People Who Say "Communism Is Bad" Without Actually Knowing What It Is

TheConductor · 2011-06-20 01:27:56

Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and views on how the world should be run. I happen to think communism is the way forward.

But all the Gosh darn time I'll get people citing China and Stalin's Russia as times in which Communism failed. Even though NEITHER of those countries are Communist!

You ask a Commie and they'll tell you they hate China and Mao as much as the next guy!

Look, if you're going to hate something, at least learn what it actually is! That's all I ask.

Forzare · 2011-06-20 01:31:58

Communism in theory isn't a bad thing. But true communism is basically impossible in the real world, when you have any more than, like, thirty people.

DonZabu · 2011-06-20 01:50:21

I'd like to see how communism without a brutal dictatorship happen, just to see whether the combination is inevitable or if the history of communism has just been one long case of bad luck in that regard.

TheConductor · 2011-06-20 01:55:31

@Forzare: Only if you tried to introduce it instantly, the human condition, being what it is, wouldn't allow it. If it was brought about gradually (and chosen by the people) then it could be brought in.

@DonZabu: I think, Soviet Russia (and possibly Cuba, but I don't know enough about it) had a decent shot a socialism and had it not been for pressure from first the Nazis and then America it may have flourished.

MadassAlex · 2011-06-20 02:58:33

^^ Easy: actually make it a democracy in the first place. This is the key factor that most people ignore. China was never communist and Soviet Russia was Socialist pre-Stalin, but when he took power he used that economic and political leaning as a shield as he reestablished capitalism and a non-democratic system.

The flaw in communism and socialism isn't that they don't work. It's that the period of destabilisation immediately after the political shift leaves the country vulnerable to their neighbours, who usually then proceed to kick their ass.

BonSequitur · 2011-06-20 03:54:25

Not to piss in anyone's cereal here, but isn't a political system that by its very nature weakens the state, even if temporarily, to the point that it becomes vulnerable and inevitably comes under pressure from opportunistic foreign power on that, indeed, does not work?

MillerCross · 2011-06-20 03:58:18

I don't think that Communism's "very nature" weakens the state. It's just that most of the time, the transition towards it is reallly, really, clumsy.

Personally, I believe that Capitalism is far better. It just needs some twitching and troubleshooting.

BonSequitur · 2011-06-20 04:07:03

Personally, I just become increasingly sceptical of rationalist attempts at improving things. But anti-rationalist ideologies like Burkean conservatism and anarcho-whateverism seem intellectually bankrupt to me. I'm a big believer in the twin principles that we are all generally fucked but don't Sweden, Iceland and Finland seem to 'get it' on some level?

MadassAlex · 2011-06-20 04:15:34

^^^ In the sense that you can't trust a foreign power to sit idle while you stabilise, sure. But there's nothing inherently wrong with those systems internally -- they just didn't count on foreign, aggressive powers. This wouldn't be an issue everywhere in the world.

^^ The main issues with capitalism are class division and the waste of resources in a competitive system. Since objects (such as household appliances and technology) are mostly produced to satisfy a theoretical demand, a lot of core resources are left on the shelves or in storehouses rather than being used for constructive purposes. One of the goals of socialism is to adapt industry for the needs of human consumption rather than corporate needs. This would reduce the industrial power turned towards, say, making TV sets and increase the industrial power dedicated to feeding, clothing and housing populations.

Capitalism is inherently competitive, and that means it doesn't encourage cooperation. This is a pretty big issue in a world where we're causing the death of many natural resources. Industry run by the state for human needs could heavily reduce the amount of waste product and therefore resources wasted, meaning we'd be taking less from the environment and supplying ourselves just as well.

Noimporta · 2011-06-20 08:08:38

don't Sweden, Iceland and Finland seem to 'get it' on some level?

While it's true that they seem to be countries that "work", it's hard to determine if theirs is a model (the core ideas, anyway, not the exact same thing) that can be applied globally in a sustainable manner, or it's just something that works because they are small and in a privileged position.

MadassAlex · 2011-06-20 09:01:30

I think a big part of it is that they don't need a whole lot of military expenditure, for one thing. Being protected by the central and western European nations to the south both politically and geographically means they don't face the same defensive concerns as other nations.

Kind of like how New Zealand basically has no defense force and would hypothetically rely on Australia for that kind of support. Although I do understand that those Scandinavian nations do have their own militaries that could be mobilised for a threat.

All the same, not needing to splurge on immediate defense concerns saves a lot of money and diverts public attention more heavily towards other factors.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 10:32:40

As far as I can tell, Communism basically will fail due to human greed. In addition, I subjectively don't like it because I prefer the economic freedom and competition Capitalism provides.

