Why do you reject communism?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=105502
Printed Date: December 02 2024 at 15:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why do you reject communism?
Posted By: condor
Subject: Why do you reject communism?
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 04:22
| I'd be interested to know.. |
Replies:
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 04:27
|
I'm sure it's fine for some people. But me, I like girls. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: DDPascalDD
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 04:32
|
I already missed the condor threads! Perfect equality can't be achieved without a lot of resistance and problems that it would cause, 'cause men aren't perfectly equal. So I go for equality is undesireable. At least not hiw it's adapted in communism. ------------- |
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 04:52
I dont.  (and a lot of the reasons above are "false reasons", based on a misunderstanding on what comunism is.) ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 05:58
|
Because it always becomes a dictatorship? ------------- Ian Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/ |
Posted By: Angelo
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 06:10
|
I miss the option 'Why not?' ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 07:26
|
I like pens with a better grip. ------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 07:28
|
It's a faded old bit. Not even Communists practice Communism anymore. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 07:51
The problem with communism (an originally generous concept) is that it denies one fundamental aspect of humanity: individuality (the desire to stick out from the mass).
Well it becomes that way because there is usually strong opposition to the system, and some have different concept of solidarity. So to "enforce" communism, it becomes totalitarian, partly to make sure everyone participates.
|
Nogbad_The_Bad wrote:Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 08:23
|
I don't oppose it per se. In fact I think Marxism and communist ideas have helped make the world a little less atrocious than if capitalism had never had any type of opposition. But I think most people who oppose it see at what real-life communism was and think (probably justifiably so) that communism always degenerates into tyranny and empty shops and grey buildings. ------------- 
|
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 09:08
|
I'm certainly no expert on political systems but as I understand it there isn't any real Communism anywhere in the world today. What some countries have are various forms and degrees of socialistic dictatorships ruled by party elites. (And all the 'experts' on the board can correct me on this if needed.) I suppose when people become more enlightened (not likely any time soon) then some form of true Communism might exist. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 09:59
|
You need an option for "Cuz I'm 'MURICAN, dammit". ------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: Ozark Soundscape
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 11:00
|
Cause basic income is better. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 12:12
|
Because I seen: a) Peru ruined because of Juan Velazco Alvarado b) 150,000 Peruvians die because of Shinning Path Don't this names: - Lenin - Stalin - Mao - Pol Pot - Castro - Che Guevara - Chavez - Maduro - Kim dinasty - Milosevic - Tito Make you think in something? ------------- 
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 12:34
|
First, I am Hungarian born, so we tasted the 'finer' elements of Stalinism. Communism cannot possibly work unless its being enforced by a one-party system, that gives the ruling ELITE the easy road to corrupt, use and abuse IN THE NAME of the people. Add Robespierre, Marat, Trotsky, Honecker, Rakosi and Ceaucescu to the shameful list. Though Marx was mostly espousing anti-capitalism , there should be no surprise that a real Communist 'utopia' has never existed nor will it. At least, not on our planet (LOL) . BTW, I was reading some studies on how Rome went from a 'republic' to an empire , which is why Caesar was killed, among other reasons. ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 13:56
|
Communism has grand roots but its branches spoiled the tree....Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tito - the idea of the vanguard of the proletariat was basically the splice that downed Communism. It gutted the premise and promise of equality - I mean, when a select few deem themselves to be the torchbearers of any political ideal, then the next step is Fascism or Dictatorship. Perhaps true Communism is a pipe dream, but I'll never let go of the ideal that a brotherhood of man built on an equality and mutual respect/love is not only possible but marks the start of our true potential....our evolution to something higher than the materialist capitalism that has spread and locked in on our political and social landscape. What a drag! ------------- I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there..... |
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 14:56
|
I'm secretly a member of 14 different political parties that have ties to communism (and only 8 are strictly totalitarian).
