Why are people against Communism? (EDITED)

[Barihawk]

Do you have any links/references showing that Stalin invented Communism?

 

 

 

The only internet research I do is on JSTOR and it's unlikely you pay $300 a year to read it like I do. And to be honest that's merely an archive of published material. Or books. Internet research is terrible, and I prefer print.

 

 

 

If you'd like I can give you suggestions for class loads in universities and their graduate programs. About six years worth.

 

 

 

Also, I'd like to point out that he did not invent Communism the ideal, merely communism the ideology. I explained how this should make sense in my last post, but forgive me as it involves some serious insight into Marxist theory to understand.

 

 

 

We both have central banks that control interest rates, inflation etc... We're "Capitalist" tho, right?

 

 

 

No, we are regulated capitalist. When Marx was alive regulated capitalism didn't exist. It was Laissez-Faire. After the problems in the Gilded Age with people like Rockefeller and such, the US clamped down on industry (and likewise Britain) and began to regulate what businesses could and could not do. You see this today with the bailout discussions. We are *not* Capitalist in the sense that Karl Marx was writing about. Adam Smith would have a heart attack if he saw how government stepped into the economy, even in such "capitalist" nations as America.

[JIM]

 

Also, I'd like to point out that he did not invent Communism the ideal, merely communism the ideology. I explained how this should make sense in my last post, but forgive me as it involves some serious insight into Marxist theory to understand.

 

 

 

I know he didn't. You were implying that he did though. In fact in my last post I dealt with that issue and concluded that it was an ideological standpoint. I take slight offense to your condescending tone - particularly the end of the quote. Do you always automatically assume intellectual superiority? :P

 

 

 

No, we are regulated capitalist. When Marx was alive regulated capitalism didn't exist. It was Laissez-Faire. After the problems in the Gilded Age with people like Rockefeller and such, the US clamped down on industry (and likewise Britain) and began to regulate what businesses could and could not do. You see this today with the bailout discussions. We are *not* Capitalist in the sense that Karl Marx was writing about. Adam Smith would have a heart attack if he saw how government stepped into the economy, even in such "capitalist" nations as America.

 

 

 

My final sentence was somewhat sarcastic, implying that the average person won't know the difference. Again, I don't need schooling. Do you purposely choose the writing prose of someone who is teaching? I'd thought this would turn into a discussion, instead I feel like you're regurgitating information at me in a semi-patronising manner.

[Quoi_Tu]

Somewhat relevant to commmunism, centrally planned economies have typically shown poor economic growth rates. In some cases, they can provide high short term growth rates, but usually struggle to achieve sustained growth. One bonus they have been shown to have is quickly changing an economy from agricultural to industrial in a short period of time. One reason for the mess of a centrally planned economy is the resources which go into the bureaucracy to control the economy take away from resources that could be invested in business.

 

 

 

To the OP, people are likely to call you a commie if you arrogantly display your belief of communism by "explaining" the faults of capitalism. Unless of course, commie is becoming a new popular insult. In which case, I'm so going to start using it, you communist slug.

 

 

 

Centrally planned economies such as the US/Englands? :)

 

 

 

We both have central banks that control interest rates, inflation etc... We're "Capitalist" tho, right? ;)

 

Well, Bari covered it, but I'm referring to centrally planned economies like China (more specifically, a pre-1980s China) where most things were state owned and run. No European country is close to a centrally planned economy because it's known that type of system is inefficient.

 

 

 

The central bank example would be more appropriate if other banks didn't exist. Since they do, the central bank acts as a regulator not a manager.

[Barihawk]

I don't take sarcasm well in this kind of topic. Mostly because *most* of the time people don't know what they are talking about.

 

 

 

As for my condescending tone, learn to deal with it. It's me. I have no problem with it so it's unlikely to change. Fortunately I am very practiced and versed in the subject, so I am confident in my jackassery. And yes, I do teach.

 

 

 

If you'd state facts instead of giving them out sarcastically, we might not be having this discussion. Sarcasm promotes little to an intellectual discussion except make you look smug, and it is not transmitted very well at all through text. If I don't know you're joking, I'll treat you like you weren't.

[JIM]

I don't take sarcasm well in this kind of topic. Mostly because *most* of the time people don't know what they are talking about.

 

 

 

As for my condescending tone, learn to deal with it. It's me. I have no problem with it so it's unlikely to change. Fortunately I am very practiced and versed in the subject, so I am confident in my jackassery. And yes, I do teach.

