Communism

[Tom_Aurum]

So anyways, I managed to pull a kentucky fried rant out of my bowels today, and my friend wanted to move the discussion to a new topic. Let me restate the basics here.

Communism is not a bad word.

Communism is not the same thing as dictatorship, nor the opposite of Democracy.

Communism has actually worked before. Just not in Russia. Exemplar being the Paris Commune.

Communism happens in different degrees in different states. This is known as Socialism. It even goes on in the United States, and is known most vividly in the Social Security system.

[Queeb Salaron]

::Waits for Raoul Duke Jr. to come and start explaining stuff again.::

::Nods in agreement::

[Joe]

Communism is not a bad word.

Right, once it kills another 100 million people, THEN it will be a bad word.

Communism has actually worked before. Just not in Russia. Exemplar being the Paris Commune.

Well, sure, for the FRENCH (not only that, it didn't last long). You don't want to try and show your system can work by pointing out successful examples of FRANCE applying it. Besides, even if this is true this is just the exception to the rule; you still have to account for every run-of-the-mill communist butchershop state that existed in the 20th century (some of which still exist today).

Communism happens in different degrees in different states. This is known as Socialism. It even goes on in the United States, and is known most vividly in the Social Security system.

I'm no fan of socialism, but I know for a fact that communism doesn't have a monopoly on it; I know limited socialists who would be offended if you called them communist incrementalists. Socialism does not inevitably lead to communism.

[Darth Wong]

Socialism and communism are NOT the same fucking thing!!

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

To illustrate the necessity of dictatorship to create and subsequently maintain communism on a national scale, we exerpt from Marx's Communist Manifesto itself:

"The first step on the path to the workers' revolution is the elevation of the proletariat to the position of ruling class .... The proletariat will gain from its political domination by little by little tearing away from the bourgeoisie all capital, by centralising all means of production in the hands of the State, that is to say in the hands of the proletariat itself organised as the ruling class"

As you can see, Lenin did not originate the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; he was merely rehashing one of Marx's original concepts.

Thus, I conclude that there is no difference between "real-world" communism and "true" communism -- for those who read the original material, it is no surprise to discover that Communism in its applied national-scale incarnations was precisely what it was advertised to be... minus the benefits, of course.

[Queeb Salaron]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

See? I didn't use the France example, and I talked about Socialism in modern society! I win!! I win!!!!

[Admiral Johnason]

Communism can't work in the real world anymore. It was forty years behind the times when it was introduced.

Also, no nation has ever become a truly Communistic nation. At that point, it would have anarchy.

[Joe]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

See? I didn't use the France example, and I talked about Socialism in modern society! I win!! I win!!!!

Lies. They're just convincing themselves that it's free.

[Kuroneko]

To illustrate the necessity of dictatorship to create and subsequently maintain communism on a national scale, we exerpt from Marx's Communist Manifesto itself: ....

Quoting Marx for support of a thesis on the structure of communist government, either actual or intended, is not dissimilar to quoting Aristotle for principles of mechanics.

As you can see, Lenin did not originate the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; he was merely rehashing one of Marx's original concepts.

Thus, I conclude that there is no difference between "real-world" communism and "true" communism -- for those who read the original material, it is no surprise to discover that Communism in its applied national-scale incarnations was precisely what it was advertised to be... minus the benefits, of course.

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to an absolute control by the proletariat class, not by individuals. It follows that "real-world" communism was a near-complete reversal of what was advertised: just think of Stalin. Even after Stalin, it was an oligarchy.

You seem to be confused by the use of the word "dictatorship". If you read his works, you'll realize Marx did not use in in the usual sense, calling capitalism a "dictatorship" of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is simply the reverse, with the proletariat class dominant. Nowhere does Marx advocate literal dictatorship.

[Admiral Johnason]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

See? I didn't use the France example, and I talked about Socialism in modern society! I win!! I win!!!!

Lies. They're just convincing themselves that it's free.

I believe the words you are looking for are higher taxes.

[Joe]

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

See? I didn't use the France example, and I talked about Socialism in modern society! I win!! I win!!!!

Lies. They're just convincing themselves that it's free.

I believe the words you are looking for are higher taxes.

Not just higher taxes, the deadweight loss to the economy that accompanies taxes.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, they're not. But according to Lenin, Socialism is a necessary step in the transition to Communism.

Hell, according to MARX, Socialism was a necessary step towards communism.

But as for Socialism working, aside from France, a good bit of Europe has implemented social programs reminiscent of Marx's ideas for Socialism. For example, in Norway, expecting mothers get something like 12 weeks maternity leave, and they don't pay a cent for medical procedures of any kind (childbirth included). When the child grows up, he goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary school free of charge. Public transit is free. Yes, they pay slightly higher taxes, but not so much that it's unbearable.