------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 15:01
 I've said of communism... great in theory..the kind of system and world where it would be possible to work that we all could dream of.. but ruined by basic human nature to wield power, influence and violence upon his fellow man.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 13 2016 at 15:24
|
Communism is like any other economic system. It says, even if only momentarily, to a certain group of people, "don't do this thing," and inevitably those people do that thing. Though the goal of communism is anarchy, it requires government for a time to redistribute resources, means of production, etc. Those governments inevitably end up abusing their power. It's the same with capitalism and the rich. There's no real way to distribute responsibility equally as long as there is any system in place. Every system will inevitably fail at some point in some way. I don't reject communism so much as find myself uninterested, as it offers only a different set of solutions and problems than the economy in which I live. It makes more sense to me, to plug up holes in the levee, adapting the system instead of replacing it. That said, other systems in place tend to get in the way of any actual problem solving. I'm not very idealistic, am I? ------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music 
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 03:08
You forgot Ortega and his Sandisnistas  I don't have much to hold against those I bolded out, especially in the light of the Fujimori, Stroessner, Somoza, Pinochet and another array of strongly anti-communist tyrants/dictators in Latin America ... or even Salazar and Franco in Europe. Most of those So-Am far-leftist leaders actually tried to include millions of humans that were left out from their own society - and not necessarily just Amerindians either. (not sure I would count Milosevic as a communist, though)
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 07:51
It's true that communism has never truly been achieved, most countries that are communist usually never evolve past state capitalism. And I cannot speak for communism as a whole but I know that it's not an uncommon for anarcho-communists to think that true revolution wouldn't be achievable unless people were to free themselves. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 07:53
Only if you are a marxist-leninist type, an anarcho-communist for example rejects the state entirely. |
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 10:00
|
I reject it for other reasons. Someone will always end up with power. Those people will take advantage of everyone else. Humanity is scum. ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: Davesax1965
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 11:24
|
I don't, but what I reject is Americans talking about Evil Com'nism when they don't actually know the difference between Communism and Socialism. Even within communism, there is a whole degree of variance, as Polymorphia points out, as well. Most right thinking people would reject a Stalinist style reign of terror (except perhaps, it's unusual that Stalin is highly regarded as a leader within Russia for a number of reasons) but then again, most people would reject the worst excesses of capitalism - which, fact fans, is what you don't have in the US and Western countries. It's more "consumerism". ------------- |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 13:16
You forgot a bunch of other valid arguments, such as the rejection of the destruction of the individual, obliteration of continuousness and vilification of existence, among many, many others. As totalitarian regimes usually do, as usually is the case with collectivism in general, the destruction of self is something I'm very much against. Oh, not to mention the absolutely annihilation of the notion of rule of law and rights.
The problem is that communism goes against one of the most basic ideas of any living being: self-preservation. Which is why the other totalitarians (the ones that, at least, allow people to do as they pleased, as long as it was in the interest of the State) flourished as a viable opposition to the communist totalitarism (fascism in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Greece, Turkey and its very own Latin American brand, populism, cheifed by Perón, Vargas and Mexico's Partido Revolucionario Institucional). As for the anarchists, an anarchist country existed right after the end of WW1, but it was obliterated by the USSR. I guess communism's worst enemy is marxism-leninism, LOL.
Haven't you forgot Túpac Amaru? Oh, and don't forget the f**king paramilitary movements being forwarded by the São Paulo Forum in order to incentivize civil uprising and unrest. I don't know much about those around Latin America, but in Brasil there are at least two big ones: MST - Movimento dos Sem Terra (infamously known for diverting goods and money from its settlements to luxurious cars, land properties, helicopters and jets for its leaders, as well as invading research centres and destroying decades of research that would benefit the poorest, most desperate farmers) and MTST - Movimento dos Trabalhadores Sem-Teto (MST's urban strong-arm; not as effective due to how well our police force is trained in dealing with chaos and absolute disorder, gained from decades of fighting against druglords). -------------   
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 13:23
|
I don't necessarily reject it. I do think at assumptions it makes, assumptions required for it to be tenable on a large scale, run contrary to what we understand about human nature. Some extremely strong societal pressure is then necessary to pick up the slack in the absence of the truth of its axioms and unfortunately this will most easily and readily manifest itself as violence. However, although it's mostly wrong, Marxism as a school of thought has contributed a lot of good things, particularly for designing non-economic social structures. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 14:38
|
I don't reject it and embrace many of the ideals. I don't think true communism has ever bee achieved by a state, and I don't know that it's workable, but on a small level it is achievable. There have been nomadic groups that have achieved a communal state of existence (no big ideologies, just a group of people sharing the limited resources and working together). Been so many years since I studied political science and sociology, I tend not to involve myself in these discussions. Back in university, the Marxist-Leninists were trying hard to bring me into the fold, didn't like them -- quite fanatical. I've always had socialist leanings. I do think the idea of Communism is far too vilified by far too many people who mostly haven't even studied it in any depth. |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 15:08
