My problem with Communism
I am not a fan of Communism. I've studied it and know of historical examples going back as far as Pythagoras. The Pythagoras one actually seemed to work while he was alive to "lead" it. It seemed to crumble quickly after his death.
There are many things I don't like about Communism after thinking about it, doing mental experiments, and studying history. Though at it's root it is NOT the typical things that people argue about Communism that are the biggest blemish with the ideology in my mind.
I thought I'd write about this while I seem to have somewhat of a mental picture of it and before it fades. I also fully expect some of my communist leaning friends here on steemit (isn't steemit great!) will have plenty to say and will disagree. That's fine. It might even illustrate my point. ;)
As far as I have seen those that advocate Communism are aware that there are those that will not agree and will not integrate with them. Largely the solution to that seems to be to eliminate them. Sometimes it is simply cast them out, banish them, etc. Other times it is as extreme as killing them. In some cases casting them out when there is nowhere for them to go is the same as killing them. Historically this would seem to be what they DO when they do get a chance to implement it. The exception I am aware of being the previously mentioned Pythagorean community. Yet, as always seems to happen the argument will be that "these were not true communists". Okay, I've come to expect that statement, followed by READ THIS BOOK and sharing a reference to a book I have to buy, and in some cases a PDF. The PDF cases I've often tried to read and it's just made me dislike it even more.
Really I don't need to lean on those examples or historical examples. I've discussed with many advocates of Communism how there are a lot of different people and the problem with ANY ideology that is based upon a concept of how people will and should behave is based upon the mental perceptions of one or a few people that conceived of and discussed the ideology. Yet people think many different ways, and behave many different ways. What motivates one, does not motivate others. Some have a good moral compass, others do not. Some people are greedy, others are not. Some people are creative, others are not. Some people have strange fetishes, others do not. Some people like pain for example, most people do not. So when some "philosopher" comes up with a brilliant plan to fix the world it is generally based around how they perceive the world. It can often be a box that they are trying to shove the problem into when in reality many things fall outside of that box. This is not true of just Communism. It is actually true of all of our ideologies as far as I am able to tell. So this is NOT my problem with Communism.
My problem is with how Communist advocates I speak for believe this should be handled. It essentially boils down to an almost Eugenics type of situation. If they don't fit into this box, eliminate them. We will build up with the people that agree with us, and can follow our plan. I am not religious, so when I say "this is evil" it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with simply knowing that killing someone for thinking different things than you do is wrong.
Yet when you speak to Communists about the violence of say the "Black Bloc" in Antifa they generally will defend the actions. They believe violence and a purging of sorts must occur in order to institute Communism. They realize it likely cannot be achieved peacefully.
Historically others have thought this as well. It hasn't turned out too well. It has resulted in the largest killing of their own people in history. Stalin and Mao both outnumber the deaths of the holocaust by many magnitudes more. Yet it is people talking about the "Nazis" and the holocaust as the bad thing. Yes, that was bad, yet it pales compared to the purges that resulted from people trying to implement what they called Communism, but modern day Communist advocates say was not communism. That illustrates the point... people don't think the same, they don't perceive things the same.
Purging based upon one person, or even several people's perception is nothing more than eugenics, murder, etc. It is wrong.
One of my favorite voluntaryist and Anarcho-Capitalist sayings is "Good ideas do not require force" and I believe this to be a true statement.
Now there are numerous other things I don't like about communism, but the biggest thing is the realization it cannot be born without force, and it likely cannot persist without force. People will be born that do not think the same, perceive the same, etc. Shall the purges continue?
Why not just build robots and kill everyone but those who program the robots to conform with their perfect view of how society should function?
Communism on paper sounds like a Utopian dream place, but it simply doesn't work in reality. Great post. (upvoted)
Does it? I think it sounds like hell, even on paper :)
Well when you are reading a history book, yes of course... But when you look at it from a perspective of everyone being equal etc... There is a certain charm to it. But then you think about it more logically and historically and it simply does not work and there is no real charm.