IIRC, most of the Netherlands is like this, and some other parts of Europe as well. And I can't remember the last time I saw the Netherlands in a drastic political or economic crisis.

See? I didn't use the France example, and I talked about Socialism in modern society! I win!! I win!!!!

But, as Mike pointed out, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. You won, all right, but you won an argument nobody was having. lol

[Queeb Salaron]

The only problem with real socialism that I can see is that it's too dividing. (Well... that and people fell that they DESERVE that private property that they earned so much money and worked so hard to be able to afford.) The assumption that Marx makes in the beginning of his Manifesto is that the world is simply divided into two parts: Management (Proletariat) and Labor (Bourgeois). But people don't fit so easily into those categories. And even if they did, you'd be lumping teachers and doctors in with the manufacturers of Beanie Babies; you can see where the discrepancy lies.

[Kuroneko]

The only problem with real socialism that I can see is that it's too dividing. (Well... that and people fell that they DESERVE that private property that they earned so much money and worked so hard to be able to afford.) ...

Socialism does not involve abolition of private property. Please get your terms straight; others have already pointed this out to you.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

To illustrate the necessity of dictatorship to create and subsequently maintain communism on a national scale, we exerpt from Marx's Communist Manifesto itself: ....

Quoting Marx for support of a thesis on the structure of communist government, either actual or intended, is not dissimilar to quoting Aristotle for principles of mechanics.

I must confess that I haven't a fucking clue what you mean by that. The reference escapes me.

As you can see, Lenin did not originate the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat"; he was merely rehashing one of Marx's original concepts.

Thus, I conclude that there is no difference between "real-world" communism and "true" communism -- for those who read the original material, it is no surprise to discover that Communism in its applied national-scale incarnations was precisely what it was advertised to be... minus the benefits, of course.

"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to an absolute control by the proletariat class, not by individuals. It follows that "real-world" communism was a near-complete reversal of what was advertised: just think of Stalin. Even after Stalin, it was an oligarchy.

You seem to be confused by the use of the word "dictatorship". If you read his works, you'll realize Marx did not use in in the usual sense, calling capitalism a "dictatorship" of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat. "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is simply the reverse, with the proletariat class dominant. Nowhere does Marx advocate literal dictatorship.

If I am confused by the application of the term, so apparently have been the administrators of every attempt at national-level communism, each of which became totalitarian.

[Kuroneko]

I must confess that I haven't a fucking clue what you mean by that. The reference escapes me.

Simply that vague if true lines like "rocks have a propensity to fall to the ground" serve very little purpose when you want to do actual physics or even understand why this is so. The only thing you get out of Marx on communism is that the State will be ruled by the proletariat, but absolutely nothing on how it is supposed to work.

If I am confused by the application of the term, so apparently have been the administrators of every attempt at national-level communism, each of which became totalitarian.

Of course they have. Which is precisely why communism does not work as advertised. That does not mean that the ideology behind it intended it to be so (quite the contrary). It only means that the ideology is not realistic; nothing more, nothing less.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I must confess that I haven't a fucking clue what you mean by that. The reference escapes me.

Simply that vague if true lines like "rocks have a propensity to fall to the ground" serve very little purpose when you want to do actual physics or even understand why this is so. The only thing you get out of Marx on communism is that the State will be ruled by the proletariat, but absolutely nothing on how it is supposed to work.

If I am confused by the application of the term, so apparently have been the administrators of every attempt at national-level communism, each of which became totalitarian.

Of course they have. Which is precisely why communism does not work as advertised. That does not mean that the ideology behind it intended it to be so (quite the contrary). It only means that the ideology is not realistic; nothing more, nothing less.

Would you then agree that those who still hold to the ideology in light of its proven invalidity are either naive or dishonest?

[Kuroneko]

Would you then agree that those who still hold to the ideology in light of its proven invalidity are either naive or dishonest?

Certainly.

[lgot]

Actually Marx is not even the invetor of Socialism.
And it is not only in Europe where Socialism, a economic system that is a step of capitalism, happens. Everytime you pay taxes to allow your governament to distribute the health or study to the poor population, you are seeing a socialist concept under action. Everytime you see a corporation sharing profits with the work you are seeing a socialist concept working.

Communism in other hand is a political utopia Marx once created. Never happened even if Marx ideology was used by many all long the last century to justify their governaments.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually Marx is not even the invetor of Socialism.
And it is not only in Europe where Socialism, a economic system that is a step of capitalism, happens. Everytime you pay taxes to allow your governament to distribute the health or study to the poor population, you are seeing a socialist concept under action. Everytime you see a corporation sharing profits with the work you are seeing a socialist concept working.