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 17:14
It isn't anarchism per se, but Rojava has a type of government that is based heavily on a type of libertarian socialism. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 14 2016 at 17:18
Also just because I can't resist the temptation to post memes
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 15 2016 at 11:45
|
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: January 15 2016 at 11:59
^  ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: January 15 2016 at 13:20
|
It doesn't work for anyone apart from those at the very top, so for a start it's nothng to do with equality, like fascism it's about control. It results in dictatorship and always ends badly. It robs people of incentive to reach their full potential. It strips away choice. There's no historical evidence that it works. Capitalism is far from perfect but it is demonstrably superior as a system. The ideal system merges the better parts of socialism and capitalism, but we're yet to see that. Basically where there's a winner there is inevitably a loser. Under communism you have significantly more losers than you do under capitalism. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Smurph
Date Posted: January 15 2016 at 14:34
|
Does anyone REALLY think that powerful dick heads wouldn't find a way to control everyone under communism? ------------- http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - http://pseudosentai.bandcamp.com/ wtf |
Posted By: Polymorphia
Date Posted: January 15 2016 at 14:48
|
^We covered this:
------------- https://dreamwindow.bandcamp.com/releases" rel="nofollow - My Music
|
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 12:00
| I'd be alright with socialism. I don't see any advantage to communism over socialism. I still like to own things. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 12:26
|
Why even want it? Socialism would work far better (economically, socially, politically pretty much every way) and could in theory be achieved through peaceful means. There's just no use for communism which isn't even realistic. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 13:23
You still own things in a communist ideology. It's personal property. What wouldn't exist is private property, which would also be nonexistent in socialism. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 13:42
|
well there is the (obviously thorny and emotional) matter of National Socialism. Looking at it purely economically and not for its tragic and odious social and racial agenda which was a vehicle for political power, making the Jewish a scapegoat for national humiliation that followed ww1, not a part of the economic viability of the system in itself. One can argue that it was a economic system that opposed both Communism and Capitalism. An attempt, economically to take the best of both Capitalism and Communism. Agree? Disagree? ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 16:29
Disagree absolutely, Micky. Hitler was an anti-marxist per nature, and nothing he said/wrote has absolutley nothing to do with marx. He defended the national sistem of germany capitalism. Thats it. He was anti-liberalism (in the economic sense), but thats it. ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: GKR
Date Posted: January 17 2016 at 16:30
Its incredible how we still have to point this out. Its so simple... ------------- - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 19 2016 at 21:26
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 20 2016 at 19:29
You see, Matt, the personal belongings which are "tolerated" in communism are only what's of the utmost importance for the individual, which means you can kiss goodbye most utilities we have. Commies here used the Neolithic indians to demonstrate this point: you should have clothes and other things you need to live (personal hygiene items and such), but EVERYTHING ELSE would be socialized. Your house? socialized. Your land? socialized. Your books? socialized (after all, the bourgeoisie domination was/is also intellectual). Computers and phones? socialized. Your records? socialized. Do you have a ceiling fan or heater in the house? well, too bad, there's a family of 15 that needs it more than you, socialized. There's a reason why Lenin had to modulate marxism with State Capitalism: the mass socialization and the abolishment of "capitalist" ideals, such as currency and private property was done with the utmost zealotry in the earliest days of the October revolution, but the disaster was so utterly universal (farmers, and here I mean SERFS, not nobleman) refused or couldn't to plant because they had no means to, since the central committee took everything they produced last year, same happened with mines, factories . . . Russia also had one of the most massive brain drains ever experienced, probably only surpassed by when the whole thing fell because scientists and otherwise intellectuals had their means to created stripped from them and so for. Hell, even the musicians who played "counter-revolutionary" music, whatever that means, were persecuted because either their instruments or their styles didn't appeased to the chaos forced collectivization brought. Then Lenin had the greatest idea any socialist had, economy-wise: let's conjecture a pre-revolutionary/collectivizing state, in which the will of the people was substituted by the will of the state. There you have it. What you mean by personal property is the pre-collectivization state of being, when in the communist "utopia" that concept disappears completely, like the bolsheviks tried to implement, but failed miserably.
What he probably means is that both totalitarian regimes had more in common than they had different. Which is absolutely true: they disagreed ideologically, but their modus procedendi was either the exact same or very similar, even economically: mass statization, strict control of production and what could be produced (in the nazi state, that meant "un-German" products were forbidden), absolute control of "morals" (arian moral and communist morality), oppression, disintegration of self, destruction of communities and so forth.
