Aside from historical record, why hate communism?

[RuleBritannia]

All in all I can tell you got all of your communist 'knowledge' from her-say, propaganda and your imagination. Maybe should educate yourself on what you're argueing against before you argue (that goes for all of life not just this thread).

You should educate yourself as to how the real world works before you start imagining societies. Asserting that a communist society will work in a certain way is useless. The world doesn't bend to your wishes.

It's not asserting it's predicting, based on the 'Communist Manifesto' which presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism, rather than a prediction of communism's potential future forms. I like to envision the future, for some reason my opinions make you angry. I'm not a revolutioary or a radical or a militant, I don't push my views on anybody, people are free to make up their own minds just as I am free to make up mine. But if someone comes onto this thread and their best argument against communism and/or socialim is to present it as something it's not, then that really tells you more about them. It's the same kind of nonsense you get when theists make up crap about evolution.

[Marus]

Hi RuleBritannia,
Obviously you have studied this topic in great depth but I still dissagree with you. Dictatorship of Proletariat is not about ruling of masses and if you don't believe me then you should read "Capital" of Marx. It is nothing democratic with this, it is just plain and simple dictatorship in the name of comunnistic ideas.
On the other hand I am reading your posts with great interest...
Regards,

[Upgrade01A]

The purpose of government, if any, is to protect individual liberty.

Ironically ofcause, a government is a forced collective.

Yes, and Marx supported utilizing government as a forced collective.

Also, earlier I mentioned Kropotkin, but it was Bakunin who had the dispute. Sorry, it has been 35 years since I have last looked at anarchism vs. communism.

"If the proletariat becomes the ruling class, over whom will it rule?" asks Bakunin.

Marx answers: "It means that so long as...the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means.

"It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

My question is this: how does the transformation differ from "then a miracle occurs"? What usually if not always happens is the transformation is taken over by a mob of authoritarian thugs.

In a free society, the badly run businesses go under. Competition assures this. You need competent people running things. That cannot be determined by who is the most popular person in the collective.It can only be determined in the market place. This can only work if the means of production can be owned by individuals. Again, I am not advocating the continuation of the corporate oligarchy.

[Upgrade01A]

free trade is an oxymoron and puts proponents in the dogma territory...a market is by nature restricted and controlled...the issue is how controlled and by whom.

I have $1000 and you have a horse. I want your horse more than I want my $1000. You want the $1000 more than the horse. We volunarily trade. You and I are in control without restriction, since we did not violate each other's rights of life liberty and pursuit of property (or broader - happiness). You are free to keep the horse if you like and I am free to keep the $1000. We both must agree to make the deal. Individuals are trading freely - without constraint from outside authority.

I am at least listening to my opponents. Your statement sounds very dogmatic - right out of the church of Marx. You probably do not want to understand your opponent's point-of-view, but I attempted to clarify none-the-less.

If you own your own body, which Communists apparently do not accept (some do, but Marx did not - but times have changed since his day), then the hard work you have done in the past belongs to you as well. If the collective votes via democratic means, decisions will be made by the majority and we all become slaves to each other. We cannot pursue our own happiness. Marx opposed individual liberty. He thought the majority would never achieve it. Well, you definitely will never achieve it in a collective where the majority can simply trample on anyone's rights that they don't like.

I do not want to live in a society that denies the individual. Unfortunately, right now, due to all of the victories of the authoritarian collectivists, we all have to kind of choose the place that is "least bad" for our individual tastes and needs.

[MacDoc]

It's not a bourse....take your frontier myths and colour them in nicely with crayons.

Ronnie Raygun went out of style a while ago...

[Upgrade01A]

It's not a bourse....take your frontier myths and colour them in nicely with crayons.

Ronnie Raygun went out of style a while ago...

(1) The ideas are old,
(2) therefore they must be wrong.
----
(1) The ideas are not in style
(2) therefore they must be wrong.
---
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
---

Very silly.

Ronald Reagon supported the corporate oligarchy and interventionism. The topic is "why hate communism." Your argument is an appeal to novelty, the use of Reagon's silly photo is a very weak analogy, and too many other fallacies to name here. I did not particularly care for Ronald Reagon as president, never voted for him, and has nothing to do with why I do not like communism.

