Split Thread What is Communism

[theprestige]

Nope. Communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Hard to have a dictatorship-anarchy.

That's Marx's ideal communism, a utopia that is supposed to emerge naturally from late-stage capitalism as the next level of human society. It's pretty clear that's never going to happen.

Oh look, a bundle of straw.

He says, trying to defend communism's honor.

This seems to be a rather big contradiction. The people in charge of the USSR, etc. were communists, but communism will never emerge? It's as if you know communism and the 'communist' regimes in reality are two different things and are just being a pizza cutter.

It's not a contradiction at all. My point is that trying to force communism via revolution requires a totalitarian dictatorship. Because you're forcing it on people. That's what Lenin, Mao, et al. had to do. It didn't produce true communism, because true communism was always a fantasy. But it did produce horrible dictatorships in the name of trying to make communism happen.

Real communism has never been tried, because it's not that kind of thing. Revolutionary communism has been tried several times, with predictably disastrous results. That's why I say that to be a revolutionary communist is to desire a totalitarian dictatorship, by which means you hope to force society into the form prophesied by Marx.

I haven't said a single positive thing about communism all thread.

No, you just don't like it when anyone else says anything negative about communism.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. Communism is a classless, moneyless, and stateless society. Hard to have a dictatorship-anarchy.

Communism is what communists do. This might describe an ideal, but it's never what they actually achieve. Real-world communism, not academic fantasy communism, looks nothing like that.

 

[RolandRat]

Communism is what communists do. This might describe an ideal, but it's never what they actually achieve. Real-world communism, not academic fantasy communism, looks nothing like that.

Then it isn't communism, is it? Communism is defined. If a country is making no steps towards endgame communism, or is actually reversing to increase the power and intrusiveness of the state, then it literally is not communism. Just because some leaders use communism as a vehicle to get into power, this doesn't make them actual communists.

 

[theprestige]

Then it isn't communism, is it? Communism is defined. If a country is making no steps towards endgame communism, or is actually reversing to increase the power and intrusiveness of the state, then it literally is not communism. Just because some leaders use communism as a vehicle to get into power, this doesn't make them actual communists.

Revolutionary communism isn't what Marx envisioned, but it is what's been tried. It's been tried several times, and resulted in murderous dictatorships every time.

So I don't buy the excuse that communism hasn't been tried. It has been tried, by narcissistic sociopaths who imagine they can force it on whole societies for their own good.

 

[sinnikal]

Kerala?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

State -run economies are not limited to Communism, and any attempt to conflate the two is intellectually dishonest.

Depending on your definitions and scope, a communist society would not be Centrally administered

 

[theprestige]

State -run economies are not limited to Communism, and any attempt to conflate the two is intellectually dishonest.

Depending on your definitions and scope, a communist society would not be Centrally administered

Are you talking about Marxist Communism, or Revolutionary Communism?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then it isn't communism, is it? Communism is defined.

The practical definition of communism is what communists do. I don't care that there exists an alternate definition that no one has achieved because it's idealistic hogwash.

Just because some leaders use communism as a vehicle to get into power, this doesn't make them actual communists.

Except that's what they ALL do. It's not a one-off. You're basically engaging in a no true Scottsman fallacy, except a version where there are no Scottsmen at all.

 

[dann]

Revolutionary communism isn't what Marx envisioned, but it is what's been tried. It's been tried several times, and resulted in murderous dictatorships every time.

You are probably thinking of Russia, but do we have to repeat that Stalin's favorite murder victims were communists?

So I don't buy the excuse that communism hasn't been tried. It has been tried, by narcissistic sociopaths who imagine they can force it on whole societies for their own good.

Forcing his narcissistic sociopathic rule on whole societies, domestically and in foreign affairs, was not just what Stalin did. It's what's currently being done in the USA by Trump and his cronies.
The only place I can think of where it has been and is still being tried is Cuba, which was never a murderous dictatorship run by narcissistic sociopaths, no matter how much U.S. narcissistic sociopathic politicians have tried to portray them that way.