 

 

 

If you'd state facts instead of giving them out sarcastically, we might not be having this discussion. Sarcasm promotes little to an intellectual discussion except make you look smug, and it is not transmitted very well at all through text. If I don't know you're joking, I'll treat you like you weren't.

 

 

 

I made one 'off the cuff' sarcastic remark and you use it to justify a post full of regurgitated egotism?

 

 

 

I would also put to you that your admittedly condescending tone does more to make you look 'smug' than anything I've done.

 

 

 

You obviously know what you're talking about, I have spent most of this post trying to get something out of you that doesn't sound like you're plagarising a textbook, though. I'm not questioning any of your statements out of malice but merely in the interests of the discussion.

 

 

 

I want to continue with this discussion but not if the tone continues, so if you could direct some of your pent up frustration at "most" of the people who "don't know what they're talking about", away from me, I would be grateful. Thanks.

 

 

 

And yes, I do teach.

 

 

 

I'm not surprised.

[magekillr]

One thing many people forget about Marx is that he loved capitalism as well. Of course when I say capitalism, I mean capitalism in today's sense. He abhorred capitalism during the Gilded Age, and he very well should have. As Barihawk noted, this was a time of extreme exploitation of workers, horrible conditions, and a near feudal system. Libertarians and Austrian economics for some reason forget this time in our history, and continue to spew their [cabbage] about the invisible hand and "pure" free markets. The same goes for communists. They seem to forget that Lenin's party starved millions of people that didn't join the party (some collectivism), that Stalin removed Habeas Corpus (effectively turning him into a tyrant) while killing 300,000 that were "put on trial." They also forget Che Gueverra, who was a ruthless bastard that effectively killed thousands of innocence that didn't take up his socialist cause.

[Quoi_Tu]

EDIT: Trust me, if Communism hadn't altered at all from what was stated in the Communist Manifesto, Capitalism would not be the main source of income for the world right now.

 

Details, s'il vous plait.

[Quoi_Tu]

One thing many people forget about Marx is that he loved capitalism as well. Of course when I say capitalism, I mean capitalism in today's sense. He abhorred capitalism during the Gilded Age, and he very well should have. As Barihawk noted, this was a time of extreme exploitation of workers, horrible conditions, and a near feudal system.

 

And yet those people willingly worked in those conditions. People viewed a job at Ford's auto plant in Detroit with a high degree of respect and would wait months to get a chance to apply. Yet when they started working they realized the monotony and high demand nature of working on an early assembly line. People flocked to these kind of jobs because they paid better than anything else. While it was a horrible time for worker's rights and the era of the wage slave, I think it was an unavoidable step to achieve the kind of economic growth and development we did and enjoy today. We see similar things in developing countries and consequently rapidly growing standards of living (I'm refering to outsourcing). Hmmp, I originally had a point, but I forgot it. Oh well.

 

 

 

Sorry about the double post.

[Barihawk]

JIM, you could just not take what I said personally. Because generally, I'm sitting where you are hearing people saying that their ideas are correct and that I'm some backwards yahoo for not agreeing with them. It's OT, expect to be provoked.

 

 

 

As for the sarcasm, that was only one post. The other posts were because I did find something wrong with your logic and commented on it, to which you kept repeating to me "That's what I was saying." But it wasn't. That was aggravating me, to be honest. Not nearly as wrong as other people, but I was trying to steer you closer a bit. And educate those other punks.

 

 

 

Also, pent up frustration for the lose. I get it out when I get it.

 

 

 

Also glad to see the discussion taking a more enlightened turn.

 

 

 

EDIT: Trust me, if Communism hadn't altered at all from what was stated in the Communist Manifesto, Capitalism would not be the main source of income for the world right now.

 

 

 

Wait, a system that strives to only produce what is needed here and now is going to lead to profits? What?

[The Dark Lord]

I lean towards Socialism, but I don't 100% hate capitalism either. What I DO hate about capitalism is the "Feed the Rich, [bleep] the Poor" attitude that often comes with it.

[Lenin64]

Stalinism is a Communist-Marxist theory but there are also some non-Marxist forms of Communism. Someone claiming to be a Communist but whom doesn't act as a Communist, isn't a Communist.

 

This is why I always try to correct those who call me a Communist; I'm not. I'm Stalinist, the whole autocratic goverment-controlled economy and the like. I've gotten quite a few pm's about it, actually, and I always enjoy clarfying that. It's fun when people get angry or something and have the whole, "Well, who'll govern? You?" and are surprised when I say "of course not you dolt. I can't lead a nation".

 

 

 

So my opposition to actual Communism is its high-freedom, libertarian(?) society. Not my thing.

