Thread: Re-writing Communism

I like their ideal too, but I think all communist and socialist are all going about it backwards. Regardless of the system they try to implement, it all basically boils down to putting in a fascist and dictatorship type government. They get stronger and stronger governments, which only become more corrupt, more greedy and more broken.

If you want to reach the ideal, you need to go the other way, voluntarily sharing of resources. You can't force people to share and help each other, and trying to only makes things worse. You can however expect people to do it willingly, and you will not be disappointed by the results. When people are doing well, and they have what they want, they don't mind sharing and helping each other out.

People do it all the time on a family level. They do it pretty often in local communities as well. And if you give them the chance they do it on larger scale as well. It isn't the ideal of sharing that is wrong, its the lets force everyone to share in the way we demand upon our own terms, that is horribly wrong and doomed to fail.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I've noticed a lot of new-agers support communism simply because "oh well we're all reaching a consciousness switch and we're all one...therefore, communism." It's strange, really.

Well not so much. This goes back to the Hegelian theory that we are all descended from a collective mass that is seeking out our perfection as a species after which we will return to God whole. Check out Rothbard's Ideology and Theories of History

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But all this is irrelevant because you aren't a communist, you are actually a fascist. Before you get all in a tizzy, I'm not saying this as an insult but in the course of you saying what you believe you are expounding upon fascist doctrines. I will show you.

I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist. Let me clarify...

I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful. Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)

Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support. For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.

Firstly, public goods being satisfied by the state creates a dependence upon the state. Citizenry then see said dependence and look toward the state as a paternal figure breeding a sense of nationalism. Also intervention into the market in order to "protect the consumer" breeds the same dependence and paternal outlook.

Only when the state portrays itself as such. I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

I said most powerful, not exclusive... This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.

So you preach corporatism and cartelization. Corporatism being the unity between government and corporate power in order to achieve efficiency in the market and to prevent "cut throat competition" which detracts from productivity. Again I turn to Mussolini:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

I made no such claim. I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know. Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.

This last piece is just wishy-washy emotional egalitarianism that is impossible to apply to the real world. Though you can say that you perceive individuals as so similar they will experience the same lifestyles and therefore only the aggregation of the citizenry matter because they are all having the same "opportunities" and all experiencing the same experiences therefore leading to the point that greatest of a people is measured by how well the aggregate is able to experience the same things.

And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist... What is emotional about it? It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised. This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist. Let me clarify...

I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful. Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)

Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support. For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.

So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative? Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it.

Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Only when the state portrays itself as such. I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.

Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I said most powerful, not exclusive... This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.

You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I made no such claim. I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know. Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.

That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist... What is emotional about it? It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised. This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.

And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative? Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it.

I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word. I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.

Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.

Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism. Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.

Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple. I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.

You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive.

Most people in a given area will have similar needs. If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities. Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions. A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country. A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not. It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations. In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.

That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector.

Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist. In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.

And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.

Actually I'd call you an anarchist. How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare? The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet. How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich? How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education? Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal... Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase. You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government. I don't have this belief. Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

Just look at how many people are living pay check to pay check. If they weren't paying such high taxes, they would have more money to live on. You have to remember that every thing costs money. So you have two choice. Either you keep your money and spend it how you see fit, or you give your money to the government and they spend it the way they see fit. The problem is the government is usually a lot less effective, and more wasteful than individuals are. So you are basically paying a far larger amount in taxes, than it would cost you to get the same 'basic' services yourself.

Bureaucracy are by their nature wasteful and larger governments are always the least efficient spender of money. So if you are trying to maximize the number of people you help, you have to realize government isn't a good option.

People who don't make lots of money don't pay lots of taxes. For instance, I work weekends at one job and my last paycheck was 560$ gross, and 520$ after taxes. If you make over 50k/year and are living paycheck to paycheck, well that's a lifestyle choice.

You include social security and medicare as well? Because that is money I pay, and will never see again. Lets say you only pay 40 dollars a week in taxes though. That is still 2000 dollars a year. Poor people may pay less taxes, but they are the ones who need the money more than anyone else. So that little bit, still hurts them.

Originally Posted by Alric

You include social security and medicare as well? Because that is money I pay, and will never see again. Lets say you only pay 40 dollars a week in taxes though. That is still 2000 dollars a year. Poor people may pay less taxes, but they are the ones who need the money more than anyone else. So that little bit, still hurts them.

