Is Communism misunderstood?

Extreme or pure communism and free market economics share the characteristic of impracticality.

You wind up somewhere on the spectrum between.

But the USSR and Mao's China were as practical as communism got. Both required big, repressive police states to maintain themselves.
Coolidge's America was about as "Austrian" is could be practically done. It did not require a big police state to exist.

 

Yes. Even by communists. Thats part of the reason it will never work.

They know enough about it to understand why it is unappealing. It is not necessary to be intimately familiar with an ideology to know you do not like it or support it. I am not sure where people are getting the idea that the only way you can be sure you do not like a given ideology is to explore every single bit of irrelevant minutia about it.

LOL! That has always struck me as such a cop-out response. It is the kind of thing people say disingenuously as an implied insult.

 

I think what most people forget (or perhaps they are ignorant of) is that Communism requires a stateless society. Socialism is the transitional stage, in which the means of production are socially owned (owned by the state, cooperatively owned, etc) and and in which goods & services are produced for some specific use as opposed to profit. Communism is then the stage where the state & economic classes are abolished and the means of production have common ownership.

Both socialism & communism are terrible ideas, but it doesn't behoove anyone to throw these terms around without knowing what they actually mean.

 

The ideas that "All Politics Are Local" and individual property rights should never be understated. The genius of the Founding Fathers to reject "Central Control" as a means of governing is the model we must continue to strive for. Protect us and regulate us to some degree but don't rule us.

 

Lenin was a fair bit more practical. He wanted to build cooperatives rather than go totalitarian.

 

What you're seeing is groupthink augmented by right wing propaganda which is augmented by corporate (ie: Capitalist) media managers. Listening to them is like listening to a fox explain to the farmer why he doesn't need a guard dog. When you really get into an intelligent conversation, one that doesn't degenerate into name calling, with those who hate communism you'll get some lame statement that 'communism doesn't work because it goes against human nature'. Duh! You don't spend trillions of tax dollars to build a nuclear arsenal that can destroy civilization 15 times over to fight an economic theory that doesn't work! You don't send assassins, spies, guns, and soldiers all over the world for 4 decades over a disagreement about what economic theory works! When you start to dig into the REAL motivations of so-called government leaders about where they are spending your tax dollars...and where they AREN'T spending them, it suddenly opens a larger and sometimes very frightening world. You are doing the right thing. Read what is actually being written first hand and form your own opinions based upon fact. Suggestion: Listen to the Communist Internationale especially the English version by Billy Bragg. It might open your eyes. It's at least as optimistic as America the Beautiful (the full version). Here's a link. http://youtu.be/Zk69e1Vcmvg

 

Lenin founded the Cheka. Later NKVD. Later KGB.

Lenin said something along the lines of: "All good Communists are Chekists."

 

Well, I think everyone should study a certain ideology before they agree or disagree with it. You don't need to know everything about it, but you should know enough so you don't make false statements like "All Atheists are Communists" or "Anyone who disagrees with a Conservative is a Commie." I see such statements thrown around on the news all the time and even here on this forum from certain members.

I think everyone should do their research at least.

 

In a more perfect Commune of Heaven on Earth, we would be better Angels who have not the need for the Expense of Government.

 

It is not necessary to know it in detail before you can disagree with it. Communism can be accurately described in a general way in a few sentences.

I have met lots of people that have read the actual communist manifesto that do not understand it. So merely reading about it is far from a guarantee of comprehension.

I see that on here all the time...when a commie loses an argument their response is "OMG you just don't get it"...as if only they are smart enough to grasp the infinite mysteries of commie ideology. They do exactly what you describe, only in reverse.

I have never seen anyone on here say "all atheists are communists". Even by implication. I've been on here since 2004 or so.

 

Communism is a fantasy that swims around in the minds of the hopelessly idealistic. There can never be a permanent "stateless" societal construct of scale. never.

 

Only the right claims to believe the subjective value of morals to the exclusion of ethics.

 

But this is precisely why it's not actually evolution. Because evolution, by its very nature, produces winners and losers. The weak and useless are designed to be left behind for the greater good of the species. This is why evolution requires challenge to breed strength. In a hypothetical communist world, the species would eventually atrophy and begin to die off.

This is the difference between a pragmatist and an idealist. A pragmatist understands this and has made peace with it whereas an idealist will strive toward this fantasy with all of his might until his last day on Earth and no amount of logic or reason will ever deter him. He is a hopeless romantic of the worst kind; helplessly intoxicated by something that can never be.