Everyone being equal sounds horrible. You seem to forget that we need excellent minds to progress our societies. These people need incentive to do that. In order to create a successfull business, you need to take risk and do a lot of free work up front. That's why business owners make more money - because they are paid afterwards for the time and effort they put in up front.
When you want everyone to be equal you must drag all the clever and ingenious people down to a moderate level. And you must spend a whole lot of energy, money and effort to drag the more stupid people up to the moderate level. The result is a mediocre society with no innovation that sucks and everyone is miserable and not free. For great achievements to happen, and most happiness for the most people we need FREEDOM.
Hence the reason why I said to look at it logically and historically.... I agree with everything you just wrote. I'm all for capitalism!
Allright! High fived and followed! :)
Hahahaha thanks!! :) Followed back. This is why I love Steemit, awesome conversations.
Yup. The chance of making some bucks incentives us to be as awesome as we can be :)
This is why I can't take any capitalist seriously.
You people genuinely believe because everyone is treated equal and has a voice that inventors can't excel or people can't lead.
The bosses will be executed in the future; don't be one of them.
LOLOL, because it's evil to hire people to work on a mission right?
Evil organization because.
We believe that inventors can't excel or people can't lead, what is a boss again?
Best comment ever hahahaha
Why every utopia is a dystopia in disguise:
For a utopia to exist, it must always uphold an ideal for everyone.
To uphold such an ideal, there must be a way of enforcing it.
To do this, a totalitarian state must be established (why? Because a utopia dictates a way of life that is supposedly best for everyone; no deviance can be allowed).
There will be those that oppose this so-called ideal. In order to realize said utopia, the opposition must be suppressed.
Suppression of the opposition is oppressing the opposition.
A state where people are oppressed cannot be a utopia.
Further, in a utopian state, all ideas must be allowed to flourish. If such a flourishment is allowed, it will inevitably lead to change (in ideals). A supposedly utopian state in which its ideals are constantly subject to change is absolutely absurd.
That's the fucking, depressing reality. A lot of good ideas just don't work in real life.
Like a reliable anti-virus.
Word!
So I'm seeing some confusion here about the differences between Collectivism and Communism, and to me understanding this distinction is key to understanding why history has turned out the way it has.
There are many different versions of collectivism. Both Fascism and Communism, for example, would be types of Collectivism. In Collectivism, the group is given higher priority than the individual. We see traces of this in all societies. The question is -- is the balance point between individualism and collectivism achieved by force or by voluntary cooperation?
Both Communism and Fascism propose to better society by forcing individuals to sacrifice for the good of the community. The difference is what societal strata is given the reins (perhaps reigns is the right spelling here.) In communism, the business/educated/elite slice of society is considered rotten and corrupted, and they are therefore forcibly removed and replaced with those who supposedly are the value creators for society, which are the workers. That's why Mao and Pol Pot purged the educated and the elite.
In contrast, Fascism, which is every bit as collectivist and repressive towards the individual, believes that the educated and the successful deserve to be at the helm, so they co-opt all slices of society, from business to education, under government control, but also for the good of the people.
Communism and Fascism thus both represent totalitarianism, in that they propose total control of society for the good of society, but they propose to do this through group action rather than through individual control of society, which would be called either a dictatorship or a monarchy, or religious control of society, which would be a theocracy.
Because Communism and Fascism propose to have different classes of society in complete control of society, they are natural and intractable enemies of each other. That's why the USSR and Germany fought so ferociously, and why the Germans turned on the Jews, because they saw Communism as a Jewish invention that would destroy their society (and they were angry that Jewish shopkeepers had to keep raising their prices during the Weimar hyperinflation -- the society didn't understand how money works, which is why they couldn't see the link between printing money and declining value of the money, and their government was telling them that "speculators" and people raising prices were the ones to blame rather than those printing money.)
Truth be told -- the US is today a mostly fascist country. Government and elites have control over almost everything. But the workers are not in charge, which is why it is not communist.
Nice explanation. I would maybe add/discuss some details:
The communist believed their system was not authoritarian because "the working class rules" according to their leaders. They use the word democracy as well but with a different meaning.
