Is Communism Dead?

[rikzilla]

rikzilla

And confused you are.

(snip)

Is communism dead? perhaps; but if it is, it's for reasons having nothing to do with what you posted. Initiating the discussion with such fundamental ignorance of what communism actually is, is certainly a non-starter.

Well Victor,

I did not begin this poll with a statement that I knew everything there was to know about communism. JK has clearly stated that leftists are busy obfuscating and or distancing themselves from the communism of the USSR. (and sorry, but I do not believe for one second that the USSR was not communist. You can call a cat a horse all you want but you won't be riding in the trees anytime soon.) The USSR had a succession of dictators...all chairmen of the communist party. The dictator ruled thru the Politburo....even a guy as admittedly ignorant as I can see that this is a communist hierarchy.

Seems to me that the truth is that communism is a fine and moral political philosophy. Utopian. Also, that capitalism is less moral as it only rewards the productive and on the face of it does nothing to address the plight of our fellow man. That to me is the bright shinning lie. Communism appears moral and yet is not. Communism says it will level the playing field and make a classless society...a "worker's paradise" but it never delivers. Human nature gets in the way. Truly the road to hell for the communists was paved with all the very best intentions.

OTOH, capitalist philosophy says "build the better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door" ...it may be a bit mercenary, but it delivers. There is no safety net...and quite a few end up poor or on the streets....but basically it works for the vast majority because by working harder it promises a better standard of living....and it always delivers.

Perhaps Vic, you'd like to tell us that Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Jung Il are also just socialists. Sorry Vic, but changing the name of communism will not help and is intellectually dishonest. Most folks know what I'm talking about here. You are being purposefully pedantic IMHO.

-zilla

 

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Take a lesson from the Unabomber and keep it short man!


I don't know about keeping it "short", but there won't be any bombs involved lol.

Seriously, I think Capitalism needs a voice, a filtering of its ideology for all those leftist college students to consume. Maybe I can change some of their brainwashed, 1/2 an education minds.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

Re: Re: Is Communism Dead?

I expect the reason people are reminded of McCarthysim by JK is because he's as quick to label someone who disagrees as a communist, as Franko is to label someone an "A-Theist". In such cases it is more an ad-hominem than a true attempt to discuss the problems of communism -- which, by the way, I expect 99% of the board would agree on.

I guess it is time for me to take out some thought trash--you put me up to it Gnome.

First, the only people I label as communists are those that advance communism, are communists or even perhaps are not communists but speak highly of its perversion (can also be included in the advancing communism category).

That said, if a person walks and talks like a commie, are they a Capitalist? No way in hell.

Feminists are communists. I talk about them a lot. The recent peace marchers are all communists. People that march in those "movements" may claim not to be communists, but if the folks who organized them are, guess what! It is helping communists and their subversive activities.

You are also correct that I favor a certain level of Mcarthyism. You are damned right. I live in a Capitalist free-society, not a gothic communist perversionist state. Communism is not welcome here and if people are communists, they have no business in government or teaching our children. The US didn't spend $15 trillion in the last 50 years fighting and defeating communism around the world, only to become a commie perversionist state itself.

JK

 

[Jedi Knight]

rikzilla

And confused you are.

The Communist party was called communist because it was supposedly striving towards communism. The country was actually socialist (not even really that, but that's a different topic) -- hence USSR, "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Not even the communist parties of different 2nd-world countries ever claimed to have attained communism, although they kept promising it in the near future.

Communism is supposed to be an economic state where all means of production are owned by the workers (= socialism) and scarcity as an economic factor has been overcome. The slogan of communism is "from each by his ability, to each by his need" (vs. socialism, which is "from each by his ability, to each by his work"). Obviously no communist state has ever existed, and it's not clear that it can exist.

One thing that is clear is that communism inherently has nothing to with USSR-style dictatorship, nor does socialism for that matter.

USSR was an oligarchy (gerontocracy, as some jokingly called it) with a mixture of socialist and state-capitalist features.

Note that it's americans who called USSR "communist". Originally this surely was caused by the name of the party ("communist party"), but it ended up confusing folks like you into making totally wrong assumptions about communism as actually being that which USSR practiced.

Is communism dead? perhaps; but if it is, it's for reasons having nothing to do with what you posted. Initiating the discussion with such fundamental ignorance of what communism actually is, is certainly a non-starter.

You know Vic, I respect you insofar as you are a very educated person, but this is just garbage you are spewing here.

You mean to tell me that when Lenin crawled out of Siberia that he didn't carry Marx's work with him and devise the restructuring of the country along communist lines?

You have got to be kidding me!

