Page 1 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

30 Nov 2011, 2:18 am

the forum seems to be awash with individuals passing comment on the failures of communism and socialism, to the point that it is completely counter-productive in terms of constructive debate.

i think it would be prudent for some level of consensus to be reached on this subject. communism and socialism have never existed. the failings of the soviet bloc, north korea, china etc. etc. have nothing to do with communism or socialism. yes, these nations claimed to be working towards such ideologies, but for varying reasons they never got past the first hurdle.

perhaps we could, in the interests of accuracy, rather than referring to communism/socialism in these instances, refer in stead to "authoritarian state capitalism"?


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

30 Nov 2011, 2:24 am

I don't know that they've never existed. The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and so on at least came pretty close.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

30 Nov 2011, 2:46 am

Ha! Thank you for starting this thread.

I agree entirely that there has never been a communist state. Barcelona '36 was a Syndicate Anarchy, so I don't know if that counts as communism, either. To further confuddle things, people seem to be using "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably.

To be as succinct as possible, these are the differences:

quote box for easy reading wrote:
In socialism, public assets are held & directed by all the people. You can still own your own car. Everyone decides how many cars to make.

In communism, all assets are held & directed by all the people. Everyone owns the same cars, everyone decides how many cars to make.

In anarchy, all assets are held & directed by the people interested in that particular asset. Everyone owns the same cars, people that are interested in making cars decide how many cars to make.


"The people" in those definitions can also be called "the society," but not if there are professional government leaders whose job is having power and making decisions. AFAIK, none of those theoretical governments have ever existed in reality, except on smaller scale communes like an Isreali Kibbutz. Never on a national scale.

- Did I get that right? Someone help me out here! Ack! Funny thing is, I hate cars! But you get the point, I hope.

What I really like, that I think is anarcho-socialism is: all public assets are held & directed by the people interested in that particular asset. You can own your own car, people that are interested in making cars decide how many cars to make.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Last edited by Burnbridge on 30 Nov 2011, 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

30 Nov 2011, 3:01 am

NineTailedFox wrote:
I don't know that they've never existed. The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and so on at least came pretty close.


aye well i do take your point, however i think we can take the paris commune as being just that, a commune, and similar developments in spain, as burnbridge rightly states, as syndicates. generally small enclaves operating autonomously within a larger capitalist framework i don't really consider communism or socialism at work, per se, relative merits aside, given that both systems of organisation commonly require dissolution of the state in itself.


and to burnbridge, i take your point on reference to a communist society collectively as "the state" however i think it might be an imprudent use of the term given the general connotations and denotations, implicit and explicit, in the contemporary use of the term, in addition to the historical use of the term among communist/anarchist thinkers. i think it would rather confuse the issue, and wonder if simply referring to a communist/socialist "society" would provide more clarity and avoidance of confusion.


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

30 Nov 2011, 3:05 am

Ah, agreed, peebo. "State" does carry too many (pejorative) connotations.

I will go back and edit the post so that it reads "society" instead of "state."


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


Dark_Lord_2008
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2011
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 348

30 Nov 2011, 3:22 am

Under the current corrupt Corporatism system that you regard as Capitalism and brainwashed with Disney fairy tales

The top 1% of the system control and own 90% of the world's money and resources. 99% are brainwashed with the elites propaganda.

Banks, Media, Corporations and the Law system ensure the elite remain at the top and the 99% are controlled.

Keep on dreaming and believing in your Disney propaganda that you may one day rise to the top in a rags to riches fairytale.

The system of government is the way as it is and it will never change.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

30 Nov 2011, 3:38 am

peebo wrote:
generally small enclaves operating autonomously within a larger capitalist framework i don't really consider communism or socialism at work, per se,


Agreed. This reminds me of Quaker "pacifists" who abstained from US combat service during wartime with conscientious objector status, but worked in the factories building weapons and tanks.

An enclave secession, like the intentional communities that I am fond of, still relies on the state that it exists within for "protection." Although it could also be argued that any communist, socialist or anarchist state with borders relies on the surrounding states for the same. Therefore, would the only true communism be a global communism?


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

30 Nov 2011, 5:25 am

Quote:
generally small enclaves operating autonomously within a larger capitalist framework i don't really consider communism or socialism at work, per se


Fair enough. Would go as far the World Socialist Movement and say that socialism is a world system? At any rate, I think a critical mass was passed in Anarchist Catalonia, for example. It may not have been "pure", but it was like 75% workers control (or so I hear :wink:) , which is hardly just small enclaves.



