Communist Discussion thread

[Bolnoa]

Second thread I may wanna slow down before I make to many threads.

To be perfectly fair,yes I am indeed leftist. But to each there own on an opinion as well as political stance we all stand in a different spot.

But welcome to the Communist Discussion thread. Enjoy your stay and let us have many,many,many conversations!

Note: OP may change within the next 2/3 hours as of the moment I'm on and off and or away from this thread so once I have the OP the way I want it then I'll be on my way and will stop changing the OP but as of the moment I'll leave it as it is for a while.

[The Scientific States]

If I recall correctly, there is already a thread for this. But, I might be wrong. We've had so many ideological discussion threads, I've lost track of which ones have been made.

Anyways, I think communism is impractical and a bad ideology.

[Bolnoa]

If I recall correctly, there is already a thread for this. But, I might be wrong. We've had so many ideological discussion threads, I've lost track of which ones have been made.

I've been looking for a Communist discussion thread for a long time I couldn't really find one. If someone does find one please link me.

Yes, there are a lot of political threads that it's happened to me to where I lost count in which I've read and haven't.

[Thafoo]

Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

[Norstal]

But welcome to the Communist Discussion thread. Enjoy your stay and let us have many,many,many conversations!

How much do you agree with the economic theory that labor is a commodity much like anything else like food or water?

[Communal Ecotopia]

But welcome to the Communist Discussion thread. Enjoy your stay and let us have many,many,many conversations!

How much do you agree with the economic theory that labor is a commodity much like anything else like food or water?

Completely. Marx got this right as he did his diagnosis of capitalism. The vagueness of the prescription has led to its overuse and co-optation by long-term dictators.

[Eastern Equestria]

It's a foolishly quixotic school of thought that's not realistically implementable in the real world.

[Thafoo]

It's a foolishly quixotic school of thought that's not realistically implementable in the real world.

Yeah, this sums it up.

[Constantinopolis]

Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

[Eastern Equestria]

Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

Ideology can be cynical. And Marxism is the perfect example.

[Jetan]

Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

The idea that everything will suddenly be rainbows and lollipops when the communist society has been achieved (fat chance) is pretty idealistic though.

[Constantinopolis]

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

Ideology can be cynical. And Marxism is the perfect example.

I know. I was just responding to the fact that many people seem to imagine that communists believe something along the lines of "if only we got our way and held absolute power, everything would immediately turn into a perfect society of sharing and happiness and butterflies where all people just love each other out of the goodness of their heart."

That is not what we think. At all. Not even close. We don't believe any part of that.

Edit: And someone just provided me with the perfect case in point...

The idea that everything will suddenly be rainbows and lollipops when the communist society has been achieved (fat chance) is pretty idealistic though.

We. Do. Not. Believe. That.

...well, okay, some communists on the internet sometimes talk that way. But that is not what communist ideology actually says. It says that a communist society will be pretty darn good, of course - in fact the best type of society that can exist - but it also says that it will be really hard to get there, and doesn't claim that it's all going to be perfect once we've achieved it.

[Duvniask]

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

The idea that everything will suddenly be rainbows and lollipops when the communist society has been achieved (fat chance) is pretty idealistic though.

Since when did communism aspire to societal perfection?

[New Terricon]

It is impossible to have Marx's utopian communist society. Unless all imperialistic powers ended their military strength, a communist or socialist society has to be organized. I see some flaw in Lenin's Communist Russia, but besides the famine and "Red Terror" under his regime, Leninist USSR was a well thought out and practical society. People would share many common areas but could still retreat to their own bedrooms that didn't have to be shared. In fact Communism and Socialism are ideologies based on an idea of a community effort and open social relationships with many people. Their is nothing necessarily evil with these ideologies, it is just that many oppressive oligarchies that claimed to be supporting it used it to gain power over the people. Thus, Communism's good natured name was soiled. This can be the same for any other type of society: Republics, Dictatorships, Democracies they all were created on the idea to benefit all. Theoretically, any ideology should work in favor of what people want. The ultimate issue in carrying this out is the human factor. I don't think I need to say more on that.
One of history's lesser known fully working Communist societies was in the Counterculture. Think of it, Hippies lived in Communes and shared all their belongings. The difference between this and a nation that tries to impose Communism is really just the size of population and landmass. Eventually, a government has to direct the nation and that soon leads to bureaucracy and corruption. Soon enough, the idea of Communism fades into darkness replaced with a confused system struggling to uphold a system that opposes them. That is why Communism has never been a long-lasting truly Communist society.

[Kelinfort]

Much too idealistic. Easily corruptible.

No. No, no, no. It may be wrong, it may be a lot of other things, but idealistic? No way.

Marxist theory is based on a very cynical view of history and human motivations: Most people follow their material interests most of the time, and the majority of ideals, belief systems, ideologies and so on are simply used to justify stuff that people wanted to do anyway, for simple material benefit.

As I have said before, I think Marx's view of history wasn't flawed, but his conclusion.