Why did Lenin go Communist, Vic? Because he was pissed off about what was done to his father. His father was a school superintendent and one day he was hammered--lost his job. So Vladimir decided to get busy with some revolutionary activity to deal with those evil aristocrats and he got sent to Siberia.

Now, what did Lenin and his cohorts do to Russia when they overthrew the royalty? They took pages right from the Communist Manifesto--you know, the ones where Marx talks about taking "everyone" down to the lowest common denomenator together--to hell--and then building the new Communist society. That is what happened in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. It happened using the Communist Manifesto blueprint.

But what you said here was simply brilliant spin to try and keep communism salvageable intellectually (an impossibility): The Communist party was called communist because it was supposedly striving towards communism.

So the former Soviet Union wasn't a commie state because it was in "transition"? You mean to tell me that since Russia never completed the manifesto transition that it wasn't a commie nation-state?!?!?! So everyone inside Russia and the other communist countries weren't really "communists"?!?!? Uh, what the hell were they, Vic?

I hope that you are not preaching that drivel to college students.

JK

 

[a_unique_person]

The land of Marx and Lenin was not a "communist" country???

I have the same question then for you as I do for those people who make "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter" Listen, if it's not butter then what the f&ck is it??

-z

If you looked at the formal structures put in place, then USSR was a communist country. In practice, it was anything but. It didn't take long for an elite to rise and run the place. Nothing at all to do with communism. Everything to do with power and the control of it. The structures were manipulated to be the tools of the elite.

NK, likewise, has nothing to do with communism. It is a very weird country dedicated to the cult of the leader. Kind of like a throwback to ancient egypt and the pharohs.

And Russia was not the land of Marx. He spent most of his life in England.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

rikzilla

Well Victor,

I did not begin this poll with a statement that I knew everything there was to know about communism.

Well,it's clear that the "not everything' is much more like 'nearly nothing".

JK has clearly stated that leftists are busy obfuscating and or distancing themselves from the communism of the USSR. (and sorry, but I do not believe for one second that the USSR was not communist. You can call a cat a horse all you want but you won't be riding in the trees anytime soon.)

Why don't you ask anyone who knows anything about political theory? Why don't you try to find any references where the communists (as in members of the communist party, people trying to bring about communism, rather than people living under communism) claim to have actually attained communism?

JK is a moron. We all know that. Don't be like him. Do a little learning. USSR did not implement communism, nor ever claimed to have implemented communism. They did claim to have implemented socialism, and whether they were really socialist is a much more reasonable question; but to claim that communism is what USSr had, is simply in-your-face ignorant.

The USSR had a succession of dictators...all chairmen of the communist party. The dictator ruled thru the Politburo....even a guy as admittedly ignorant as I can see that this is a communist hierarchy.

Yes. The hierarchy of the communist party -- but the party was called "communist' because they were ostensibly working towards communism, not because they had brought communism into existence.

Seems to me that the truth is that communism is a fine and moral political philosophy. Utopian.

partially true (it's not a moral philosophy) and arguably true (it's nor clear that it's impossible -- StarTrek-style society is basically de-facto communist).

Communism says it will level the playing field and make a classless society...a "worker's paradise" but it never delivers. Human nature gets in the way. Truly the road to hell for the communists was paved with all the very best intentions.

All of this is true; so far, any forcible ostensible attempt to implement a socialist society (which is a stepping stone to implementing communism) turned into dictatorship. However, anyone who read even a little bit on political theory can tell you that USSR and ilk actually being 'socialist" is a very arguable proposition -- and they most certainly weren't communist, nor ever claimed to be such.

It wasn't called "Union of Soviet Communist republics" for a very good reason, dude.

Furthermore, many European countries are at least half-way to socialism -- but they are not dictatorships; that is probably because, as many socialist theoreticians like Trotsky posited, socialism is something that should grow from below rather than be imposed from above. All socialist dictatorships became so by forcible from-the-top imposition of socialism.

Perhaps Vic, you'd like to tell us that Pol Pot, Mao, and Kim Jung Il are also just socialists.

they may be "communist" in the sense that communism is what they ostensibly (but not really) worked towards; that doesn't mean that the dictatorships they ran were communist countries.

Most folks know what I'm talking about here. You are being purposefully pedantic IMHO.

Dude, you are so clueless on the subject, it's scary. the amazing thing is, you really don't know the first thing about communism beyond what is floating in the american pop-culture (USSR was communist, USSr was a dictatorship, communism is dictatorship).

Understand this most important point: 2nd-world countries were never communist. They themselves never claimed to be communist. Nobody who knows anything about them ever claimed them to be communist. Ascribing the label "communist" to them is an artifact of american pop-culture, kinda like pronouncing "celtics" with an "s" as the first phoneme.

