You may be a Communist if . . .
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 8:55 am
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
Hi.Could a group of Christians or other religious people that live in the same house and hold all property in common be classified as a form of communism.I thought somewhere in the Communist Manifesto Marx talked about how the early Christians shared all their property in Acts.I just dont know if a Christian commune counts as a form of communism.Thanks.I know many people would not classify Christian communes and apostolic socialism as true communism.
Yes. In fact, Christian communists (some of whom are also Marxists) use those verses to defend their position and to critique the evangelical turn to capitalism.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 10:19 am
nominalist wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Of course, when everyone is equally poor, there is more than enough suffering to go around.
Communism was conceived by Marx and Engels as a path to universal prosperity, not poverty. It is capitalism which produces poverty.
I would consider communism to plunge many more people into poverty than capitalism. I don't think there has been a single communist nation of recent times that didn't have grinding property of the masses combined with the authoritarian government and mass killings needed to keep communism in place.
The irony is, someone like Marx who never contributed and was a bum would never have survived living with actual communism despite how much he liked the thought of it. Even if he escaped the ruthlessly strict authorities and government, his own fellow comrades would have made his life hell for how feckless and entitled he was.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 11:56 am
Nades wrote:
I would consider communism to plunge many more people into poverty than capitalism. I don't think there has been a single communist nation of recent times that didn't have grinding property of the masses combined with the authoritarian government and mass killings needed to keep communism in place.
The irony is, someone like Marx who never contributed and was a bum would never have survived living with actual communism despite how much he liked the thought of it. Even if he escaped the ruthlessly strict authorities and government, his own fellow comrades would have made his life hell for how feckless and entitled he was.
The irony is, someone like Marx who never contributed and was a bum would never have survived living with actual communism despite how much he liked the thought of it. Even if he escaped the ruthlessly strict authorities and government, his own fellow comrades would have made his life hell for how feckless and entitled he was.
The U.S., the leader of global capitalism, has the highest rates of both poverty and social stratification of any industrialized country.
https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty- ... countries/
Marx's personal imperfections, of which there are many, have nothing to do with Marxism. I am not a Marxist because of Marx (or any other individual). In fact, Marx did not even like the term Marxism. Yet, it stuck. Critiquing a school of thought because of the founder's personal life would also be called ad hominem if this were a debate.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
Last edited by nominalist on 01 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
01 Aug 2023, 12:13 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
I would consider communism to plunge many more people into poverty than capitalism. I don't think there has been a single communist nation of recent times that didn't have grinding property of the masses combined with the authoritarian government and mass killings needed to keep communism in place.
The irony is, someone like Marx who never contributed and was a bum would never have survived living with actual communism despite how much he liked the thought of it. Even if he escaped the ruthlessly strict authorities and government, his own fellow comrades would have made his life hell for how feckless and entitled he was.
The irony is, someone like Marx who never contributed and was a bum would never have survived living with actual communism despite how much he liked the thought of it. Even if he escaped the ruthlessly strict authorities and government, his own fellow comrades would have made his life hell for how feckless and entitled he was.
The U.S., the leader of global capitalism, has the highest rates of both poverty and social stratification of any industrialized country.
https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty- ... countries/
Marx's personal imperfections, of which there are many, have nothing to do with Marxism. I am not a Marxist because of Marx (or any other individual). In fact, Marx did not even like the term Marxism. Yet, it stuck.
It needs to be said kept in mind though that a lot of communist nations are no more because of discontent and rebellion from the population.
There isn't much to compare it to. There are problems with capitalism, but there are even more problems with communism with my biggest dislike being that communism by nature of authoritarian. It's literally forced equality afterall, even if someone works harder.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 12:20 pm
Nades wrote:
There isn't much to compare it to. There are problems with capitalism, but there are even more problems with communism with my biggest dislike being that communism by nature of authoritarian. It's literally forced equality afterall, even if someone works harder.
There are authoritarian Marxists (including Joseph Stalin). There are also libertarian Marxists (including Rosa Luxemburg). If communism were by nature authoritarian, neither Red Rosa nor I would be communists.
By the way, libertarian Marxism has nothing to do with Murray Rothbard's so-called American libertarianism. Their respective definitions of liberty literally oppose one another.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 1:08 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
There isn't much to compare it to. There are problems with capitalism, but there are even more problems with communism with my biggest dislike being that communism by nature of authoritarian. It's literally forced equality afterall, even if someone works harder.