Also, this is the first time I've heard someone say that the USSR wasn't Communist.

IanExMachina · 2011-06-20 11:02:42

I'm all for socialism myself, for a lot of reasons explained by above posts.

Also for socialised healthcare and welfare.

^

Did you not look at cold war history at school?

Chagen · 2011-06-20 11:05:38

We don't have "Cold War History" as a specific class. And when we did go over it, the class stated that they were pure Communist.

IanExMachina · 2011-06-20 11:08:54

Well not as specific class but like a focus for a term or so is what I meant.

I question your teachers knowledge when calling them purely communist, although you are like 15 or something so they could be simplifying it and then if you take history later they may explain fully?

(Or they could be die hard McCarthyists)

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-06-20 11:23:14

The gist: they tried to be Communist, but ended up being authoritarian anti-capitalists.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:06:56

"....authoritarian anti-capitalists."

......I thought that's what Communism was.

Noimporta · 2011-06-20 12:22:27

It's not. The URSS was not particularly anti-capitalist in practice either. In the end, a more accurate label for them would've been "State capitalism", one that's also pretty appropriate for China.

However, as stated before, there's a problem with saying that that wasn't real communism: It's true that it wasn't, but it certainly tried to be. When an anarcho-capitalist nutjob claims that total deregulation of the markets and everything economy related would work perfectly, efficiently and would ensure the maximum utility for everyone, we usually point and laugh, and that's OK, because it's dumb, simplistic and it would most likely never happen in real life for a variety of factors. When someone argues for communism, they usually compare the current state of affairs with an ideal communist state, and when someone points to the URSS and China, they claim that that isn't real communism. As such, the comparison ends up being between a real system vs an ideal model, which is not a very honest exercise (not saying this is the case). So while China and Russia were certainly not real communism, that doesn't mean that they have no place in a discussion regarding its merits.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:28:52

"In the end, a more accurate label for them would've been "State capitalism", one that's also pretty appropriate for China."

Try telling this to my dad and he will explode and go into in a ridiculous lecture about how China is a giant fraud and it is not Capitalist in the slightest.

Vorpy · 2011-06-20 12:30:07

Your dad is a dumb asshole then. That's not even a good reason to get mad over China.

Noimporta · 2011-06-20 12:35:08

Try telling this to my dad and he will explode and go into in a ridiculous lecture about how China is a giant fraud and it is not Capitalist in the slightest.

And then I'd be all like "Deal with it".

Your dad is a dumb asshole then. That's not even a good reason to get mad over China.

Weren't you told to drop that already? repeatedly?

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:35:12

I think my dad hates China because he's scared that it will overtake America.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-06-20 12:37:39

To be fair, it will.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:38:58

And my dad grew up when Nationalism and Xenophobia was at its highest, so...

MillerCross · 2011-06-20 12:40:22

why are we bringing Chagen's dad into this?

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:42:49

Because I mentioned it.

BACK TO COMMUNISM

Noimporta · 2011-06-20 12:43:54

The soviets sure had the best anthem.

Chagen · 2011-06-20 12:51:58

And hot women.

Don't forget all the hot Russian women.

BonSequitur · 2011-06-20 12:52:46

I wish people would stop making the argument that European nations with significant welfare states 'outsource' their defence to the US, as this is blatantly not true. Finland and Sweden have more or less the same conventional warfare capabilities they had during WWII or more, and Iceland is a tiny island nation which does rely on NATO for defence, but even if it didn't, proportional defence expenditure for them would be tiny. The case isn't that European nations are unburdened by defence spending, it's that the US is vastly over-burdened by defence spending, not to any positive effect but due to playing at interventionist wars and feeding a military-industrial complex that produces relatively little useful capabilities for very large quantities of money. It's also of note that if the US had European-style taxes and social services, it could easily afford them without gutting its ridiculous military capabilities.

TheConductor · 2011-06-20 12:57:53

Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don't cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all

So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone
In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken, now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one Earth on which to live

So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal

Unites the human race

And so begins the final drama
In the streets and in the fields
We stand unbowed before their armour
We defy their guns and shields
When we fight, provoked by their aggression
Let us be inspired by like and love
For though they offer us concessions
Change will not come from above

So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song
So comrades come rally
For this is the time and place
The international ideal
Unites the human race

Chagen · 2011-06-20 13:01:13

Someone should make a badass rock remix of that.

Though they probably already have.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

People Who Say "Communism Is Bad" Without Actually Knowing What It Is

Comments