Also fascism often gets associated with hierarchies that is why to some communists "everything to the right of Marx is fascism", that is also why we rather see Anarcho-Communists instead of Anarcho-Fascists, even tho I believe i found those as well on Steemit :D
Agree. And probably the part of communism that relies on that magical societal "unobtainium" is the idea that representatives of the working class given the reins of power won't themselves become elites. The "Some animals are more equal than others" thing. Just doesn't fit human nature, which is why it doesn't work. It's a great idea as long as you didn't try to get it to work with humans. Would work great for bees or the Borg, though.
It's funny -- you read the constitutions of these repressive totalitarian collectivist systems and they sound wonderful -- very much like our own. It's not like their constitutions say "we will scare the crap out of you with secret police and make your lives a living hell if you dare to resist our power." They make it sound like utopia. All of the bad stuff happens with respect to how they interpret the words, which is why the words don't actually mean a thing -- only the interpretation counts. Scary, actually.
Actually it isn't. That is a simplification (though understandable)
It really is a hybrid of a lot of things from the past. It does definitely have a lot of Fascist elements though. The sad thing is a lot of Anti-Fascists themselves are essentially Fascists these days. It's like two sheep arguing in a pasture about which one is really a sheep.
I thought I'd add... I really liked the comment. Had to up vote it even though my voting power is shot due to how much voting I've been doing.
Hah! Yeah -- read your post about adjusting to the hard fork. I'm new so still figuring out how it all works.
I think many people are confused these days. We have people shutting down free speech in the name of protecting free speech, arguing that government control is the only way that society can be free, and people thinking that separate but equal is the only way to achieve racial blindness.
Yikes.
Always enjoy the interactions!
To sum it up: Communism is a mental illness. Great article. Followed! Ok..I'll try to elaborate my statement. First; Communism never works. Socialism to a certain degree CAN however work in a homogenic society (like Norway used to be) where everyone has good work ethics, trust each other, and there is a high degree of trust in government. Plus the government has a low degree of corruption. The problem with communism, as you describe, is that it goes against the human spirit, and also that it is based on totally false premisses. For example; the worth of labour. For a communist the amount of time that goes into work is what defines its value. So if I dig a hole in the ground in my backyard, and it takes 20 years, that is worth as much as the businessman who cleverly builds up a business. They dont understand the risk a businessman must take. They dont understand that they are being paid LATER for work they have been doing for free for many years while building up their businesss. The other false premise is human nature. Communists have a negative view of humans. They believe humans are greedy and evil and must be "contained" and harnessed by a strong government. They are often angry, miserable people who have achieved nothing. Now they want everyone else to be in that same boat. At the same time they often want big things for themselves..so they call them selves anarco-communist or another oxymoron. And this cognitive dissonnance we can see over and over again. They are "against facsism" but at the same time they protest against people who have different opinions. They can "hit nazies" (who doesnt exist) but others cant hit them.
If those different opinions constitute fascism, why should they not protest??
Can you give me an example of one of those opinions? The antifa are protesting free speech seminars for god sake :D
White people are more worth then black.
I don't know about those "free speech seminars" but I know that in many cases people claim "free speech" when all they want to do is be able to say "I am happy that those were killed! Kill more!" without getting booed for it.
Here in my part Germany we have just that now with a leak from internal AfD (right political party) chat.
Can you qoute anyone saying that white people are more worth than blacks? I watch a lot of stuff..and I've never heard anything like that ever. Even Jared Taylor from American Reinassance has very valid points. Never heard him say anything remotely racist. Try again. Argument this time.
I don't know that Jared or that AR.
You asked me to tell you a fascist idea, that I have done. So I don't know what I should try now.
And yes, normally people don't say that openly because they know they get handed the stick then from the more moral persons in the society.
But you can see that thinking in many different things. Sometimes it's even official.
For example, Germans are officially told to not go to Afghanistan is possible at all because of possible terror attacks.
At the same time refugees from Afghanistan are sent back because "there are save regions".
Both things cannot be true at the same time. You cannot even say that it is more dangerous for Germans in A. because they are targets - for the religious terrorists an Afghan that is not adhering to their rules is worse then a foreigner.