 

[dann]

Kerala?

I know nothing about Kerala, but it doesn't sound bad for a Third World country.
From the (very short!) Wikipedia article in Danish:

Kerala became a state on Nov 1, 1956, under the States Reorganisation Act. Social reforms of the late 19th century, expanded by post-independence governments, have made Kerala one of the leading regions in the Third World in terms of life expectancy, public health and education. However, Kerala has one of the highest suicide and unemployment rates in India.

As for the suicide rate, Kerala's is the fifth highest, and Google AI summarizes:

Contextual Factors
Mental health experts often point out that Kerala’s unusually high figures may not mean individuals are more prone to distress than in other regions. Instead, the state's high literacy and robust reporting systems ensure that unnatural deaths are much more accurately documented and classified.

 

[theprestige]

You are probably thinking of Russia, but do we have to repeat that Stalin's favorite murder victims were communists?

I'm thinking of every place that Revolutionary Communism has been tried. And yes, revolutionary communists are well known for infighting. It's a necessary part of forcing an ideology on a populace.

Forcing his narcissistic sociopathic rule on whole societies, domestically and in foreign affairs, was not just what Stalin did. It's what's currently being done in the USA by Trump and his cronies.

And there it is. But I wasn't even talking about Stalin. I was talking about Lenin, and Mao, and Guevara, and Pot.

The only place I can think of where it has been and is still being tried is Cuba, which was never a murderous dictatorship run by narcissistic sociopaths, no matter how much U.S. narcissistic sociopathic politicians have tried to portray them that way.

Are you in favor of revolutionary communism? Do you think Lenin and Mao had the right idea, of trying to make communism happen by force, instead of waiting for it to emerge naturally as Marx predicted?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you in favor of revolutionary communism? Do you think Lenin and Mao had the right idea, of trying to make communism happen by force, instead of waiting for it to emerge naturally as Marx predicted?

It never emerges naturally. Marx was simply wrong about that. So in the real world, all we're ever left with is the revolutionary communists who act by force and produce mass slaughter and oppression, and then get excused as not being "real" communists. But they're the only real ones. Marx is only a hypothetical communist.

 

[theprestige]

It never emerges naturally. Marx was simply wrong about that. So in the real world, all we're ever left with is the revolutionary communists who act by force and produce mass slaughter and oppression, and then get excused as not being "real" communists. But they're the only real ones. Marx is only a hypothetical communist.

Exactly. I'm willing to stipulate that Stalin wasn't a revolutionary communist. But what about Lenin and Mao?

And it's disingenuous to argue that Stalin's favorite victims were communists. There weren't any other people to target, by that point. Besides, the biggest threat to ideological organizations is always from within. Schism and heresy will shatter a movement far faster than outside pressure.

ETA: Another reason to consider revolutionary communism to be the true communism is that it was inspired by Marxism. A twisted, perverted interpretation of Marxism, but a Marxist inspiration nonetheless. Revolutionary communism is an effect of communism.

---

Sometimes the flaccidity of an argument can be revealed by reversing the gender roles in the scenario being argued. I think a similar result can be obtained when discussing an ideology, by swapping out the ideology in question for another one.

If we were to declare that the Catholic Church doesn't represent real Christianity, our resident atheists would be falling all over themselves to say that it's the realest Christianity we have, and that the Bible is a fantasy anyway. They'd also be happy to recognize the symptoms of schism, heresy, inquisition, etc. that are characteristic of an ideology that's trying to maintain cohesion and its grip on power.

 

[RolandRat]

The practical definition of communism is what communists do. I don't care that there exists an alternate definition that no one has achieved because it's idealistic hogwash.

Except that's what they ALL do. It's not a one-off. You're basically engaging in a no true Scottsman fallacy, except a version where there are no Scottsmen at all.

