utopia is almost certainly another person's hell.)

    Communist regimes in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc have been responsible for well over 10x more deaths than even the most pessimistic estimates deaths attributable to fascist regimes over the last century. That's quite a dreadful achievement.

    Initially, it's not hard to see what draws people to the idea of communism. But to anyone with real life experience, it should be obvious that true communism cannot be achieved in our society. As a result, we are faced with corrupted caricatures of communism instead, not to mention the ever popular cultural marxism which keeps spreading it's influence even where communism has failed.

    I would suggest that anyone who needs proof that communism is an extremely bad idea to attempt to implement would read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Arhipelago. It exists both in full & abridged forms. If merely a tenth of what he writes is remotely true (and it is), then it should do much to prove people the folly of their ways.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  8. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    No such thing.

    Nobody really describes themselves as a "Cultural Marxist", that's just a buzzword made up by the right to dismiss certain ideals.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  9. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    Exactly. It's a great idea on paper, but the Marxist core principles of class warfare are easily abused into tools of oppression. The revolution will basically always end up eating its children.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  10. That seemed like a nice thread until someone said "cultural marxism" unironically :rofl:

    And yes, sure, history has shown than in practice it goes someplace between badly and terribadly, but the modern attitude of having made it into a straw-boogeyman is pretty hilarious in and out of itself considering how hard would it be to even apply communism only in the economical extent in most of the modern world especially considering how synergic capitalism and globalization are.
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  11. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    To be fair, what is described as "cultural marxism" is somewhat based on Marxist ideas with a few words changed out. Intersectionalism is basically just class warfare with "class" changed to "gender/race/sexuality" and mixed with a healthy dose of poststructuralist french nonsense to justify everything with anything.
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  12. Juza The Cloud

    Juza The Cloud Nanto Goshasei

    Jun 3, 2015
    Man Post Modernists suck.

    Doesn’t follow the Seldon plan.

    Speaking of politics in “Foundation” terminology. Had an discussion with a conservative with a small “c” friend of mine who was arguing Trump was a “Mule” like figure. While I felt he was more like that Prince who spoke poorly and did not know how his ships worked etc. Late Imperial showing the dedgrdation of the once strong and educated class not knowing how the previous generations held the empire together.
  13. Atomkilla

    Atomkilla Hazel Hegemon oTO Orderite

    Dec 26, 2010
    I was recently at a party. Someone took a large bowl and suggested that everyone put their cigarettes in it, so that everyone can have a cig whenever they want.
    My friend said, fuck no, I don't believe in communism. By 5AM he was the only one left with cigarettes.

    I don't smoke btw
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  14. Naissus

    Naissus It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Jan 17, 2006
    The problem with communism is the same problem with any kind of Statist government. People can and will abuse their authority. Some leaders are benevolent, and when they are in power life is good. But when more sinister people are in power its a nightmare. Its better for a society to have to limit and scatter power. Checks and balances to a limited centralized government is slow to change laws. However, its a disincentive for megalomaniacs to attempt to seize tyrannical authority from the government.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  15. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    Jan 19, 2016
    Can you elaborate? Most people just shout right wing conspiracy and leave it at that.

    Are most people really picky with brands?

    Black markets always exist under Communism. There is also the "local knowledge problem" which a big hurdle for planned economies. I found this application of free market principals interesting in an almost haha way.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. mithrap

    mithrap Ring a ding-ding, baby

    May 17, 2016
    Whenever I hear about how communism is great on paper, but was never implemented since it was held by corrupt tyrants, I say "wrong". If one group managed to actually establish a litteral adaptation of Marx's communism, it was the Khmer Rouges in Cambodia.
    They applied Marx's teachings by the letter. They may be the only ones who have managed to actually achieve "full communism", so to speak.

