Ugh, I'm sick of defending communism.

[Sean Reynolds]

No one gets it. They all revert back to the claims that communism truly oppresses the people and that the notion is outlandish. I'm sick of it! I've been defending this ideology for MANY years now and people are just too impenetrable to even listen. They've made up their minds that communism is the base of evil and that since it's failed in the past, it can never work.

I tell them that the true communist nations of the past (USSR, North Korea, China, etc) weren't truly communist, but totalitarian socialism. They don't care, nor do they listen.

Fuck it! I'm done. I'll still believe communism in my heart, but am sick of debating with people that can't even take the time to educate themselves in this matter.

[jeter]

1. Communism: tried in 61 countries

Failed in 61 countries.

Have a nice weekend.

P.S. Karl Marx was an idiot. I could dispute almost everything that Marx wrote/said. But why bother. No one believes in communism anymore. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Sean Reynolds]

9. So?

Just because there hasn't been a true communist nation doesn't mean the ideology itself is bad. That is my point. Just like many people can state that there hasn't been a true democratic nation - so under your logic they too have failed.

I'll have a nice weekend, but would like to know how Marx is an idiot.

[forgethell]

32. The point is

that human beings cannot attain a state of "true" communism. there is always, always a large group that doesn't want to share what they have worked for. there is also another group that doesn't want to work. It simply isn't human nature, and can only work badly for short periods of time, under strong coercion.

There may have been a few small "communes" of like minded folk that made a go of it for more than a few years, but I couldn't tell you when or where. People get tired of the rules and leave.

Oh, and the logic isn't that they failed because they weren't pure. Or that countries that aren't true democracies are failures. Lots of undemocratic states that are nonetheless successful cultures.

[durutti]

44. Incorrect

For over 99 percent of our existence as a species, we lived in a state of primitive communism. This proves that socialism doesn't conflict with human nature.

You misunderstand. None of these countries even tried to be communist. Most of them were recently liberated colonies that needed Soviet sponsorship to survive. The national bourgeoisie simply placed itself at the helm of the state, which was in practice a giant corporation.

The problem with all of these states is that they followed the tenets of Stalinism, which is an utter distortion of the ideas of Marx and Lenin.

[forgethell]

46. No we didn't

Look at the chimpanzees. the strong take from the weak, rape the females, murder strangers, steal from each other, try to have sex with the top chimpanzee's chimpanzee women. If they had our brains, and their brawn, we might be extinct, like the Neandertals. Who extincted them anyway, do you suppose?

When nobody has any wealth, it's easy to look at them and say, ah, a primitive communist society. That's beccause 0=0, always. And that's where communism leads.

[lynndew2]

43. It works for bees...but it will never work for beings that have free will

There will always be people who will want more and will go to whatever extent it takes to get it....end of lennons Imagine...enter reality.

[Cheswick2.0]

50. marx was an idiot because

he thought up a system that could only succeed if people were robots.
Everywhere communism has been tried it has been a disaster. Should we keep trying and subject millions more people to misery because you have some need to hang on to a dead idea?

[mlawson]

22. 'Pure Communism' has never been tried by a state.

What you are referring to are/were SOCIALIST states (all factors of production state-owned), many of which were kept in power by brutal military dictatorships. 'Pure communism' would not even require a state; it was a term used to describe some Utopian situation in which each person (worker) is able to work at the type of occupation that best suits his/her ability. Sort of an idealistic throwback to the time before the Industrial Revolution.

[mkregel]

36. Pol Pot's Cambodia, China's Great Leap Forward....

And the results were disasterous.

Socialism, Distributism...there might be some hope in those.

To be honest I'm sick of all 'isms'. Ideology over nature will never work.

[durutti]

41. Neither Socialism Nor Communism

Socialism has nothing to do (necessarily) with state control of the means of production and exchange.

Socialism involves workers' democratic control over the means of production and exchange, whether nationalized or no. There is nothing inherently progressive about nationalization.

