Opinions about Communism?

Scroll to see replies

So why is it that, let's say, when a doctor uses their talent and hard work to efficiently satisfy the demand of keeping people alive, they don't get millions coming to them like those at the very top? Same kind of logic applies here and to many other professions tbh.

But you do talk about people as consumers? :dontknow:

yes. either consumers or tax payers. it's still the same thing when tax payers are "customers of democracy". but it's an economic axiom that the market > democracy in terms of satisfying demand, I mean, politicians don't have contracts with their voters. hell, with voter anonymity they don't even know who their voters are.

How do you know for certain that it'll fail? What if people overcame that 'natural greed'?

because why didn't that natural greed end after generations (almost 100 years) of communism in russia? why wouldn't it have ended there with such an environment?

Perhaps a very flawed idea but a better system could be where people are rewarded according to the contribution they make to society. Of course, the main pitfall would be measuring the contribution a person makes. Just an idea though

[quote]but why? that's not ending greediness either - that's just greed aimed at another incentive. they'll still be wanting the $ for their contributions to society. also, capitalism effectively does operate under this kind of scheme; the iphone was a contribution to society, hence apple made so much money

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 101

Davij038

It's an abstract impossibility. Just like capitalism. :wink:

Reply 102

nexttime

Original post by BubbleBoobies

because we have a market of doctors competing, mainly between private and public sources. if you have competition, even with high demand, the price will decrease to be around the kind of amount of money that satisfies the time and skills put into the work.

There is no market of doctors. Virtually every doctor in the UK works for the NHS (with some senior consultants doing private work on the side). The only free market was the locum market that lead to doctors getting £60, £80+ per hour, so the government put an artificial cap on it this April.

Reply 103

nexttime

Original post by Hydeman

I don't quite get the example of doctors, because although they are undoubtedly talented and hardworking (well, most of them...), so are many other doctors. The average junior doctor in, say, Bristol isn't exactly doing anything that another junior doctor in London couldn't do. A more like-for-like comparison with the case of CEO pay would be world-leading doctors, who pioneer new techniques and treatments, and they do indeed make millions.

Lol @ the idea of medical research being a lucrative career choice, especially in the UK.

The rich doctors are the ones who have contacts in Harley Street and do simple surgical procedures for those aforementioned billionaires.

Reply 104

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Davij038

It's an abstract impossibility. Just like capitalism. :wink:

Controversial :colonhash:

Reply 105

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by BubbleBoobies

was he a *communist*? nope
was he even really a socialist in the statist sense, I wonder

He was a socialist in the actuals sense of the word which I don;t think you understand. Go read Homage to Catalonia. It is entirely possible to be radically socialist and not be overtly statist or you may well be entirely opposed to any form of statism (see socialist anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism).

Orwell fought under a communist militia and and was incredibly praisful of left communist and anarchist forces in the Spanish civil war. After the conflict and had gained a greater understanding of what was going on he said he would have joined the anarchists had he known then what he knew now. He was a socialist. ON the back of all his books he writes "Everything I have written is against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism." He wasn't against communism, he was against totalitarianism in any political form. Whether it be Stalinism or Fascism.

“Except for the small revolutionary groups which exist in all countries, the whole world was determined upon preventing revolution in Spain. In particular the Communist Party, with Soviet Russia behind it, had thrown its whole weight against the revolution. It was the Communist thesis that revolution at this stage would be fatal and that what was to be aimed at in Spain was not workers' control, but bourgeois democracy. It hardly needs pointing out why 'liberal' capitalist opinion took the same line.” ~ Orwell.

"Socialism means a classless society, or it means nothing at all. And it was here that those few months in the militia were valuable to me. For the Spanish militias, while they lasted, were a sort of microcosm of a classless society. In that community where no one was on the make, where there was a shortage of everything but no privilege and no bootlicking, one got, perhaps, a crude forecast of what the opening stages of socialism might be like. And, after all, instead of disillusioning me it deeply attracted me. The effect was to make my desire to see socialism established much more actual than it had been before."

The above quote is what I mean by he was a socialist in the ture sense of the word. He wanted a classless society. Not a social democratic mixed economy with the "grab factor" still in tact (although he certainly defending the creating of such things as the NHS). Not a Marxist Leninist state capitalist force march to some future world communism or forced collectisvation. Rather a libertarian move to a classless egalitarian society like what he saw the seeds of in Revolutionary Spain. That is what he means by "democratic socialism as I understand it". It really isn't hard to see this, all you have to do is read the books he wrote. People like yourself can use him to point out why communist regimes were terrible but you can't hijack Orwell as being a right wing pro capitalist ally.

