Communism

[Riserland]

To clarify, I did not make this to get a sample of what people in the world think- we're all complete nerds here with no hope of changing anything but I wanted to see if there was at least one response that would profoundly affect my world outlook and give me some new food for thought. Thus far what I've read has been very disappointing.

Alright, so what do you want to see, more huge holes being shot into the failed idea of a utopia? It's impractical, as pointed out over and over. If you wanted a shift, I would've had one if I were pro-communist and I saw all these counterpoints, perhaps you're to dug in, perhaps we are?

Thus far all the things I've seen are easily refuted junior high history book arguments or the same 10 or so strawmen that have been pointed out and ignored a thousand times over.

I honestly feel as though the anti-communists are not reading my (and other's) posts and instead decide to regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over again. I'm really sorry if this sounds counter productive or rude but its just what I think.

[New Rogernomics]

To clarify, I did not make this to get a sample of what people in the world think- we're all complete nerds here with no hope of changing anything but I wanted to see if there was at least one response that would profoundly affect my world outlook and give me some new food for thought. Thus far what I've read has been very disappointing.

Alright, so what do you want to see, more huge holes being shot into the failed idea of a utopia? It's impractical, as pointed out over and over. If you wanted a shift, I would've had one if I were pro-communist and I saw all these counterpoints, perhaps you're to dug in, perhaps we are?

Voluntary systems are fine. Let people live under whatever system they favour. Utopias are systems which force people to live under them, which is why state systems collapse periodically.

[Stanisburg]

Hey something new I learned but can the you all accept the fact that communism or at least the root of communism requires people to help each other out right? and as well as sharing everything correct? Nature is selfish am i not right? from a weed that overtakes a field to a human exploiting others in life.

Kropotkin (a biologist) disagreed. He said if you look around in nature you'll see communism everywhere. Species where individuals compete to deny each other resources don't fare as well as species where individuals help one another.

[The Realm of God]

I'm glad to see that at least 46% of the people who voted have a bit of common sense.

To clarify, I did not make this to get a sample of what people in the world think- we're all complete nerds here with no hope of changing anything but I wanted to see if there was at least one response that would profoundly affect my world outlook and give me some new food for thought. Thus far what I've read has been very disappointing.

Very self-depreciating words you have there. People always have the hope of changing something.

[New Rogernomics]

Hey something new I learned but can the you all accept the fact that communism or at least the root of communism requires people to help each other out right? and as well as sharing everything correct? Nature is selfish am i not right? from a weed that overtakes a field to a human exploiting others in life.

Kropotkin (a biologist) disagreed. He said if you look around in nature you'll see communism everywhere. Species where individuals compete to deny each other resources don't fare as well as species where individuals help one another.

Well altruism exists in lesser and higher animals (such as Homo Sapiens); it is hardly suprising Objectivists were so opposed to it.

[Conscentia]

Yes. Yes I am in favor of communism. Not batshit nuts Stalinism, but communism.

except Stalinism is a part of communism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.'

Emphasis on "generally". (Read it as "incorrectly but unfortunately often".)

[Maurepas]

I think Marx's ideals, though well placed, are just too unrealistic. It both ignores the principles of supply and demand, as well as simple human nature to be uncooperative. And I think Leninism defeats the purpose by the use of his single-party "vanguard", it removes the freedom of choice and the rights of man, essentially forcing the ideal to be a step backwards.


The results of the Cold War should've been that the two Superpowers embraced the "Middle Ground" so to speak of the leftist nations in Europe. It just so happens that the two principle powers themselves are the ones lagging behind in that regard.

[Jassysworth 1]

except Stalinism is a part of communism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism

Stalinism is the ideology that Joseph Stalin conceived and implemented in the Soviet Union, and is generally considered a branch of Marxist–Leninist ideology but considered by some historians to be a significant deviation from this philosophy.'

Emphasis on "generally". (Read it as "incorrectly but unfortunately often".)