Communism is defined as the system where workers control the means of production; thus any dictatorship by definition can never be communist. The same is true for socialism in fact, but because 2nd-world countries at least claimed to be socialist, i am willing to leave this point open to further debate. However, to claim that they were communist is simply a flat-out ignorant falsehood.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Jedi Knight

You mean to tell me that when Lenin crawled out of Siberia that he didn't carry Marx's work with him and devise the restructuring of the country along communist lines?

You have got to be kidding me!

Flat-out truth. Read Lenin -- while communism was his ultimate goal, marxist theory teaches that socialism is a necessary stage on that path. lenin was building a socialist country. He ◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, but he never claimed to have structured the country "along communist lines".

But what you said here was simply brilliant spin to try and keep communism salvageable intellectually (an impossibility): The Communist party was called communist because it was supposedly striving towards communism.

It's a simple fact of history. they never claimed to have built communism, they only claimed it as their ultimate goal.

So the former Soviet Union wasn't a commie state because it was in "transition"? You mean to tell me that since Russia never completed the manifesto transition that it wasn't a commie nation-state?!?!?!

that's right. it was never communist, and not even KPCC members themselves claimed it to be communist.

So everyone inside Russia and the other communist countries weren't really "communists"?!?!? Uh, what the hell were they, Vic?

they were ostensibly working towards communism, which is distinct from living under communism. What you had in USSR was not communism, plain and simple.

I hope that you are not preaching that drivel to college students.

I hope that you read more than Rush Limbaugh transcripts.

 

[The Fool]

Jedi.
As the pope does not support attacking Iraq and he supports the peace marchers who are "all communists" does this make the pope a communist? As you are a Catholic fundamentalist, does this make you a member of a communist organisation and a communist yourself....
Communist, communist, communist...sorry about that, I just like typing the word communist. I can understand how it gets Jedi so excited.

 

[Roadtoad]

Jedi.
As the pope does not support attacking Iraq and he supports the peace marchers who are "all communists" does this make the pope a communist? As you are a Catholic fundamentalist, does this make you a member of a communist organisation and a communist yourself....
Communist, communist, communist...sorry about that, I just like typing the word communist. I can understand how it gets Jedi so excited.

Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, (Hey, this get's easier as I go...) Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist, Communist...

 

[subgenius]

I use the term "McCarthy" because anyone who thinks the Commies are a threat in this country is wrong. Search the FBI website and find out who poses the greatest danger domestically. Guess what? It isn't Commies. They don't even exist as a real threat.
Why not worry about real problems?

 

[Plutarck]

If you want to protect the environment, ultimately you must accept that it must be SHARED and BELONG TO NO-ONE.

That isn't communism. It is basic common sense. However, it would appear to be the same idea as communism. Materialistic capitalism will ALWAYS lead to environmental destuction. You can compete, and compete, and eventually there will be no resources left to compete for and everyone will die.

Or you can share.

Oops...I'm a red.....

That's a fine example why common sense isn't reliable - reality proves it to be quite wrong.

First of all, "sharing" isn't required - I can own something and you can still benefit from it. Sharing and owning are questions of control, NOT benfit - they are quite distinct. For instance, I can own my money, and you can own your labor, and you can benefit from my money and I can benefit from your labor, even though we don't directly trade.

That is another key point - ownership is not eternal. Private ownership of things, even parts - or the entirety - of the environment does not in any way say that it cannot be traded both in ownership and in various rights of use. I can Own a house, for instance, and Lease it to you (that is, I grant you the time-limited right of use of my house) - I can own, and you can use, and we both can benefit, and this is at least not what I think you mean by "sharing". Mutually beneficial exchange, the transfer of ownership amongst various parties, is common sense only to people who have actually studied and considered such things. One is not merely born with "common sense".

Furthermore, "materialistic capitalism" (MC) need not at all leed to environmental destruction. It comes down to a question of externalities - you do not have the right to destroy or decrease the productive value of my, or anyone else's, assets involuntarily. I cannot pollute your air, and you cannot pollute my water, rightfully or freely, no more than I can steal your property rightfully or freely; theft - the involuntary transfer of ownership of assets one has no claim on - is not a tenet of "materialistic capitalism", and nor is vandalism or sabotage.

MC does however require that the value of all things be weighted - traded-off against - all other things, such that it may be desirable to decrease the productive capacity or usefulness of some portion of the environment in exchange for something else.

If by "environment destruction" you merely meant that the productive capacity or usefulness or pristineness of the environment is not infinately valuable such that no amount or form or placement of 'pollution' or 'destruction' is ever, ever permitted, no matter what the benefits may be...well, in that case you'd be right. The environment is preserved only to the extent that it serves human interests.

