Why is it that people with no knowledge of communism are so against it?

The truth is that it was very effective religious and political fodder,
used to scare people into doing what our government thought was best,
the sickest part was the communist hunts that went on, research those
if you honestly feel this nation is a free one, this was one of the
excuses they used to get "in god we trust" on money and "under god"
into the pledge of allegiance.

theoretically its not a bad type of government,
the problem comes down to the fact that it needs to be a non corrupt
group at the top, that obviously never happens so in practice it
is more likely to fail and simply not work right at all.

I spent a good amount of time in Russia throughout the 80s and I would have hated to live there, I also have spent a good amount of time in China and I would hate to live like 99% of the population does there...

Those experiences tell me that Communism really sucks the hind titty for the vast majority of the population . Now if you are talking the utopia paper form of Communism then I would say that can never be reached because humans at some point get involved.

reply to post by Xtrozero


no dude, it is great. There is no social injustice since the people would not hurt each other....that sounds PERFECT......

Who cares if they live in near slavery and abject poverty....they live in a workers paradise....

reply to post by Xtrozero


One more time for those who don't read through threads.

Russia and China did not have communist economies, they had state-capitalist economies. What you saw was not an example of communism.

Communism is an economic system, not a form of government.

USSR was NOT Communist
Sun, 18 Mar 2012 | Published in Society & economics

“well it by no means was an example of “public ownership of the means of production” and economic hierarchy was a defining feature. i mean production and distribution were carried out exactly how they are in a capitalist firm – the only difference is it was done by the state and not be CEO’s.

earthreview.eu...

State-capitalism is not communism.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


I guess seeing as that is the only argument you have you will stick with it regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

How can anarchists be socialists if it's a form of state control? Can anyone answer that question?

"Anarchism is stateless socialism" - Mikhail Bakunin

"Politically we are anarchists, and economically, communists or socialists." Adolph Fischer, Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Scientific Basis as Defined by Some of its Apostles (1887)

Adolph Fischer (1858 – November 11, 1887) was an anarchist and labor union activist tried and executed after the Haymarket Riot.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by ANOK


is that all you advocates can do, throw dictionaries at people?

technicality and pure form interpretations of political ideology which would never exist in the real world? Is that all, oh yeah that and ad hominem attacks after confusing the discussion with semantic diversionary arguments.

Technically then communism has never existed, since in every example of it a fascist government has emerged. I then could say that its true pure form interpretation is a fascist state that uses social propaganda about workers rights to perpetuate its over bearing reach into the lives of the people.

I assume it would tell them they own their jobs, but not the government in any practical way, which controls everything, including their jobs.....

A freind of mine has a BA in Phil and tells me the same that it works on paper. but there is one factor that the books don't adress and is why it always fails, and that is corruption. There are always humans out there that are willing to better their life at the expense of the many and thats inherently why the soviet union eventually fell.

Originally posted by ANOK
One more time for those who don't read through threads.

Russia and China did not have communist economies, they had state-capitalist economies. What you saw was not an example of communism.


State-capitalism is not communism.

Communism can never be reached...sorry to say. In the end when those in charge are suppose to step down and everyone is equal cannot happen with human nature a part of the equation.

Most ideologies look good on paper. But you are always going to have people at the top twisting everything to suit their own needs, taking advantage of it's people and screwing them over regardless of what name you apply to it.

reply to post by ANOK

Russia and China did not have communist economies, they had state-capitalist economies.

China is indeed state-capitalist (since 1980s), however Russia and other eastern bloc economies were state-socialist, there was very little private enterprise. They even described themselves as socialist (USSR). Thats one of the main reasons for their failure, while Chinese economy grows fast.

Personally, I think Marxism may work, though it has never been attempted; Communism, on the other hand, hasn't worked simply because it fails to account for human greed, which is a rather unstable and unpredictable variable which throws the whole thing off kilter. Communism is a pipe dream; sounds great on paper, never works.

Currently there is no alternative to global capitalism. You may like to think there might be, but if you can't articulate it or describe how it might look, then we will continue with Global Capitalism, where the ability of the nation state to control its own internal policies continues to weaken as global markets dictate policy.

