A Thought in Defense of Communism/Socialism

Having read the Op's point the following can be stated:

Socialism and Communism is not the way to go, as the recent and distant history will prove that, in the past there have been times when there have either been partial socialism as we would know it, all of the way up to the modern day. But the undeniable fact is that with those kinds of economic and governments it leads to a dictatorship in which your life is no longer yours to determine or control, but becomes a matter of the state.

Those who speak out against such are highly discouraged if not punished for their points of view and the ultimate goal is to placate all of the people, though it may be for a short amount of time. If you are feeding, housing or even giving people what they need to survive, then what incentive do they really have to try or even come up with new ideas? After all is not the status quo good enough for everyone?

Concepts of redistribution of wealth, and the public good is often found in the ideas that are given, yet inevitably, one person or several take the reins of power and it quickly becomes a nightmare and a dictatorship. Hitler may be the best example of such. He did not run on the idea of running the country towards war or killing people, no, he ran on the idea of social programs to help people and the popular ones. Feeding people, getting them to work, sharing the wealth, but once in power, he quickly turned around to be very much a dictator with absolute power to control everyone. I guess the 6 million who died due to his control and subsequent war in Europe was not enough of a reminder.

Then how about Stalin, he was brought into power, course he had an estimated and conservative figure of 20 million people killed, if not outright killed on the grounds of treason or some other charge, but in the camps for the betterment of society.

Then there is Mao, and can't forget Pol Pot, Che, or Castro. And the people of Venezeula, and North Korea, are they any better off now then before those countries were taken over by dictators, and continue as they are, where speaking out was grounds for hard labor? Even China, for all of their progress is still have to deal with keeping its population quelled, and they are a socialist country.

But the best example that can be made against Socialism is Argentina, before and after Peron. In the 1920's Argentina was the 7th richest country in the world. After the fall of Wall Street, which affected the country, like the rest of the world, it went through military coups. After 1943, Juan Peron came to power, and moved to to be a socialist government, taking over all industry and ultimately causing more problems and pretty much bankrupted the country. Where it once had the richest gold reserves before, it was gone after. At one time it was considered to be the largest producer of beef, and now it is not.


So if you are still thinking that a socialist government is a good idea, then how about having half of what you own or make going to someone who does not work, is that not what a socialist does, take and give to someone else?

reply to post by sdcigarpig



Using Hitler, Stalin, Mao to get brownie points is not that impressive, especially people still suffering from anti-communist propaganda from 40 yrs ago.

They did not kill people because there was socialist, they had different reason and agendas.
Do you wanna add total of all "capitalist" countries in the world that killed people and add them? would not be fair would it? because they had different agenda for their atrocities.

Would you agree Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing is a capitalistic idea? Of course not.

There are many countries with socialist ideas, like i mentioned Canada, and some peaceful countries in Europe has many socialist ideas.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


So who is gonna pay your bills while your being passionate? If everyone in the country just cut their work week in half then we would all be broke. It doesn't make any sense.

If you wanna spend more time in your passion then live below your means. Drive an old car like I do, live in a mobile home instead of a fancy house, and don't waste money on stuff you don't need. Then you could cut back your work week and be passionate.

Its not my resposibility to support you in your indeavors to be follow your passions. I work a 40 a week as well and its bad enough that tax dollars go toward cell phones. Its not right to ask for time to do what ever else you wanna do besides work.

I'm honestly sick to death at the amount of either deliberate ignorance or lazy intellect on the subject of socialism on ATS.

We have never seen socialism.
Socialism is worker ownership.
Socialism is not taking from some to give to others.
Socialism is not statism.
Socialism rejects the state.
Socialism is about self reliance and being able to dictate your own life.
A free market is not possible under Capitalism, it is only possible under socialism.

Not liking something is not an excuse to be stupid about it.

reply to post by Kali74


By all means, please explain to us who are too ignorant what the ideal socialist society would look like.

reply to post by luciddream

I mention those names, as a point of reference to show that once that a country starts on a socialist road, it is very easy for one person to take absolute control over the country and thus move it to be a dictatorship. Hitler should be a prime example as the ideas that he used to get into power is what many people are often concerned for. He did not march into office on jack boots, rather he walked in after being elected, on a platform of social reform to help his fellow country men. Ideas on feeding people, caring for the sick and elderly, that the government at the time was ineffective, and once in power, took control over the country with a steady pace and effenciey.

Stalin, came after Lenin, who here again, initially had the support of the people, yet once in power, quickly took control over everything. Same thing goes for Mao. While other countries may have socialist ideas, some of them are in a bad state right now. Countries like Greece, France and Spain, have strong social programs that re finding out that they can not afford those programs, while many of the commonwealth countries, that were once a part of the United Kingdom, are also under hard economic conditions. While the system may seem to be a good idea, and some of them are, the chances that they can be perverted are equally great and ultimately lead to oppression and further ruin very quickly.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


The problem I have with Socialism/Marxism/Leninism/Communism (they are all of the same genus after all) is that in theory, it looks like it can be accomplished. Hell, even I admit that in theory, they all sound great.

But the problem is the human factor and the need for power over others.

Just to get to the point of having the above 'ism's, there throughout history has been great bloodshed, followed by even more for them to stay in power.

Like every great nation or power...they eventually all go the way of Rome.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


wow ...well written and thought out!

passion is the key to innovation. without innovation we're just a slave planet working for the machine.

reply to post by MrBigDave


You are providing the perfect illustration of why we are all (yourself included) trapped in this system. You still by the lie that a 40+ hour work week is what is necessary to generate a worthwhile life's worth of production. It is not. Our antiquated system that tells us that because we have not evolved with technology. Keep in mind that what I seek to put forward would probably not benefit me in my lifetime or possibly even my children in theirs. I am talking about a collective recognition that we need to uncouple the money factor from productivity. The average worker produces more tangible product today than ever before, but is paid about the same or less (adjusted for inflation) than in years past.

