Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MrFun
Is there anyone who knows about the book, Black Book of Communism?

Yes, as it triggered a huge debate over here when it was released. I haven't read the book, but I remember the controversy: one of the two historians compared communism with nazism (he has a strong anti-communist agenda), in a ahistorical fashion such that his colleague publically disavowed him.

[MrFun]

I see. I would have to read the entire 800 page book myself, before I can really discuss it at length.


I was hoping my bringing the book up here though, would encourage others to discuss it. Opposing opinions then, would give me more insight about the book.

[Agathon]

Dead wrong. My argument is that Marx is really good at bait and switch, and even better at creating his own internal logic, which works just fine till you take it off of the paper and put it into practice in the real world.

But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.

Your reponses to those claims appear – and I say "appear" because it is hard to wade through the muck – to be that you claim that in the first case they are being dishonest and it was really communism after all, and in the second case just to ignore the argument.

Many communists have not supported the so-called "communist" societies. That is an established fact. Like any other ideology, there is a lot of internal dissent and factionalism.

In the second case you appear, if anything, to rest on some claim about human nature, and its incompatibility with anything other than markets. This is irrelevant to Marxists, who do not really believe in such a thing. To support their view they could point to all sorts of changes in human values and behaviour (tribal societies; the rise of the nuclear family; attitudes towards infants and towards judicial punishments being good examples) to which your response appears to be to put your hands over your ears and simply deny it.

Other than that your responses seem merely personal – i.e. "I wouldn't like it and I'd revolt". Frankly, I don't believe that you would, and, in any case, most people are sheeplike on such issues anyway. The others can go to prison.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
-=Vel=-

I've never heard so much doublespeak in my life. Why don't you just keep your fool mouth shut?

[Velociryx]

But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.

1) It's not a straw man just because you don't care for the argument.

2) It does not matter that YOU or your fellow Reds (or even all of them, for that matter) today adopt a "revisionist history" approach to your own past. The leaders of former (failed) revolutions WERE communists, by their own decree and actions. That's how they styled themselves. That's how the world referred to them.

3) If the technologic sophistication does not yet exist to create a communist society, then said society can rightly be said to take its place in the realm of science fiction, and there's really nothing to debate, except in terms of amorphous, "what if" fantasy-style musings (ie - it is impossible to hold a "serious debate" on any sci-fi topic...geeks at star trek conventions discussing warp drive or the klingon language notwithstanding...

Your reponses to those claims appear – and I say "appear" because it is hard to wade through the muck – to be that you claim that in the first case they are being dishonest and it was really communism after all, and in the second case just to ignore the argument.

To re-iterate. I DO believe it's dishonest, yes, but that is just as irrelevant to whether or not your forefathers were communists, as the revisionism itself. Of course they were. What amuses me is all the time and energy spent debating this and/or distancing yourself from your own forefathers. I like to call it "The Red Chicken Dance."

Many communists have not supported the so-called "communist" societies. That is an established fact. Like any other ideology, there is a lot of internal dissent and factionalism.

Which only reinforces my point. Thank you. However, having said that, all communists have a core set of ideas in common with each other. Where you are different is generally at the margins (well, some of you are WAY different, like Kid with his work camps, and whoever it was a few years ago with his space-bots on the dark side of the moon...but for the most part...pretty similar, with shading differences).

Ergo...since the basic STRUCTURES remain the same as the former attempts, and seeing the RESULTS of the former attempts, and having only glowing, glossed-over, malformed plans (or none at all) about how to EXECUTE the revolution....yes....I think it quite reasonable to be:

a) hostile to an idea that has failed repeatedly

and

b) skeptical of those who claim to be able to magically cure the failures of previous attempts, but who are sketchy on the details.

In short, a dog is a dog. You can dress it up, call it something else, put a rocket on its back if you wanna, but at the end of the day, it's still....a dog.

In the second case you appear, if anything, to rest on some claim about human nature, and its incompatibility with anything other than markets.

Untrue. I have never made the claim that markets were the defining parameter for, and ultimate expression of every fascet of human nature. A part of me is tempted to cry "strawman" there and pout about it, but I'll refrain, and simply restate the position. Markets exist because WE exist. We need them. We use them. If you outlaw them or put your hands over your eyes and pretend they don't exist, they'll spring up anyways. You can't stop them. You can't defeat them. Even if you give control of every parcel of land, factory, and tool that could be used to "exploit" to the state, you wouldn't stamp it out, and it's utterly useless to try.