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I agree. Most so-called communists just use that fact that communism is most logical and makes the most common sense to become dictators. Examples are the USSR, cuba, North Korea, etc. But nobody ever talks about Spain before Franco's coup. I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it. There are many more works that ought to be read on the matter. Most of ATS believes the lies of the West, but if any, those of you whom have truly studied the communist works, what is your argument against it?

edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)

Have you ever read Ludwig von Mises? How about Murray Rothbard, or Fredric Bastiat? If you haven"t, then I can say the same thing back to you, as to having no right to call the Free Market Capitalistic system we have here in the West "Lies". If you only ever look through a window from one side, then you have absolutely no perspective whatsoever of the entire picture, or in this case the World.

So far, history has shown us quite thoroughly that Communism fails to generate enough wealth to bring its people out of Poverty, and into a substantial and sustainable Middle Class, without the need for Authoritarian measures and Redistribution of Wealth. Communism has also failed to generate a comparable level of Wealth to that which Capitalism has created. Communists and Socialists alike look at the people in the US and say "No one person should have that much Wealth." But we here in America, say something more along the line of "Everybody should have the opportunity to gain that much Wealth" Capitalism in America has produced the highest Standard of Living in history, it has produced some of the most revolutionary technology ever put into a person's hand, or into their homes, or cars, or buildings and factories. I'm quite positive that you are probably using at least one device or object that was directly created by Capitalism in one way or another. Face it, even China, the last major Communist hold-out, is even starting to adopt many of the principles and tenants of Capitalism in order to compete Globally. Communism has no future. America is the greatest and wealthiest nation in the history of mankind, only because of Free Market Capitalism, and it is only declining now, because we have forgotten our roots, and adopted Populist/Socialist-esq programs that Redistribute wealth, and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Well actually it is happening, or at least workers are waking up to it.

It may not be the revolution’s dawn, but it’s certainly a glint in the darkness. On Monday, this country’s largest industrial labor union teamed up with the world’s largest worker-cooperative to present a plan that would put people to work in labor-driven enterprises that build worker power and communities, too.

Worker Ownership For the 21st Century?

Shared ownership helps to diversify rather than concentrate wealth and roots the value it generates in communities...

The key to global prosperity: worker ownership

How can anyone tell you how the future is going to look? Can you tell me how the future with capitalism is going to look?

Capitalism might be working for you, but you are a minority. It doesn't work for the majority of people.

Everyone in this thread seems to be arguing that communism is a good idea, but can't work in practice.

I disagree, it's a terrible idea.

Marx wrote that a communist society should be stateless and classless... Which means everyone is the same. No patriotism, nothing to aspire to... I don't want to be identical. I want my life to be my own, I want to be able to look over the road and say "man, I'm glad I'm not hat guy" and then look the other way and say "man, I wish I was that guy." It would be like living in a world of cybermen.

"Cybermen will remove fear. Cybermen will remove sex and class and colour and creed. You will become identical, you will become like us."
- Cyber Leader, shortly before the doctor sent them all in to the void.

Next, the idea of his "phase 2" of transition to communism requires that all wealth is collectivised - I don't like the idea of giving away my money, except £2 a month to charity to ease my conscience. Centralisation is bad because it results in more reliance on the system, and what happens if the system collapses? For instance, if the financial system and government in my country collapsed tomorrow, I have jewellery which I can use to barter with for food and shelter and not being killed. If my wealth was accumulated and held by the government, I'd be a lot worse off.

Marx also proposes an ending of the idea of private property, and the removal of the concept of inheritance. Two words which I don't like to use due to their clichéd nature: muh childrens!

tl;dr I like being a snowflake, I like having liquid assets, I like my children.

reply to post by Dustofenese


Hmm communism doesn't work like capitalism.

Communism frees up all the means of production so people can produce what they need. To say it can't bring people out of poverty is nonsense. What keeps people in poverty is capitalism, because capitalism requires scarcity in order to be profitable. Scarcity of the means to produce, what is produced, and the jobs to produce.
This keep us in continual competition for the means to survive, instead of being able to work on bettering our lives.