It is not "no true Scotsman". Communism has a defined meaning. If the people claiming to be Communist do not meet that definition, they are not Communists. You seem to be saying that because someone says they are a Communist, that means they are, even if they don't follow the ideals. Is North Korea a democracy? Were the Nazis left wing Socialists?

It is entirely irrelevant what people who claim to be Communists do. That doesn't change the meaning of Communism.

 

[RolandRat]

Revolutionary communism isn't what Marx envisioned, but it is what's been tried. It's been tried several times, and resulted in murderous dictatorships every time.

So I don't buy the excuse that communism hasn't been tried. It has been tried, by narcissistic sociopaths who imagine they can force it on whole societies for their own good.

A dictatorship can be a transitional stage moving towards end game Communism. As can Socialism. If no movement is made to get to that end game, then how can they be described as Communist? I'm not advocating for Communism here, as an ideology, my opinion is it simply cannot scale up to run something the size of a country. But that doesnt change the definition of what Communism is.

 

[theprestige]

A dictatorship can be a transitional stage moving towards end game Communism. As can Socialism. If no movement is made to get to that end game, then how can they be described as Communist? I'm not advocating for Communism here, as an ideology, my opinion is it simply cannot scale up to run something the size of a country. But that doesnt change the definition of what Communism is.

Are you saying communist revolutionaries don't at least try to make progress towards utopian communism, before ultimately failing and no longer making progress?

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to be saying that because someone says they are a Communist, that means they are, even if they don't follow the ideals.

No. It's not that someone says that they're communist despite not following the ideal. It's that everyone who says that they are communists don't follow the ideal. It's a consistent pattern. And the logical conclusion of observing that pattern is that real-world communism never matches the ideal.

Do you care more about the ideal, or do you care more about the real world? Personally, I care more about the real world. And communism in the real world is always horror, misery, oppression, and death. It doesn't matter that the ideal is better than that, because the ideal is never, ever realized.

 

[Ziggurat]

A dictatorship can be a transitional stage moving towards end game Communism.

Hypothetically? Perhaps.

Has that ever happened? Nope.

Communism is what communists do.

 

[theprestige]

A dictatorship can be a transitional stage moving towards end game Communism.

Can it? According to Marxist theory, "end game Communism" emerges naturally from prevailing socioeconomic conditions, without any intermediate stage of totalitarian dictatorship.

Revolutionary communists will tell you that the dictatorship is necessary. That genocide and ethnic cleansing are all part of the transition to end game communism. That purging the revolution of dissenters and heretics must be done, in order to keep it pure and on course to a better tomorrow. And every time revolutionary communism has been tried, it has failed. Horribly. Worse than capitalism+democracy has ever failed. Worse than feudalism has failed. The only other modern socioeconomic system that has failed as hard as revolutionary communism has been fascism.

I don't disagree, that revolutionary communism isn't the idealized, fantasy communism that inspired it. But it's the real-world communism, with real-world consequences, that we're stuck with. You can say it's not real communism, but I don't that matters. Revolutionary communism is taken up by real people, who really want to force it, in the name of fantasy communism.

---

Just because God is a fairy tale and heaven is a myth, we don't say the Christians who march to the beat of those drums aren't real Christians, or that they don't practice real Christianity.

 

[dann]

Are you saying communist revolutionaries don't at least try to make progress towards utopian communism, before ultimately failing and no longer making progress?

No, communist revolutionaries stay the hell away from utopian ideas as well as from bourgeois dreams of paradise. Since you don't know what you are talking about, I recommend that you google something along the lines of: "Marx and Engels criticism of utopian socialism."
As for the end of your sentence, "before ultimately failing and no longer making progress," this is why it's of utmost importance to the conservative mindset to wage war against Cuba. A small impoverished country with free healthcare and education can't be allowed to exist. Nothing threatens the conservative mindset as much as that, so it must be destroyed.