Is Communism actually that bad?

[notyou2]

I believe the best system is an amalgamation of all of them which seems to result in a predominately socialist style with a capitalist economy.

This best describe Britain's disposition.

It aint great mate.

And yes, I agree wholeheartedly with you that people are the problem.. I fucking hate people.

The sooner the nukes come into play the better.

Also, Sweden, Canada and others

[Frigidus]

Wait...why hasn't Norse been banned yet?

Considering the next to non-existant moderation we undergo at this point, all of the banned members shouldn't have much of a problem rejoining CC, assuming they at least sort of fly under the radar. I mean, look how long BES and Captain Crazy lasted. Also, shhhhhhh.

[Danyael]

in actual communism
everyone is the government
everyone shares everything
every one helps out
for the community
but as human nature goes there is always going to be one dick to f*ck everything up

[jonesthecurl]

just making a small point once agina, as usual not coming down on one side or the other.

But someone mentioned "innocent blood".

name me a ruling class/system/country/movement for freedom/any effin guy in charge anywhere under any system that does NOT have innocent blood in the story of their rise to success.

[Rustovitch]

just making a small point once agina, as usual not coming down on one side or the other.

But someone mentioned "innocent blood".

name me a ruling class/system/country/movement for freedom/any effin guy in charge anywhere under any system that does NOT have innocent blood in the story of their rise to success.

Fair enough, but Lenins statement that he would not stop killing until the revolution was complete (in accordance with Marx) puts communism, and specifically Communist Russia in a special category.

[Rustovitch]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Well, first you'd have to actually find a communist country.

This is the point I was hinting at earlier.
Certain people are just going to whine and bleat and change the goalposts by quibbling about what is and what is not communist until we all have to accept that Communism is correct.

It's a staple of internet 'debates'.

Oh such and such isn't a true democratic/Islamic/Christian/Communist/wibblemonkey state.

[KuppenTruppen]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Well, first you'd have to actually find a communist country.

This is the point I was hinting at earlier.
Certain people are just going to whine and bleat and change the goalposts by quibbling about what is and what is not communist until we all have to accept that Communism is correct.

It's a staple of internet 'debates'.

Oh such and such isn't a true democratic/Islamic/Christian/Communist/wibblemonkey state.

But without any standardization, the anti democratic/Islamic/Christian/Communist/wibblemonkey debaters can say that red is green and 2+2=5, thereby disallowing any type of meaningful debate.

[Rustovitch]

Oh stop getting off topic and actually make a real argument

You stated that Communism can not be a dictatorship. I suggested that you look up Stalin and maybe find a Communist country that was not a dictatorship.

Well, first you'd have to actually find a communist country.

This is the point I was hinting at earlier.
Certain people are just going to whine and bleat and change the goalposts by quibbling about what is and what is not communist until we all have to accept that Communism is correct.

It's a staple of internet 'debates'.

Oh such and such isn't a true democratic/Islamic/Christian/Communist/wibblemonkey state.

But without any standardization, the anti democratic/Islamic/Christian/Communist/wibblemonkey debaters can say that red is green and 2+2=5, thereby disallowing any type of meaningful debate.

As your definition of Communism will have to be so contrived as to exclude Marx, Lenin, Stalin, the USSR, Mao Tse Tung, China, Fidel Castro, Che Guevera and Cuba then I don't really think that meaningful debate is your intention.

[Beko the Great]

Wow! Amazing debate here so far.
I would like to say that Communism isn't surely that bad as pulicited in USA, or other "developped" countries. Actually what communist people lose in freedom of buying the brands they want (using only one or a couple of them having a large freedom of chice) or in owning what properties they can buy (in capitalist system only a few can buy what they want, the majority is largely dependent of credit), Communist peoples win in education, health and sports. It's not that new that Cuban doctors and medical system are the Number One in the World. It's no new that public education in USA it's a joke when compared to the exigent and effective educational system there was in USSR. Actualy, Russia was a country with 45% literacy rate in 1917 and only a 42 years later was sending sputnik to space, after an epic disaster from an american satellite. If you still observe literacy rates in all Eastern Block Republics you may find yourself surprised when you discover countries like UK, USA, Portugal, Spain are systematically below them. And we're not talking about quantity but also of quality. About sports, see how many medals Cuba has in the Olympics. They have only 11 million people. And compare USSR medals with USA... Ok baseball is not an olympic sport, but that's not the only excuse.