I thought you were a person and never assumed you were a stock market exchange over in Europe.

[Sheridan]

Utopianism is a wonderful thing. What of religion without it, and even science doesn’t seem to mind the occasional dabble.

Man’s nature is far removed from that of obliging bees in a hive though; one not especially different from what it was two thousand years, and as it will no doubt remain for a long time to come.

He innately needs to strive, struggle and overcome, garnering self-satisfaction along the way, the journey all, each achievement but anti-climax, a stepping stone toward the next obstacle.

Were some kind of communistic harmony actually achievable, it would only spell discontent followed by apathy and eventual atrophy.

Heaven’s deadly perfection or Hell’s enervating travails?

A few past utopian visions: -

Plato's Republic (400 BC); The City of God (426 AD); Opinions of the Residents of a Splendid City (c. 900); Utopia (1516); Reipublicae Christianopolitanae descriptio (1619); The City of the Sun (1623); The New Atlantis (1627); Zwaanendael Colony (1631); Erewhon (1872); News from Nowhere by William Morris (1892); Gloriana (1890); A Modern Utopia (1905); Islandia (1942); Big Planet (1957); Island (1962); Ecotopia (1975); Woman on the Edge of Time (1976); Always Coming Home (1985).

[Platon]

Dictatorship of proletariat is the dictatorship of the lower classes because of their numbers, not because their dictators, in a proper democracy the underclass will always out vote the elites, that's what it means.

Mob rule. A society run by the whims of the underclass. Now there's a recipe for dictatorship.

[quill]

free trade is an oxymoron and puts proponents in the dogma territory...a market is by nature restricted and controlled...the issue is how controlled and by whom.

I have $1000 and you have a horse. I want your horse more than I want my $1000. You want the $1000 more than the horse. We volunarily trade. You and I are in control without restriction, since we did not violate each other's rights of life liberty and pursuit of property (or broader - happiness). You are free to keep the horse if you like and I am free to keep the $1000. We both must agree to make the deal. Individuals are trading freely - without constraint from outside authority.

Yeah, and what happens when I take your horse and run off with it? A market can only exist as long as there is some external force, like a state, to enforce contracts and regulate trade. It exists only within the framework of such an institution, and is defined by that institution. The concept of a "free" market is a capitalist fairy tale. It has never existed. Only in America could such a fantasy be conceived.

Dictatorship of proletariat is the dictatorship of the lower classes because of their numbers, not because their dictators, in a proper democracy the underclass will always out vote the elites, that's what it means.

Mob rule. A society run by the whims of the underclass. Now there's a recipe for dictatorship.

Actually, a society run by the whims of the working class - i.e., the majority - is called democracy. A society run by the whims of the upper class - the minority - is a dictatorship.

[Sheridan]

Are we actually meant to take your childishly surreal waffle seriously, RuleB?

Isn't this meant as a forum for grownups?

[quill]

My question is this: how does the transformation differ from "then a miracle occurs"? What usually if not always happens is the transformation is taken over by a mob of authoritarian thugs.

The transformation is already occurring. Why don't you look around? 100 years ago, there was fierce opposition in the UK and Canada to universal healthcare. Today, after generations of the welfare state, the vast majority believe healthcare to be a right.

100 years ago, education was a privilege that only some could afford. Today, everyone is guaranteed public education, and in some countries, that goes all the way through college.

100 years ago, capitalists were suppressing striking workers with violence and even killing. Today, not only does almost everyone recognize workers' right to collectively bargain, but employers are not even allowed to fire their workers under some conditions.

This is how transformations in people's attitudes - toward one another, toward property, toward rights - are changed - gradually, over successive generations of social evolution.