He was on the side of the farm animals. Not the pigs or humans.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 106

DanteTheDoorKnob

I think it's very bad:
- Encourages violent revolution without respect for law.
- Encourages indiscriminate warfare against people with more wealth than you.
- Encourages a materialistic philosophy where the economy is the most important.
- Encourages an unrealistic view of equality which requires authoritarian measures.
- Encourages violence against nations in the name of ideology while ignoring complex issues.

It's just a destructive force very much like fascism, even the claim that communists have good intentions is not fair, even fascists have good intentions in their own twisted sense.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 107

DanteTheDoorKnob

I think liberalism is stupid as well, what sort of ideology speaks so highly about freedom in a clearly unfree and unequal world? Where is the freedom in being compulsed to eat or work otherwise you die?

Some authority and control is natural, and I for one would thoroughly support regulation of certain industries or policies in the general interest over selfish individualism.

Reply 108

Davij038

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Controversial :colonhash:

Just one example. Capitalism is built on the premise of rationalism in that humans are naturally rational. This isn't the case and things like growing obesity and the behaviour exhibited in the financial crash shows this.

Additionally its increasingly being viewed by neoliberals as a science when it is isn't as put beautifully by varoufakis

Reply 109

Davij038

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob

I think it's very bad:
- Encourages violent revolution without respect for law.
- Encourages indiscriminate warfare against people with more wealth than you.
- Encourages a materialistic philosophy where the economy is the most important.
- Encourages an unrealistic view of equality which requires authoritarian measures.

- Encourages violence against nations in the name of ideology while ignoring complex issues.

It's just a destructive force very much like fascism, even the claim that communists have good intentions is not fair, even fascists have good intentions in their own twisted sense.

Communism has good intentions for everyone. Even the bourgeois are better off under communism according to Marx. I'm not a communist but I have Marxist sympathies.

1- whose laws? How did those laws get there?

2- see 1

3- lol. Whilst Marxism is generally materialistic: your account of it is how Marx speaks of capitalism. There's plenty of Hegelian idealistic nonsense thrown in there eg working class consciousness

4- Marx called for the abolition of profit and property, not necessarily quotas and SJWs on uni campuses

5- -nations Encourage violence against nations in the name of ideology while ignoring complex issues.

Reply 110

Captain Haddock

It would be nice if there was a single non-leftist on this site who had at least a bare minimum understanding of what communism is so that we could see some real, challenging debates take place, as opposed to seeing the same old cliches being trotted out every time the subject comes up.

Reply 111

DanteTheDoorKnob

Original post by Davij038

Indeed, the bourgeois having their property overthrown and being lynched by a mob are far better off under communism.

1) Through judicial consideration, you're going to say they're bourgeoise in nature, you're right, they're still decided by careful consideration though and it's far better than 'i'm a proleterian you're a bourgeoise, how about go kill yourself' which characterized the Russian revolution, if you're seriously going to say the Communist International wasn't communist just don't bother lmao

Most bourgeoise national laws are not barbaric, the death penalty and torture being abolished proves this, both of these however are practiced at times of revolution and war, which is what communism causes.

2) See 1

3) No, my account is consistent with how most writers speak of it, Marx turned Hegel on his head by replacing his idealist philosophy with materialism, in Leninist tradition that was pushed to an extreme (in his writing Materialism and Empiricio-Criticism or whatever it's called, it's a boring read) this is the Orthodox understanding and accepted by most Marxists (Kautsky, Bernstein and other revisionists included)

4) Agreed, but i'm not talking about SJW. I'm talking about the need for press restrictions to prevent spread of bourgeoise ideology as one example.

5) Yes, contrary to the beliefs of Marxists, starting fights with powerful nations with good intentions and internationalist ideas leads to warfare, poverty and destruction not 'you're right, let me just relinquish my power'

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 112

DanteTheDoorKnob

Original post by Captain Haddock

Perhaps you could clarify them for us simpletons?