We are. The Market is. Again, there's nothing to debate here. You can't POINT to a modern society that exists without markets. Probably, you can't point to a primative society that didn't have SOME kind of market (ie - trade with a neighboring tribe...SOMETHING).

That's because, while not defining OF the human condition, it's a part OF the human condition. So if the destruction of the market is your goal, then communism will work just fine so long as you don't introduce any humans to the equation. Maybe that's the goal? I don't pretend to know.

This is irrelevant to Marxists, who do not really believe in such a thing.

Which is why he's such a good fairy tale. But no matter...we don't lose much sleep on this side of the fence worrying about what Marx thinks.

To support their view they could point to all sorts of changes in human values and behaviour (tribal societies; the rise of the nuclear family; attitudes towards infants and towards judicial punishments being good examples) to which your response appears to be to put your hands over your ears and simply deny it.

Incorrect. Those things in no way are mutually exclusive of the position I support.

Other than that your responses seem merely personal – i.e. "I wouldn't like it and I'd revolt".

One of our most fundamental differences. I celebrate the Individual first, and the group (societal whole) second (distant second, at that). You (generic you, meaning communists in general) celebrate the group first, while placing the individual subservient to the group.

There's no convincing me that this is anything other than a backwards, outmoded, unnecessary WASTE of a position, just as there's no convincing you to my perspective. I know this. I accept it. All I can say is that IN my point of view, there's room for yours. Not true from the other side of the fence.

Frankly, I don't believe that you would, and, in any case, most people are sheeplike on such issues anyway. The others can go to prison.

Frankly it doesn't matter that you don't believe, and if you don't, then you don't know me very well. Your ideology RELIES on the sheeplike nature of the masses. I'm happy in that regard, to disappoint.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

I've never heard so much doublespeak in my life. Why don't you just keep your fool mouth shut?

Oh c'mon...I thought you'd read Marx!

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Vel,

You don't know anything about Marxism. We've explained it to you until we are all blue in the face. You choose not to learn about it. Therefore you can not enter into a reasonable debate about it. People like Stalin are madmen who have a significantly different worldview from Marx. Either learn it of I suggest you don't try to debate it. You're getting your ass kicked and you can't even tell.

[Velociryx]

Kid,
I've read it. I've digested it. I've reached the conclusion that it's about a century out of date and largely rubbish. I know you don't like that, cos you hold Big Daddy Marx so near and dear, but that doesn't change my conclusion.

If, because I reached a different conclusion that you, it leads you to believe that I'm "getting my ass kicked," then so be it.

And by the way, I'm impressed that you called Stalin a madman. Coming from someone who LIKES the idea of forced work camps, that's significant.

-=Vel=-

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But as has been pointed out to you, this is a straw man. A lot of communists would in good faith either dispute the claim that such "societies" were really communist, or would assert that the material and social conditions for the communist society do not yet exist.

1) It's not a straw man just because you don't care for the argument.

No. It's a straw man because it attributes to people you are arguing with positions that they don't hold.

[2) It does not matter that YOU or your fellow Reds (or even all of them, for that matter) today adopt a "revisionist history" approach to your own past. The leaders of former (failed) revolutions WERE communists, by their own decree and actions. That's how they styled themselves. That's how the world referred to them.

For the 233rd time. No-one cares about names – generic names mask substantial specific differences. I can easily accept that they were communists of a sort and deny that they are the same sort of communist as me.

Are you saying that every person who deems themself a "capitalist" has anything more in common with the other "capitalists" than a commitment to market mechanisms of some description and some extent.

3) If the technologic sophistication does not yet exist to create a communist society, then said society can rightly be said to take its place in the realm of science fiction, and there's really nothing to debate, except in terms of amorphous, "what if" fantasy-style musings (ie - it is impossible to hold a "serious debate" on any sci-fi topic...geeks at star trek conventions discussing warp drive or the klingon language notwithstanding...

This is a blatant non sequitur.

The technological sophistication does not yet exist to construct a computer that is 100 times the speed of the current fastest computer. That does not mean that any thoughts about what it may enable us to do are "amorphous" or "merely sceptical".