"Funnily" enough, a few weeks after the first Afghans were sent back, one of the first batch was killed by a terrorist attack in a "save" region. But it is ok, he was not the target, he was only passing by.
The problem with political correctness is that it's not allowed to discuss facts. It's all about feelings. No one claims that your refugees are less worth than germans. But we point at rational arguments why your society will have big problems as a consequence of cultural differences, differences in IQ, differences in religious/moral beliefs etc. Now I suppose your "racist" alarm went off the second you read the word "IQ difference". You don't believe in that. And even if you did, you would never accept that it's a problem. AND you can't accept that I'm not a racist for pointing that out - even if I will tell you right now that the definition of racism is "believing that one race is more WORTH than another". So it must be YOU who measure worth in IQ levels or culture or religion - not me. And at the same time, I suppose "race" doesn't even exist? So how can anyone be racist at all? What I'm trying to point out here is all the cognitive dissonance on the political correct spectrum. You refuse to touch reality, therefore we can't have a rational discussion. By the way , I've been in discussions with ALOT of your so called "racists" and "white supremacists" Funny enough, I've never heard them say that anyone are less worth as humans. However , they believe whites ALSO, like any other race, has a right to PRESERVE their OWN culture. We embrace the fact that blacks are "strong and proud blacks"..try changing the word black with white. "We are strong and proud whites" RACIST!!!! Man..you can let go of Hitler. We don't blame YOU personally for what Hitler did. No one should blame white americans for what slave owners in a brutal day and age did. Why aren't we praising the fact that hundres of thousands of white americans fought and died to end slavery? While the Arabs who enslaved a hell of a lot more people throughout the last milliennia than whites, got a free pass. Why is that? Because they have NEVER apologized. White people apologized and tried desperately to make the world a better place, while at the same time everyone pointing the finger at them. When you admit your wrong doings, it's easy for others to attack you and blame you.
That is such a dumb argument I don't even now how to answer.
Let's try it this way: There are no racist. So everyone who says that is a racist. Simple enough?
https://steemit.com/science/@lennstar/why-iq-tests-suck-at-testing
Recently studying Political Science as my major in Masters, and i hate communism
Libertarianism or classical liberalism actually works. It is simple, your right to act freely ends when it infringes upon another's rights. We need just enough government to enforce our individual rights and keep tyrannical forces at bay.
Here is one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Jefferson that explains the graduation of individual liberty:
"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defence of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, 1816. ME 14:421
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite, and here is a quote by him:
Taking the opposite meaning and adding your own editorial. Then calling a great thinker a hypocrite! Awesomesauce.
"They believe violence and a purging of sorts must occur in order to institute Communism." and yet it never occurs to them that someone might one day see THEM as needing of purging. It's a disgusting ideology that cultivates the most base and evil insticts of men.
The sad thing is that the initial thing that attracts to them is the concept of "fairness" and "equality". These are not bad desires, but what is FAIR and what is EQUAL are defined within the mind of individuals and everyone believes different things. So once they get around to FORCING compliance things get evil and ugly fast.
what's mine is mine and what's your is mine
And everyone's :D
So true! And so ironic. And it never dawns on them...why do they NEED to force people? Just start your own society and those who want to join can. Then they find out it doesn't work unless you put a gun to people's heads and use them as slaves. The ultimate problem is their whole system is completely contrary to human nature. It has never worked and it never will.
Someone commented that Communism is a mental illness. That ca't be true.
We know ipso facto that Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Communism must be something else, LOL
STEEM On !!
Dave
Well classical Liberalism is not a mental illness. That isn't what current day "liberals" are advocating for though. They are often advocating for communism, and don't even know it. Or they claim to be fighting fascism while using all the tactics and acting like a fascist.
Communes work. Some communes work very well... so communism should work?
Well, it might, if people were free to leave.
But with our current govern-cement policy to take up every space on earth, there is no place to leave to.
A commune usually works because of a very good leader. And when that leader dies or leaves, the commune collapses.
It is so difficult to talk about communism, because its rules are based on "the state". Where we have an overarching, controlling, govern-cement. Whatever be its name. Democracy, Capitalist, Communist, Socialist... And a state's main purpose is to impose control on its subjects.