 

Well said, nephew (thanks for the mention, Unifier....your acknowledgement means a lot)

I've often posited in these "stateless" society discussions that no matter how such manifests, a pecking order will ultimately arise...then a rudimentary system of arbitration to settle social, production and asset allocation matters. And in such, some manner of democratic decision making process will formally evolve...to wit, up to 49% of the "cooperatives" members will not be particularly pleased with the decisions and solutions....and this is where the corruption, quid pro quo, lobbying, payola, authoritarianism, and all the other nasty little warts present in ANY socioeconomic system begin to rear their heads.....when one understands that the smallest "cooperative" on the planet ends in divorce about 50% of the time....usually over asset allocation and decision making "power" struggles..... one should be able to understand the abject folly of communism.

 

Evolution is not a ladder but a branching tree and there are no winners or losers , also species highly adapted and very successful in the present can extinct because of a small unpredictable change in the close future while other less successful use this change to flourish.

Social evolution speaking your today conservative ideas were liberal 30 years ago , radical 60 years ago and revolutionary 100 years ago , today's liberals will find themselves in the conservative side on the close future, this is how it works.

Cooperation is much more important than challenge.

You can not be minority in each and every topic .... unless there is something very wrong with you and you are some kind of an antisocial .

The whole concept that the communist world will be like today's with the only deference being property rights is false.
When your target is autarky and not profit production units can work 24/7 on 5 hour shifts , teenagers will do all the "dirty" works along with their studies , all technological advancements will be open source , engineering will be modular with reusable parts and everyone willing to study will have access to education for free at any age .
Under communism you will have to spend a couple of hours every day on your computer reading , discussing and voting . No authority circles and no lobbyists. Yes there will be a central government but this will be technocratic , not elected and they will only have supervising/assisting role . Remember one of the most important principles is ability to remove someone from office.

Will there be mistakes ? of course but with the pass of time communities will diversify , some will be successful some others will not but there is always to ability to see what the others do , how they do it and how it worked out for them and there are no interests or an establishment to stop you from changing.

 

The ones that get genetically weeded out are the losers. Notice how there are no dinosaurs today. I would say they lost, wouldn't you?

Your own reference to extinction here actually contradicts what you just said about winners and losers. Do you realize that?

Some are. Some are not. It really depends on the ideas. What's important to recognize is that not all change is progress. But you do raise an interesting point about today's liberals finding themselves conservative tomorrow if they don't follow the herd for better or for worse. I point this out to illustrate predictions of future attitudes on certain social issues based on patterns of past change. For instance, as recently as the late 1980s, most Democrats were publicly against homosexuality. It's really only been in more recent times that the popular opinion within their party has been pro-same sex marriage. But one by one, they've all moved with the herd. On the outer fringe today, you're seeing people on the left trying to normalize pedophilia. When this is brought up to modern leftists, they always resort to accusations of a slippery slope fallacy. But they also fail to take into consideration what you've just pointed out here. That eventually ideas will shift and the people will either shift with them or get left behind. For better or for worse.

That's your opinion. Nature has a different one.

Every species since the dawn of time has competed with itself and with each other. And it has ultimately yielded the wonderfully advanced world we live in today. Take away the force that creates advancement and you'll take away those evolutionary fruits with it. Challenge is everywhere. I just got back from the gym a few minutes ago. My muscles only get bigger if I consistently lift heavier weights. Why? Because greater challenge yields greater strength. In order to be one's best, one has to be tested constantly. And every time you pass a new test, you move up a rung on the ladder to the next test. It's a never ending process. This is the benefit of challenge. It creates growth. And that which stops growing becomes stagnant. Stagnation is the beginning of death.

It is in no one's best interest for everyone to play on the same team. The idea that it is, is a gross misunderstanding of nature's timeless process which moves us forward.

 

Excuse me ,I have noticed one thinks it knows whats Communiet Revolutionary Proletariet ,hello my name is Commisar [yep cadre']Phil !?

I speak for the Working Class and excuse me we communist Scientific Marxists workers Want a Third try 'with my Experimant and many Very smart Socialsit Intelligensia best of their Former bourgeios Intelligensia ,see Lenin Volume 5 'What Is To Be Done ',I love this book on the building of a Party Revolutionary proletariet type!

See Unlike 'Government by Lobby Group ,'which is all that bourgeois Liberalism and reaction has to offer = Political Duopoly .

3rd time ,LUCKY Paris Commune 55 Days 1871,First Workers Government crushed by bismark and Prussian Reaction german Imperialism of the feudal type,


2nd attempt ,Russian revolution including dress rehearsal 1905,Red october 1917-1991 hey ,the other SUPER power for the RED Terror of the WORKERS RED ARMY was what they feared NOT STALIN!