Socialism has not existed anywhere, because socialism must necessarily be international. There have existed workers' states in embryonic form, particularly during the first few years of the Bolshevik revolution and during the Spanish Civil War.

In these countries, workers gained direct, democratic control of their workplaces and planned production via democratically-elected workers' councils.

Socialism is a much more pure, participatory form of democracy than liberal capitalism.

[mitchum]

38. Well, why don't you dispute it?

Oh, that's right...

[durutti]

39. Wrong

If you truly understood Marx, you'd realize that what these countries had wasn't nearly communism.

What these countries had would be more accurately described as state-capitalism. In these countries, one giant corporation (the state) monopolized all the means of production and exchange. Marx's critique of capitalism applies equally well to (big-C) Communist states.

In a truly socialist state, workers would control the means of production and exchange via direct democracy. Production would also be planned democratically, by means of workers'/consumers' councils.

[forgethell]

47. Whoa, there

So the production is planned by the worker's councils. OK, great. do the consumers have councils that will buy the production. Will anybody want it, or does it sit in warehouses?

[CanuckAmok]

53. Communism failed in part due to...

Communist states being forced to participate in a global economy. Unfortunately, Communism needs to be universal in order for it to work (I say "unfortunately" not because I'm against it, but because it'll never happen).

[FlashHarry]

2. One minor problem with Communsim:

Human nature.

[displacedtexan]

3. and greed

n/t

[FlashHarry]

8. Which is the nature of humans!

Do I sound cynical? Nah!

[arcane1]

4. which is, interestingly enough..

the same problem with democracy..

by the way, ARE we inally a democracy?

if so, when exactly did we become one...?

:shrug:

[Sean Reynolds]

5. Sadly.

But that doesn't mean people must refute using the same crap I've heard over and over for the last __years.

[CanuckAmok]

54. Don Quixote...

You have to understand, that 99% of the people you talk to about Communism (including myself) don't have a real grasp of what it means. Communism is fundamentally anti-American in nature. If you don't think the entire western world hasn't ben indoctinated into an anti-Communist (and, often, anti-Socialist) ideology--no, 'religion', then you are the deluded one. Popular Western culture is a 24 hour a day pro-Capitalist, anti-Communist advertisement, from MTV to Depends. Of course most people aren't going to even want to understand your point of view; it compromises our entire values system.

[Christian73]

7. What we call "human nature"

is all too often human habit.

Communism can work but not with people only looking out for numero uno.

It would also require more time to reflect on the issues of the day than a capitalist system allows.

Also, communism didn't "fail" in 61 countries. In many it was destroyed by insurgent forces, such as the US, the World Bank and the IMF.

[FlashHarry]

11. Looking out for 'numero uno'

Is the prime directive of all animals. I'm afraid you're going against several hundred million years of evolution there.

[Kellanved]

15. Hmm

In Capitalism Humans feed on Humans; in Communism the roles are reversed.

[LoZoccolo]

16. It's actually more than that.

I would argue that it starts to fall apart in the fact that people have to steel themselves so much and give up so much of their autonomy to start a revolution, and then after that revolution keep it up to prevent a counter-revolution, that the whole thing becomes way anti-democratic. You have to commit to such a huge plan and the nation as a whole has to make such huge decisions about it's direction, and if someone has a different idea, well, there's so much invested in the plan as it's going at the time that the dissenter has to be dealt with. Even differences in how things should be administered are labeled as counter-revolutionary. Next time you're at a protest, try sincerely disagreeing with some of these people about something - even a practical question - and see what it gets you. You might just get told that if you don't want change the same way that their vanguard party does, well, you just must not really want change. What it tells /me/ is that I don't want them in charge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the falling out between Trotsky and Stalin was about the course of things...and look how that ended up.

[LoZoccolo]

24. I forgot to add this might be why...

...socialist countries where change is taken on gradually...say like in northern Europe and Canada (and I'd actually argue that the US is an early socialist country with the New Deal - of course by it's nature it's a matter of degree), tend to preserve democracy much better.

