Why Communism is Wrong.

[JoeMorgue]

Communism bad.

Now what?

Well I mean people could stop going "Real communism has never really been tried, let's try it again" every generation or so.

The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more no less. That fact that Capitalism is at... let's be charitable here and say "A low point" doesn't mean we should be looking at Communism with renewed interest.

And yes that is happening on the margins.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Real Communism hasn't ever been tried, but I would argue that's because it is impossible once you scale up past a handful of people.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Real Communism hasn't ever been tried, but I would argue that's because it is impossible once you scale up past a handful of people.

Communism is a social construct, not a natural law. There's no "real" version of it.

This vexxes about so much political discourse. Social/political/economic spectrums aren't real things that actually exist in the same way that things like the electromagnetic spectrum exists. They are useful terms but there is no "more real" or "more pure" version of any of them.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Communism is a social construct, not a natural law. There's no "real" version of it.

This vexxes about so much political discourse. Social/political/economic spectrums aren't real things that actually exist like the electromagnetic spectrum. There is no "more real" or "more pure" version of any of them.

...Yes there is.

Words have meanings. You can't just claim that something is Communism when it doesn't display the attributes of the Socio-Economic theory proposed by Marx and Engels.

If I claimed to be conservative but actually implemented a socio-economic policy that was very much the antithesis of conservatism then I would not be a real conservative no matter how much I shout about how conservative I am.

There's more wiggle room with social constructs than with scientific laws, but there exists definitions and boundaries. You yourself have argued this very thing in several political threads where you talk about how you will only accept that a person is what they act like not what they say they are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Words have meanings. You can't just claim that something is Communism when it doesn't display the attributes of the Socio-Economic theory proposed by Marx and Engels.

Which is why I keep saying it's 2021 and us acting like we still have to use terms created/codified during the 1800s is stupid.

China isn't Communist the way Marx meant it. America isn't Capitalist in the way Blanc meant it. Venezuela isn't Socialist in the way Leroux mean it. Somalia isn't Anarchist in the way Proudhon meant it.

None of which would be a major issue if the fandoms for these political theories don't treat "pure" versions of their ideologies as inherently better. Social-Economic-Political systems is the one place where "Cause Purity" is absolute poison.

"Capitalism with a Socialist Safety net" isn't a less pure methodology just because it doesn't have a one-word definition.

 

[autumn1971]

Unregulated Capitalism can be indistinguishable from Feudalism, which is bad as well. Properly regulated Capitalism works better than anything else we know about.

The main problem I see these days is that there is a large segment of the population that believes it when they are told that these essential regulations are "a path to communism" when in fact they are really a path to "Capitalism functioning as intended. "

I’m reminded of people who cite Adam Smith without ever having read a word. Capitalism can only function with robust government regulation

 

[JoeMorgue]

I’m reminded of people who cite Adam Smith without ever having read a word. Capitalism can only function with robust government regulation

It's also why if you get a critic of it to describe Libertarianism they will always, always just straight up describe Anarchy.

That's my point. Having a failsafe/balance of power/whatever you want to call it does not make a system less pure or some less distilled version of itself.

 

[autumn1971]

It's also why if you get a critic of it to describe Libertarianism they will always, always just straight up describe Anarchy.

That's my point. Having a failsafe/balance of power/whatever you want to call it does not make a system less pure or some less distilled version of itself.

Yup

Humans are messy.

I call myself a socialist, (admittedly to trigger the audience,) but it doesn’t mean what it did in Eastern Europe in 1877.

I love free markets, but I also think that some services should be provided by governments of various sizes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The fastest, highest performance sports cars also have the best brakes. This does not make a paradox.

The same is true of social-economic-political systems, I would argue.

 

[Cainkane1]

Communism or Socialism is wrong because it tries to make everyone equal. We should all be equal under the law but when it comes to intellect, looks, drive friendship, love all men are not equal.

An educated person or a skilled person should expect to get a higher salary than an under educated or unskilled person. Its that simple.

Garbage collectors may be cool but do they deserve the same salary as a medical doctor?

 

[Belz...]