Hi RuleBritannia,
Obviously you have studied this topic in great depth but I still dissagree with you. Dictatorship of Proletariat is not about ruling of masses and if you don't believe me then you should read "Capital" of Marx. It is nothing democratic with this, it is just plain and simple dictatorship in the name of comunnistic ideas.
On the other hand I am reading your posts with great interest...
Regards,

Well, this is not exactly true. To Marx, all of history came down to class struggle. Even a democracy was a class dictatorship. Thus, he considered it a dictatorship. But from his writings it is pretty clear that the concept is the same as what we would call direct democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorsh ... roletariat

[Platon]

Dictatorship of proletariat is the dictatorship of the lower classes because of their numbers, not because their dictators, in a proper democracy the underclass will always out vote the elites, that's what it means.

Mob rule. A society run by the whims of the underclass. Now there's a recipe for dictatorship.

Actually, a society run by the whims of the working class - i.e., the majority - is called democracy. A society run by the whims of the upper class - the minority - is a dictatorship.

Actually without the rule of Law (in your case the US Constitution) the Majority would impose itself on the Minority (be it ethnic, religious or otherwise), and in your case, I believe separation of Church and State would go out the window. After all, the Majority wants God.

My question is this: how does the transformation differ from "then a miracle occurs"? What usually if not always happens is the transformation is taken over by a mob of authoritarian thugs.

The transformation is already occurring. Why don't you look around? 100 years ago, there was fierce opposition in the UK and Canada to universal healthcare. Today, after generations of the welfare state, the vast majority believe healthcare to be a right.

100 years ago, capitalists were suppressing striking workers with violence and even killing. Today, not only does almost everyone recognize workers' right to collectively bargain, but employers are not even allowed to fire their workers under some conditions.

This is how transformations in people's attitudes - toward one another, toward property, toward rights - are changed, and how utopias are built - gradually, over many generations.

Yes. Healthy democracies have self correcting mechanisms. Still, they are Capitalist with no signs of becoming anything radically different.

[quill]

Dictatorship of proletariat is the dictatorship of the lower classes because of their numbers, not because their dictators, in a proper democracy the underclass will always out vote the elites, that's what it means.

Mob rule. A society run by the whims of the underclass. Now there's a recipe for dictatorship.

Actually, a society run by the whims of the working class - i.e., the majority - is called democracy. A society run by the whims of the upper class - the minority - is a dictatorship.

Actually without the rule of Law (in your case the US Constitution) the Majority would impose itself on the Minority (be it ethnic, religious or otherwise), and in your case, I believe separation of Church and State would go out the window. After all, the Majority wants God.

But even those "checks" on the majority's power were arrived at by majority vote.

Yes. Healthy democracies have self correcting mechanisms. Still, they are Capitalist with no signs of becoming anything radically different.

They won't become radically different. They will become gradually different, until they are eventually unrecognizable. This is evolution. It can't be resisted.

[aquablue]

I can't comment for I am a Cuban exile living in the United States. In my case emotion and logic are so tightly knotted that only a figurative miracle can cause reason to issue on in me.

[Platon]

But even those "checks" on the majority's power were arrived at by majority vote.

(I wonder how easy it is to remove those checks now?)
Still my point stands. How do you ensure the protection of minorities against mob rule?

Yes. Healthy democracies have self correcting mechanisms. Still, they are Capitalist with no signs of becoming anything radically different.

They won't become radically different. They will become gradually different, until they are eventually unrecognizable. This is evolution. It can't be resisted.

Unfortunately, the evolution of society, just as the evolution of biological organisms, is an open-ended process. You have no way of knowing what the outcome will be.

[quill]

But even those "checks" on the majority's power were arrived at by majority vote.

Still my point stands. How do you ensure the protection of minorities against mob rule?

Same way we are now. Our current Constitutional rights are okay. We could probably use a few more, though.

(I wonder how easy it is to remove those checks now?)

It would take a Constitutional amendment, the same way those checks were put in.

Unfortunately, the evolution of society, just as the evolution of biological organisms, is an open-ended process. You have no way of knowing what the outcome will be.

I know it will be very different. To believe that we'll always be stuck with capitalism, you'd have to be a little crazy (and I don't think you are btw).

[Platon]

But even those "checks" on the majority's power were arrived at by majority vote.

Still my point stands. How do you ensure the protection of minorities against mob rule?

