Communism

Post Reply New Topic

Back to basics is best.

Ever since the Marx/Engels era, so many labels have been placed on Socialism and Communism that modern-day definitions could apply to almost anything or anyone hated by the political Right.  The original meanings of Communism and Socialism have been buried under the detritus of conservative ignorance and hate.

If you want to stir up hatred against any person, government institution, or social system, just throw a "Commie" label on it, and suddenly people on the political Right will believe that it is anti-American, anti-Business, anti-Christian, anti-Freedom, anti-Wealth, and anti-White.

Common-Core?  Free Health Care?  Evolution?  Science?  Labor Unions?  Civil Rights?  Contraception?  Vaccines?

Just slap on a "Commie" label and watch those on the political Right rage against them.

Last edited by Fnord on 09 Dec 2022, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It always amuses me when people who claim that communism is just a right-wing boogeyman to scare Americans into conforming always conviently leave out the fact that most communist countries wanted to see us burn to the ground during the Cold War and probably still do.

It always amuses me when people assume that I believe Communism to be nothing more than a “bogeyman” invented by the political Right, when it obviously is not.

Communism is an idealistic political system that has not -- and cannot -- survive in the real world.

The fact that the political Right has adopted this defunct ideology as a bogeyman to frighten its constituents into conformity is another matter entirely.

"Countries" don't want things.
Various people want various things... and, as "communist" countries were all authoritarian, what people inhabiting them wanted didn't count.

I believe that in authoritarian countries you get basically two types of people: those who happily support their dictator's ambitions because they've been spoon fed propaganda and lies for so long that they don't know any different, and then those who know what their government is doing is questionable but dare not question it openly out of fear for what might happen to themselves or their families.

There's a spectrum between the two - a powerful tool of authoritarian propaganda is to keep people confused, like nothing ever could be really true.

Then, most of the people everywhere want primarily to survive. That means you spend most of your time and focus on your and your family's basic needs.

I guess that's how I know my country is becoming increasingly authoritarian. We're being subjected to similar propaganda in everything. I think Americans are simply confused about who and what they can really trust anymore.

Wannabe-authoritarians can always be found - the question is how much power they can gain until some safeguard system reacts.
That's why I believe systematical distribution of power (e.g. tripartition) is crucial to maintain such safeguard systems.
It does not ensure perfection but it prevents worst abuses.

Agreed. While authoritarians might be less common in ideologies and movements that reject or at least question hierarchy, they will still be present.

Plus, even in a non-hierarchical system, some folks will be more likable than others, and a few of them will abuse this.

I agree that's a huge problem for egalitarianism. Even when you don't set out to be an authority figure, some idiots will start revering you and putting you on a pedestal just for doing a couple of clever things, if you happen to be in the "right place at the right time."

I'm bemused by the way "liberal" in the USA is equated with communism, while in the UK the Liberal (-democrat) Party is usually viewed as something between Labour (which isn't itself very socialist any more) and Conservative. Perhaps a more realistic way of seeing the terms is as two independent spectra - left-right and libertarian-authoritarian. But even that risks conflating libertarianism with egalitarianism. There are plenty of libertarian right-wingers who don't want equality, they just want business to be free of constraints while the masses are "free" to work in an exploitative system or starve.

It's one of the reasons that I'm skeptical true egalitarianism can be achieved. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't work toward greater fairness, just that I'm managing my expectations. Plus, social capital will still exist in a classless society.

Liberal functionally has a different definition in American English. This does lead to a lot of confusion, though.

I've tried to point out that communism doesn't work in real life but I just get a "but that wasn't real communism!"

Well if that's the case, then the communist utopia has never existed. As for prophecies that "true communism"™ will come about one day, I'm about as likely to believe that prophesy as I am to believe the prophesy that the world will end in 1844, 1914, 1925, 2011

As with most things, you've only truly failed when you've permanently given up. There's no absolute proof either way so far. There are various possible interpretations of the data we have so far. Yours is that communism is absolutely impossible and always will be. Others would say that it's never been tried, or that it's failed so far, or that it really doesn't seem to work at the state level, or that it's as bad as fascism, etc. To say that it does or doesn't work, as an absolute fact that has always and will always be true, is to take it too far.

No, it is the other way around.  People give up on Communism because it does not work.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- Alcoholics Anonymous

Examples:

• A garage mechanic spending 60 years of his spare time trying to develop a perpetual motion machine, when doing so would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

• A person blaming everything and everyone else for all their failed relationships, when a little introspection would reveal the true cause.

• A politician using every opportunity to claim that an election was stolen, when every legal effort has proven that the election was both honest and legal.

Show me where Communism actually works -- show me where both money and government have been eliminated, and where the people actually live according to "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

But until a state gives control of the means of production to the workers, communism hasn't been tried at all.

What does "giving control of the means of production to the workers" mean?
Abolishing any management?