...but the recipients of Social Security and Medicare need the money. Taxes are necessary for the benefit of the community, as in universal, single-payer healthcare. It's better that the poor pay a small amount of taxes and have guaranteed healthcare than to have them keep it as spending money only to die because they lacked preventive care.

Yea but if that poor person can't afford food, then they die of starvation, and no amount of preventive care replaces basic needs. People can make an argument over what should or shouldn't be done by the government, and there are opposing sides to each of them. Some taxes are likely needed, however we are mainly talking about high taxes. Government simply can't do everything for people, and trying to charge us high taxes to get the money to try and fill every need of every person is just a huge waste of time and money. We should be looking at low taxes that focuses on the key issues.

Which goes back to communism and how they turn into totalitarian states. They keep trying to control everything, and that just isn't possible, and it isn't practical at all. It causes so many problems. I am not an anarchist who thinks we shouldn't have any government at all. I am a libertarian and I believe you need to have small government, that only covers the basic key things needed.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word. I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.

Both governments are authoritative. It's not a matter of principle but a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism. Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.

Not really since both communism and fascism is a subset philosophy of socialism. Fascism is the socialism of the right, and communism the socialism of the left.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple. I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.

You don't see the incoherence in thinking that the state should be superior over all private individuals but then say:
"I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all"

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Most people in a given area will have similar needs. If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities. Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions. A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country. A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not. It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations. In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.

So people shouldn't be involved in day-to-day affairs but again you think the state is something we participate in. Can you see the contradiction in this? You want to establish an oligarchical government in which certain people can dictate the day-to-day operations of other individuals? What happened to the egalitarianism? Oh wait they can just vote people out of power? Wonder, if you are the majority. Democracy just gives way to plutocrats who will give government favors to those who get them into office.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist. In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.

Because all fascists are socialists. Is the state going to have a monopoly on the providing of the list you stated before? The food, shelter, healthcare, water list.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Actually I'd call you an anarchist. How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare? The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet. How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich? How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education? Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal... Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase. You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government. I don't have this belief. Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

Are all teachers in all the United States on the same level of expertise? Are all state education programs run the same way? Do all states have the same exact pollution problems? How does one better the living standards of a people? Through increase purchasing dollar of the monetary unit ( the increase in buying power of money ) and the increase in productive power of capital causing an increase in supply which leads to lowering prices. These two tenets go hand in hand. Discontinue government interference between two consenting parties ( minimum wage laws, child labor laws, EPA regulations, OSHA regulations ) and cut inflation allowing people to save thereby increasing long-term investment which will allow for research/construction of capital efficiency. You are also stuck in this notion that everyone has to go to college when many jobs actually train their employees what to do at their job. Now there are some technical professions that demand higher education but not everyone takes on these professions. Also realize that college is so expensive these days because of government granted loans. Schools can keep upping the cost of tuition because students can just get more loans to pay for it. There is really no point in getting thousands of dollars in debt unless you cannot go without the recognition of a degree or the technical knowledge of higher education.

Yes humans are social animals but just because we are social doesn't infer the right of ANY individual to make choices concerning what they sacrifice for them. If you want to consent to such a lifestyle that is your choice and people should be good enough to respect it. In reality there is no "good for all." It's a common mistake for those that preach utilitarianism. You cannot quantify how much better off people supposedly are because of some proposition and qualitative difference is subjective to the individual at hand. Really, the term the "good for all" is just a justification for the few to hoodwink the many.

Originally Posted by GMoney

...but the recipients of Social Security and Medicare need the money. Taxes are necessary for the benefit of the community, as in universal, single-payer healthcare. It's better that the poor pay a small amount of taxes and have guaranteed healthcare than to have them keep it as spending money only to die because they lacked preventive care.

How does it follow that since you think people need healthcare, that you think it is right for the government to rob people? Because that is what you are doing, you don't have the fortitude to rob people but you rationalize others to do it for you.

What about the New Deal? Socialist measures that boosted the economy and workers rights at same time. It's a proof that government is a good tool if used the right way.

Originally Posted by Awakening

What about the New Deal? Socialist measures that boosted the economy and workers rights at same time. It's a proof that government is a good tool if used the right way.

Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Only if you accept the premise that the New Deal actually brought the U.S. economy out of the depression.

What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II. But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Awakening

What brought the U.S. entirely out of depression was the WW II.

In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.

But the New Deal made a fair amount of recovery, don't you agree?

No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.

There are a lot of people who believe WW 2 and the new deal caused the depression to drag on longer than it would have otherwise. Myself being included in that. While the new deal created a lot of jobs in one area, the increase in taxes killed jobs in other area's. The money we wasted on the war, also drained a lot out of the economy.

The worst thing about that time however, was the massive expansion of government, which is harming us to this very day. Social security was created that time, and it has been choking the life out of our economy ever since. It is now the biggest drain on our economy. Once upon a time our country wasn't in debt, however since the New Deal, our government has been in debt ever since. It put such a burden on us, we have never been able to escape that debt. It was the start of the horrible snowball that has grown totally out of control and now seeks to destroy our entire way of life.

The US is bankrupt. 14,186,563,596,330 dollars in debt. Most people are beginning to realize that we will never be able to pay off the debt. At least not with massive inflation that will wipe out all the savings in our country. This all started back then.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

In order for this to be true, one would have to explain how death and destruction plays a role in economic recovery. They would also have to explain why the U.S. economy didn't collapse again after WW2 ended if it was such a driving force behind recovery.

The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

No, for I would wager the New Deal prolonged the depression, and that the dissolution of New Deal policies around the WW2 period allowed real economic recovery to occur.

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?

Originally Posted by Awakening

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism.

Please, go on.

Originally Posted by Awakening

The Allies needed supplies of materials for war, and the U.S. sold it to them. It boosted the economy and employment.

This doesn't really answer the questions I proposed.

The whole point of an economy is to satisfy the demands of consumers. The sort of jobs "created" for the war did not include creating goods and tending to services desired by the consumer base. Furthermore, such jobs were "created" at the expense of possible job creation in the productive sector of the economy, and when one factors in the drafting of people into the military, the amount of workers available was significantly less. One must also factor in the loss of the workers drafted into the military due to death. And of course, one must factor in the fact that any goods produced for the war, which allegedly lead to increased economic activity and by extension recovery, were destined to be destroyed, and most were.

As Mises said, "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."

The economic bubble was the result of too much economic liberalism. One should expect some government intervention on economy after that crash. Why would 100% liberalism do it better?

How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

How was the bubble the result of too much economic liberalism? By liberalism I assume you mean something akin to free markets.

Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.

Originally Posted by spockman

Ours is the only country I can think of that uses liberal to mean more regulation.

The common claim is that the bubble was due to too little regulation, or that Hoover exacerbated the crash by allegedly not doing anything to ease it. Since economic liberalism can also be taken to mean something akin to free markets, it's probably more likely that's what he meant.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

The common claim is that the bubble was due to too little regulation, or that Hoover exacerbated the crash by allegedly not doing anything to ease it. Since economic liberalism can also be taken to mean something akin to free markets, it's probably more likely that's what he meant.

Yeah, were he American I would think liberalism to mean democratic policies. But he appears to be Palestinian so you are probably right.

I don't know if I'm quoting someone. I couldn't be arsed to read a 13 page long thread. So sorry

I'm a die hard Communist too. It took me a while to get rid of authoritarian stalinist/ maoist like communism with a cult of personality.
I believed that although countless people were harmed or killed in these brutal regimes, it worked. People were coherent and obedient, to most degrees.
Mostly out of fear, but still, society was kinda like an ant society but then with huge bureaucratic flaws.

Now I still like the Ideas of Marx and Lenin a lot, but I see things in other ways. In history things have mostly gone like this. If a peoples leader gives the people more certainty and safety(e.g.national healthcare, a government job, etc), there was less freedom. If a leader chooses more liberal practices, there's less certainty and poverty moreover. Sad part is that to a lot of people both things are pretty holy. I see communism as the 'nec plus ultra of' certainty and anarchism as the maximum of liberty.

If you combine both communism and anarchy, you're there. It's anarchocommunism. Still a revolutionary current. And as far as I know it focuses on a proletarian revolution followed not by the dictatorship of the proletariat but by dismantling nations and living in small communes that have tools of production as a collective owned tool. If that's not anarchocommunism than it's certainly the cause I fight for.