''generally'' unless stated otherwise, means by the greatest preponderance of people and experts. That's how wikipedia would work. When something is erroneously attributed, wikipedia does not cite it as a ''general'' opinion, it cites as a ''general but incorrect'' opinion...

Unless you are suggesting that web site is deliberately trying to trick you?

When you read that something is ''generally'' treated as such do you automatically jump to it being ''generally incorrectly'' treated as such?

Way to go reading with your own bias glasses on and attributing meanings to the article that are non-existent...

From the tone of the entire article where is your evidence that ''generally'' translates into ''incorrectly but unfortunately often''?

Why does the article put Stalinism under its series on Communism and on Marxism-Leninism (as you can see on the red boxes to the right)? No, the article is of the opinion that Stalinism is a part of communism...

[Aeken]

Based on the idea of completely providing for citizens, with state-owned corporations, I can't say I'd enjoy those circumstances. So it seems nice, but isn't really in depth to me.

[Democratic Koyro]

Based on the idea of completely providing for citizens, with state-owned corporations, I can't say I'd enjoy those circumstances. So it seems nice, but isn't really in depth to me.

What you describe is not Communism. It's State Capitalism (or State Socialism, depending on who you ask)

[Aeken]

Based on the idea of completely providing for citizens, with state-owned corporations, I can't say I'd enjoy those circumstances. So it seems nice, but isn't really in depth to me.

What you describe is not Communism. It's State Capitalism (or State Socialism, depending on who you ask)

Well good then. Is it similar?

[Democratic Koyro]

What you describe is not Communism. It's State Capitalism (or State Socialism, depending on who you ask)

Well good then. Is it similar?

Nope.

Communism is an anarchist ideology. It is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.

[Jassysworth 1]

What you describe is not Communism. It's State Capitalism (or State Socialism, depending on who you ask)

Well good then. Is it similar?

well traditionally according to the Marxist narrative and the theory of historical materialism, communist revolutionaries will first take us out of capitalism and into state socialism before finally reaching communism.

Only problem with this is that no one has ever gotten past state socialism... and state socialism itself hasn't proven to be better than capitalism to say the least.



But a lot of communists here like to act like they can rewrite Marx and delete all of his references to a middle stage where you need a stronger state under socialism lead by a vanguard party and act like communism is 100% anarchistic and that you can jump to communism straight out of capitalism.

But this is not how the Marxist and communist narrative works...

[Aeken]

I knew about that classless part. But I can't say I'm completely favorable.

[Trollgaard]

Can't say as I'm a fan of communism. The very idea is...repugnant.

[Trotskylvania]

Well good then. Is it similar?

well traditionally according to the Marxist narrative and the theory of historical materialism, communist revolutionaries will first take us out of capitalism and into state socialism before finally reaching communism.

Only problem with this is that no one has ever gotten past state socialism... and state socialism itself hasn't proven to be better than capitalism to say the least.



But a lot of communists here like to act like they can rewrite Marx and delete all of his references to a middle stage where you need a stronger state under socialism lead by a vanguard party and act like communism is 100% anarchistic and that you can jump to communism straight out of capitalism.

But this is not how the Marxist and communist narrative works...

No, people like you who make these claims are not familiar with Marx's work.

The entire notion of a "state socialism" is only supported by a few paragraphs in The Communist Manifesto, which Marx and Engels wrote when they were young men. Marx in particular evolved drastically in a few short years, and all their work after the Manifesto notes an increasing hostility to the state. Not that they were ever particularly enamored; Marx had always regarded states as necessary evils at best, and opposed standing armies, capital punishment and much of the repressive apparatus of the state even when he still believed that a standard democratic republic could nationalize industries as a step towards socialism.

This is something he would later oppose, with his lauding of the Paris Commune, and his harsh criticism of the German Social Democrats in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Marx was not an anarchist as the term would be understood today. But like the anarchists of classical anarchist movements, he was pro non-hierarchical government and anti-state.