What I want to say is that the feeling that capitalism give you that you can buy everything and be happy and do whatever you want is a pure ilusion! Of course Bill Gates can own everything, but you, medium-american, whats your freedom of choice? KFC vs McDonalds? Coca-Cola vs Pepsi? Baseball vs Basketball? What if McDonalds was owned by the state? What difference would that make? Probably burgers would be 0.50$ cheapper because they wouldn't suffer taxes, since all the profit would be to the state. And about McDonalds employees? Would they lose rights? Exactly the opposite. See? What I mean? What difference that is in a state owning everything or companies that monopolize everything?

Ok, maybe I'm extending to much so I'll stop here and sorry for some bad english since it's not my native language.

[thegreekdog]

Communism in theory seems like a great idea. The only truly Communist state that I can think of is the United Federation of Planets (Woodruff can elaborate). All kidding aside, communism is not actually that bad, and there is something to be said for American "values" teaching that communism is bad. We've had a long history in the United States of politically and socially stamping down communism, which, in and of itself, shows that even a wondrous democratic state like the US has its share of media control. Anyway, right after the revolution in Russia, there were a few years of true communism, and, it looked pretty good to me. I mean, back then even, they did away with the repressive laws regarding homosexuality, among other things. So, socially, I think communism can be a great thing.

Economically, I'm not sure it has practical implications. People seem to be, by nature, selfish. My arguments against practical communism almost entirely consist of the question - "Would you rather be Josef Stalin/Fidel Castro or a common peasant?" In a truly communist society the answer would be, "It doesn't matter." In a practical sense, Stalin and Castro had both power and wealth, far in excess of their respective countries' people. That's why I think in smaller states, communism could work really well. I also think that communism could probably work on a global basis. But, I'm not sure it can work with one or two states being largely communist (economically) and the rest being capitalist (economically). I'm fairly sure Marx had a world communist state in mind anyway.

I guess my answer is that I don't know if communism is actually that bad.

[Rustovitch]

I guess my answer is that I don't know if communism is actually that bad.

I guess the truth is that in certain ways Communism is wonderful... THAT is the problem! It is a utopian philosophy.

A Utopian Philosophy + Human Nature = Corpses.

Communism, (or at least what Communism has been for practical purposes irrespective of semantics) runs directly counter to human nature.

You can't give all power to the people because most societies can not be governed on the scale of the individual. Communist countries must therefore delegate this power to the State. Pragmatically the state must be administered by a narrow band of people, who holding all power and resources are inevitably corrupt and will therefore oppress the people.

[MeDeFe]

I guess my answer is that I don't know if communism is actually that bad.

I guess the truth is that in certain ways Communism is wonderful... THAT is the problem! It is a utopian philosophy.

A Utopian Philosophy + Human Nature = Corpses.

Communism, (or at least what Communism has been for practical purposes irrespective of semantics) runs directly counter to human nature.

You can't give all power to the people because most societies can not be governed on the scale of the individual. Communist countries must therefore delegate this power to the State. Pragmatically the state must be administered by a narrow band of people, who holding all power and resources are inevitably corrupt and will therefore oppress the people.

You know, this could just as well be an argument against democracy.

"You can't involve everyone in every decision so power must be delegated to the state and wielded by a few representatives. Holding power will inevitably corrupt them and make them oppress the people in order to keep as much power as they can for as long as they can."

Well, I'll be damned, it's practically the same argument.

[notyou2]

I agree, it most likely work best in smaller states. So, perhaps the Vatican, its a small state, will try instituting communism on a trial basis and we can all see what happens.

[Rustovitch]

I guess my answer is that I don't know if communism is actually that bad.