[durutti]

45. How original!

We haven't heard this argument before!

Nevermind the fact that humans lived cooperatively for over 99 percent of the time they've existed. Nevermind the fact that almost all animals share when there exists abundance. Nevermind the fact that workers' control was successfully established in Spain and Russia before both revolutions were put down with U.S. assistance. It's against human nature!

[Cheswick2.0]

51. "humans lived cooperatively for over 99 percent of the time they've exist"

I do not buy that at all.

[Padraig18]

6. I'm sorry, mate!

Sadly, you've picked one of the most fucked-up political philosophies of all time to defend; it will ALWAYS fail because of its erroneous assumptions about human nature.

[NaMeaHou]

10. Communism could have had a chance if

there was some INDIVIDUAL incentive built in. There has to be that, or no one will truly give a shit what comes out the other end of the grinder.

From each......to each..........sounds great, but there has to be incentive for the "froms" to, without a fight, hand over to the "each." The experiment was tried for decades without success. I don't believe China is even communist. I think of it as a huge fascist country that wants the spoils of capitalism.

We are all victims of the times we live in, and face it, worldwide, everyone wants in on capitalism and corporatism because it has been sold (propaganda) as the answer to everything.

Maybe people in the future will have a differing viewpoint, but it isn't going to happen for quite some time.

[durutti]

49. A Note on Terms

Communism is an idealized state, one that, by the admission of many Marxists, may never exist.

Marx saw history as being made up of class struggle. Class struggle in each kind of society culminated in revolutions.

Under feudalism, city-dwelling merchants and bankers began to resent the aristocracy. So they led a revolution against feudalism, establishing modern capitalist society. These bourgeoisie were and are the capitalist class, the new ruling class.

Under capitalism, a new working class is created. Members of this class don't own enough capital to live off, so they have to work for capitalists in order to survive. This class is supposed to provide the momentum for the next revolution, which is intended to destroy capitalism and replace it with something more favorable to itself.

This workers' state will be a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat. In Marx's time, dictatorship simply meant government -- any form of government. Marx was a proponent of direct democracy. Since the working class is the majority in all advanced capitalist countries, a democracy is the natural form for their governance to take.

Socialism hasn't been established until there are workers' states everywhere. Socialism isn't "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work".

People would be paid according to quality and quantity of work, just as they are now. The difference is that workers would control their workplaces through direct democracy. Managers, where necessary, would be elected. Workers would elect delegates to councils that would govern the country's affairs. These delegates would be instantly recallable.

Production would be determined by consumers' councils. One possible way in which this could be done: workers would get a certain amount of consumption rights according to the quality and quantity of their work. They could request, via a consumers' council, whatever they wanted, provided their consumption rights permitted it. A worker could also request more than would normally be allowd by his or her consumption rights; but the past this point, the decision whether or not to grant this request would be left to a vote of the consumers' council.

Socialism is supposed to be a bridge from capitalist to communist society. The theory is that under socialism, work becomes more enjoyable and production increases to a level in which there is great abundance. It's then no longer necessary to reward consumption rights, and the maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" becomes a reality.

Thus, classes disappear, and with them, money, property, and the state altogether. Obviously, "Communist" countries all had money, property, a state, and a class of bureaucratic state-capitalists.

[DrWeird]

12. People think Red Dawn was a historical documentary.

You can't discuss economic theory with people who think communists were behind the attempted metric conversion back in the seventies.

Read Pratchett's "Interesting Times" or "Night Watch" for an actually decent criticism of communism, from the unlikeliest of places.

[Coyul]

37. Holy SHIT!

I thought I was the only one to get Pratchett's back-handed attempt to portray the flaws of a communist, "patrical" system. Amazing, glad to know I am not insane, or if I am, at least I am not alone. Now for one of C.M.O.T Dibblers Meat Pies!

Oh, hey "The Truth" by Pratchett shows some of the same metaphors!