[Stanisburg]

Considering that Marx's biggest political rival was Mikhail Bakunin, an anarchist who pretty well called Marx out on the potential for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to become an actual dictatorship with the "vanguard party" as a new ruling class, I find it difficult to agree with any claim that Marxism could be described as "anarchistic." The anarchists wanted to pursue the immediate abolition of the state. Marx said the working class should seize control of the state and use it to destroy their enemies, then wait for this situation to naturally evolve into a stateless, classless utopia. Bit of a difference there, and frankly history shows that Bakunin was right about the dictatorship thing.

[CTALNH]

The people are stupid.

Vanguard party is best.You know people that actually have realized their place and class etc,etc

Not like mine is any better its just is more plausible.

This is why no one believes you when you call thyself a leftist.

For stating the obvious?

How the hell am I gonna categorize Americans and people like the Americans then?(When I mean stupid I mean politically inept)

[Sociobiology]

Hey something new I learned but can the you all accept the fact that communism or at least the root of communism requires people to help each other out right? and as well as sharing everything correct? Nature is selfish am i not right? from a weed that overtakes a field to a human exploiting others in life.

Kropotkin (a biologist) disagreed. He said if you look around in nature you'll see communism everywhere. Species where individuals compete to deny each other resources don't fare as well as species where individuals help one another.

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

[Anarkadia]

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

They are still cooperating outside of the immediate benefit of their selves, even if it is with relatives. The point is that mutual aid is an essential tool for survival, and not some strict competitive nature of one against all.

Considering that Marx's biggest political rival was Mikhail Bakunin, an anarchist who pretty well called Marx out on the potential for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to become an actual dictatorship with the "vanguard party" as a new ruling class, I find it difficult to agree with any claim that Marxism could be described as "anarchistic." The anarchists wanted to pursue the immediate abolition of the state. Marx said the working class should seize control of the state and use it to destroy their enemies, then wait for this situation to naturally evolve into a stateless, classless utopia. Bit of a difference there, and frankly history shows that Bakunin was right about the dictatorship thing.

I agree completely. On that point, Bakunin has been historically accurate. Of course, I still disagree with him on other things. But that's why I describe myself as an "anarchist", and not as a "Bakuninist".

[CTALNH]

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

They are still cooperating outside of the immediate benefit of their selves, even if it is with relatives. The point is that mutual aid is an essential tool for survival, and not some strict competitive nature of one against all.

Considering that Marx's biggest political rival was Mikhail Bakunin, an anarchist who pretty well called Marx out on the potential for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" to become an actual dictatorship with the "vanguard party" as a new ruling class, I find it difficult to agree with any claim that Marxism could be described as "anarchistic." The anarchists wanted to pursue the immediate abolition of the state. Marx said the working class should seize control of the state and use it to destroy their enemies, then wait for this situation to naturally evolve into a stateless, classless utopia. Bit of a difference there, and frankly history shows that Bakunin was right about the dictatorship thing.

I agree completely. On that point, Bakunin has been historically accurate. Of course, I still disagree with him on other things. But that's why I describe myself as an "anarchist", and not as a "Bakuninist".

All anarchists derive from some variation of Bakunism.

Anarchism is stupid.The end.

[CTALNH]

Well good then. Is it similar?

Nope.

Communism is an anarchist ideology. It is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.

Communism is not an Anarchist ideology!

Communism is Communism!

Anarchism wants a Social Revolution!

Communism wants a Socialist Revolution!

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... hority.htm

[Terran Empire]

Congrats you're a pinko commie.
Have fun, at least you have no real power.

[Conscentia]

Nope.

Communism is an anarchist ideology. It is a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned.

Communism is not an Anarchist ideology!

Communism is Communism!

Anarchism wants a Social Revolution!

Communism wants a Socialist Revolution!

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ ... hority.htm

Communism: Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

A stateless society would be the goal of anarchism.

[Conscentia]

Kropotkin (a biologist) disagreed. He said if you look around in nature you'll see communism everywhere. Species where individuals compete to deny each other resources don't fare as well as species where individuals help one another.

but species in which individuals help their relatives and hinder everyone else do even better.

Source?