Communism

[ValentinClarke]

What is it? Is it about nationaling stuff rather thn privatising it.

[Vlerchan]

What is it? Is it about nationaling stuff rather thn privatising it.
No, that's socialism.

In its end-form communism would be a classless, stateless society, where individuals would be free to form up in interlinked communes or co-operative communities which would then operate on the principal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Of course, the theory is somewhat more complicated than that but I presume you get the general picture.

[ValentinClarke]

Is socialism bad? Because i think i may be a socialist. I dont really understand

Its about everyone being equal. Everyone being paid the same. Everyone gets the same tax. And th government distributes everythibgm

Merged. -Albert/Hypers

[Vlerchan]

Is socialism bad?
That is sonething that you yourself need to decide.

I wouldn't believe so, though.

Because i think i may be a socialist
Well, what are your views? I'll be able to give a more accurate answer depending on the level of detail in this response.

[Gamma Male]

No private propety, all for one, one for all, everything goes toward the greater good, everyone is equal...etc

Personally I think it's an extremely unrealistic system that would never work. Anarcho-Communism/ Libertarian Socalism wouldn't work because without a strong central goverment people wouldn't just share and get along. It would devolve into warring tribes and city states in no time.

Authoritarian Communism with a strong, big government presence wouldn't work because eventually corruption and oppression of the working class(The very opposite thing communism strives to achieve) would eventually occur. No government is capable of having THAT much power without going bad.

[ninja789]

Socialism is not necessarily bad but some feel that it is just a way of the weak surviving by being lazy compared to some other ideas where supposedly if you work hard enough you can achieve anything

A lot of the US seems to have a downer on socialism but no idea where that comes from. I think in second year over here my teacher told us it was because how many dont want themselves to even be slightly comparable to communism and a lot of people get communism and socialism mixed up.

[Vlerchan]

No private propety[1] [....] everyone is equal...[2]etc
[1]: Yes. As long as we are clear to distinguish between private property and personal property here, because they are not the same.

[2]: Marx himself denounced this as an impossibility.

Anarcho-Communism/ Libertarian Socalism wouldn't work because with a strong central goverment people wouldn't just share and get along. It would devolve into warring tribes and city states in no time.
Whilst there's a valid basis for your fears I don't share them: history has demonstrated that there is no need for a central authority to exist in order to a) define morality, and b) act as a mediator in disputes. Though, in communism there's no reason why accountable councils of workers and/or peasants couldn't perform this function on a hyper-localized scale anyway.

Authoritarian Communism with a strong, big government presence
This, by the definition of what communism actually is, wouldn't be communism.

[Gamma Male]

Just to clarify:
Socalism: an economic theory. Retains respect for private propety and in some cases even allows privatized small businesses to exist while publicizing infrastructure and natural resources. Very heavy taxes on the rich and not as heavy, but still big, taxes on the poor but provides a big safety net and free healthcare, education, and foodstamps and welfare for the poor. Very concerned with ensuring everyone has a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of high taxes.

Communism: A system of government in which there is no private property or or business, and everything goes toward the greater good of the state. Worker councils and unions decide how to run factories and infrastructure(in theory)

[Vlerchan]

Just to clarify:
Socalism: an economic theory. Retains respect for private propety and in some cases even allows privatized small businesses to exist while publicizing infrastructure and natural resources. Very heavy taxes on the rich and not as heavy, but still big, taxes on the poor but provides a big safety net and free healthcare, education, and foodstamps and welfare for the poor. Very concerned with ensuring everyone has a comfortable lifestyle at the expense of high taxes.

Communism: A system of government in which there is no private property or or business, and everything goes toward the greater good of the state. Worker councils and unions decide how to run factories and infrastructure(in theory)

Incorrect on both counts.

The first system you described is called Liberal Socialism or Social Democracy - and even then it's quite and extreme form. The second system you described is called Socialism - there is no state in communism by definition.

[Gamma Male]

[1]: Yes. As long as we are clear to distinguish between private property and personal property here, because they are not the same.