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. Feudalism is much more profitable for the affluent voting class

Plus it empowers the American working classes to work for a globally competitive wage instead of being locked into artificial attempts to regulate the free market which discourage investment.

[cprise]

14. A society where either self-interest or selflessness is the rule

...is its own worst enemy.

I need healthy doses of both individualism and social responsiblity in my life. Anything else is a recipie for Suck.

[Redclydesider]

17. communism

Out of everybody i know who has ever lived in a communist state, not one has ever expressed a desire to live in one again, for me this says it all.

[mlawson]

19. There have been no 'communist states', only totalitarian

socialist ones. The USSR was socialist, with a very brutal military dictatorship. They called themselves 'communist', but that wasn't true.

The only examples I can give you for 'pure communism' would be a few communes back in the 1970s.

[Redclydesider]

20. communes

eek, if communes is the idea of utopia, ill give it a miss, im sorry if its not eglatarian, my first concern is my wife and kids, then my family, then my friends, neoghbours, then the general population, its human nature.

[mlawson]

23. They weren't suitable for most people.

I suppose that is why the idea never caught on, large scale.

[Character Assassin]

18. Well then, stop defending it if you're sick of doing so. Duh.

Glad we could have this little chat.

[qwaszx]

25. Hate Communism and socialism

I've lived in both situations and they both SUCK. I speak from experience. Communism sucks your life out from your soul and socialism sucks your wallet clean. Then in return you get mediocre junk back in return including healthcare, social services that you uyou will have to rely on because you have no money of your own anymore. But they both oppress the human dignaty, their strive to do better and make something of themselves because they think the '' party will take care of them. Well, communism takes everything you ever owned and so-called distributes it among everyone, yeah right. And then they brainwash you. That's a LOT of fun. Socialism just stinks. I lived both .. I prefer this. And I have a high regard for this country, with all her flaws, she's the best. No one has to escape from here, but they sure did from communism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. So exactly WHICH countries did you live in?

It makes a difference.

[CanuckAmok]

55. Yes, I'm curious, too... n/t

[DBoon]

21. Libertarian Socialism

There is a strong thread of anti-authoritarian socialism that does not get any press.

"The Soul of Man Under Socialism" by Oscar Wilde and some of the more astute Anarchist thinkers are a good place to look for this.


Also I have heard a very good argument that the true heirs to Marx are the west European Social Democrats - not the Russian Bolsheviks.

Engels was part of the founding of the German SDP, for example.

Marx saw socialism as starting in the more advanced economies, not a place like Russia.

I would argue that Marx was about social democracy, not some brutal state-run economy in a backward peasant country.

[La_Serpiente]

26. One thing I liked about the USSR

was that it banned discrimination in its constitution. No wonder many blacks and minorities were inspired by it. The legacy of racism wasn't really that bad in Russias oppose to the US. However, Stalin did kill a lot of Jews.

But he was just an fucking asshole.

I think when Marx created Communism, he didn't expect or want it to become extremely militarized. That was the downfall of USSR.

[mlawson]

28. Marx' version of communism could not have involved

a military dictatorship, because he invisioned the withering away of the state as no longer necessary (to defend the properties of the capitalists). Strangely, he had very little to say about the system that would follow the downfall of capitalism; his books were mostly biting, unforgiving analyses of that system. He never set foot in Russia, and when he died (1883), Lenin and Stalin were only children.

[forgethell]

33. Don't forget the genocide

by starvation of the Ukrainians

[davidinalameda]

27. communism is fine in theory

but in practice, it's never succeeded

I'm all in favor of people living together and working for the common good, but like y'all have said--greed tends to get in the way

communism can work for small groups but not as a governmental system

[mlawson]

29. It was never meant to involve governmental systems.

That is socialism, a very diferent thing.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. I'd suggest...

you stop defending it.

I'm not saying Communism is right or wrong, just that pretty much any discussion of it is fruitless.

