Why do you reject communism?

dr wu23 wrote: 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.

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.

I reject it for other reasons.

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.

A Person wrote: dr wu23 wrote: 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. 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.

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.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: 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?

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).

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.

CCVP wrote: =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.

It isn't anarchism per se, but Rojava has a type of government that is based heavily on a type of libertarian socialism.

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.

Polymorphia wrote: A Person wrote: Polymorphia wrote: 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. Only if you are a marxist-leninist type, an anarcho-communist for example rejects the state entirely. True, if you're responding to everything past my last use of the word "thing." But anarcho-communism requires a huge commitment to its ideology, impossible for many and possible through fanaticism for some others (though obviously there are those that will adhere for more objective reasons). Whenever things go wrong, whether or not they are the result of an anarchic (or, in some cases, true theocratic) system, people will naturally elect leaders. That's been the general outcome of anarchy, historically.

Why even want it? 

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?


Edited by micky - January 17 2016 at 13:44