Don't animals actually do that on local levels? I mean, at least two mass-extinctions happened either by the depletion of resources or the creation of an universal poisonous resource (oxygen). And if animals have the means (or evolutionary traits) they not only organized themselves in small groups, but also fight for hegemony, which may cause the depletion of resources from any given area. Human social organization is just extremely advanced, but the basics are in every gregarious animal group/society, specially the great apes. -------------
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 20 2016 at 19:58
Tupac Amaru is a fraud. He was a landlord of Tungasuca who fought the Spanish, because they took taxes (Prebendas). He didn't seek for freedom of America as Chavez, Fidel, etc say, he wanted to be richer and stop paying taxes. If Perú would had been independent, he would had fought against the central government -------------
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 21 2016 at 18:27
I mean the marxist-leninist terrorist organization. But, yeah, most of the "libertadores" are actually caudillos/caudilhos who only fight for their personal gain. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Revolucionario_T%C3%BApac_Amaru -------------
|
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 21 2016 at 23:51
|
Caio, I'm too addleminded on cold meds to do the cutty pasty thing with quotes, but my response basically is that I am not sure about all that. I would think that "socialzing" things like computers or such would only happen when it crosses the line where it stops being for personal use and becomes a means of production. I'm very poorly read on specifics of the implementation of such lines, so I have to admit I can't really argue that point. I also know that many leftists view Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist style communism negatively, and as being too authoritarian. I have to again admit I am not well read on those either, I've mostly only read about more libertarian forms of leftism, anarcho-communism and such. I guess my point was that there are more dimensions that left and right, and various ideas on the organization/implementation of a communist society.
I'm too tired to find a good link but as far as hierarchy in great apes goes there was an interesting experiment on what was called the Keekorok troop. It had to do with a group of baboons in which the alpha males died, and the hierarchy of the group changed to become less dominating and more cooperative. This new behavior persisted through several generations, and when a new male would join the group the typical displays of dominance were punished, and the new male would ultimately change its behavior to that of the troop. It is not so interesting to me in that they are primates and that they are more like us than other animals, but rather that the cooperative nature of the group was sustained in the presence of a more dominant outsider. Also it was just a silly pic that made fun of capitalism. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 13:38
Ahhhh...Those are the TUPAMAROS. Yes, they were really crazy. I have a friend from Uruguay who told me that a little girl became friend of a Minister's daughter, one night the kid placed a bomb under the parents bed. We had the MRTA "Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru" who appeared along with Shinning Path, they were Marxist while SP were Maoist Pol Potians, they looked civilized compared with Shinning path who admired Pol Pot, but no terrorist is harmless They took the Japanese Ambassador's house in a party and were exterminated in a perfect operation, only one hostage (He hide himself in a closet and a lost bullet hit him) and one soldier died, all the terrorist were exterminated and 71 hostages freed. Now the Human Rights Associations are blaming the soldiers for killing the terrorists.
-------------
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 15:58
Regarding anarchy, it also depends a lot on which line you follow. I'll admit upfront that I don't know as much about anarchy as I do marxism, but what I know, Bakunin, is extremely similar with marxist modus procedendi. You know, armed conflict, violet retribution, militarized "communal/neighbour" groups (militias) that would put forth the collectivization and such. The difference is that the people itself would be responsible for the transition to communism, not being necessary a strong state to do so. My great-grandfather was was avid anarcho-christian, (which IDK how it would function because he was also a fervours roman-catholic) and it was supposed to be based on Leon Tolstoy and the teachings and lives of the first christians and desert sages/hermits (so, simple life, rejection of "capitalist" ideals, more importance to the community and family unit, etc). I don't really know how that would work because that line of thought has died in many levels (the killing of God in contemporary western world being the biggest reason, but that sh*t in 1950's and 60's Brazil was already so detached from reality neither my grandfather or father bothered following it up). So, yeah, there's a plethora of anarchist lines of thought that are, in all seriousness, very interesting, but IMO they are such an utopia that I find it hard to have any connection. Even anarcho-capitalism, which is the one that's the most probable of actually existing (I've red people arguing it already exists in the stock market, but whatever) and even that is completely bananas.