Similarly, in 1950 space travel was not yet possible. To be sure there was a lot of science fiction about space travel, but there was also a lot of serious thought directed to real possibilities.

To re-iterate. I DO believe it's dishonest, yes, but that is just as irrelevant to whether or not your forefathers were communists, as the revisionism itself. Of course they were. What amuses me is all the time and energy spent debating this and/or distancing yourself from your own forefathers. I like to call it "The Red Chicken Dance."

Which only reinforces my point. Thank you. However, having said that, all communists have a core set of ideas in common with each other. Where you are different is generally at the margins (well, some of you are WAY different, like Kid with his work camps, and whoever it was a few years ago with his space-bots on the dark side of the moon...but for the most part...pretty similar, with shading differences).[/q]

This is funny. Any familiarity with communist schisms would disabuse you of this ridiculous notion. What about the anarchisticallly inclined Reds as opposed to the hardcore statists? You can't accuse the former as a group of supporting the Soviet Union, since many of them were its most vocal critics.

The core conception of communism is public ownership of the means of production. That captures what communists have in common, but does little to prevent there being massive differences between them, which in fact there are.

You are simply wrong Vel. Your position is as ridiculous applied to any generic ideology as it is applied to communism. What you are claiming is the equivalent of saying that all Christians revered the late Pope because they are Christians.

It's a fallacious argument, and you should be ashamed of yourself for giving it.

Ergo...since the basic STRUCTURES remain the same as the former attempts, and seeing the RESULTS of the former attempts, and having only glowing, glossed-over, malformed plans (or none at all) about how to EXECUTE the revolution....yes....

This is hilarious. What you are saying in effect is that if something doesn't work once, you shouldn't try again with a modified version or wait until circumstances are more favourable. No social change would ever have happened (including the transition to capitalism from its forerunners) if people took your position.

I think it quite reasonable to be:

a) hostile to an idea that has failed repeatedly

Sure, if you aren't prepared to modify it, or circumstances haven't changed, or if there weren't local problems affecting the implementation the first few times you tried it.

But no one here is asking for Stalinism to be reinstituted.

b) skeptical of those who claim to be able to magically cure the failures of previous attempts, but who are sketchy on the details.

Now that is reasonable. But I've already pointed out to you in various threads that the reasons commonly given for the failures of planned economies are often exaggerated rest upon particular historical circumstances that most Marxists believe are just that – i.e. not eternal truths.

In short, a dog is a dog. You can dress it up, call it something else, put a rocket on its back if you wanna, but at the end of the day, it's still....a dog.

Yes, but to thrash you with your own metaphor, no-one ever successfully hunted pigs with a Pekinese. I guess that means you believe that pig hunting with dogs is impossible.

Untrue. I have never made the claim that markets were the defining parameter for, and ultimate expression of every fascet of human nature. A part of me is tempted to cry "strawman" there and pout about it, but I'll refrain, and simply restate the position. Markets exist because WE exist.

That's a misleading statement. For the vast majority of human history markets did not exist. Markets are sophisticated legal and political creations. For most of human history people have lived in tribal economies.

We need them.

That's what's in dispute. Stating it as a fundamental claim is begging the question. We certainly don't need them to organize things like policing and health care and other areas of the economy where markets commonly fail.

It's a basic truth of economics that markets can often do more harm than good. Compare the competitive consumption that people currently engage in with potlaches where goods were destroyed and you have a good idea of the sorts of things that many communists find absurd about markets.

We use them.

So. That does not logically entail that we ought to use them, which is the point under discussion.

If you outlaw them or put your hands over your eyes and pretend they don't exist, they'll spring up anyways. You can't stop them. You can't defeat them.

Yes you can. Or at least you can so reduce them to an absurd sideshow that hardly anyone bothers with them. How many ordinary citizens of Canada would choose to replace their public healthcare system with a private market? The fact that even the Conservatives would dare not repeal that shows just how much market thinking on health care has been expunged from Canada. The same goes for most things that are run publicly, like education, where market reforms have been miserable failures.

Many communists simply argue that this should be extended to other areas of the economy for similar reasons. The fact that it hasn't is in many cases due to technological limitations meaning that market systems have an advantage, or in the case of some areas of the economy (like those that deal with competitive consumption), it being the case that market behaviour is essential to that area of the economy, communists would argue that such enterprises are self defeating (as competitive consumption always is for most people) and should simply be abolished for the public good.

