Modern arguments for communism?
 

Does anyone here support communism, and if so, why? (and how?)

I was recently dumbfounded by a post on another forum I visit when the poster openly support communism. I thought most people simply gave up on it when the Soviet Union fell apart... wishful thinking I guess. But what are the modern arguments used my communists to explain what seem to me to be spectacular failures.


John

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

They would argue that communism as practised in the USSR and elsewhere was never proper communism in the way that Marx describes it. Russia was not an industrialised nation and was still semi feudal. It was therefore not at the right stage of history to be able to make a move to communism. Developed industrialised nations were the likely candidates in Marx's theories. Of course the welfare state put any chance of that happening on hold because it gave something back to the prole's. Marx was also unaware of the effect gloabisation would have in sustaining the capitalist model and communism couldn't compete against states that embraced gloablisation and free trade. Those are just a few thoughts on it. To fully understand why it may have been a failure you'd need to read up on Marx and other alternative communist theorists.
I would support communism if I felt it was atainable. It suffers to much from being too utopian. It is also not possible at present to have a global revolution (another thing Marx thought neccessary). In Russia this model was ignored believing single state communism could flourish.
Small scale and communal communism is possible if you reduce the standard of living and find a niche that is self sustainable, but the world the way it is makes this unlikely to ever develop to anything more.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

One of the biggest reasons why communism has not happened, is, as the other responder said, Marx had not heard about the welfare state, and other modern regulations to capitalism, like unions and socialized health care.

It is easy to look at Russia as a failure, but bear in mind that in 1914 they were unable to even defeat Austria in combat, and by the 1960s were undisputably the second most powerful nation in the world. While I do not even begin to justify the human rights abuses that occured under the Stalinist regime there are other causes of the failure of the Soviet Union than simply that their economic model was flawed.

There is considerable evidence that throughout the Cold War the Russians wished to disarm but NATO would not allow it. Western Europe and America essentially spent the Russians to their death, forcing them to spend higher and higher precentages of their GDP on military and not economic or social spending.

Furthermore, it is my contention that if communism is possible (and to a limited degree it has great success in Canada and Northern Europe) than it is important for it to occur in an open democracy. No society can be expected to survive the withering constraints of a dictorship, be it of one man or the proletariat.

Is communism possible or just a pipe dream? Look at the Kibitizs of Isreal, the Mennonite farming communities of rural Ontario, thousands of African tribes, the Native Americans of yesteryear and the conquering Mongols. You tell me.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

Is communism possible or just a pipe dream? Look at the Kibitizs of Isreal, the Mennonite farming communities of rural Ontario

Socialist organization is possible in small, homogeneous communities. On a grand scale, since it is by nature coercive it will always fail where concepts like freedom and individualism are valued.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a grand scale, since it is by nature coercive it will always fail where concepts like freedom and individualism are valued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like any government where the leaders are unaccountable, human nature will turn them into totalitarian regimes. Kings of the middle ages honestly thought they were doing what was best for their people, but their view of the situation is deistorted by the position they are in.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like making useless responses!

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things are real or happening, doesn't make them right either.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like making useless responses!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I didn't think it was useless. Are there legitimate arguments for communism? I don't think so, but the original question in the thread title was much more interesting than whether it's possible. I think whether it's possible or not is much less interesting than whether it should even be considered. However, the op seemed somewhat confused as to which question he was asking.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like making useless responses!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I didn't think it was useless. Are there legitimate arguments for communism? I don't think so, but the original question in the thread title was much more interesting than whether it's possible. I think whether it's possible or not is much less interesting than whether it should even be considered. However, the op seemed somewhat confused as to which question he was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me. Basically the arguments for communism are the same today as they were when marx wrote em down. The working class is in no better situation (even though the upper classes trick them into thinking they are).