I guess the truth is that in certain ways Communism is wonderful... THAT is the problem! It is a utopian philosophy.

A Utopian Philosophy + Human Nature = Corpses.

Communism, (or at least what Communism has been for practical purposes irrespective of semantics) runs directly counter to human nature.

You can't give all power to the people because most societies can not be governed on the scale of the individual. Communist countries must therefore delegate this power to the State. Pragmatically the state must be administered by a narrow band of people, who holding all power and resources are inevitably corrupt and will therefore oppress the people.

You know, this could just as well be an argument against democracy.

"You can't involve everyone in every decision so power must be delegated to the state and wielded by a few representatives. Holding power will inevitably corrupt them and make them oppress the people in order to keep as much power as they can for as long as they can."

Well, I'll be damned, it's practically the same argument.

True, but my post was an oversimplification, there are very arguably some distinctions you can draw between the two.

In Communism most 'stuff' falls to the State, in most democracies this is not the case and there will be a certain amount of 'private sector' wealth and political power.

Communism generally has a one party system, democracies in theory have the idea that the dominant party can be held to account by the opposistion. You could argue I guess that one faction in a single party can oppose another faction within the party.

In a Communist state what need is there for checks and balances on the power of the state/government as all decisions are the will of the people, the people are the state.

In short Communism generally goes for a total centralisation of power, which inevitably leads to corruption and oppression. In a democracy this is generally reduced.

That said I personally think the most effective form of dictatorship is a stagnant complacent democracy, hey ho!

[MeDeFe]

I guess my answer is that I don't know if communism is actually that bad.

I guess the truth is that in certain ways Communism is wonderful... THAT is the problem! It is a utopian philosophy.

A Utopian Philosophy + Human Nature = Corpses.

Communism, (or at least what Communism has been for practical purposes irrespective of semantics) runs directly counter to human nature.

You can't give all power to the people because most societies can not be governed on the scale of the individual. Communist countries must therefore delegate this power to the State. Pragmatically the state must be administered by a narrow band of people, who holding all power and resources are inevitably corrupt and will therefore oppress the people.

You know, this could just as well be an argument against democracy.

"You can't involve everyone in every decision so power must be delegated to the state and wielded by a few representatives. Holding power will inevitably corrupt them and make them oppress the people in order to keep as much power as they can for as long as they can."

Well, I'll be damned, it's practically the same argument.

True, but my post was an oversimplification, there are very arguably some distinctions you can draw between the two.

In Communism most 'stuff' falls to the State, in most democracies this is not the case and there will be a certain amount of 'private sector' wealth and political power.

Communism generally has a one party system, democracies in theory have the idea that the dominant party can be held to account by the opposistion. You could argue I guess that one faction in a single party can oppose another faction within the party.

In a Communist state what need is there for checks and balances on the power of the state/government as all decisions are the will of the people, the people are the state.

In short Communism generally goes for a total centralisation of power, which inevitably leads to corruption and oppression. In a democracy this is generally reduced.

The very idea of political parties in a democracy is actually beginning to appall me. Sure, people with similar ideas will tend to band together to push their ideas and convince others that their ideas are good and should be put into practice, but the rigid, hierarchical, ideologically dogmatic, polemic-spewing, misinforming, homogenized, self-centered, calcified, geriatric, backward old-boys' clubs and personality cults that people call "political parties" are a far cry from that.