So, in the future, there may be a group of people who get together to pool their resources. From each as his abilities and to each according to his needs. And it may work, as long as people are free to leave.
@kidsysco talked about this in the comment section here some.
Communes were what I was thinking about. They have always been relatively small and they do tend to be like you describe.
The problem with central planning and quotas is you have to have people in the central planning that pretty much know and understand every little nuance of their economy and environment. The more people and complexity you add into that the more of a genius you require at the central planning offices. In fact, you might consider that the population and complexity of a functional commune as being directly proportional to the knowledge and skill of those in the central planning office. As populations and complexity scale they eventually exceed the ability for central planning and things begin to go very wrong.
So I've seen communism work on a small scale, and on the larger scales there always seemed to be some LEADER (aka central planner) that when they were out of the picture the commune ceased to exist fairly rapidly.
So I don't know of any lasting cases and that might be why.
It is also why I believe communism has a scaling problem.
Communes where everyone is on board with the rules is a voluntary system. They are anarcho-syndicalists and that may work for some people with similar goals, backgrounds, and a shared ethos. But, it's beyond a scaling issue. That's not what everyone wants from life. And therefore different systems have to be allowed to flourish.
Building communist governments is an oxymoron. Anarchy can, however, take many forms with different rule sets, as long as the members are free to come and go based on freedom of association and honoring of agreements/contracts.
Yeah I've debated with Anarcho-Communists before telling them people could voluntarily build an ancom society inside of Anarcho-Capitalism but the reverse is NOT true. So Ancap could contain Ancom as long as it is voluntary, but Ancom cannot contain Ancap.
Exactly. But, most of my Progressive friends aren't even that sophisticated in their thinking. They are far too gone down the road of needing to control outcomes because of their personal fear of things not working they way they think in fair.
They simply cannot face the idea that what they want isn't what everyone else wants, or worse, should want.
I've noticed something. You are rarely going to witness someone change their mind WHILE you are having the discussion. That is very rare. However, you are planting seeds that they can think about over time. They are doing the same in you. It is very possible you DID convince them. It just takes time for that seed to sprout and grow.
So that is how I look at it. That makes me think it is worth the effort even if I don't see an immediate reaction.
I've seen someone who disagreed with me like you described that I debated with and nothing seemed to come of it. A year later I see him debating with some other people and he is where I was with him. So I did influence him, even though I didn't witness the transformation, I simply saw it later.
I can tell you that I've had that happen on dozens of occasions. Moreover, those watching the debate are usually swayed on the matter at hand more than the person you are arguing with.
And I never bring it up or say, "I told you so." I just note it, incorporate their new position with glee and move on.
The people I was referring to in my last comment I've been arguing these ideas for nearly two decades now and all that happens is either a 'I don't want to talk about this stuff' after they say stupid shit in my home or wait to pick the fight later with a new, more refined version of the old argument, which I skewer just as easily as before.
We're talking committed, Derrida/Foucault reading dyed-in-the-wool marxists here. They're not coming round until after the system crashes, if ever.
Yeah some people are intractable. They are locked into their paradigm and the only thing that causes a paradigm shift when someone is that LOCKED into how right they are is typically trauma, or some other shocking situation.
That is what I live for, those initially unappreciative bastards that won't ever open their mouth but are so sure of themselves when the type in "anarcho oxymoron" to seek like minded oxymorons.
Beautiful.
Thank you for saying so.
My pleasure. What a beautiful world it would have been.
I think I agree that is does not scale well but can work really well in certain circumstances.
I also agree with everyone here, that people should be allowed to leave if it doesn't suit them.
This is why I posted the definition of Communism by Wikipedia. It does not say that subjects must stay or die. Some societies have CERTAINLY implemented that rule, punishable by death and I think it is terrible.
However, I think it is important to note, that to force it on people as such is not a defining part of communism, even though we see that a lot!