You may continue to believe, but, quite frankly, no one else is interested. Any radical change or theory only begins to take hold when the current situation is breaking down. Not only haven't we broken down yet, but thanks to the Bolsheviks and Mao, true Communism never had a chance to see if it would work or not.

And got a really, really bad name under Stalin.

If we have another 30's style meltdown, people may be inclined to listen again.

I'm not saying I'd buy into it, but I would like to see some serious alternatives to our current system proposed, if for no other reason than to give us some perspective.

[HEyHEY]

31. I just like the freedom to sell something if I want

I don't want to be part of one collective group.

[mkregel]

35. OK...I'll take a stab

Are you arguing that there would be a humane way to influence the huge cities we live in to move out of our homes, and into the country side to work for the same pay in factories and the fields?

Socialism - yes I can see the point of that. But Communism was a solution that may have been sucessful at the time of the Industrial revolution, but that window has long since passed.

[nomaco-10]

40. Lovely, just lovely....

"Fuck it! I'm done. I'll still believe in communism in my heart, but am sick of debating with people that can't even educate themselves in this matter."
Democracy still works, it's just out of favor because of bushco, don't go off the deep end and say stupid shit you really don't mean.
You're either a freeper or you found one of those anti-christ, anarchist sites, my advice to you, find you a good dem candidate and throw your lot in with them, the world is not going to hell in a hand basket tomorrow, get a grip.

[Shanty Oilish]

42. Who've you been talking to---historians?

Everybody knows history never repeats itself.

[FDRrocks]

48. Well...

keep being belligerent. Right now, in America, we have corporatism. That is, we don't give a shit about other people, but if a poor large corporation is hurting we'll go out of our way to help them. It's socialism for the rich!

I know Communism has never been truely practiced (although, I wonder about the Paris Communes), but you should still argue for it! Why? Because we need a bit of Socialism/Communism in our society, namely the focus on helping other people and raising the standard of living.

USSR was not Socialist at all, nor Communist. As was stated earlier on this thread Marx envisioned the Communist state coming from a state that was wealthy off of Capitalism (whereas he put too much faith in human nature, he also put too much faith in Capitalism), which was not done by Lenin. Lenin tried to establish a Socialist state with a strong central government (which made it non-Communist, I suppose), but any inkling of what you could call a 'Socialist state" disappeared when Lenin started the NEP. And any inkling of 'democracy' ended when that POS BASTARD Stalin got in. RIP Leon 'Pen' Trotsky.

[Festivito]

52. Perhaps your feelings are as impenetrable as theirs.

Are you looking for truth, or looking to control others, persuade others, assimilate others?

When they end by blanketing your ideas as evil, do you accept them as individuals with the right to believe as they wish, or are they just wrong in your eyes? Do you have the right to believe as you wish?

We cannot even agree on what is Democracy while in one. There is no perfect democracy, and Florida should should scare us into that knowledge. For some instead of voting, the leader of a "''""real""''" democracy would be picked at random from the citizens at large by lottery, each citizen should be so equal in knowledge, power, wealth, and might. Yeah, right!

There is no perfect democracy, communism, socialism, capitalism, corporatism, nor totalitarianism. Take our capitalism, we regulate the actions of the investors: how they pollute, how they trade, the advertising, the quality, ... with rules enforced by our society, enacted by social contract in a Constitution.

Sean, your an asset on this board, I'm not schooled in political systems, and I'm not writing a thesis, I just hope your frustration will dissapate.

[qwaszx]

56. I lived in ...

Hungary, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, England. Someone said it makes a difference in what countires you lived in ... well it doesn't. They're all the same when it comes to communism and socialism. I know a family who escaped from Nazi Germany and went to live in Toronto. After many years they owned a hospital and built it up to a grand place. Canada turned socialist and they lost their hospital they worked so hard all their lives to build up. Ain't that nice? Any of you who've never lived under those regimes have NO IDEA what life is like in counties like that. And I'm looking at the U.S. and I see strong signs of socialism sticking it's leather-booted foot in our doorway.