Which is more dangerous

A Person wrote: Tillerman88 wrote: Since the three ones are NOT mutually exclusive, no vote from me too...... That said, I'd say that communalism (religious communism) is more dangerous. What do you mean by communalism here? Usually when I see communalism mentioned it is in reference to the ideas of Murray Bookchin, a libertarian socialist, who argued for an anti-captialist political system based on his idea of social ecology, the foundation of which would be this basic idea of deciding things through confederations of councils in a direct democratic fashion. Abdullah Ocalan based his ideas of democratic confederalism on Bookchin's work, and you can see the influence in the way Rojava organizes itself politically.

Really it's humans that's f**king it all up.

^I wouldn't go as far as you did. I think I would rephrase that: "Most people like regulated capitalism." Unregulated capitalism leads to monopolies, which aren't fun for anyone except the one in control of the monopoly.

Tough question but communism surely deserves more votes!

Vompatti wrote: the masses of stupid people buying stupid stuff.

DoctorD wrote: Just admit you love capitalism and are just virtue signaling. Stop and consider this: ALL people love Capitalism - it's just vogue to "hate" it these days... We all love the internet, smart phones, quality cars, cooled/heated homes, quality food on demand, medical advances.... NONE of these things were developed or flourish in a communist society.  They lead to oppression of thought and all around suckiness for everyone!  And the final inevitable step is dictatorship.

Go preach the universal love of Capitalism to the neo-Luddites and the Hutterites. And it's been vogue to hate it for as long as I can recall (at least in my region and circles).

The question isn't, though, what we love, it's what we think is most dangerous, and to me that means what is most dangerous now.

I'm not altogether against private ownership, I own my own house, trade and industry under private ownership for profit, I part own a business and wish it was making a profit. I'm against rampant unregulated capitalism. Free enterprise and the search for profits can spur innovation, but it can also lead to over-consumption of goods and exploitation of people and the environment. What I think most do not like is the power that corporations and industry leaders can wield.   Most of us want checks on that power, but a corporations primary aim is to maximize profits. There are ethical companies and business people out there who are doing good things, and heck, I;d be sorry to have someone like Elon Musk making cool stuff (I can never seem to have enough Teslas lol -- I actually drive a Civic but I want one). That said, wanting stuff and loving material possessions in and of itself is not really a good thing. Like corporations and corporate heads generally, most of us are greedy. Not all of us as there are those ascetics who eschew materialism and some who religious groups who consider the pursuit of goods that we don't need as evil.   I don't think that getting stuff outside the basic hierarchy of needs is the key to happiness, and I don't think that the pursuit of personal happiness is some great ideal.

Capitalism encourages the over-consumption of goods which leads to environmental degradation and helps to perpetuate a system of inequality (that you find this with just about every other system does not make capitalism inherently good).

Yes North Korea is a serious threat, and it was inspired by Stalinist/ Leninist thought and practices that was inspired by Communism, but it does not resemble a Communist state. It's not inevitable for Communism must lead to dictatorship, again I while cite the Bushmen of the Kalahari who live a nomadic life and share everything, including the rearing of children. I do think that greed will tend to mean that advanced Communist societies can't work.

It's interesting to note that you say that the final step must be dictatorship, which means that communism must lead to a non-communist state, simply since Marx said that an early stage is the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, and only later will you achieve a sort of anarchic state of communism (communism is achieved when there is communal control of the means of production, money and social classes are dispensed with, and the state apparatus has been dismantled. I don't see that as really workable, and Marx was never clear on how you achieve such a state (I don't mean state in terms of a nation-state here). By the way, the dictatorship of the proletariat is different from the dictatorship of the individual which is what we have found on states that call themselves Communist.   I think that communism is a lovely ideal, but not very workable except with small groups.

SO I guess part of your concern with communism is that the ideology or attempt inevitably will lead to fascism/ absolutism. There are actually very few communist societies in the world, and they tend to be very basic and not industrialists. It has worked with some tribes and with small collectves/ communes that operate under communistic principles.

I actually did not vote since all can be problmatic depending upon how they are used and abused. I would rather live in our free-ish capitalist society than theocracies and many other types of societies. However, its not so much about what sort of society I would want to live in, it's more about which of these systems is most currently likely to lead to global destruction. Capitalism is now the most powerful force, and I do believe that it has the greatest potential for harm. Although not all religions are equally bad, and I would argue that there can be positives in how religion can help people to regulate their interactions, and inculcate people with good moral principles, religion is up there too since there are groups that literally want to see this world come to an end, and believe that this world and this life are not important. Some think that God will sort things out, and some think that we have to bring on Armageddon (people who look to the after-life instead of focusing on the lives we actually have). Imagine if a death-cult group like ISIS got its hands on nukes. And as religion commonly creates unquestioning non-skeptical individuals and often appeals to irrationality it is dangerous.

Communism as an ideology and something to strive for does not seem so dangerous to me as those other two. I like the ideals of communism, I just don't think it's very workable, especially on a nation-state level. I don't think we've had one state that has ever achieved true communism, but then according to Marx its only achieved, as I said, once the state apparatus has been dismantled, and I don't see that happening. It would have to be a global phenomenon, and I still don't see it working, but limited communism is, I think, a good thing. There will always be those positioning themselves to abuse any system, and the question becomes how do we hold those people in check to build a better, fairer, and more sustainable planet based on rational thought, altruistic principles, principles of fairness, and opportunity for all to live their lives in as fulfilling a manner as possible without letting selfishness harm others. In every system people try to take advantage of and have power over others, which is sad, but part of our evolutionary traits.   A good system has to take human natures into account and has to curb the worst of it.


Edited by Logan - August 23 2017 at 11:42

 Communist governments are generally oppressive regimes.

Edited by Argo2112 - August 23 2017 at 12:39

A Person wrote: DoctorD wrote: NONE of these things were developed or flourish in a communist society.  They lead to oppression of thought and all around suckiness for everyone!  And the final inevitable step is dictatorship. if "communist" states are so bad at developing technology why did the USSR win the space race

They won at GREAT COST.  They spent a huge % of their GDP on the race and lost many lives and rockets in the process.  They won by brute force - not by shear skill.

They still operate their space agency the same way today.

DoctorD wrote: A Person wrote: DoctorD wrote: NONE of these things were developed or flourish in a communist society.  They lead to oppression of thought and all around suckiness for everyone!  And the final inevitable step is dictatorship. if "communist" states are so bad at developing technology why did the USSR win the space race They won at GREAT COST.  They spent a huge % of their GDP on the race and lost many lives and rockets in the process.  They won by brute force - not by shear skill. They still operate their space agency the same way today.

Vompatti wrote: ^^  >Show me a good car developed under a socialist/communist regime. Pretty much any Lada of the soviet era. Durable, starts in any conditions, simple enough to repair at home etc.

What's the difference between a Lada and a golf ball?

You can drive a golf ball 200 metres