There are authoritarian Marxists (including Joseph Stalin). There are also libertarian Marxists (including Rosa Luxemburg). If communism were by nature authoritarian, neither Red Rosa nor I would be communists.
By the way, libertarian Marxism has nothing to do with Murray Rothbard's so-called American libertarianism. Their respective definitions of liberty literally oppose one another.
But Rosa and you are individuals, once large groups of people are forced to share all resources, especially when the inevitable happens aka, some people work harder, then communism quickly becomes hated by large numbers of the population.
It has to be authoritarian to stop people who work 60 hour weeks investing their leftover money or buying more resources (which obviously, they should be entitled to do, even if it makes them more powerful)
A question. If I lived in a communist nation with any of it's variations of communism and I wanted to buy a business with my legitimately earned money, what would happen? Would I be able to purchase the business?
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 1:59 pm
Nades wrote:
It needs to be said kept in mind though that a lot of communist nations are no more because of discontent and rebellion from the population.
There isn't much to compare it to. There are problems with capitalism, but there are even more problems with communism with my biggest dislike being that communism by nature of authoritarian. It's literally forced equality afterall, even if someone works harder.
There isn't much to compare it to. There are problems with capitalism, but there are even more problems with communism with my biggest dislike being that communism by nature of authoritarian. It's literally forced equality afterall, even if someone works harder.
Authoritarianism, whether Marxist or otherwise, isn't much fun, which is why I am a libertarian Marxist. However, I have almost no confidence that anything like libertarian Marxism will be implemented in the world anytime soon (or perhaps ever). My general confidence is the future of our planet is, therefore, negative.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 2:06 pm
Nades wrote:
But Rosa and you are individuals, once large groups of people are forced to share all resources, especially when the inevitable happens aka, some people work harder, then communism quickly becomes hated by large numbers of the population.
Libertarian Marxism has never been implemented in any society. I also doubt that will change anytime soon - certainly not before capitalism destroys the planet through climate change. In short, I am a pessimist.
Quote:
It has to be authoritarian to stop people who work 60 hour weeks investing their leftover money or buying more resources (which obviously, they should be entitled to do, even if it makes them more powerful)
The objective of libertarian Marxism is prosperity, not poverty. Obviously, that prosperity would not be reached in the same way under libertarian communism as under capitalism. They are different systems.
Quote:
A question. If I lived in a communist nation with any of it's variations of communism and I wanted to buy a business with my legitimately earned money, what would happen? Would I be able to purchase the business?
Under communism, all businesses would be collectively owned by the workers. You are describing capitalism, a system I strongly oppose.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 2:14 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
But Rosa and you are individuals, once large groups of people are forced to share all resources, especially when the inevitable happens aka, some people work harder, then communism quickly becomes hated by large numbers of the population.
Libertarian Marxism has never been implemented in any society. I also doubt that will change anytime soon - certainly not before capitalism destroys the planet through climate change. In short, I am a pessimist.
Quote:
It has to be authoritarian to stop people who work 60 hour weeks investing their leftover money or buying more resources (which obviously, they should be entitled to do, even if it makes them more powerful)
The objective of libertarian Marxism is prosperity, not poverty. Obviously, that prosperity would not be reached in the same way under libertarian communism as under capitalism. They are different systems.
Quote:
A question. If I lived in a communist nation with any of it's variations of communism and I wanted to buy a business with my legitimately earned money, what would happen? Would I be able to purchase the business?
Under communism, all businesses would be collectively owned by the workers. You are describing capitalism, a system I strongly oppose.
How can this prosperity ever be reached and how will people be compensated for work fairly when people work different hours and have different skills?
Wouldn't it be fair that the workers also have to pay pay for their own shares upon employment too even if they have to fork out 100k?
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 2:31 pm
Nades wrote:
How can this prosperity ever be reached and how will people be compensated for work fairly when people work different hours and have different skills?
If a company is succeeding, all of the owners (also called the workers) will also be successful. Collective ownership would be an incentive to be a good worker. That incentive does not exist, except as breadcrumbs (profit sharing), under capitalism.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be fair that the workers also have to pay pay for their own shares upon employment too even if they have to fork out 100k?