    And with no surprise, genocide kicked in real fast. About 20 000 mass graves, execution of teachers, mass deportations, executions, weaponized starvation, you name it, they did it. Yet, I challenge any historian to contradict the fact that this was still the real only true communist state.
    You want to see the "paper, real communism" in action, look at Cambodia.
  17. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    What is communist and Marxist-by-the-letter about forcing everyone to be a farmer and all the other lunacies of the Khmer Rouge?
    • [Like] [Like] x 2
  18. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Sep 17, 2016
    It was an ideology which resulted in millions upon millions of deaths of poor people in the name of bettering their lot, was violently anti-religious while suffering the same extremes as religion at its worst, and is a stupid philosophy that amounts to, "Well if we just redistribute all the wealth and be RATIONALE then the world will be a paradise." It's a fundamentally anti-individualist autocratic ideology that insists the problems of the world will go away once everyone agrees with it.

    So much so that if you believe Catholicism, God actually sent his last major miracle at Fatima to say it will be the cause of the world going to complete shit in the 20th century as the Second Secret.

    The real question for me is....why do so many Europeans seem to still like it? In Portugal, Italy, and many other places you'd think they'd completely missed the truth about so many communist states.

    Mind you, I actually took a lot of classes on the subject in getting my degree and one of the things which basically was universal with communist regimes is the "Sunken Cost Fallacy" which emerged from the fact Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, and others all came into power with a lot of big ideas then kept hammering those ideas over and over again when they didn't work. There's never a period where "communism starts off good then becomes corrupted" as it's very much usually the government begins as a dictatorship and gets worse or collapses.

    Because communism is a revolutionary and reactionary ideology. It blames the failure on those who don't share the ideology and is upset when reality doesn't reach its aims. It's a religion, IMHO, and effectively illustrates the void being filled by its atheist materialist philosophy of the Promised Land with the same anger/delusion as the worst fundamentalists.


    Wow, I really dislike this thing.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
  19. Meanwhile, in other place; WHEEEE ANARCHISM :mrgreen:
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  20. Eshanas

    Eshanas Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Jul 6, 2016
    Except that Pot's Agrarian Socialism takes away from the centrality of the industrial worker in Marxism to the agricultural peasant. The two are different in Marx's work. Lenin tried to skip a step, Mao more steps, Pot tried to jump over it all. There is a reason Marxism-Leninism and Maoism exist as different labels. Lenin himself was a minor noble, Mao was the stock of agricultural peasants, these lifestyles influenced them to revise Marxism. Mao called for constant purges and revolutions to cleanse tradition - tradition being an especially vilified thing in later modern China - and capitalist elements still within the system. Pot called for an extreme interpretation of the need for Industrial Armies in Agriculture, mostly by removing the Industrial part. (Number 8 of Marx's 10 precepts in the Manifesto).

    For the record, this is what Marx said:

    "The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." - Communist Manifesto, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians.

    From the outside the differences are seemingly minor, but thus in practice they form completely different results in a slew of different nations that also almost always led to internal schisms in the Communist-Socialist bloc. Hoxha went his way. Tito went his way. Mao his. Minh his. Kim his. Stalin his. Lenin his. Trotsky his. Etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    Marx at the least saw Communism as a development of Socialism that would arise from an industrialized Proletariat - not agrarian peasantry, belonging to a more Feudal and not Capitalist world. Proles work for wage labor. Peasants work for survival in a form of serfdom, a step above slavery. Proles exist in a much more complex world that offers them unique benefits in organization and lifestyle that arguably gives them untold power that they can grab. Peasants do not, they are arguably inept, and probably have been blamed many times over for their attempts at revolution from within Socialist and Communist circles.

    Another problem overall is that Marx never finished his tracts. The Manifesto was a TL;DR version of what he wanted, Das Kapital, his prime defense and core, was never finished. How can then a system emerge from an uncompleted prophet? Thus the seemingly infinite array of schools that present their own prophets and answers to the question of what they represent. Maoism. Stalinism. Leninism. Trotskyism. Anti-revisionists who try to work with what Marx and Engels set, which again is incomplete. Castroism. Democratic Socialism. Agrarian Socialism. Vanguardism. Anti-Vanguardism. A slew of other -isms. Bernstein who split off and supported Social Democracy, and a slew of others who think that Marx and Engels wrote a good answer for their time but have become antiquated by x, y, z.

    A supporter can still point to Twin Oaks or Kerala or Marinaleda. An opponent can claim Cambodia or China or the Union. Academics can pick apart the works of a 100 people and the philosophical reasoning behind every school.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2018
    • [Like] [Like] x 2