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

The quality of life in North Korea and Cuba is very appealing.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The quality of life in North Korea and Cuba is very appealing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, good thing neither have anything to do with communsim.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is communism possible or just a pipe nightmare?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of things are possible. It does not make them right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like making useless responses!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I didn't think it was useless. Are there legitimate arguments for communism? I don't think so, but the original question in the thread title was much more interesting than whether it's possible. I think whether it's possible or not is much less interesting than whether it should even be considered. However, the op seemed somewhat confused as to which question he was asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you jakethebake? What happenned to your account?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are they?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement alone does not constitute an argument. Tell me why?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

Am I the only one who thinks Pipe Nightmare would be a great band name or album title?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

why is universal egalitarianism good?

Well everyone would have an equal chance at life, not the skewed system of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. This is one of the best parts of communism in my opinion.

education for all, health care for all, a real chance at a decent life for all. This is miles above the capitalist system of education for the rich, health care for the rich, a great lifefor the rich, all bulit on the backs of the poor.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
They would argue that communism as practised in the USSR and elsewhere was never proper communism in the way that Marx describes it. Russia was not an industrialised nation and was still semi feudal. It was therefore not at the right stage of history to be able to make a move to communism. Developed industrialised nations were the likely candidates in Marx's theories. Of course the welfare state put any chance of that happening on hold because it gave something back to the prole's. Marx was also unaware of the effect gloabisation would have in sustaining the capitalist model and communism couldn't compete against states that embraced gloablisation and free trade. Those are just a few thoughts on it. To fully understand why it may have been a failure you'd need to read up on Marx and other alternative communist theorists.
I would support communism if I felt it was atainable. It suffers to much from being too utopian. It is also not possible at present to have a global revolution (another thing Marx thought neccessary). In Russia this model was ignored believing single state communism could flourish.
Small scale and communal communism is possible if you reduce the standard of living and find a niche that is self sustainable, but the world the way it is makes this unlikely to ever develop to anything more.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, your contention is that communism is conducive to a subsistence environment, but not a competitive one, or am I misreading?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
why is universal egalitarianism good?

Well everyone would have an equal chance at life, not the skewed system of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. This is one of the best parts of communism in my opinion.

education for all, health care for all, a real chance at a decent life for all. This is miles above the capitalist system of education for the rich, health care for the rich, a great lifefor the rich, all bulit on the backs of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

So mediocrity for all w/o incentive to excel is good?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

a communist state says nothing about mediocrity, this is always added by anti commusinsts. In a true communist state there is great incentive to excell in order to improve your community and your fellow man.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me. Basically the arguments for communism are the same today as they were when marx wrote em down. The working class is in no better situation (even though the upper classes trick them into thinking they are).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to true.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

Communism, or at least socialism, is not only likely, it is inevitable.

Technological advances will eventually allow us to create robots which do anything an unskilled human could do. After a little while, they will be able to do any kind of skilled labor. At that point, only a small percentage of the population will have economically viable skills. Essentially, the only people able to find jobs will be those who own and manage companies and those who do research and other tasks requiring very high-level intelligence.

This will have two strong effects. First, society will have the means to fulfill everyone's material needs. Second, if a relatively laissez-faire capitalist model is continued, the vast majority of people will not have jobs, and will not have the money to buy much of anything. Therefore, there will be enormous political demand for redistribution of wealth and income. Any democratic government would be forced to provide some kind of guaranteed income to everyone.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
a communist state says nothing about mediocrity, this is always added by anti commusinsts. In a true communist state there is great incentive to excell in order to improve your community and your fellow man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Egalitarian = same for everyone = mediocrity = average.

So if I choose to excel, the fruits of my my labors go to my "fellow man" whether I want them to or not. Sounds like slavery to me.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
why is universal egalitarianism good?

Well everyone would have an equal chance at life, not the skewed system of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. This is one of the best parts of communism in my opinion.

education for all, health care for all, a real chance at a decent life for all. This is miles above the capitalist system of education for the rich, health care for the rich, a great lifefor the rich, all bulit on the backs of the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you propose to do anything about genetic differences? I can't see how true egalitarianism could ever be achieved as long as some people are born intelligent and healthy whereas others can be born stupid or terminally ill.

Also, why the focus solely on material inequalities? Why should someone who can't secure sex through voluntary agreements with other adults be forced to accept his situation, and someone unable secure food/healthcare in the same way get help from the government? Why is it ok to use force in order to make people provide money, but not to make them provide sexual favours/kidneys etc?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a communist state says nothing about mediocrity, this is always added by anti commusinsts. In a true communist state there is great incentive to excell in order to improve your community and your fellow man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Egalitarian = same for everyone = mediocrity = average.

So if I choose to excel, the fruits of my my labors go to my "fellow man" whether I want them to or not. Sounds like slavery to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Egalitarin means equal opportunity for everyone, this also does not imply average at all. Everyone could have the same opportunity to recieve top notch health care it needs not be average nor mediocre.

Since everyone in a communist society is intertwined your excellence in one area would benefit you as well as the entire community. Say you are a doctor, you work extra hard and invent some kind of uber medice which drastically imporves the health of the entire society. The other members are now able to work more efficently (since they are not getting sick) and thus produce more, you benefit from increased production as well as from decreased work load(as no one gets sick anymore)

I'm pretty sure communism relies on everyone working as hard as they can, in this way everyone's work load is reduced and people have to do less actual work. However I am no communist, I am a socialist who believes totally in egalitarianism so this argument is a little forgien to me and thus may not be 100% correct.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me. Basically the arguments for communism are the same today as they were when marx wrote em down. The working class is in no better situation (even though the upper classes trick them into thinking they are).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please add content to your next post.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Egalitarin means equal opportunity for everyone, this also does not imply average at all. Everyone could have the same opportunity to recieve top notch health care it needs not be average nor mediocre.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refuse to debate with you anymore until you buy a dictionary and take a math class.

[ QUOTE ]
Since everyone in a communist society is intertwined your excellence in one area would benefit you as well as the entire community. Say you are a doctor, you work extra hard and invent some kind of uber medice which drastically imporves the health of the entire society. The other members are now able to work more efficently (since they are not getting sick) and thus produce more, you benefit from increased production as well as from decreased work load(as no one gets sick anymore)

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not want my labor to benefit everyone equally. I should be rewarded for my labor. If I choose, then others should benefit as well. It is my labor. I do not wish to be a slave to the community or society or anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure communism relies on everyone working as hard as they can, in this way everyone's work load is reduced and people have to do less actual work. However I am no communist, I am a socialist who believes totally in egalitarianism so this argument is a little forgien to me and thus may not be 100% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think that socialism = egalitarianism?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

egalitarian

adj : favoring social equality; "a classless society" [syn: classless] n : a person who believes in the equality of all people [syn: equalitarian] [ant: elitist]

you do not only benefit from your labor right now. Unless you are teh owner of your own bussiness there are many others profiting from your labor (they are called the booses/owners). Your selfish assertion that you want your labor to benefit you and you alone is impossible. If you want it to be so you can go live in the woods and become a subsistence farmer. Right now society is bulit around working together to acomplish goals. The only difference in a communist system is that your labor is valued at its actual value, and you are not paid in money, but rather in returned labor from other members of society.

Yes, socialism is a hell of a lot closer to and egalitarian society than this capitalist "democracy" I live in now.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
egalitarian

adj : favoring social equality; "a classless society" [syn: classless] n : a person who believes in the equality of all people [syn: equalitarian] [ant: elitist]

you do not only benefit from your labor right now. Unless you are teh owner of your own bussiness there are many others profiting from your labor (they are called the booses/owners). Your selfish assertion that you want your labor to benefit you and you alone is impossible. If you want it to be so you can go live in the woods and become a subsistence farmer. Right now society is bulit around working together to acomplish goals. The only difference in a communist system is that your labor is valued at its actual value, and you are not paid in money, but rather in returned labor from other members of society.

Yes, socialism is a hell of a lot closer to and egalitarian society than this capitalist "democracy" I live in now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communism and egalitarianism both revolve around ignoring the indisputable fact that people at their heart are a)inherently inequal and b) inherently selfish.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
egalitarian

adj : favoring social equality; "a classless society" [syn: classless] n : a person who believes in the equality of all people [syn: equalitarian] [ant: elitist]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the same as socialist.

[ QUOTE ]
you do not only benefit from your labor right now. Unless you are teh owner of your own bussiness there are many others profiting from your labor (they are called the booses/owners). Your selfish assertion that you want your labor to benefit you and you alone is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I choose to work for someone else, he benefits because I have chosen to sell my labor to him. I did not say I did not ant others to benefit from my labor. I said I should be able to choose who does or does not.

[ QUOTE ]
The only difference in a communist system is that your labor is valued at its actual value, and you are not paid in money, but rather in returned labor from other members of society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The logic here is so twisted I don't even know where to begin.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
egalitarian

adj : favoring social equality; "a classless society" [syn: classless] n : a person who believes in the equality of all people [syn: equalitarian] [ant: elitist]

you do not only benefit from your labor right now. Unless you are teh owner of your own bussiness there are many others profiting from your labor (they are called the booses/owners). Your selfish assertion that you want your labor to benefit you and you alone is impossible. If you want it to be so you can go live in the woods and become a subsistence farmer. Right now society is bulit around working together to acomplish goals. The only difference in a communist system is that your labor is valued at its actual value, and you are not paid in money, but rather in returned labor from other members of society.

Yes, socialism is a hell of a lot closer to and egalitarian society than this capitalist "democracy" I live in now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Communism and egalitarianism both revolve around ignoring the indisputable fact that people at their heart are a)inherently inequal and b) inherently selfish.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd love for you to prove that this is so. If you could I may reverse my opinions. But I am farily certain you will not be able to.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

What are you asking me to prove? That people are inherently inequal? OR that people are inherently selfish?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course there are legitimate arguments for communism, true egalitarianism is a pretty perssuasive one to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go find some like-minded people, pool your resources, buy some land, and live in egalitarian harmony with them. Don't impose your desire on anyone else. Sound good?

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

mainly the inherrently selfish part, but if you could also prove that humans have forever been inequal I'd love to hear it as well. Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false. i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think everyone is exactly the same? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% positive this is not true.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

"he indisputable fact that people at their heart are a)inherently inequal "

This is true, but a purely market-driven approach generates material inequalities that are vastly out of proportion to the inequalities in intelligence/potential/willingness to work, and that become increasingly entrenched and unreflective of talent/intelligence/effort as different classes form.

THe fundamental problem with communism is is one of information and incentives IMO.

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think everyone is exactly the same? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm 100% positive this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please dont play dumb. In this conversation "equal" is referring to a social position, not to actual genetic or whatever equality.

from wikipedia: "Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures, but this is not always the case"

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
mainly the inherrently selfish part,

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have kids? They quite quickly grasp the concept of "mine". The whole sharing thing is a much more foreign concept. Why has capitalism fared so well in contrast to communism? Because it recognizes the fact that people act in their self interest. Even Marx knew this. He actually had quit a good grasp on economics, where he went wrong was how he thought the capitalist economy would turn out in the long run.

[ QUOTE ]
Although I'm almost positive that this (the inequality part) has been antropologically proven false. i.e. there was a time when humans lived in groups as equals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to see your source for this. People start out differently from day one. Differing ability leads to differing circumstances. Its a fact of life.

Here is Russell Kirk on this subject:

[ QUOTE ]
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Modern arguments for communism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
from wikipedia: "Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have non-hierarchical social structures, but this is not always the case"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most naive thing I've ever heard. But to say there was no clearly-defined hierarchical structure does not mean everyone was equal.