[New Terricon]

It is impossible to have Marx's utopian communist society. Unless all imperialistic powers ended their military strength, a communist or socialist society has to be organized. I see some flaw in Lenin's Communist Russia, but besides the famine and "Red Terror" under his regime, Leninist USSR was a well thought out and practical society. People would share many common areas but could still retreat to their own bedrooms that didn't have to be shared. In fact Communism and Socialism are ideologies based on an idea of a community effort and open social relationships with many people. Their is nothing necessarily evil with these ideologies, it is just that many oppressive oligarchies that claimed to be supporting it used it to gain power over the people. Thus, Communism's good natured name was soiled. This can be the same for any other type of society: Republics, Dictatorships, Democracies they all were created on the idea to benefit all. Theoretically, any ideology should work in favor of what people want. The ultimate issue in carrying this out is the human factor. I don't think I need to say more on that.
One of history's lesser known fully working Communist societies was in the Counterculture. Think of it, Hippies lived in Communes and shared all their belongings. The difference between this and a nation that tries to impose Communism is really just the size of population and landmass. Eventually, a government has to direct the nation and that soon leads to bureaucracy and corruption. Soon enough, the idea of Communism fades into darkness replaced with a confused system struggling to uphold a system that opposes them. That is why "Communist countries" has never been a long-lasting truly Communist society.

[Jetan]

Ideology can be cynical. And Marxism is the perfect example.

I know. I was just responding to the fact that many people seem to imagine that communists believe something along the lines of "if only we got our way and held absolute power, everything would immediately turn into a perfect society of sharing and happiness and butterflies where all people just love each other out of the goodness of their heart."

That is not what we think. At all. Not even close. We don't believe any part of that.

Edit: And someone just provided me with the perfect case in point...

The idea that everything will suddenly be rainbows and lollipops when the communist society has been achieved (fat chance) is pretty idealistic though.

We. Do. Not. Believe. That.

...well, okay, some communists on the internet sometimes talk that way. But that is not what communist ideology actually says. It says that a communist society will be pretty darn good, of course - in fact the best type of society that can exist - but it also says that it will be really hard to get there, and doesn't claim that it's all going to be perfect once we've achieved it.

I was just about to point those ones out, but you managed to beat me with the edit.

[Herargon]

Not sure if I should post this there...

Communism is not the best way. Neither are fascism, capitalism or such the best ways.
I feel like socialist/social-democratic governments with a capitalist, free market would do it better.. But maybe that is because I then mostly think about the Scandinavian countries.

[Jetan]

Not sure if I should post this there...

Communism is not the best way. Neither are fascism, capitalism or such the best ways.
I feel like socialist/social-democratic governments with a capitalist, free market would do it better.. But maybe that is because I then mostly think about the Scandinavian countries.

Socialism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive though.

[Herargon]

Not sure if I should post this there...

Communism is not the best way. Neither are fascism, capitalism or such the best ways.
I feel like socialist/social-democratic governments with a capitalist, free market would do it better.. But maybe that is because I then mostly think about the Scandinavian countries.

Socialism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive though.

Yes, but socialism is less extremist than Communism. Nowadays there aren't much differences between socialism and social-democratism anymore.
Social-democratism just is another name for socialism through elections.

[The Rhomaion]

Socialism and Capitalism are mutually exclusive though.

Yes, but socialism is less extremist than Communism. Nowadays there aren't much differences between socialism and social-democratism anymore.
Social-democratism just is another name for socialism through elections.

No, socialism is still a system whereby the means of production are run democratically by the workers, to the best of my knowledge.

It's just that the parties in the West that originally professed it (Socialist Party of Spain, Socialist Party of France etc.) have changed their ideologies to social democracy without also changing their parties' names.

[Herargon]

Yes, but socialism is less extremist than Communism. Nowadays there aren't much differences between socialism and social-democratism anymore.
Social-democratism just is another name for socialism through elections.

No, socialism is still a system whereby the means of production are run democratically by the workers, to the best of my knowledge.

It's just that the parties in the West that originally professed it (Socialist Party of Spain, Socialist Party of France etc.) have changed their ideologies to social democracy without also changing their parties' names.

Crap, now I'm confused. But would you then please be so kind to explain the differences between socialism and social-democratism to me..?

[The Rhomaion]

No, socialism is still a system whereby the means of production are run democratically by the workers, to the best of my knowledge.

It's just that the parties in the West that originally professed it (Socialist Party of Spain, Socialist Party of France etc.) have changed their ideologies to social democracy without also changing their parties' names.

Crap, now I'm confused. But would you then please be so kind to explain the differences between socialism and social-democratism to me..?

Social democracy is, basically, capitalism with regulations in place. Its adherents tend to claim that its goal is to, in the long-term, move towards socialism through gradual reform, and that is generally the idea in theory, but most social-democratic parties appear to have given up on this and are now just sticking with regulated capitalism.

[Bolnoa]

But welcome to the Communist Discussion thread. Enjoy your stay and let us have many,many,many conversations!

How much do you agree with the economic theory that labor is a commodity much like anything else like food or water?

A lot actually.

[Wind in the Willows]

Easily corruptible.