Same way we are now. Our current Constitutional rights are okay. We could probably use a few more, though.

If it's the same way, why change it? Why not just campaign for the introduction of those additional rights you think are needed.

Unfortunately, the evolution of society, just as the evolution of biological organisms, is an open-ended process. You have no way of knowing what the outcome will be.

I know it will be very different. To believe that we'll always be stuck with capitalism, you'd have to be a little crazy

I'm not saying it won't be different. I'm saying it's impossible to know in what way it will be different, so speculating about it is next to pointless. Maybe we're stuck with capitalism, maybe not. But I'm still waiting for a comparable alternative. to prove itself. Until then I reserve the right to be skeptic of any system which is presented as ""you have to imagine..."

(and I don't think you are btw).

You never know. The internet is full of crazy people.

[rEvolutionist]

@Quill... I like your analysis of what Marx would think if he could see our societies now. There is no doubt we have progressed to a more social state than in Marx's time. But when I think about all the changes I can't for the life of me imagine how we managed to get any of them through, under the oppressing influence of corporations. I do worry (well I did more so when Bush and Howard (in Australia) et al were in power) that we are at a bit of a crossroads at the moment. Will corporations and the governments who kowtow to them (conservatives, and the 'Third Way'/'New Labor' - who while currently are in a bit of a lull, are worrisome nonetheless), and the institutions (IMF and World Bank) strengthen their hold on societies, or will the people pull back some of the power? I don't know that the answer is that clear at the moment. I suspect that rank capitalism/corporatism will die out eventually, but whether that is through a peaceful transition, or through some sort of violent revolution, or more likely an environmental catastrophe or nuclear winter, who knows. I really hope we can avoid final option, but I don't hold high hopes for that.

[Upgrade01A]

I agree that we are transitioning, but the state is not shrinking. The opposite is occuring. More on this later when I get off of my cell phone and onto a laptop. Interesting arguments in here, in some cases. A photo of Ronald Reagon is just silly. Hopefully, at least some of the communists in this room will recognize the fallacies and emotional appeals from your commrads.

Do the communists not believe the need to have institutions and laws to stop theft, murder, and other crimes? The argument above does not hold water (when I explained that free trade was not an oxymoron). Regardless of the system, there will be criminals.

[RuleBritannia]

I agree that we are transitioning, but the state is not shrinking. The opposite is occuring.

I contest that, when Marx wrote the communist manifesto, Europe had global empires controled by a single government in the motherland. Here in Britain in the last decade Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been granted home rule and power is taken away from the central British government.

A photo of Ronald Reagon is just silly. Hopefully, at least some of the communists in this room will recognize the fallacies and emotional appeals from your commrads.

It is annoying.

Do the communists not believe the need to have institutions and laws to stop theft, murder, and other crimes? The argument above does not hold water (when I explained that free trade was not an oxymoron). Regardless of the system, there will be criminals.

Yes, I believe this. (although i'm not actually a communist).

[RuleBritannia]

Are we actually meant to take your childishly surreal waffle seriously, RuleB?

Isn't this meant as a forum for grownups?

?

[quill]

I agree that we are transitioning, but the state is not shrinking. The opposite is occuring. More on this later when I get off of my cell phone and onto a laptop. Interesting arguments in here, in some cases. A photo of Ronald Reagon is just silly. Hopefully, at least some of the communists in this room will recognize the fallacies and emotional appeals from your commrads.

Do the communists not believe the need to have institutions and laws to stop theft, murder, and other crimes? The argument above does not hold water (when I explained that free trade was not an oxymoron). Regardless of the system, there will be criminals.

I'm not sure how many Communists there are on this thread, but as for me, I'm a democratic socialist.

[besleybean]

Me too. Tho I'm not hundred per cent sure about communism...

[RuleBritannia]

Me too. Tho I'm not hundred per cent sure about communism...

Neither am I, but some people think that 'communists can't own stuff' and 'humans are naturally selfish' are arguments.

[besleybean]

I know, it's irritating. But then I don't fully understand communism myself. I know totalitarianism is wrong, but I couldn't be so certain about communism...whatever it really is.