[2]: Marx himself denounced this as an impossibility.


Whilst there's a valid basis for your fears I don't share them: history has demonstrated that there is no need for a central authority to exist in order to a) define morality, and b) act as a mediator in disputes. Though, in communism there's no reason why accountable councils of workers and/or peasants couldn't perform this function on a hyper-localized scale anyway.


This, by the definition of what communism actually is, wouldn't be communism.

No, this wouldn't technically be communism but isn't this what usually happens when communism is attempted? Chairman Mao, Kim Jung Il....

And I have no doubt small decentralized government you described could occur, it's the whole income equality/ sharimg aspect I find to be unrealistic. Someone would get greedy. Someone would want to stick their hand just a little bit deeper into the pot. And when they do, conflict would occur.

[Gamma Male]

Incorrect on both counts.

The first system you described is called Liberal Socialism or Social Democracy - and even then it's quite and extreme form. The second system you described is called Socialism - there is no state in communism by definition.

Huh. Maybe you're right. I doubt I know enough to really debate you on this, but those were the definitions I had always heard.

[Vlerchan]

No, this wouldn't technically be communism but isn't this what usually happens when communism is attempted? Chairman Mao, Kim Jung Il....
China isn't socialist or communist. It's state-capatalist.

North Korea isn't socialist or communist. It is state-capatalist.

Socialism can't exist within a capatalist system, it needs to be globalist. Or so non-Stalinists argue, Stalinists would be happy to argue North Korea to be socialist.

EDIT:

I misread your question:/ I should have said: yes, attempts at communism and/or command-based economies in non-industrialized countries have quickly gone to shit.

Someone would get greedy. Someone would want to stick their hand just a little bit deeper into the pot. And when they do, conflict would occur.
There's always going to be conflict in any society, though conflict is fine as long as you have a workable mechanism to resolve/disolve it. And there's no reason why this workable-mechanism requires a state: Ireland, for example, operated non-state-mandated local courts, headed by elected mediators (generally: lawyers, teachers or priests), to resolve disputes during the revolutionary war.

[Miserabilia]

I think that in ideal communism there is complete equal power distribution, like a democry but not in a piramid form, and a perfect distribution of wealth as opposed to capitalism where wealth has extreme differences.
Ofcourse there are many different types of communism, but that is about the ideal as far as I know, it's almost impossible to achieve.

[bob97]

Communism will never work because in order to it will have to have every person work together and not be greedy or anything. It would work in a utopian society. But humans are a corrupt race and it will never work

[Vlerchan]

Communism will never work because in order to it will have to have every person work together and not be greedy or anything.
It doesn't require this. It just requires people to realise that working within the collective tends to be more beneficial overall than working each as competing individuals. Though, you're arguing on the assumption here that humans are inherently greedy, which is entirely unfounded.

[bob97]

There was a study that even kids 5 years old and younger lie. Its in out nature to better ourselves no matter what. There has never been a society that the government was never corrupt. And people dont realize that it is more effective to work together. 95% of people would rather better themselves than be even with everybody else

[bob97]

It doesn't require this. It just requires people to realise that working within the collective tends to be more beneficial overall than working each as competing individuals. Though, you're arguing on the assumption here that humans are inherently greedy, which is entirely unfounded.

Above ^^^

[Vlerchan]

There was a study that even kids 5 years old and younger lie. Its in out nature to better ourselves no matter what.
Please explain how you can't better yourself within a communist system.

Unless you think that bettering yourself materially is the only way that counts.

There has never been a society that the government was never corrupt.
There's no government in communism by definition.

Though, this is an interesting claim. Would you mind providing some form of evidence?

95% of people would rather better themselves than be even with everybody else
This is because they grew up in a system that socialised them to think this way.

And not because it's natural to the human phyche (as far as available evidence can demonstrate).

[bob97]

Please explain how you can't better yourself within a communist system.

Unless you think that bettering yourself materially is the only way that counts.


There's no government in communism by definition.