Wow, really? I'd be VERY interested in reading that, it sounds amazing. if you have the source plz send me. -------------
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 16:14
With all the due respect and reverence that I have for the UN and other human rights watchdogs, sometimes they can be pretty retarded. And I mean ice cream on the forehead, foot in mouth, so stupid it makes a low-functioning autistic person seems brilliant kind of retardation. Hell, recently, they had a meeting/hearing with professional victims Anita Sarkeesian and Chelsea Van Valkenburg/Zoe Quin (this last one if so f**king rich she has to use a boat to visit her parents, LOL) to talk about "online harassment" (you know, mean comments on the internet) and the final document went short of equating it to actual rape and suggesting measures that would result in censorship laws. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones" I'll never know. . . Wile at the same time UN troops in conflict zones (Kosovo, South Sudan, Somalia, etc) are accused of using the food rations they were supposed to give to the people in the first place to get sex with pre-pubescent girls and boys and trafficking drugs; and they can't be touched because they have a blue passport. That's the kind of thing that makes so many disregard what the UN has to say and question its very existence. -------------
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 16:21
|
The trouble with Communism (and Capitalism for that matter) is that it doesn't take into account human nature. People always want an edge where they can find one and governments can't help interfering or creating rules and systems that ensure that the ideology fails. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 16:42
|
an interesting book I'd recommend to people that really is anathma to some but an enlightening read. The Chief Culprit by Viktor Suvorov. the synopsis. Stalin and Soviet Union LOST ww2. Surprising and a bit controversial in historical circles until you read just why the author makes that bold statement. Stalin knew the death of Communism was exposure to other systems. So his goal. He encouraged and in fact may have been the guiding force behind ww2, a fight between France/Britain and Germany.. and the Soviets decend upon the weakened west. Stalin lost the war when Hitler realized Stalin's 'game' and preempted Stalin's invasion of the west with his own. Thus Stalin lost ww2 by only gaining control of eastern Europe.. not the whole of Europe as he had been. planning.. YEARS.. to do. Thus Communism itself was doomed.. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 19:23
Yeah, some do advocate a violent revolution. Not all strains of anarchism are the same, and some are very anarchists are very much pacifists and the like. I have seen online some who think that revolution is only possible through self liberation, and in general I don't think most think an anarchist society is achievable in their lifetime, so I would say it's not particularly utopic in that regard.
As far as "anarcho"-capitalism goes, it's not true capitalism since anarchy is against all oppressive hierarchies including capitalism. It's close to right-wing libertarianism. Both are pretty disliked by not only anarchists but leftists in general.[/QUOTE] |
Posted By: HackettFan
Date Posted: January 22 2016 at 22:52
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 07:31
That's a very interesting perspective. I've already seen people argue this and some even go further: communism, as we know it happened in Russia and China, was doomed from the start because those revolutions were more akin to eastern equivalents of the French Revolution (overthrowing of a "parasitic" noble class and the arise to prominence of the "oppressed"), instead of legitimate marxist revolutions, since these were supposed to arise in countries where capitalism was the most advanced and "equipped" (so the proletariat could use the underlying social disparities and the riches of capitalistic gains to perform the socialization of everything). So the best places for that would be the UK, Germany, France and USA, the biggest industrial powers of the late 19th and early 20th century, but instead happened in Russia (who was an important industrial country, but about 80-75% of the population was made by serfs) and China (which wasn't even an industrial country by the time Mao came to power, in the mid 20th century).