The problem today is that there often is no place to leave to. The world is covered and owned. Furthermore those advocating for communism ultimately want the entire planet that way. For the outside agencies still interact and do the same "evils" they are fighting.
ever read Marx where it started? It actually is. Wikipedia was likely written by someone who wanted you to think that. Yet in reality the movement advocates a lot of force.
a certain percentage of people are going to be either do-gooders or rent-seekers; in local communities, other people learn how these parasites operate, and stay away from them.
in large societies, the do-gooders and rent-seekers can organize and cover for each other (Comey -> Clinton); there isnt an informal social network that can pass the word on who is a scumbag and who isn't
This is why I always considered Anarcho-Communism to be an oxymoron.
In a anarchist world, people would be 100% free to form communist societies. AND free to leave them (which they would en masse, after a couple of months) :D
It amazes me how many people are OK with communism, but because of the negative connotation of the word communism, they call it socialism or the more palatable version "Democratic Socialism". In order for this philosophy to stick, people must be convinced of a massive problem (wealth inequality) and then become slowly indoctrinated (poisoned) with the tenants of socialism (Universities) until one day it clicks in their young utopian mind and they say "Ah Ha! I have the solution!" And a new Commie zealot is born. @ironshield
Communism and Socialism are different things.
And Socialism can have different sorts, one of them Democratic Socialism.
And wealth inequality is a big problem too. The higher the inequality, the more unstable the society gets. Seen that again and again.
Also it is a simple mathematical problem that inequality, without counter, gets worse and worse. Pure randomness does it.
If you don't want people to become commies, then solve that problem.
Forgive my lack of understanding, what is the practical difference between Communism and Socialism? @ironshield
Practical - Now that is hard ^^
You see Socialism is a wild field and very unclearly defined, also changing through the times.
The Definition I "experienced" when I was a child is: S. is the step before communism.
The most commonly held basis is that S. is the socio-economic form after capitalism with social ownership (and democratic rule) of - and here comes the communist part - the means of production. That is Marx/Engels definition.
But as I said there are a wide range of definitions - hundreds - and as some include communism, others include anarchy.
You may be surprised by that, but don't forget that Marx/Engels also defined communism as "without ruler and classes" (while Socialism still has those, in "real existing socialism" countries even placed a lot of worth that you are from the worker class) - which is not far from anarchy ;)
tl;dr
The main difference is that Socialism still has a ruling class, Communism not.
They sell it by making it sound so good. That's how they trap people into accepting it.
Ask those who escaped how great it is.
I read quite a bit of Ayn Rand growing up. I still do occasionally. That likely biased me to some degree, but I do try to recognize when I might be biased and read and research when someone points me in a good direction. The problem is that so far the things people have asked me to read in support of communism have been rife with logical fallacies. It felt like walking through a land mine field of generalizations, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and appeal to emotion. The evidence was lacking and it was all about manipulation. It was not about presenting me with ideas and making my own mind up, instead it was largely about HATE and talking about the bad evils, and woes, and thus trying to fire up emotions. Very little substance with a lot of manipulation and I notice that stuff, so when I notice it I get very annoyed.
Thank goodness you can think straight. People are so easily brainwashed. People seem to fall for things that sound good. They so willingly receive the "free stuff" - and they think that is the way to go. Then they are trapped in dependency and helplessness. They won't be able to fight back. The thing is the ideology is very enticing. The big problem is the leaders are usually diabolical. I know I only can say things in a very general way. But I have read stories of people's experiences living under communism. Thanks for getting people to think.
They should vote for "Vermin Supreme" then he'll give them free ponies. :)
I've actually started calling them what they are. I believe Leaders are someone we can choose to lead and choose not to. If you are a good cook and we are going to cook, I'll let you lead. If we are going into war and you are a good tactician or strategist then perhaps you should lead. The general should not lead when we are cooking.
The problem is actually with RULERS. Those who can make up the rules and FORCE the rest of us to follow them. We are not voluntarily following them.
So I've started making a distinction between leaders and rulers as I think there actually is one.
Free stuff if you produce more than you consume, what's not fair or great about that?
(sarcasm off)
Do you know people who live this way?
If this is their choice and they are happy, no problem, good for them.
It's all the people who have no choice.