The private sector political power is equally worrying. A handful of company executives with the same economical clout as the entire population of a well-sized developed nation, giving or keeping campaign donations, deciding where to build or not to build that factory and what reasons for the decision to give (read: whom to blame) in the privately controlled mass-media. And private it is, In some countries more than in others, not everywhere is as bad as Italy where the head of state owns 3 (I think it was 3) large TV channels and gets to appoint the heads of the state-owned ones as well.
For-profit mass-media is the scourge of broad access to information, for the sake of profit it does not matter whether something is true or not, whether an idea is good or not, whether a course of action is reasonable or not, what matters is that it attracts an audience so you can generate money. The in-depth analysis, the reasoned debate, the collecting of facts, all of these lose against a kid slipping in a paddling pool. It's also so much more fun to watch "politicians" flame and troll each other than to actually look at what arguments the different sides in a debate have and weigh them against each other.
The entertainment industry (music, movies, computer games) has played a not insignificant role in undermining our civil liberties and hampering techological progress for a long time already, since well before the recent, more general bout of activity due to terrorism. You don't buy any of their products when you go to a store, you rent them. There are ISPs that monitor your traffic and throttle certain protocols used for filesharing (of all sorts of material, copyrighted, copylefted, public domain, you name it). And then those three-strikes laws, be caught downloading copyrighted material three times and you lose your internet access, even if said material is more than half a century old and everyone who worked on it is long dead. These companies were huge proponents of "data retention", storing all data on tele-communications. Who called who when, what internet sites did X visit? Employers systematically spy on their employees with hidden cameras in stores, by monitoring all communications that go in and out of an office, some go as far as commissioning PIs with checking employees behaviour (reports have included such things as a person cycling to her job already wearing uniform, prolonging the break by 2 minutes, loud gossiping; people have been fired over 1.50€ missing). In my opinion the "private sector" (at least the for-profit part of it) is waging a war for information control against each and every one of us.


What is needed is a no-party system, whether in a democracy, in communism, or in a communist democracy. How many people in the US government have worked for previous administrations and what's their average age? I recall reading that one of them has worked directly under 4 previous presidents. That sort of thing really makes me wonder what the hell is wrong, how can one person amass so much influence? Is it any better in the UK? Do you really think anyone gets to the top unless they are known to be in line with their party's ideology?


You ask what need there is for checks and balances in communism. Your mistake is that you take the communist state as an abstract that necessarily reflects the will of the people, I would say that in order for the state to reflect the will of the people, there need to be mechanisms put in place that ensure the will of the people is reflected by the state. Democracy (as it is currently implemented) doesn't reduce corruption and oppression in the least, it merely makes us feel better about it.

That said I personally think the most effective form of dictatorship is a stagnant complacent democracy, hey ho!

I fully agree with this, however.

[waseemalim]

The role of the government should be to create an environment in which individuals can pursue their own interest. By that I mean provide Security, Justice, apply property rights, defend the country, and -- some what vaguely -- minimize the impact of a transaction on third parties (clean air). Governments should not be in the business of deciding what to produce, how to produce and how much to produce -- because in absense of the price mechanism, its kind of difficult to produce an optimal amount of goods and services.

Communism sucks because governement can not give them what they want. Ask anyone who remembers the soviet bloc in the 1980s. Communism also creates monopolies, especially related to power.

Karl Marx's beef with capitalism was that the ordinary worker could not escape from the cycle of poverty. Well that's not really true. Because people with the right skills do emerge from that cycle -- just look up the history of hong kong billionaires. Yes, it doesnt provide equality -- but should equality really be the goal of a society? What right does the government have to stifle an individual freedom to pursue what he thinks is best for him.

Also would you rather have a society where everyone owns 1 box of chocolate (metaphorically), rather than a society where the poorest guy owns 2 boxes of chocolates and the richest guy has 1000 boxes?

[PLAYER57832]

I agree, it most likely work best in smaller states. So, perhaps the Vatican, its a small state, will try instituting communism on a trial basis and we can all see what happens.

The Vatican does not believe in communism.... just look at their response to "liberation theology", among other issues.

[PLAYER57832]

Also would you rather have a society where everyone owns 1 box of chocolate (metaphorically), rather than a society where the poorest guy owns 2 boxes of chocolates and the richest guy has 1000 boxes?

The real comparison is would you rather live in a society where everyone gets 1.5 boxes of chocolate or one in which some get 0.5 and some get 2000 boxes.

At any rate, the truth is no extreme works. This is why communist countries are adopting some capitalistic characteristics for markets and capitalistic countries are adopting "communistic" type social programs. Democracy versus totalianarism is a bit of another issue. Totalianarism can override and destroy ANY system.