I should also note that competition and cooperation (sharing, if you will) are not entirely mutually exclusive - you need not neccessarily suffer for me to be happy, for instance. As there are many goals in every human, and many humans, to certain extents and in certain activities people can cooperate, and in others they must neccessarily compete - two people cannot eat the same bit of food, or drive the same car, or occupy the same space. So long as demand exceeds supply, there will inevitably be some form of competition. If the Insatiability Principle in Economics is correct in that humans will never be fully satiated in all ways such that they never desire anything else, then competition will always neccessarily be a part of live; life just needn't be entirely competition, for in many things and ways all humans can have their fill (that is, that thing is not scarce).

That just to happens to be the thesis of the paper I have to have finished by tommarrow, so I'm going to have to get to finishing that now.

And in closing, I will note that what is "common sense" is often dead wrong.

 

[Jedi Knight]

JK is a moron. We all know that. Don't be like him. Do a little learning.

Rik isn't naive about the world, Vic.

So you resort to name-calling now, Vic. Ask yourself, am I a moron for pointing out that the perversionist commie state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics died?

Am I moron for pointing out that Lenin, the brainchild of the communist Soviet state, used the doctrine of the Communist Manifesto to develop that failed perversionist state?

Calling me names doesn't change the truth that I speak. Look, I don't hold it against you that you want to protect the image of your birthland. It isn't your fault you were born there. That was God's choice, not yours. Nor was it mine.

However, when you say that the former Soviet Union was not a communist nation-state, I must add that to my list of the "stupidest quotes" ever made.

JK

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Marxism is dead as is the idea of communist utopia. Now at days China and other Marxist nations are comprimising their socialist government...far from becoming communist. Communism is as dead as laissez-faire capitalism.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I use the term "McCarthy" because anyone who thinks the Commies are a threat in this country is wrong. Search the FBI website and find out who poses the greatest danger domestically. Guess what? It isn't Commies. They don't even exist as a real threat.
Why not worry about real problems?

Well subby, how about you let me be in charge of a new Truth Commission, and if there is no "commie threat", I will be the first to admit it after my national investigation using thousands of personnel is completed.

JK

 

[DanishDynamite]

Jedi Knight:

...am I a moron for pointing out that the perversionist commie state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics died?

By no means. There are many, many other reasons you are a moron.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Jedi Knight: By no means. There are many, many other reasons you are a moron.

Sure lefty, like your name-calling is going to stop the United States from taking out Iraq. That is all leftists like you are good for.

JK

 

[a_unique_person]

Sure lefty, like your name-calling is going to stop the United States from taking out Iraq. That is all leftists like you are good for.

JK

wipe that drool off your keyboard, jedi

 

[Nie Trink Wasser]

is Jedi for real or just a Troll ?


I'm not for war on Iraq, I'm for war on Saddam.

 

[gnome]

Well subby, how about you let me be in charge of a new Truth Commission, and if there is no "commie threat", I will be the first to admit it after my national investigation using thousands of personnel is completed.

JK

And take out a few of your own political enemies for your own personal gain, no doubt?

Or, will you be an idealist tool of someone doing that?

All feminists are communists? All peace protestors are communists?

These statements are absurd.

Look, trying to impose communism on a nation is stupid. Even a lefty like me knows that it causes starvation and suffering... at least, that has come along with most attempts so far.

Is it incomprehensible to you that I support reasonable feminism, oppose the war, but am also a strong supporter of capitalism?

Not no-holds-barred, screw-the-poor, destroy-the-competition capitalism, but the healthy kind that drives a good economy.

(/rant) (deep breath) (/deep breath)

For rikzilla... I have been paying attention to the communist influence on organizing peace marches, and have vowed that they won't get a dime of my money. I really think that some of the people trying to attract my kind of people to these events are not nonviolent, civil-rights minded people. What do you think someone like me should do, in order to help clean house?

 

[Bjorn]

Danish,

On the list you provided of existing communistic parties is also the Norwegian one.

In the last election, they got 0.1% of the votes (or rather a bit less, but my source was only giving one decimal), while the younger and former (nineteen seventy-ish) student-oriented AKP got 1.1%.

If communism is not dead in Norway, it is at least on its death-bed (I guess the same is true in Denmark).

Leftists, on the other hand:

Based on American measures, I guess Europe is chock-a-block full of them, as most right-leaning people I know from Norway would be considered quite radical here in the US (even in what JK would define as pinky commie California).

Jedi,

how about you let me be in charge of a new Truth Commission

.... and this just days after being proven wrong for calling the commission the 'Truth Commission' in the first place.

I'll give you a point for stamina, even after the case is lost!