Whether today's global overcapacity is seen as cause or effect of the economic crisis, one thing is certain: it isn't easy to make a profit in a world awash with overproduction.

Artificial scarcity in a world of overproduction: an escape that isn't

We can already produce enough to feed everyone, but we can't because the means to do that are held by private owners who monopolise them to make profit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. If profit can't be made, regardless of peoples needs, production stops.

Technological capacity to produce enough to satisfy everyone's needs already exists globally and has done so for many decades. Yet needs continue to remain unmet on a massive scale. Why? Quite simply because scarcity is a functional requirement of capitalism itself.

Artificial scarcity

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by ANOK

 

is that all you advocates can do, throw dictionaries at people?

I am not throwing the dictionary at you.

Can you answer my question?

How can anarchists be socialists? Please explain how that, according to you, contradiction works because that alone proves you are wrong.

reply to post by ANOK


they can not.

No absolute, pure form interpretation can be applied to another absolute /pure form interpretation of political ideology. That is why I do not argue over definitions. I argue practice and history.

ME being wrong has nothing to do with communism being a horrible political ideology for what ever people are fooled into TRYING to adapt it. That is yet another ad hominem.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Communism can never be reached...sorry to say. In the end when those in charge are suppose to step down and everyone is equal cannot happen with human nature a part of the equation.

But I thought Russia, China etc., were communists?

Funny how when people can't argue anymore against overwhelming evidence anymore, instead of conceding they have to switch to 'it can't work'.

Well if it can't work then how, in your mind, did the USSR survive so long as "communists".

But really you have nothing at all to support your claim. Communism has never really been put into practice in a peacetime none-volatile population. When it was practiced, Spain 1936, they were also dealing with war with the fascists armies of three countries. Yet the anarchists managed to re-build their cities, re-build public transport, created 0 unemployment, increased production, created new wealth, essentially improved the lives of everyone involved.

"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.

"Even more: the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services. They instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganisation of social life. They replaced the war between men, 'survival of the fittest,' by the universal practice of mutual aid, and replaced rivalry by the principle of solidarity . . .

"This experience, in which about eight million people directly or indirectly participated, opened a new way of life to those who sought an alternative to anti-social capitalism on the one hand, and totalitarian state bogus socialism on the other."[2]

anarchism.pageabode.com...

Originally posted by Dispo
Everyone in this thread seems to be arguing that communism is a good idea, but can't work in practice.

I disagree, it's a terrible idea.

Marx wrote that a communist society should be stateless and classless... Which means everyone is the same. No patriotism, nothing to aspire to... I don't want to be identical. I want my life to be my own, I want to be able to look over the road and say "man, I'm glad I'm not hat guy" and then look the other way and say "man, I wish I was that guy." It would be like living in a world of cybermen.

"Cybermen will remove fear. Cybermen will remove sex and class and colour and creed. You will become identical, you will become like us."
- Cyber Leader, shortly before the doctor sent them all in to the void.

Next, the idea of his "phase 2" of transition to communism requires that all wealth is collectivised - I don't like the idea of giving away my money, except £2 a month to charity to ease my conscience. Centralisation is bad because it results in more reliance on the system, and what happens if the system collapses? For instance, if the financial system and government in my country collapsed tomorrow, I have jewellery which I can use to barter with for food and shelter and not being killed. If my wealth was accumulated and held by the government, I'd be a lot worse off.

Marx also proposes an ending of the idea of private property, and the removal of the concept of inheritance. Two words which I don't like to use due to their clichéd nature: muh childrens!

tl;dr I like being a snowflake, I like having liquid assets, I like my children.

Basically you are very selfish and lack altruism. You think it's a terrible idea because it doesn't suit your greed. Communism is about community, it's a great idea, but as has been demonstrated, never works in practice. Materialism is a fool's journey; accumulation of trendy, useless stuff will do nothing for you. When you die, none of your accomplishments will matter. Might as well make the world a better place rather than feed your selfish fears.