This means that there is a fundamental disconnect between production and prosperity. And that disconnect is the intermediary tool of a corrupt monetary system. The 10-20 hour work we I propose would be able to create more than enough product to entitle one to a relative bare but comfortable and secure existence. Want something more than the basics, pursue what you want. Whether it be flighty Passions that are a reward unto themselves which may someday pay material dividends, or whether it be additional work in the pursuit of great wealth and material acquisition.

What I am proposing would be a multigenerational shift. It will require a fundamental change in the way that work, productivity and wealth are measured and understood. The new currency would, in many ways, be time itself. The solution to our corrupt economic model is so far removed from today's system of wage slavery, that it sounds like the realm of science fiction. Just like air travel and submarines once were.

Originally posted by TheWrightWing

When the state has run out of other peoples money, that's when socialism becomes communism. No longer will there be idle collection of checks, free food and housing, but the proletariat will then be forced, by law (ultimately at the point of a gun) to toil as a slave to support the ruling class in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, in the name of being allowed to keep you in your state provided hovel and your state provided daily turnip.

socialism doesn't come from tax collection.

its resource based economy. where the wealth obtained from selling the RESOURCES of the country is distributed equally amongst the citizens. Housing, medical, education is paid for as well (from profits)

no taxes are collected because they are not needed.

if a person desires MORE than basic needs than they can start a business, or work for a business.

its their choice.

then and only then would people have MORE free time to innovate.

some would still remain lazy or be too mentally ill to work, no matter if capitalism or socialism is in place. why FORCE them to work? that's dangerous precident.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt

 

Like every great nation or power...they eventually all go the way of Rome.

Hell, we have even gone the way of Rome. We have a ruling class (congress) that makes the rules and don't care what the people say. Meanwhile they are taxing us to death to support the bureaucracy.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


As I've read through the thred, from what I see; is that you are proposeing a reward for invention/innovation/work system.

But who would be the arbiters of that to grant reward? And who is to say that the said arbiters don't say they were the ones who came up with the idea?

Human nature is flawed, no one can argue that. That is the main problem with any 'ism. Greed, Power, Wealth, to name a few are all powerful motivators to game the system.

reply to post by MrBigDave


The US isn't quite burning yet.

But the temperature is definitely rising.

reply to post by TDawgRex


The short answer to your arbiter question will probably confuse those who accuse me of being a socialist or communist. The Free Market would decide what innovations result in material reward. My point was that for true innovators, innovation is the reward and wealth is a delightful and welcome side effect (though wealth does not automatically follow innovation).

You're right about the -isms. Hence, the need for a consciousness/understanding shift. Human nature regularly dooms the existing models to grotesque bastions of corruption and power games.

Besides, my ENTIRE original point is that innovation would still be possible in a socialist system, despite what proponents of pure capitalism would suggest.

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


The debate between socialism and capitalism is a false one.

First, capitalism is not a system of government as it is defined. Capitalism is nothing more than free exchange, voluntary participation, and reinvestment of capital.

The system of government in the U.S. is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Its purpose is to enforce contracts, protect the rights of individuals, and to prosecute those who do violate the rights of others.

At least that is the ideal.

Socialism portends to not only govern the people, but to also impose an artificial economic construct, centrally controlled, and its participants subject to collectivist imposition of ones labor.

Interestingly both socialism and communism acknowledge that it is the people that are the economy. Capitalism acknowledges this basic facet of economics. However, the former two is predicated on the notion that the people are an amalgam rather than individual components participating in the system as a whole, while capitalism acknowledges the individual and his/her singular contributions to the overall economy.

Socialism and communism seem to have no regard for the individual, instead favoring the collective. This leads to another important facet of economic theory, namely, microeconomics. True capitalism MUST acknowledge both macro and micro economic discipline while the collectivist ideology of communism and socialism essentially requires the central controllers to ignore the micro. THIS is the socialist disparity that cause shortages and ever expanding debts. This is the underlying philosophy that has brought the U.S. economy to its knees.

Take it for what it is. But to understand these systems and their effects on people one must understand economics, not just the political nonsense or the emotionally charged hyperbole.

reply to post by projectvxn


Valid points, and my reliance on these terms as ideological shorthand is undoubtedly compromising my ability to convey my theory to hostile parties.

Thanks

reply to post by RobertAntonWeishaupt


I assure you that when it comes to the overall philosophy that governs both the tried and failed practitioners of socialism and communism as well as the men who penned the tenets thereof, you'll find few as hostile as I am.

I just know what I am hostile towards and have no interest in being hostile toward you.

reply to post by projectvxn


But they retort is "well it's not true socialism or communism" but that never extends to true "capitalism".

They apparently think "real capitialism" is practiced in this country where it has not existed for over 100 years.

reply to post by projectvxn



And I did not consider you as hostile to me. You made several very valid points about the exact nature of the ideologies that I reference for lack of more applicable terms and/or systems.

Communism and socialism are failed experiments because they are far too susceptible to corruption (not a corrupting of their ideals, mind you, but the particular coordination that is required easily corrupts governing officials).

I hope to have a more cogent explanation of my views in the coming months. I mainly need to focus on a reasonable proposal of transition and (as you can clearly see) a more appropriate language to convey the concept without having to allude to the failed carcasses of previous systems.

reply to post by neo96


Excellent points. I consider all current systems to be bastardized failures. Pure capitalism has more potential than Pure socialism, but each fails to account for different ends of the spectrum. Capitalism loses the weak and the stupid (which leads to dangerous weakening of the social order), while socialism squelches the extraordinary. A better system is needed.