Their own shares of what? Collectivization is implemented, on a small scale, throughout the world. I have never heard of people being required to fork out any specific amount of money under collectivization. For instance, in food co-ops, people do not generally pay any money upfront. They contribute their time to the co-op. Credit unions, a different type of collectivization, are a type of bank. No one pays a fee to join one.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 2:41 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
How can this prosperity ever be reached and how will people be compensated for work fairly when people work different hours and have different skills?
If a company is succeeding, all of the owners (also called the workers) will also be successful. Collective ownership would be an incentive to be a good worker. That incentive does not exist, except as breadcrumbs (profit sharing), under capitalism.
Quote:
Wouldn't it be fair that the workers also have to pay pay for their own shares upon employment too even if they have to fork out 100k?
Their own shares of what? Collectivization is implemented, on a small scale, throughout the world. I have never heard of people being required to fork out any specific amount of money under collectivization. For instance, in food co-ops, people do not generally pay any money upfront. They contribute their time to the co-op. Credit unions, a different type of collectivization, are a type of bank. No one pays a fee to join one.
If the profits are shared, what about the losses? Surely it's only fair for the workers to be on the hook for losses too?
Food is eaten too and doesn't require huge startup costs.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 3:17 pm
Nades wrote:
If the profits are shared, what about the losses? Surely it's only fair for the workers to be on the hook for losses too?
Food is eaten too and doesn't require huge startup costs.
Food is eaten too and doesn't require huge startup costs.
Under worker collectivization, the only owners are the workers.
I am a sociologist, not an economist, but I suppose the workers, or their insurance, would take the loss. There is extensive literature on Marxist theories of collectivization by heterodox economists. I am, however, not familiar with that literature.
Honestly, I would just as soon eliminate capitalism with no plans for the future. Then see what happens. As I suggested before, capitalism is killing us all through climate change. Capitalism should, IMO, simply be made illegal. Anyone who engages in capitalism would immediately be imprisoned without the possibility of bail.
As a libertarian Marxist, I care about the liberty or freedom of the workers, not of the capitalists.
All of that is obviously hypothetical. Will capitalism be made illegal? Of course not.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 3:32 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
If the profits are shared, what about the losses? Surely it's only fair for the workers to be on the hook for losses too?
Food is eaten too and doesn't require huge startup costs.
Food is eaten too and doesn't require huge startup costs.
Under worker collectivization, the only owners are the workers.
I am a sociologist, not an economist, but I suppose the workers, or their insurance, would take the loss. There is extensive literature on Marxist theories of collectivization by heterodox economists. I am, however, not familiar with that literature.
Honestly, I would just as soon eliminate capitalism with no plans for the future. Then see what happens. As I suggested before, capitalism is killing us all through climate change. Capitalism should, IMO, simply be made illegal. Anyone who engages in capitalism would immediately be imprisoned without the possibility of bail.
As a libertarian Marxist, I care about the liberty or freedom of the workers, not of the capitalists.
All of that is obviously hypothetical. Will capitalism be made illegal? Of course not.
Sounds a lot like authoritarianism to me. Jailing people possibly for life just for owning capital? Considering you want to jail people for owning capital, why don't you know more about communism?
Hmmmmmmm. I take it you didn't read my earlier list of a typical communist.
Last edited by Nades on 01 Aug 2023, 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 3:36 pm
Nades wrote:
So you are an authoritarian?
No. You are using the capitalist definition of authoritarianism. I am a libertarian Marxist.
I suppose my views on this subject would be considered as authoritarian by capitalists. I can't change that (nor would I want to).
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
01 Aug 2023, 3:39 pm
nominalist wrote:
Nades wrote:
So you are an authoritarian?
No. You are using the capitalist definition of authoritarianism. I am a libertarian Marxist.
I suppose my views on this subject would be considered as authoritarian by capitalists. I can't change that (nor would I want to).
Tyranny then?
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
01 Aug 2023, 3:46 pm
Nades wrote:
Tyranny then?
To me, capitalism and tyranny are the same thing.
All I can say is that most people have never engaged with a person like me before. I say that after years of experience, including as a professor.
I became a New Left communist back in 1968. In other words, I am an old communist and an academic communist. Folks like me, who have extensively read the literature, do not fit the molds made by capitalists. We have almost nothing in common and, in effect, do not even speak the same language. It is like speaking with a person who defines almost every term opposite from oneself.
_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute
