Discussion in 'Political Science' started by sxane, Sep 3, 2016.
So, in your opinion, do you conclude that "Pure Communism" is an absolute fail?
No, I'll deny it. Go find your "proof" if you like.
Impossible? You don't know that and can't.
Repeating my comment:
"Human Nature makes Pure Communism impossible to succeed."
China had to drop their 100% state Socialism system, to dig their way out of stagnant economy. It is still a Socialist state,but Capitalism has been allowed in, as part of their national strategy to develop themselves.
Post #82: Kode said: "And all Marxist theory point clearly to it being impossible. When will you adjust your propaganda to reflect he truth?'
Hmm... Short term memory losses.... Good thing your quote is still up on the site. Go back a page or two. Although, the realization might trigger something, and we may not want that....
No, not short term memory loss.... my "sloppy" wording. Allow me to correct it so you can comment on it as I intended it to be....
"You don't know that communism is a 'soul sucking authoritarianism enforced by tyranny' because communism has never existed. And all Marxist theory point clearly to it being impossible (that it be a 'soul sucking authoritarianism enforced by tyranny'."
The reason for that is that, by definition, communism is a "stateless" society since the need for, and existence of, any state machinery has "withered away" in Marx's terminology. And without a state, communism cannot be authoritarian.
Perhaps you should have stopped while you were nominally not as deeply entrenched in this hole you yourself created. Now, we are to believe that communism isn't soul sucking and authoritarianistic? LOL... I'd just say this. If you're going to hang on to the "stateless" you're going to have to insert a possible replacement to ward off anarchy. Unless you truly believe that Marx was shooting for it. I doubt you'll find this, as he simply assumes that folks will ultimately "become" peaceable. I find that incredibly hopeful. If, as you've said, that stateless becomes the point, and all needs are magically produced, who anticipates future improvement? If all is bucolic and happy, why ever improve?
Again, you show you lack a valid understanding of communism. Communism is a theory put forward by Marx. It doesn't exist in any country and has never existed in any country. Marx knew and said that was true and said it would be a very long time before any state withered away. Such is a theory. And yet you assert that communism is "soul sucking and authoritarian." Where? Where is such a state found if communism has never existed? Perhaps you should have stopped while you were nominally not as deeply entrenched in this hole you yourself created.
Since that stateless society is, according to Marx, a very long way off, I need not ward off anything. That stateless condition cannot be imposed. If it ever occurs it will occur by default as the state "withers away". No effort to impose anything will be necessary..... -IF it ever occurs.
That is all irrelevant to today's needs, since that stateless society is a theory of some distant time and social condition. I am not concerned with it. Maybe it will never happen. No matter.
Yes, maybe it will never happen. And because it won't ever happen, further discussion of the validity or future benefits of it are unwarranted. Pining for the unachievable seems vaguely religious, and likely to be about as realistic. What we can do, though, is evaluate the attempt at communism and witness just how unworkable, how intransigent those societies become, and why they ultimately fail from their own unworkability. Yes, there is a soul sucking aspect to the idea that achievement isn't a valuable attribute in man, as it removes the potential for improvement because it necessarily creates the non-egalitarian state that Marx was so concerned about overcoming. So, obfuscate all you wish. The critical aspect of your comment is that it will never happen, so, impossible to see the need to discuss it further.
That is why I don't usually bother discussing communism. But you wanted to pursue it.
Karl Marx is that one theorist I find much agreement with. His ideas were brilliant, but need revision.
Which specific ideas are you referring to that need revision?
So, eliminating the 16-h shifts in the coal mines as well as the capacity to pay miners in company store bonds was amoral?
Are you a christian? Or do you minimally believe in any of the three Abrahamic faiths? Then how can you oppose any form of "communism"?
The smaller your social structure is, the more you revert to "communism", naturally. You tend to share things with people you care about do you, like familly and friends, yes? It is amoral, I suppose.
Communism is an utopical system - it "fails" (when it does) because of human greed, human nature, that it always underestimate. If anything, it is debonair - not amoral.
Furthermore, all of socialism isn't a on/off switch; it is a knob that one adjusts at the desired level. As such it can be considered an integral part of the American constitution.
His idea regarding societal evolution (with class conflict), it could be more source specific. Also, I think his theory regarding future stages of society are incorrect.
Communism as planned is a fantasy system that cannot work. Being that it generally requires one to mass-murder people to make the fantasy come true, I'd say it is definitely immoral. It is basically radical Islam but for atheists and those who don't know any better, which is why, like radical Islam, it attained such a massive following.
Neither communism nor socialism is about sharing.
Sharing is an individual choice while communism and or socialism merely robs from one to give to another and theft is immoral whether one is a christian or smart enough to be atheist.
This is one of many reasons why at it's core as envisioned by the rapist drug addict dead beat dad Marx it is an abominably evil idea and system. Naturally this is why states which attempt to impose it simply end up with genocide and slavery and endless other forms of evil.
Evil ideas do that when put into practice.
Maybe I liked Communist China even there name is Republic of China. Many progressive Chineses too.
Maybe Soviet are a bad country yet.
A community cannot function without some socialism. By definition, socialism is nothing but taking away some individual freedom for the good of the whole community. Even law of land is socialism. Countries around the world try it in varying degrees and by different combinations. But so far most of the experiments have tried to shift the control from money to authority. USSR was an extreme example of this. This cannot work for long, because human greed for power, wealth and fame, has a high tendency to take over the process. The axiom, ‘the rule that rules the least is the best’ applies to any power, whether it stems from force of authority or that of wealth. A community left virtually to its own devices has the highest potential of prosperity, only proportional to its level of ideological social justice.
American political philosophy has vehement opposition to socialism, because it only visualizes socialism operated by government, fearing abuse of society’s resources due to any of the combination of inefficiency, unjust system, and unscrupulous implementation. But we already have some socialism; our graded income tax and the safety-net programs.
People think of communism and fascism, because of the unjust distribution wealth. The existing form of capitalism worked very well for a while, because then, wealth making power could not converge easily into a few hands. Industrialization has changed that. Now a few rich have undesirably high power to manipulate wealth distribution and politics, and to influence social values. In the US the richest 1% own more than 35%, and the top 3% own more than 50% of the total wealth, while the bottom 50% share 4%. The world statistics is even more appalling, the top 1% own 50% of the total wealth, while the bottom 68% share 3%. Unrestricted capitalism favors the rich. It is easier to make money with money than by working. Extreme greed for wealth and the power of highly concentrated wealth has a degrading effect, the same as that of the power of state, on community.
Simply defined, morality is: ‘Do unto others as you would have done unto you’. The existing degenerate environment of greed forces new entrepreneurs to compromise their moral convictions and adopt cunning ways, first for their businesses to survive against the unscrupulous competition, and later, after testing the fruits of corrupt methods, to prosper. The first offense of a kind against one’s own self is the most painful. Each subsequent one is easier than the preceding one. This craving for quick gratification is evident in mature and growing economies all over the world. Look at how processed food is made unhealthy with harmful preservatives and cheap ingredients, the quality of food in chain restaurants has degraded over the years, farm produce is made unhealthy by high-breeding, and the quality of dairy products by rampant use of hormones and antibiotics.
The U.S. seems to be leading the way in such greedy health degrading enterprising. This makes the nation fat and unhealthy, requiring more medical attention. On the other side, medical drugs/treatments are marketed at exorbitant prices, and once they are in circulation, our medical drug industry shows instances of suppressing and discouraging immerging cheaper/better remedies, and of suppressing discoveries of dangerous side effects. The common man is getting squeezed from every side. The subtle influence of the rich on our legislature keeps our tax code from correcting the loop holes, which favor the rich heavily. This keeps the taxes of the less affluent high, and the entitlement programs strained. Our automobile industry ignored, or bought and shelved technical innovations, to avoid prerequisite expensive modifications to production processes, loosing against foreign completion in the end, retarding the country’s progress. Even our national sports have turned excessively commercial. Our society is losing from every side.
To solve this problem using communism or fascism will be worse remedy than the problem. Democracy is the best form of government so far. Only, the too high a concentration of wealth in a few hands reduces the effectiveness of democracy. The rich wield to much power over our politics and economy.
The biggest obstacle to comfortable living, humanity sees now, is the unjust distribution of wealth. As a result the demand for more profound socialism is forming in the mind of the world masses. Often, at the beginning, revolting masses are acutely aware of their pain but not clear about remedy.
What we need is a way to defuse the power of money on economic decision-making, releasing the economic factors from the narrow channels of money flow that keep enriching the economically high and mighty. This needs to be effected without blocking individual’s ability to acquire wealth, which motivates economic production. It is best to achieve this economic power diffusion with least interference from other entities, like continued meddling by the government.
Putin are an communist jerk.
Separate names with a comma.