Why do people still blame communism?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't get it - it's not like anyone can reasonably say North Korea is truly communistic, in any sense of the word. Just because countries' leaders say they've implemented 'communism' doesn't mean it's true whatsoever. I got confused the first time I looked up the definition in a dictionary, since having dictators killing anyone they like isn't communism even if their dictatorship allows them to try to redefine communism (with everyone else swallowing it, it seems).

If they said their government will work by babies... will babies be blamed? Communism, as a pure ideology, has killed no one... corrupt 'leaders' did (anyone ever tried combining it with anarchism?)

I'm sure fascism by theory isn't suppose to result in the death and enslavement of millions just as communism by theory isn't suppose to. You can't disregard history.

Communism mixed with anarchism? It was tried in revolutionary Spain. The reviews were quite good.

Communism looks good on paper, but is impractical in the long term because one of its basic presumptions is that greed and lust for power can evolve out of humans in 1 or 2 generations of poverty.

Communism also requires the abolition of personal property - even the clothes on your own back would not be yours - and that use of community property could only be approved by committee ... and then disapproved by a higher committee.

It is just an excuse for some to have power, "some are more equal than others".

As above, communism should work if you could remove natural instincts and individuality from humans.

The same instincts and individuality that have led some to be vicious dictators and others to submit.

Most people don't know what communist ideology is, all they know is its that evil thing the everyone was afraid of during the cold war or some crap. Or some people just don't like the idea of getting rid of the financial hierarchy system, because we all know its the people who work the hardest who get paid the most:roll: I'd say places like North Korea more resemble fascism or totalitarianism or both since they can go together.

Problem is a communist society has not been reached, so communism couldn't have caused the death of millions. Maybe psedo-communism but not real communism as that would involve a classless society. As for facism its a very nationalistic philosophy so while it might not directly say in the philosophy 'the purpose is to enslave millions and cause millions of deaths' but I don't see how you get around that in facism..since its pretty much based on contribute to the system, be completely loyal to the government or else.

Coming from an ex-leftist fanatic who used to use this very argument, this "No true Scotsman" argument is all empty semantics and sophistry. Whether or not it was a true "classless society" or not, the ACTUAL implementation of Marxist doctrines as they happened in pursuit of some ill-defined, remote utopia has overwhelmingly led to the general mass poverty, repression, and in many instances widespread deaths of those living under said regimes.

The left hasn't done anything of significance since 1917, and western democratic capitalist/mixed economies have appropriated the few good ideas Marx had, completely derailing his prediction of inevitable social stratification and class warfare.

Last edited by drh1138 on 16 May 2013, 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Humans are flock animals, hunter gatherers survived by cooperating rather than competing. Greed is conditioned by the context we live under.

You posses the clothing on your back, they are yours. You don't need any approval from anyone.

What exactly is 'greed'? At what point is one 'greedy'?

'Greedy,' like 'fair' is a subjective term; it means different things to different people.

When people use 'greed' and 'fair' and whatnot they are usually making emotionally-charged, opinion-based claims that go nowhere.

To the OP, communism doesn't work, with or without 'anarchism'. Both require a fundamental change in human nature.

No, you can't, I totally agree. Unluckily Theories are never applied the way they are, there's always an interpretation of the leader applying it, plus the metropolitan tales against it, plus international relationships, alliances and events, plus the number of victories on one side or the other, plus those who sum up the results are always the winners. I'm persuaded it's not entirely possible to establish the potential of the way a theory is applied until opinions are the basis on which such theories are being evaluated.

Which, I think, makes me side up with the OP although I don't like Marx' theories that much.

Communism is as communism does and so far tens of millions have died under what passes for communism in the real world.

Not wanting evil gubbermint telling you what to do and not wanting to be bound by any collective decisions made for the benefit of more than just the rich is also rooted in some kind of emotion. It's the "how dare you tell me what to do!" or "I'm too cool to cooperate with the herd" emotion. Also, the world is filled with "squishy" subjective opinions. Social notions of contracts and property rights might be slightly less "squishy" than "fairness" but they are no less subjective and no less based on an opinion.

Could you specify what you mean by human nature? "Human nature" is also a vague term, everyone seems to think their ideology is inline with human nature. Communism is a reaction to the coercive forces of capitalism.

Last edited by RushKing on 16 May 2013, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

The real problem with communism is that it doesn't work well on a large scale in a world dominated by mass production. The price system helps keep supply anchored to demand across large scales. There isn't any reason the world can't move towards a more democratic and less hierarchical structure within large corporations while still preserving the beneficial aspects of free markets. It would be a move toward more worker control and a form of mutualism. Cooperatives can work efficiently.

The problem is that too many people are IDIOTIC enough to believe a PHILOSOPHY works in real life as it does on paper.

Capitalism is great IF it is tempered with wisdom, mercy, compassion and generosity. Some would say that America started as a Christian nation in fact if not in law, and those VALUES is why the founders felt Capitalism would work. However, pure capitalism is capable of doing great evil.

Likewise, Socialism/Communism works great on paper, but it ignores human needs and ambitions. It would take hundreds of years of coerced conditioning to "enlighten" humanity to work for equal pay and wealth regardless of what you do for a living, and I would contend that you'd never succeed. Indeed, the reality of when this ideology is put into practice, the people with the power enjoy the perks of wealth and position...no different than pure capitalism.

When you look at a proposed ideology WITH OPEN EYES as to how real life WILL factor in, you can see it as potentially workable (as with Capitalism) or utterly flawed (as with Socialism/Communism).