Immigration and the inevitability of Communism

[Page]

Being a radical leftist myself, I wish all the people the right-wing media call communists actually were communists, cause then we'd have enough communists to take over the world. But those of you who are looking for communists under your bed every night, take comfort - most of them are not communists, they are just harmless liberals.

[Greater Miami Shores]

And doesn't that show something? If we've never made it to Communism, (which is literally a dictatorship of the proletariat), doesn't that hint that it might be too difficult to be practical? We've never gotten past the dictatorship stage of communism because someone's always seized power, or refused to give it up. Remember that Lenin was all for democracy until the Bolsheviks lost a lot of seats in the provisional government. "True" Communism will only be possible when humans stop being power-hungry; until then we're stuck with Bolshevism, Maoism, Marxism, etc.

Dictatorship of the proletariat means the franchise is given to the workers and denied to capitalists. The working class holds all the power and the capitalist class must abide by their dictates. It doesn't mean "dictatorship" in the sense of "there is a single ruler with unlimited power".

lol, Meet Cuba's Rich $ Communist Socialist Family:
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=gre ... /id=844667

[Puldania]

So I was pondering over the vicious nature of anti-immigration politics when I realized: What is the point of closing the borders. Corporations don’t need workers to come here to get cheap labour. They already outsource.

Though arguably getting off on the wrong foot, from backward conditions, under pressure, devastated and in need of reform, only one country (and maybe it’s allies; I’d have to check) provided full, in-house employment with superior economic growth and social services, including total access education: the Soviet Union.

Healthcare wasn’t as great, given military expenditure and population growth, though apparently they manage it well enough in Cuba at this point, under embargo.

My question is this: y u no communist bro. We don’t gotta do it so totalitarian. We can be all about dem constitushuns. And we can utilize dat market n workers council democrazy.

Ernest Mandel said stuff (actually I’m told he’s not great but this is his high point). U shuld be communism becuz u pick ur hours. Say you don’t want economy develop at breakneck speed u work less. Worker decide. You can read it here.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel ... nning.html

Also, people need dem insulins. Need to make that shit cheap and pronto n distribute it, ration style. But without long lines or shortages. But we can do that! By resolving the information problem through incorporation of the market and workers democracy.

And maybe U decide we don’t need weed killer because you have no backyard. maybe you don’t do stupid ass job making weed killer. All kinds of utopian possibility. People really want that shit, let them make it one day out of the year. Unless robots make it I guess. I don’t really know, I’m making this up. I certainly think people should have to make weed killer if they really want it, instead of making black people box it up.

Also: is Communism inevitable. I do not think it is inevitable. We could degenerate into barbarism instead. I consider this an inferior option to consciously directing our economy.

I like being communist insofar as to achieve true meritocracy.

[Asherahan]

True Utopian communism will be achieved when we invent matter replicators.

[Arlenton]

Communism isn't inevitable. America and its people don't accept anything other then the regular government we have now. Same with fascism, The people would be very anti-fascism or anti-communism.

Communism IS the people.

That's a weird way to spell shit.

[Arlenton]

Better dead than red

Do you have anything else to add to this discussion, enlightened one? Making a meme that's been lame for years doesn't do anything to make a point.

The irony.

[Bear Stearns]

If every attempt at it has resulted in absolute misery

It hasn't.

People talk about all attempts at a socialist or communist society as if every single one of them had been an endless Holodomor, which is not true. And while there is plenty to criticize in many of those attempts, talk of "absolute misery" is usually hyperbole. Castro's Cuba is flawed but it's hardly a failed state. The only thing I'd criticize about Sankara's Burkina Faso would be its political repression. Everything that happened after notwithstanding, Maoist China had its early successes when it came to economic recovery. The Soviet Union, at the cost of many lives and other sectors of its economy, did turn the most downtrodden of the great powers of Europe into a powerhouse that managed to compete with the German and American war machines.

With every political system, there's a learning curve, and early periods of atrocities both great and small. The Enlightenment didn't come out of the 18th and 19th centuries with its hands clean either, and much of what went horribly wrong in the early 20th century was part of its legacy.

So communism's best-case scenarios are Castro's Cuba and maybe Yugoslavia? That's like if we held up South Africa as the prime example of capitalism.

Also, I'll grant that communism should be afforded a "learning curve" if we're also going to apply that to fascism and similar ideologies. Truth be told, communism is an old ideology. It has had a plenty of time to prove itself and get it right. It's been popularly recognized since at least the 1870s. It has not and most likely never will.