[GabonX]

I agree, it most likely work best in smaller states. So, perhaps the Vatican, its a small state, will try instituting communism on a trial basis and we can all see what happens.

The Vatican does not believe in communism.... just look at their response to "liberation theology", among other issues.

Pope John Paul the Second was instrumental in opposing communism in Poland.

just making a small point once agina, as usual not coming down on one side or the other.

But someone mentioned "innocent blood".

name me a ruling class/system/country/movement for freedom/any effin guy in charge anywhere under any system that does NOT have innocent blood in the story of their rise to success.

See John Paul the Second. Also, see Ghandi (unless you count his early days fighting to oppress Africans, but that's another story)

If you study the stories of these two figures and the empires that they spoke out against, there are striking similarities between these two figures...

[thegreekdog]

I believe Soviet Communism had a big negative influence on religion, especially the Russian Orthodox religion and Judaism (at least the Soviet communism that existed under Stalin).

[muy_thaiguy]

I believe Soviet Communism had a big negative influence on religion, especially the Russian Orthodox religion and Judaism (at least the Soviet communism that existed under Stalin).

Yep, it only survived because it went underground during the time.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe Soviet Communism had a big negative influence on religion, especially the Russian Orthodox religion and Judaism (at least the Soviet communism that existed under Stalin).

Yep, it only survived because it went underground during the time.

You were supposed to "worship" the state, essentially.

[MrWainthrope]

Also, see Ghandi (unless you count his early days fighting to oppress Africans, but that's another story)

Perhaps you could post it in another thread, because I have not heard it.

[GabonX]

Also, see Ghandi (unless you count his early days fighting to oppress Africans, but that's another story)

Perhaps you could post it in another thread, because I have not heard it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... n_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_K ... ar_of_1906

Ghandi was essentially an open racist in his early years. It was only later in life, when he saw that Indians in India were being treated like the Africans in Africa that he adopted his anti war stance along with most of his more humanitarian principles.

Seemingly, this was because he knew that there was no way the Indians could gain their independence through open war.

[xelabale]

Having lived in the heart of the largest, most successful communist country for nearly six years...what can I tell you?

Creativity is stunted. Communism sucks the life out the artist, the critic, the creator...

Critical thinking is repressed. The education system (quite deliberately) values the retention of knowledge - for a test - over the development of critical thinking.

The news is just awful. So little truly interesting can ever be said on TV...there is an government officer in every TV station you know and nothing goes out without government approval.

The combination of a lack of critical thinking (population-wide) + propaganda TV = a people who know nothing that they aren't meant to know and will fight against anything they are told to fight against.

Corruption is just sickening, completely widespead and has infected every level of the system...from the village official up to the city mayors. One leader in Changsha was clearing 20 million dollars a year, had a private jet...all the rest of it while he should have been actually earning less than my annual salary. At the lower level, local officials rape the villagers through made up taxes, bankrupt a farmer such is their greed...and of course there is no one to defend them; being a lawyer is one of the most dangerous jobs in China you know, if you actually try and fight for the common man.

China is improving now, in parts...and certainly in my city. But it is the ever increasing influence of capitalism, liberalism, social justice (all imported from the West) which improves the place. Everything inspired by communism was just, well, shit.

Communism is a fucking disease.

This isn't a function of communism. I could have written exactly the same damning treatise on the place I live - Turkey - and it's about as rampantly capitalist as they come. Rather, it's a function of paranoid, insecure, greedy, power-hungry governments. It's possible to have democracy and communism (though absolute true communism would have no government of course, but so would absolute capitalism).

I believe the most important thing is ACCOUNTABILITY. Just because you are communist, doesn't mean you shouldn't be accountable - in fact you should be more so. Governmental systems break down through lack of accountability and that's what people should be fighting against, rather than against a specific philosophy. The whole "Oh noes, Communizm is bad" is after all a population control mechanism used by the US (and very successfully, too).

Communist countries tend to fail because it's easier for the leaders to act unaccountably and corrupt the system. This is not a fault of the philosophy, rather of the execution.