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

30 Nov 2011, 5:57 am

Given how terrible communism is, I do find it strange that many, many people who have lived under soviet communism and also under free market capitalism have very fond memories of how good things were back in the communist days.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html

It is strange that pewglobal one of the world's largest social surveyors and not in the slightest inclined to take a political stance in favour of 'the left' have been doing surveys in the ex-soviet states since the break up and rather a lot of people seem to be quite miffed and think they are now worse off.


Image


http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end ... ervations/



Of course if you ask an American who has never lived under communism you just get the usual conditioned Pavlovian style response of communists are evil, USA number 1, f**k yeah!

Odd that the only people with experience of both systems don't seem to agree...



NineTailedFox
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 84

30 Nov 2011, 6:35 am

Quote:
Given how terrible communism is...


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehzC937Q9Dc[/youtube]

Was this so bad?



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Nov 2011, 11:45 am

DC wrote:
Given how terrible communism is, I do find it strange that many, many people who have lived under soviet communism and also under free market capitalism have very fond memories of how good things were back in the communist days.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html

It is strange that pewglobal one of the world's largest social surveyors and not in the slightest inclined to take a political stance in favour of 'the left' have been doing surveys in the ex-soviet states since the break up and rather a lot of people seem to be quite miffed and think they are now worse off.


Image


http://www.pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end ... ervations/

maybe some things actually are worse off,
people think in absolutes so when they deem the soviet system as bad they deem every aspect of it bad.
at least money wasnt a prerequiasite ofr medical treatment



Of course if you ask an American who has never lived under communism you just get the usual conditioned Pavlovian style response of communists are evil, USA number 1, f**k yeah!

Odd that the only people with experience of both systems don't seem to agree...


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Nov 2011, 11:49 am

NineTailedFox wrote:
I don't know that they've never existed. The Paris Commune, the Spanish Revolution, and so on at least came pretty close.


And just how long did they last?

ruveyn



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

30 Nov 2011, 12:07 pm

ruveyn wrote:
And just how long did they last?


That is a consideration for a different thread. Entirely beside the point in this discussion.

In this thread, we are talking about somantics. People using correct terminology so that the discussions do not get confused.

For instance, let's say you are trying to talk about gun ownership, and every time you say "gun ownership" I respond to your position by talking about "murder worship." Now, "murder worship" is not "gun ownership," but if I keep saying that over and over, I can demonize and defame your character instead of addressing your actual opinions and concerns.

This thread is concerning how people attack "communism" by attacking the Soviet Union and other historical governments that were not communist.

If you want to talk about the efficacy of an anarchist state, or discuss what happened to Barcelona, please start a new thread. I'd love to participate in such a discussion. Just not in this particular thread.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Nov 2011, 12:10 pm

Burnbridge wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
And just how long did they last?


That is a consideration for a different thread. Entirely beside the point in this discussion.

In this thread, we are talking about somantics. People using correct terminology so that the discussions do not get confused.



The word is "semantics". And I would not argue in favor of anarchy. The only thing worse than government is anarchy. The major deficiency of the human race is that there is too little justice and and too many laws.

We are advanced Chimpanzee Version 3.0 and until Evolution improves our breed we are doomed to go on doing what we are best at --- making wars and screwing each other over.

ruveyn



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

30 Nov 2011, 12:22 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In this thread, we are talking about somantics. People using correct terminology so that the discussions do not get confused.


The word is "semantics". [/quote]

HAHA! Got me! :D Thanks for the correction.

Anyway, anarchism is a form of government with a lot of rules and laws, so maybe you wouldn't like it after all. It needs a lot of rules and laws because there is no sole leader or exclusive subgroup of leaders (like Senators in a Republic).

an- meaning "not, without, lacking"
archy - meaning "leader"

Anarchy does not imply chaos, unless you assume that having a dictator is the only way to impose order.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ


YippySkippy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,986

30 Nov 2011, 12:33 pm

Communism is a lovely idea on paper.
Unfortunately, human nature cannot live up to its principles.
It seems to me that all forms of government eventually become corrupt due to human nature, and the better forms are merely those which impede or delay that corruption longest.