[Soviet-American Combine]

Also, I'll grant that communism should be afforded a "learning curve" if we're also going to apply that to fascism and similar ideologies. Truth be told, communism is an old ideology. It has had a plenty of time to prove itself and get it right. It's been popularly recognized since at least the 1870s. It has not and most likely never will.

The Soviet Union outperformed the west, but it was outmatched, and it degenerated because of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not inevitable, in fact computer technology is reducing it.

[Bear Stearns]

Also, I'll grant that communism should be afforded a "learning curve" if we're also going to apply that to fascism and similar ideologies. Truth be told, communism is an old ideology. It has had a plenty of time to prove itself and get it right. It's been popularly recognized since at least the 1870s. It has not and most likely never will.

The Soviet Union outperformed the west, but it was outmatched, and it degenerated because of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not inevitable, in fact computer technology is reducing it.

No it didn't.

And Soviet computer technology was a joke. Russian exchange students who visited an IBM facility in the 1980s were absolutely shocked by how it compared to what they had back home.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Also, I'll grant that communism should be afforded a "learning curve" if we're also going to apply that to fascism and similar ideologies. Truth be told, communism is an old ideology. It has had a plenty of time to prove itself and get it right. It's been popularly recognized since at least the 1870s. It has not and most likely never will.

The Soviet Union outperformed the west, but it was outmatched, and it degenerated because of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not inevitable, in fact computer technology is reducing it.

It failed because it was ran by an unmalleable system that was destined to collapse after any type of extensive reform. The system was flawed, and just because it looked sort of good in the beginning - if you ignore the famines - doesn't change that.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Being a radical leftist myself, I wish all the people the right-wing media call communists actually were communists, cause then we'd have enough communists to take over the world. But those of you who are looking for communists under your bed every night, take comfort - most of them are not communists, they are just harmless liberals.

It would fail or turn tyrannical once again, and we'd have more hacks stating that it wasn't "real" communism.

[Petrolheadia]

Also, I'll grant that communism should be afforded a "learning curve" if we're also going to apply that to fascism and similar ideologies. Truth be told, communism is an old ideology. It has had a plenty of time to prove itself and get it right. It's been popularly recognized since at least the 1870s. It has not and most likely never will.

The Soviet Union outperformed the west, but it was outmatched, and it degenerated because of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is not inevitable, in fact computer technology is reducing it.

Yeah, we're all driving Ladas, not VWs or Toyotas, and all the electronic stuff built by formerly war-torn nations is coming from communist states like Japan or South Korea.

[Munkchester]

Better dead than red.

Better dead than American.

[Ashkera]

Communism isn't inevitable. America and its people don't accept anything other then the regular government we have now. Same with fascism, The people would be very anti-fascism or anti-communism.

Communism IS the people.

How?

Not workers' councils, evidently.

This isn't something you can afford to handwave, either. You have to actually design a structure which meets competing - and often contradictory or in-tension - requirements. Just flat-out stating "Communism is the people" suggests that you don't really take the problem seriously, and therefore that you are likely to just fail at it catastrophically again.

For instance, as much as I dislike Libertarians, Libertarians argue that a state which can and does provide you with everything is also a state that can take everything away from you. That is terrific leverage for crushing dissent, so it's difficult to arrange for it not to be exploited as oppressive types make their way up the social hierarchy. Societies with weaker governments, less government provisioning of resources, and various roadblocks created by legal embodiments of ideologies like Liberalism, make the process of totally cutting a dissident off from resources more costly.

Not only is there formal power, but there are also popularity, general consensus, culture... How will you split this power up to prevent abuses? After all, how many people on Twitter would be eager to use the Revolutionary Committee to smite culturally/politically visible but actually fairly harmless groups like, say, video gamers?

[Soviet-American Combine]

For instance, as much as I dislike Libertarians, Libertarians argue that a state which can and does provide you with everything is also a state that can take everything away from you. That is terrific leverage for crushing dissent, so it's difficult to arrange for it not to be exploited as oppressive types make their way up the social hierarchy. Societies with weaker governments, less government provisioning of resources, and various roadblocks created by legal embodiments of ideologies like Liberalism, make the process of totally cutting a dissident off from resources more costly.

Yes, the state, while it exists, should be run legally/constitutionally and integrated with the people. The Soviet should serve as an example of an executive state body (if it can be called state) which is not separate from the people. Administration should be held in common.

[Soviet-American Combine]

It would fail or turn tyrannical once again, and we'd have more hacks stating that it wasn't "real" communism.

It didn’t “turn” tyrannical per we, it was co opted by Stalin, who actually killed or imprisoned the old party. Though I’m not uncritical of them either, that’s a question of the role of the party. There were people who wanted Soviets without the party.