Even if you give control of every parcel of land, factory, and tool that could be used to "exploit" to the state, you wouldn't stamp it out, and it's utterly useless to try.

That would be enough for me. I don't care if a few disaffected people swap baseball cards. That's small beer.

We are. The Market is. Again, there's nothing to debate here. You can't POINT to a modern society that exists without markets. Probably, you can't point to a primative society that didn't have SOME kind of market (ie - trade with a neighboring tribe...SOMETHING).

Tribal societies often tend to trade in terms of fairness rather than "get what you can". It doesn't matter anyway. In tribal times no-one could have pointed to an industrial capitalist system, but that doesn't mean such a thing is impossible.

That's because, while not defining OF the human condition, it's a part OF the human condition. So if the destruction of the market is your goal, then communism will work just fine so long as you don't introduce any humans to the equation. Maybe that's the goal? I don't pretend to know.

You're just repeating the point in dispute. That's begging the question.

Which is why he's such a good fairy tale. But no matter...we don't lose much sleep on this side of the fence worrying about what Marx thinks.

So, you want to argue with followers of Marx, yet you wish not to take any account of their actual views? Interesting....

Incorrect. Those things in no way are mutually exclusive of the position I support.

Sure they are, because market behaviour is one of them. Many people are still uneasy about market behaviour, especially aboriginal peoples, whose cuilture tends to be collectivist.

One of our most fundamental differences. I celebrate the Individual first, and the group (societal whole) second (distant second, at that). You (generic you, meaning communists in general) celebrate the group first, while placing the individual subservient to the group.

Not at all. What you really do is celebrate yourself at the expense of other individuals. The communist position on equality is equality of individuals, so what you say is simply false.

In fact, morality demands that we place the interests of others on an equal footing with our own (even Kant agreed to this) – that automatically leads to an egalitarian society of some description, which is why capitalists tend to try to hide behind arguments of economic necessity, because they know that ethically they don't have a leg to stand on.

There's no convincing me that this is anything other than a backwards, outmoded, unnecessary WASTE of a position, just as there's no convincing you to my perspective. I know this. I accept it. All I can say is that IN my point of view, there's room for yours. Not true from the other side of the fence.

All I can say is that it's becoming hard to convince me that you're anything more than a rhetorician with a crude understanding of the actual issues. Most of what you have written is blather.

Frankly it doesn't matter that you don't believe, and if you don't, then you don't know me very well. Your ideology RELIES on the sheeplike nature of the masses. I'm happy in that regard, to disappoint.

Then it's jail for you with all the other criminals.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid,
I've read it. I've digested it. I've reached the conclusion that it's about a century out of date and largely rubbish. I know you don't like that, cos you hold Big Daddy Marx so near and dear, but that doesn't change my conclusion.

That's hard to believe since you don't address any of the points to the theory, and quite frankly you don't understand it.

And by the way, I'm impressed that you called Stalin a madman. Coming from someone who LIKES the idea of forced work camps, that's significant.

Umm... yeah, because requiring people to work for the benefits that they recieve is nothing like murdering millions of people and getting as he put it, "life's greatest pleasure" from it.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Given that the technology exists RIGHT NOW to do most of the stuff on my list...yeah, I'd say that puts it a bit closer to reality than replicator technology. Sorry...didn't mean to disturb your communist wet dream. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Hmm, I suppose we could build floating or undersea cities if we really wanted to.. but why would we? They'd be economically worthless; no capitalist would build one, although a floating city could maybe survive as a tourist destination. Colonising the Moon or Mars is even more of a money-sink.

As for increasing the Earth's upper limit through technology... it's far from clear that our current existence is sustainable in the long term. Nor is it clear why people would want to keeping growing for the sake of it.

As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.

[Agathon]

As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.

Because he responds emotionally to politics: not intellectually.

[Kidlicious]

Vel is a populist. His rudeness, sensationalism, and doublespeak is very popular.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon

As an aside, why are you so insulting in your responses? Half to two-thirds of your posts are nothing but rudeness.

Because he responds emotionally to politics: not intellectually.

Like communism is an intellectual response to anything? Puh-leeeeze.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think you want to compare Das Kapital to Vel's posts.