Communism in other hand is a political utopia Marx once created. Never happened even if Marx ideology was used by many all long the last century to justify their governaments.

There is a difference between successful application of a concept, and successful application of an entire system of government based on that concept.

I wonder what the down-side of all that "free" health care in Norway is?

[Darth Wong]

Actually Marx is not even the invetor of Socialism.

Of course not. He invented communism, not socialism.

Communism in other hand is a political utopia Marx once created.

I would agree if you didn't have that "utopia" part in there.

This distinction between the application of communism and ideal of communism is simply ridiculous. A solution is measured on its overall usefulness, not by ignoring the need for implementation. If, as an engineer, I draw a design which is impossible to build, would I be able to say that it's an ideal design except for that minor flaw? Of course not! I would be fired because I drew a fucking design that's impossible to build! Get it?

Marx was a moron. He believed that the proletariat contributed more to society than the bourgeoisie because in an industrial society, unskilled labour is worth more than brains (hence his belief that the proletariat should rightfully run society). This was his first mistake, because it is manifestly untrue, and has always been manifestly untrue. Brains are more valuable than brawn, and will always lead in any case. He also believed that valuation should not be based on supply and demand, which is a bit like saying that ballistics should not be based on gravity. That was his second mistake.

He believed that it is impossible to find personal satisfaction in making product as a "cog in the machine" instead of making it as an individual craftsman, which is his third mistake. From personal experience, I can say that this is absolutely untrue; working men and women often take great pride in their combined teamwork. His claims were hypocritical to the point of being perverse; he ranted at length about the mindset and beliefs and desires of the proletariat, but never worked a day in his life and had no real idea whatsoever of how the real proletariat actually lived (in this respect, he was the template for modern Marxists, who tend to be ivory-tower intellectuals who would rather skin themselves than work in a factory with dirty unintellectual blue-collar folk, yet spend all their time championing the cause of the proletariat).

In short, Marx was an eloquent idiot.

[lgot]

Just, Socialism do not deal with systems of governament. Deals with economy, it can work under monarchy, parlamentarism, presidencialism or even under private society.

And that would be irrelevant, Socialism happened and still happening, of course it is not the same as the one during Marx's time, because Society changed and new forms of relations are created. You have to always do avaliations of Marx with the new perspectives from the different societies. The blindly aplication of all his ideas today is just as bad as would be stupidy.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually Marx is not even the invetor of Socialism.

Of course not. He invented communism, not socialism.

Communism in other hand is a political utopia Marx once created.

I would agree if you didn't have that "utopia" part in there.

This distinction between the application of communism and ideal of communism is simply ridiculous. A solution is measured on its overall usefulness, not by ignoring the need for implementation. If, as an engineer, I draw a design which is impossible to build, would I be able to say that it's an ideal design except for that minor flaw? Of course not! I would be fired because I drew a fucking design that's impossible to build! Get it?

Marx was a moron. He believed that the proletariat contributed more to society than the bourgeoisie because in an industrial society, unskilled labour is worth more than brains (hence his belief that the proletariat should rightfully run society). This was his first mistake, because it is manifestly untrue, and has always been manifestly untrue. Brains are more valuable than brawn, and will always lead in any case. He also believed that valuation should not be based on supply and demand, which is a bit like saying that ballistics should not be based on gravity. That was his second mistake.

He believed that it is impossible to find personal satisfaction in making product as a "cog in the machine" instead of making it as an individual craftsman, which is his third mistake. From personal experience, I can say that this is absolutely untrue; working men and women often take great pride in their combined teamwork. His claims were hypocritical to the point of being perverse; he ranted at length about the mindset and beliefs and desires of the proletariat, but never worked a day in his life and had no real idea whatsoever of how the real proletariat actually lived (in this respect, he was the template for modern Marxists, who tend to be ivory-tower intellectuals who would rather skin themselves than work in a factory with dirty unintellectual blue-collar folk, yet spend all their time championing the cause of the proletariat).

In short, Marx was an eloquent idiot.

And that would sound familiar to all of you, too, if you've read Mike's dissection and annihilation of the Communist Manifesto.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This distinction between the application of communism and ideal of communism is simply ridiculous. A solution is measured on its overall usefulness, not by ignoring the need for implementation. If, as an engineer, I draw a design which is impossible to build, would I be able to say that it's an ideal design except for that minor flaw? Of course not! I would be fired because I drew a fucking design that's impossible to build! Get it?

And I still hear people waxing on Communism saying "Oh it works in theory" or "if only Brave New World was true." Of course, hearing people say Brave New World is feasable or realistic makes me shudder.