The fastest, highest performance sports cars also have the best brakes. This does not make a paradox.

I do love me a car analogy. Thank you.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The fastest, highest performance sports cars also have the best brakes. This does not make a paradox.

The same is true of social-economic-political systems, I would argue.

Ettore Bugatti would disagree. He built really fast cars with terrible brakes. "I build my cars to go, not to stop".

 

[lomiller]

Communism is a social construct, not a natural law. There's no "real" version of it.

This doesn't mean you can get away with pointing at anything\everything and calling it communism. North Korea calls itself a republic. It isn't. It also calls itself communist and there is a good argument to be made that it isn't that either.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Every time I see this thread's title I imagine some old-time Southern belle with a shocked look of sudden realisation: "Why, Communism is wrong!"

Just me? Maybe not any more.

 

[lomiller]

It's also why if you get a critic of it to describe Libertarianism they will always, always just straight up describe Anarchy.

That's my point. Having a failsafe/balance of power/whatever you want to call it does not make a system less pure or some less distilled version of itself.

The reason Libertarianism is directly comparable to Anarchy is that you can't get them to engage in debate on what level of regulation is actually required. When you do so their answer invariably amounts "less" but they won't say less than what. "Less" therefor becomes indistinguishable from none.

It's equally difficult starting from the other side and getting them to explain how starting with a society in anarchy, what regulations you would need to get to a libertarian ideal. Sometimes they will tell you things that are needed but can't explain how those would come about nor how those things alone would fix the problems.

In practice I think that if you gave libertarians free reign to implement their ideal society you'd end up with some approximation of a feudal system, and possibly a feudal monarchy at some point down the road.

 

[Lplus]

Which is why I keep saying it's 2021 and us acting like we still have to use terms created/codified during the 1800s is stupid.

China isn't Communist the way Marx meant it. America isn't Capitalist in the way Blanc meant it. Venezuela isn't Socialist in the way Leroux mean it. Somalia isn't Anarchist in the way Proudhon meant it.

None of which would be a major issue if the fandoms for these political theories don't treat "pure" versions of their ideologies as inherently better. Social-Economic-Political systems is the one place where "Cause Purity" is absolute poison.

"Capitalism with a Socialist Safety net" isn't a less pure methodology just because it doesn't have a one-word definition.

That would be Capitalism with a Welfare Safety net. Providing a safety net should be a government responsibility, but has nothing to do with owning the means of production distribution and exchange.

 

[Shalamar]

Communism or Socialism is wrong because it tries to make everyone equal. We should all be equal under the law but when it comes to intellect, looks, drive friendship, love all men are not equal.

An educated person or a skilled person should expect to get a higher salary than an under educated or unskilled person. Its that simple.

Garbage collectors may be cool but do they deserve the same salary as a medical doctor?

Communism says: Everyone is equal. Everyone gets paid the same regardless of intellect or skill.

Socialism says: Everyone is not equal. We should help those who are disadvantaged so that people don't live in abject poverty.

Capitalism says: **** you! I've got mine!

 

[RolandRat]

Communism or Socialism is wrong because it tries to make everyone equal. We should all be equal under the law but when it comes to intellect, looks, drive friendship, love all men are not equal.

An educated person or a skilled person should expect to get a higher salary than an under educated or unskilled person. Its that simple.

Garbage collectors may be cool but do they deserve the same salary as a medical doctor?

Communism/socialism tries to make everyone equal in intellect, looks, and love?

 

[lomiller]

Communism or Socialism is wrong because it tries to make everyone equal.

Communism does, but that's not really a position of Socialism. Social democracy (which is neither socialism nor communism) typically believes in delivering some degree of equality of opportunity by providing a minimum level of access to education, justice, etc.

An educated person or a skilled person should expect to get a higher salary than an under educated or unskilled person. Its that simple.

If there were a country where women got more education but men made more money would that say about the level of equality provided?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The reason Libertarianism is directly comparable to Anarchy is that you can't get them to engage in debate on what level of regulation is actually required.

Okay. Go find me a Socialist to explain where the "government safety net" stops. Same thing.