My understanding of Orthodox tradition:
- Materialist dialectic following Hegelian tradition with an understanding of history as based on class struggle.
- Proleterariat will eventually gain class consciousness due to conditions of capitalism improving.
- They will then free themselves from bourgeoise expolitation (mainly through confiscation of surplus profit and labour theory of value which holds that the capitalist takes more than the worker is given)

Reply 113

Hirsty97

Only good communist is a dead communist.

Reply 114

irfan98

Original post by balanced

I think it's one of the worst things to take place on earth, killing over 100million people. Not to mention those that suffered as a result, and didn't die. I would happily end my life to kill a communist leader, and would happily fight against a communist government.

There's no such thing as a "communist government". If you read Marx, he calls for the ultimate abolition of the state. What you're referring to are Soviet regimes, such as those of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European client states, which didn't even come close to communism. In fact, if anything, the system of government in place in those countries were the opposite of communism. Did the proletariat run their own affairs? No. If there was one unifying ideology in those nations, it was the ideology of totalitarianism. It had nothing to do with communism. They called themselves communist, but they also called themselves democracies. We all know what to think of the latter.

Reply 115

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by irfan98

It did in the sense that it was communists motivated by Leninist-Marxist ideology trying to force march the world to communism. Trying to pretend it has nothing to do with communism is disingenuous and only allows ignorant people to dismiss all the other points you made which are good points. You are right that the Soviet Union was certainly not a communist society.

Also this is more a question about Marx's philosophy in general but would the proletariat actually run their own affairs in a conscious way? Or was it more that once machine production has been freed from the political economy of capitalism that communism would be the natural result of human economic interactions that would arise without any kind of planning?

For all the talk about communism and what it would look like Marx actually wrote very little on the subject. Most of his work was based on a critique of capitalism which is the better part of his work imo.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 116

irfan98

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

From what I understand of Marx, it was very much the proletariat taking over the means of production in a conscious way, as this is how they become truly liberated. Also, on the point about the Soviet Union having nothing to do with communism, the whole ideology of Marxism-Leninism is total nonsense in my opinion. I mean, if you read Lenin, he talks about the workers needing to subordinate themselves to one leader in a "labour army", and the means of production being taken over by the State with total control being exercised over the lives of the proletariat. That had nothing to do with communism, and even less to do with socialism. There's an interesting read on the topic I found by Noam Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/1986____/

Reply 117

FigurativeTart

All of you endorsing communism should have lived in a communist country to see how it's put into practise, and how it still affects the current generation (as in many parts it is still raised by parents who lived under communism)

Communism has failed in practise, and it will always do. Instead of breeding a spirit of solidarity, it has led to paranoia and selfishness.
When people will realise that you will never succeed in convincing an entire population to live all cute and cuddly in a community and follow the slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" you will open your eyes and pursue something more relevant.

Why paranoia? Because one of the best ways to show allegiance to the system, or to avoid having people suspect you of anything was to turn your neighbour.
Why selfishness? Because when you impose a "levelled playing field" on diverse individuals, with different aspirations, different ambitions, lazy and hardworking alike, you will not stir up a mutual charity, but dissent. The people who worked hard and therefore produced more for themselves (and, ultimately, the society) will have that surplus taken from them, and given to the ones who were not necessarily just poor out of unfortunate circumstances, but some also because either them or their parents where just lazy or inapt to get anything more out of their lives. Consequently, you will not encourage the hard working people to push harder, because why do that if you'll have your merit taken away from you, and neither will you encourage the lazy ass tarts to improve their condition, as they have an assurance that the system will help them.

Communism and Marxism enjoyed blaming the capitalist system, but what they seem to forget or not realise is that behind every system you have individuals. I'm not claiming that all individuals are inherently competitive, as I've seen a couple of communist loonies that are fervidly committed to their ideology, but you will have inherently and instinctually competitive individuals in communism, and they will be the ones who will make this system fail again, and again, and again.

I'd rant over how Communism has been a failure and will always be a failure for so long, that I could write a dissertation and initiate a new discipline, but I'll just stop here.

Reply 118

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by LaMandarine

Communism and Marxism enjoyed blaming the capitalist system,

Communists and Marxists also enjoyed blaming the soviet union.

Reply 119

FigurativeTart

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Communists and Marxists also enjoyed blaming the soviet union.

And your point is?
The Soviet union is not the only application of communism that failed horribly. By blaming the failed application of your ideology, are you thereby making it more legitimate? I don't understand.