I not a specialist of anarcho-capitalism either, but I don't see how it wouldn't be true capitalism. it's definitely not catered to transnational globalist large-scale companies and organizations or the traditional marxist criticism about superstructure, but capitalism as very elastic mean of economic production and reproduction of capital hasn't fit exactly in the marixt critic for at least 120 years (since the advent of the second industrial revolution) and such critic has become inadequate for discussing today's capitalism, as it only fit one of the many, many means of production and reproduction of capital. Specially because the state itself became a player in the marked with state-owned companies and regulating bureaus instead of an ominous force that catered to the "elites", something Marx and Engels didn't even dream of. Anarcho-capitalism also has the retarded presumption people would simply be smart enough or would have enough power to deny those monstrous companies their money and time if their services weren't adequate, which is completely ludicrous. -------------
|
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 08:03
yeah. It is quite the interesting perspective from a number of different angles. It is quite something to realize just how vastly different the world today might have been if Stalin hadn't made but ONE fatal mistake in his plans to bring his brutal and violent brand of Communism to the west. Telegraphing to Hitler in 1940, with his annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina in 1940, his intent to invade the west with France out of the war and Britain off of the continent. Thus forcing Hitler and Germany to attack first in preemptive self preservation. A lot of historians scoff at the notion but it fits a lot of unanswered questions.. espeically the first question to arise out of ashes of ww2. Why did Germany commit suicide by doing the one thing they knew they couldn't do.. open a second front against a nation they had no hope of defeating. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 08:37
Sorry I meant not true anarchism. And I agree, the idea that a person can control the market through "voluntary" decisions is pretty silly. Regardless of whether you are anti-capitalist or not it is easy to see that some sort of force like the government is necessary to keep it from devouring itself, not to mention the environment and everything else. |
Posted By: KingCrInuYasha
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 11:18
Simple: Germany's leader was  nuts.------------- He looks at this world and wants it all... so he strikes, like Thunderball! |
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 17:59
Not quite. He expected England to either surrender or capitulate by 1940 or 41, something it would be very much possible if he simply machine-gunned the Dunkirk evacuates and immediately bombed England, but he decided to show some mercy in the hopes the English wouldn't want another prolonged war + German war technology was mostly superior to anything the allies had at almost every point in the war, but he didn't factored in radar and computers, what literally saved England before US intervention. Had not have been for those two inventions, which allowed the RAF to defend the UK from a vastly bigger and overall better equipped German navy and air-force even in unfavourable weather conditions, it's very probable that the UK would have fell as well. Besides that, by the time he invaded the USSR, the soviets had a really pitiful army. It was barely equipped, and the equipment was of terrible quality, which, allied to the fact that Stalin had purged all or almost all capable military thinkers and strategists and put in their places captains and lieutenants, made a perfect storm for complete disaster. The inability of the soviet army to invade Poland in the 1920's and then Finland in 1939 made clear that the soviet army was a shade of the once powerful Russian imperial army. There were four problems, however. First, Russia is absolutely massive. Even today russian territory accounts for about 40% of Europe's territory and, adding the Baltic states, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine it accounted for more than 45% of Europe's territory. Second, the US showered the soviets heavily with supplied (goods in general and war material), allowing them to rebuild their industry and use it exclusively towards the war effort (plus, russian equipment wasn't very sophisticated or advanced, so it was cheaper and faster to build than German war material; If I recall correctly, a T-34 costed roughly half of what a panzer IV costed, if you account man-hours and other raw materials needed for its construction and it was so rough that Nazi propaganda used its poor design as one of many "proofs" of communist inferiority). Third, Stalin didn't give a single f**k about his own subjects. Casualties were so high among the soviet army that it was one of the very first armies to allow women in their ranks because there were not enough men to do the fighting and even so it only had a marginal net increase in the army, causing the male population of the USSR to be lower than the female in the millions for decades after the end of the war and its consequences can be seen even today. That, added to the scorched earth policy and poor army equipment, resulted in the biggest loss of human life that ever existed in the history of humanity, with more than 20-22 million people biting the dust in the USSR. Fourth, the early 1940's had some of the coldest winters of the 20th century and, by then, they were the coldest winters in decades. That's something you absolutely can't predict, but it played a role of the utmost importance, because it hindered considerably the Nazi advance. Just to give you an idea, in the winter of 1941 (or 1942, I don't quite remember which year) the German troops had to star fires under their tanks in order to MELT THE GASOLINE, AS IT HAD FROZEN INSIDE THE FUEL TANK (keep in mind gasoline's melting point is MINUS 57ºC/MINUS 70ºF). If any of these conditions were not in place, the USSR would have probably surrendered or capitulated to Nazi demands. Of course, these are only the direct/biggest parts in the Eastern Theatre, there was small stuff as well, like the inability of the Axis to secure oil fields, Italy's inability to be a reliable player in the war and the crippling economical isolation, the last of which caused the collapse of the Nazi war machine by early 1944/late 1943 and by the time D-Day happened, the resources were stretched so thin it was impossible to defend France, Italy, Germany and keep with the east. -------------
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: January 23 2016 at 19:20
Damn, Caio with the entire WWII history class condensed! Feels like reading all my textbooks at one time Also, all 100% spot on. Quick note, I think communism, as we had it, was doomed from the very start. Literally, from the get go. Lenin's vanguard party never dissolved to give power to the people, some blame Stalin and that if only Trotsky took his rightful place things would've been different. Maybe, all pure speculation. The reason the USSR was doomed was because it was basically state capitalism and thus was a woeful failure, I'll call it the worst of both worlds. Trotsky did get this and said central planning would fail so maybe he would've indeed try to transfer power to the people eventually. But as we know, Russia was not even ready for communism, so I just can't see it as succeeding and the longer the communist party was in power, waiting for Russia to be ready, the lesser they'd give it up. Really the whole thing was just doomed. Russia was already developing Soviets, which were very true to what Marx probably would've envisioned, but they pretty much got replaced by the central authority. So I think the Bolshevik's in their lust for revolution and intolerance of others doomed it all from the start. So, I'd say communism per se didn't fail, but all that shows the difficulty with the idea and frankly I see it as worse in all ways to socialism. Which I am agnostic on, just I think social democracy proved to be extremely great and easiest to implement, IF we were ever to get there again I just think more nationalization/state competition needs to happen with banking and etc because it's been the slow clawing of banking/finance that eroded social democracy
|
Posted By: CCVP
Date Posted: January 24 2016 at 11:28
LOL, thanks. 