[Soviet-American Combine]

It failed because it was ran by an unmalleable system that was destined to collapse after any type of extensive reform. The system was flawed, and just because it looked sort of good in the beginning - if you ignore the famines - doesn't change that.

It wasn’t destined to collapse, reform was specifically opposed by the bureaucracy. Even something like the internet may have changed history, and much in the way of computer technology was actually developed in the Soviet Union - or at least copied in other cases.

[Ashkera]

For instance, as much as I dislike Libertarians, Libertarians argue that a state which can and does provide you with everything is also a state that can take everything away from you. That is terrific leverage for crushing dissent, so it's difficult to arrange for it not to be exploited as oppressive types make their way up the social hierarchy. Societies with weaker governments, less government provisioning of resources, and various roadblocks created by legal embodiments of ideologies like Liberalism, make the process of totally cutting a dissident off from resources more costly.

Yes, the state, while it exists, should be run legally/constitutionally and integrated with the people. The Soviet should serve as an example of an executive state body (if it can be called state) which is not separate from the people. Administration should be held in common.

Interesting. Did you realize what the point of that paragraph was and just ignore it, or did you read the paragraph and despite this, it didn't occur to you? "The state should be run constitutionally" is orthogonal.

When the state is responsible for all aspects of the economy, including all construction, agriculture, and service provisioning, it can simply decide that it isn't going to allocate you a house, or protection services, or food. Hypothetically, there can be "rights," but many governments have "rights" on paper that aren't actually enforced, and it's not always so difficult to whip up a frenzy.

For instance, imagine the bluechecks on Twitter voting on how much money and housing "incels" should have.

(Yes, it is possible to overcome rights in capitalist or liberal societies, but it takes more effort. Eventually a group that's sufficiently despised will want a country of its own with an army of its own to defend it, but that's just practical reality. Also that's why there shouldn't be one government uniting the whole Earth.)

[Petrolheadia]

It failed because it was ran by an unmalleable system that was destined to collapse after any type of extensive reform. The system was flawed, and just because it looked sort of good in the beginning - if you ignore the famines - doesn't change that.

It wasn’t destined to collapse, reform was specifically opposed by the bureaucracy. Even something like the internet may have changed history, and much in the way of computer technology was actually developed in the Soviet Union - or at least copied in other cases.

Examples?

[Soviet-American Combine]

When the state is responsible for all aspects of the economy, including all construction, agriculture, and service provisioning, it can simply decide that it isn't going to allocate you a house, or protection services, or food.

I think that’s rather questionable if the state is made up of worker’s councils. Admittedly accomplishing such a thing is problematic but it’s just a question of organization. Parties have dominated politically because they have high organization and also draw on broad support and personnel. But all you really need is a superior body that does the same and is still subject to the Soviets. Or have the party be the same, though it may or may not ideally serve a different function.

[Ashkera]

OP, you need to consider what would happen to you if you became unpopular and it was commonly considered a good and virtuous thing to want you stripped of everything you have, throughout the 'enlightened' intellectual circles of the computer networks running your planned country.

[Ashkera]

When the state is responsible for all aspects of the economy, including all construction, agriculture, and service provisioning, it can simply decide that it isn't going to allocate you a house, or protection services, or food.

I think that’s rather questionable if the state is made up of worker’s councils. Admittedly accomplishing such a thing is problematic but it’s just a question of organization. Parties have dominated politically because they have high organization and also draw on broad support and personnel. But all you really need is a superior body that does the same and is still subject to the Soviets. Or have the party be the same, though it may or may not ideally serve a different function.

You really don't have a good sense of conflict and human social ecology. You are dramatically underestimating the difficulty of the problem, as your predecessors have before you.

[Soviet-American Combine]

OP, you need to consider what would happen to you if you became unpopular and it was commonly considered a good and virtuous thing to want you stripped of everything you have, throughout the 'enlightened' intellectual circles of the computer networks running your planned country.

Most people here are constitutionalists, aren’t they? It depends on the law, the same it does for vaunted libertarianism which opposes sometimes democracy in favour of “free market ideology”. People are private citizens, and this hasn’t decreased under constitutional, albeit republican democracy (the role of republicanism is debateable), but rather been enhanced.

[Soviet-American Combine]

You really don't have a good sense of conflict and human social ecology. You are dramatically underestimating the difficulty of the problem, as your predecessors have before you.

Probably, but I hardly think it’s insurmountable given the age. If anything present forms of democracy are out of date given the technology.

[Awesome Dudes and Dudettes]

OP thread's opinion doesn't matter, they have an anime flag