Though, this is an interesting claim. Would you mind providing some form of evidence?


This is because they grew up in a system that socialised them to think this way.

And not because it's natural to the human phyche (as far as available evidence can demonstrate).

True. But because everyone is trained in a bad system it would be next to impossible for people to change. It sucks and its true. And hold on I'll look it up. And people need some form of government to guide them.

[Vlerchan]

But because everyone is trained in a bad system it would be next to impossible for people to change.
That's why Marxists don't propose an immediate transition to communism - the transition phase being known as socialism. They don't kid themselves that once the revolution ends people are going to start suddenly thinking different about property-relations and social-relations-in-general: most people would still live their lives incredibly similar as to how they live them under capitalism, but just under new management. It would take generations for ideas regarding relations to property, etc. to change, and Marxists accept this.

I can link to some writings by Marxists on this topic in the morning: I'm just too tired to go scouring through marxist.org for them now.

And people need some form of government to guide them.
Why?

[bob97]

That's why Marxists don't propose an immediate transition to communism - the transition phase being known as socialism. They don't kid themselves that once the revolution ends people are going to start suddenly thinking different about property-relations and social-relations-in-general: most people would still live their lives incredibly similar as to how they live them under capitalism, but just under new management. It would take generations for ideas regarding relations to property, etc. to change, and Marxists accept this.

I can link to some writings by Marxists on this topic in the morning: I'm just too tired to go scouring through marxist.org for them now.


Why?

I'll go look. I have nothing else to do. And I suppose you could be right but I just don't find it realistic. Its a great idea but only and idea. And because government started for a reason. Since humans existed their have been leaders, and followers. I just feel like its common sense. Maybe I'm crazy

[Vlerchan]

Its a great idea but only and idea.
Democracy and Capitalism were once also 'only an idea'.

Since humans existed their have been leaders, and followers.
I see no reason why leadership must hold a formal position of power in order for it to be considered leadership.

Would you consider MLK to have been a leader? for example.

[bob97]

Democracy and Capitalism were once also 'only an idea'.


I see no reason why leadership must hold a formal position of power in order for it to be considered leadership.

Would you consider MLK to have been a leader? for example.

I suppose I suppose. And maybe not a formal leader but communism doesn't want any leadership, formal or otherwise. And definitely. He led the civil rights movement and was the leader of some civil rights groups. He organized and all that

[Vlerchan]

And maybe not a formal leader but communism doesn't want any leadership, formal or otherwise.
I've never read this in any writing written by any Marxist, ever.

[bob97]

I've never read this in any writing written by any Marxist, ever.

Ok ok. I might be wrong. I'm not going to claim I'm an expert on it. But I am pretty smart and based off of the past I feel like it will never happen. I wish it could but it won't. Maybe I'm just a negative person

[Stronk Serb]

Ok ok. I might be wrong. I'm not going to claim I'm an expert on it. But I am pretty smart and based off of the past I feel like it will never happen. I wish it could but it won't. Maybe I'm just a negative person

Well, the reason the October Revolution failed so badly is because most world powers wanted to stop the spread of communism. The countries trying desperately to stop it are:

Allied Intervention
British Empire
Empire of Japan
Czechoslovakia
Greece
United States
France
Serbia
Romania
Italy
China
Newly emerged republics
Poland
Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Ukraine
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Mountain Republic
Don Republic
Kuban People's Republic
Pro-German armies
German Empire
Landeswehr
Freikorps
West Russian Volunteer Army
Other factions
Green armies (from 1919)
Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (1920–21)
Kronstadt
Left SR (from March 1918)
Basmachi
Bukhara
Khiva
Ottoman Empire
Mongolia


Now, there are some countries whose impact didn't do anything, but when you look at France, Germany, the UK, the US, Japan... There was some serious pressure on the communists.

[Vlerchan]

But I am pretty smart and based off of the past I feel like it will never happen. I wish it could but it won't.
I personally feel that it's inevitable: perpetual growth indefinitely just isn't sustainable.