Why do you reject communism?

CCVP wrote: Haven't you forgot Túpac Amaru?

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.

CCVP wrote: 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.

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.

A Person wrote: 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.

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.

A Person wrote: CCVP wrote: 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. 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.

Wow, really? I'd be VERY interested in reading that, it sounds amazing. if you have the source plz send me.

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.

CCVP wrote: 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).

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.

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.

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]

micky wrote: 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..

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).

A Person wrote: 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. 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.

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.

CCVP wrote: 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.

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.

KingCrInuYasha wrote: micky wrote: ... 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. Simple: Germany's leader was  nuts.

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.


Edited by CCVP - January 23 2016 at 18:02

JJLehto wrote: Damn, Caio with the entire WWII history class condensed! Feels like reading all my textbooks at one time Also, all 100% spot on.