Thats 74years and it held against WORLD IMPERIALIST POWERS UNITED!

Hey,we get a chance as Humanity for 3rd time and Last Internationally ,NO WARS of Oppression ,NO WAGE SLAVERY or exploitation economic or Social'

An intergrateg global economy with Planned and equiable distribution ,and hey thats all .

A Planet without Nation Borders to trade is IT , everyone knows Capitilism is a economic relic of the 19th century at its Zenith ,no snae Human Likes the local National Government,smash politically every idea to come out of these sewers.

if you support your National government of any type you are insane or in on the Capitialist Criminal Class.

You can say something its ok this 50year old wage slave classic old school model metal machinist 1st class with CNC honours Print machinist Web Newspaper.1st Class,bombadier .Proficient Communist Former Australian Worker now international Globalised !

And you are?

 

If you'd like the solution, stop giving power to central governments.

 

Apologies for editing your syntax i do need two quotes to deal with each topic .

Evolution and innovation comes directly from 2 factors : pure luck and necessity .
If you are familiar with human evolution Paranthropus line was successful and better adapted to an environment while Habilis were poor scavengers,those species never competed each other , then weather changed and Paranthropus species died out. Some Habilis probably evolved into Ergaster , again they didn't compete because Ergaster did not scavenge but hunted still Habilis extinct . Ergaster gave "birth" to a big line of other species who were in direct competition including us , yet although we are the youngest arrival we lived together with at least three other species until they were absorbed by our (biggest) population through breeding .

Yes not all change is progress .
The fact is that the human society as a whole is a pot that constantly cooks new ideas (or bring back old ones) , societies are trying to adapt and cover their necessities material, spiritual or sexual . Individuals do change for better of for worst and the standards change too.
I mean that age of consent there is 16 right? 16 year olds are mature enough to have a sex life , we all accept that but we also accept that 16 year olds are still kids , thus paedophilia ! This wouldn't be a problem in old Athens or Heliopolis or even Rome but our standards have change and together with them our ideas.

Modern progressives are the conservatives of the future because after the age of say 35 it is very hard for someone to totally change the way he thinks , the extreme jumping of wagons is some kind of sickness and there is a humanly possible amount of "reforms" someone can take without going nuts.
Partisanship and polemic between left and right is healthy when it does not come into flame wars and violence . We both need each other for thesis and antithesis to struggle and create a new thesis and our civilisation is based over the respect for difference. Working things out as a society is a way more beneficial (cooperation) instead of raping the side who got the least votes (competition).

 

Communism founders upon one simple problem. You can not get there from here with human beings as your primary building block. In fact you never get passed the dictastorship of the proletariat stage which is nearly always a misnomer in any case, as the proletariat are generally the last people that get a chance to run anything. The dictatorship is supposed to oversee 'from each according to his means, to each according to his needs, but invariably some of those means get diverted into the pockets of the dictator(s) and his/her henchmen. And the avaialble means become less and less over time. And the dictatorship, contrary to Marx's belief never ever goes away simply because any government big enough and intrusive enough to even half hearted attempt at that arcane formulation (from each... to each...) is never going to go anywhere of it's own free will because damn few human beings are willing to look the great god power full in the face and tell him to go to hell. I know in fact only of two in all of human history Goerge Washington and Nelson Mandela.

 

Great thread. I think the replies you have from this show that a lot of the posters here do have at least a basic understanding of the communist ideal.

The interesting thing about it is that in conservative rhetoric the word communism is synonymous with rank evil, yet the conservatives here seem to believe it is just an overreach for human ethical behavior. In other words its a great idea for ants, but humans cannot, or maybe should not, give up their essential selfishness for the greater good.

So, this calls the rhetoric out for what it is. Every time a conservative pundit goes on about communism it just means they are taking a shortcut to criticize a policy and not actually talking about what is really wrong with it.

So when they say "Its communism pure and simple" it really means they do not want to discuss the issue.

peace.

 

At least you admit that you view human beings as nothing more than worker ants. I would at least like to be viewed as something a little higher evolved like cattle. You can still herd us around as beasts of burden for whatever cookie cutter mastermind is available at the time.

 

Who's "greater good"? God's? Yours? Your neighbor's?

By what right does anyone impose an unchosen duty to serve a "greater good"?

 

I'll go with human survival.

 

Communism is as necessary to human survival as a bullet in the brain is necessary to a single human's survival.