Yeah, micky and me kinda started talking about this, but from the perspective of the unfavourable socio-political environment in the Russian empire and how the communist revolution had more to do with the French revolution (overthrowing the Ancien Régime) than a genuine revolution in the model Marx proposed, because the models Marx had (Germany, England and France) had already overthrown their absolute monarchs or never had one (Germany). Not only that, but Russia was still a feudal country by the time the revolution occurred, even though serfdom was officially outlawed in 1860 it never went away, persisting one way or the other, up until the 1950's (except now the master was the State instead of nobles). Moreover, the attempt to implement what Marx preached literally (abolition of currency, fox example) was a complete disaster and one of the many reasons for the social and economic collapse Russia (and later the USSR) suffered before the implementation of the New Economic Plan/Policy (which basically reinstituted the imperial economic policies, even allowing foreign investment and financial speculation, like WTF Lenin, hahaha). So, for example, currency was abolished and every need was met with consumption and production quotas; this caused the collapse of agricultural and industrial production, resulting in widespread famine and shortage of everything, from shoes to medicine, clothes to furniture, fuel to screws, you name it. Not to mention the riots (caused by the shortages and famine), brain drain (everybody that could fled the place) and purges (that killed millions more). Another example of the disastrous attempt to implement literally what Marx proposed was the use of the military to extract goods from producers. So, if you were a farmer or an artisan or owned a manufacturing plant or an industry (no matter big or small), everything you produced was taken from you by force, using the army and if you refused or simply couldn't produce anything more (because of the shortages in the case of the artisans, manufacturing and industries or the lack of seeds to plant and lack of materials for planting, in the case of the farmers), you were either purged or killed on the spot. There were countless other problems as well, but those were the ones I could recall on the spot. So, this widespread collapse could be one of the reasons for the underdevelopment of the soviets; or maybe the soviets couldn't develop in the first place because there weren't enough workers to start with (since about 80-85% of the population was rural). The rabbit hole is much deeper than simply ideological differences between the heads of the party about central planning or how to regulate people's free-will. -------------
|
Posted By: Upbeat Tango Monday
Date Posted: January 25 2016 at 22:07
|
I love freedom and individualism, that is, respecting the individuals and their lives, property and choices. Socialism and communism are all about stealing from people. I've lived the last 12 years of my life under one of the four biggest socialist regimes in the world: Argentina (North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela come first). I worked as an high school teacher for peanuts. Taxation was heavy as hell. You see, in socialist regimes money is centralized so no enterpreneurs might succeed without the govt. Socialism is all about money without taking into account production. It's crazy. Musicians starve unless they work for the regime (they don't have to sell records, just perform using everyone's money without our consent) thus becoming propaganda machines instead of artists. Why do I mention socialism? Because communists believe socialism is the first step in order to acquire a communist mentality. You need govt first in order to change EVERYONE'S mind so you can get rid of it afterwards. Truth is, in communism nothing belongs to anyone, not even your own life. I can't even make a guitar in a commune because that would automatically become a private good. I can't trade, I can't have savings. I can't choose what to wear or where to work. You have to live for the rest (and so, everyone becomes a slave to everyone else). I don't like it one bit. Sorry. ------------- Two random guys agreed to shake hands. Just Because. They felt like it, you know. It was an agreement of sorts...a random agreement. |
Posted By: garfunkel
Date Posted: January 25 2016 at 22:32
|
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." - Frank Zappa |