[rushrock]

Lenin, as a Stalinist, are you acting out of the good of the human species? Basically, do you want to find a better way of living in your philosophy?

[Lenin64]

Lenin, as a Stalinist, are you acting out of the good of the human species? Basically, do you want to find a better way of living in your philosophy?

 

Not sure I understand what you're asking. A better way of living compared to...? The USSR? Well, of course. As much as I may glorify it, the standard of living was obviously rather poor. In a world united under such a system, things like military spending would decrease greatly or be eliminated completely, which constituted much of the Soviet budget. This would in turn leave more money for distribution, more land for farming/other uses that would have otherwise been military bases or something, and probably raise the standard of living. And not just for the wealthy, for all. That's not to say I'm anti-military, of course, but it's an example. And I've already said that it;s not some personal power trip, so yea, for the good of Mankind.

[Quoi_Tu]

Lenin, as a Stalinist, are you acting out of the good of the human species? Basically, do you want to find a better way of living in your philosophy?

 

Not sure I understand what you're asking. A better way of living compared to...? The USSR? Well, of course. As much as I may glorify it, the standard of living was obviously rather poor. In a world united under such a system, things like military spending would decrease greatly or be eliminated completely, which constituted much of the Soviet budget. This would in turn leave more money for distribution, more land for farming/other uses that would have otherwise been military bases or something, and probably raise the standard of living. And not just for the wealthy, for all. That's not to say I'm anti-military, of course, but it's an example. And I've already said that it;s not some personal power trip, so yea, for the good of Mankind.

 

Just make sure you create an incentive system for farms to produce efficiently or you'll get problems like China did, where they just required a quota from farmers at state prices, so farmers didn't have any motivation to produce at their personal optimal levels. They fixed their problem by requiring a certain amount to be sold to the state at set prices, then allowing any excess to be sold on the market. The USSR had a similar problem where the government pretended to pay the workers who pretended to work. Of course, I have faith you would work out the kinks!

[DerekZoolandah]

The furthest I'd go down the road to communism is some socialism.

 

Probably same here. Been reading a lot into it (especially taking a class in high school learning about political systems), and socialism seems rather good. Not communism, of course, but something similar to what magekillr said.

 

 

 

But yeah. A lot of anti-communism sentiments in the United States are ultimately from a fear of the Russians during the coldwar, which likely manifested into the next generation. Some do it as a joke (I do it occasionally, anyone that gets a political joke is a good person in my books), some do it as an insult (how it's an insult is beyond me). People associate communism with dictatorships and Stalin-type governments.

 

 

 

But as said and has been said for years, to the point of it being a cliche, is that people are just too greedy for communism to work.

[rushrock]

I meant in general, does your plan want the best for people? Are people allowed to disagree with what you want to put into place? How close are your views to pure Stalinism? How much freedom are people allowed to have? I'm actually asking you that right now, but I'm pretty sure the answer is not much. What I'm saying is, for a good government, there needs to be disagreement for the human race as a whole to select the best system for itself. I guess I'm really asking your opinion on how important disagreement and conflicting and diverse ideas are in human society.

[Lenin64]

I suppose it depends on the type of freedom you mean. Free speech? To an extent. Speech restrictions that exist currently-slander, threats, and the like-would still be present, and such things as freedom of protest, peaceful or not, would be removed, and speech against the government would be restricted to a degree. A few grumblings about "man, I don't like [leader], he's kind of an [wagon]/I don't like particularly like his stance on [issue]" are fine, but any kind of speech that could lead to a drastic loss of public faith in the system or signs of dangerous activity would have action taken against them immediately. Religion? That's a little sketchy. I'd personally like the removal of the church from the state, as it is mostly now, but to the point where we aren't "founded in Christianity", period. But as for total eradication, I don't really know. I guess it depends on the active religions in the future and the religious violence present.

 

 

 

Diversity is necessary to an extent. The previously mentioned stances are an example, but I also wouldn't go totally Trueman Doctrine on any nation unwilling to conform. And privacy, well, that's sort of out. Little other way to monitor the aforementioned revolutionary talk. Mostly electronic, though, and checking for keywords in certain patterns probably. I guess that's how they do e-mails and the like now.

[Lateralus]

I suppose it depends on the type of freedom you mean. Free speech? To an extent. Speech restrictions that exist currently-slander, threats, and the like-would still be present, and such things as freedom of protest, peaceful or not, would be removed, and speech against the government would be restricted to a degree. A few grumblings about "man, I don't like [leader], he's kind of an [wagon]/I don't like particularly like his stance on [issue]" are fine, but any kind of speech that could lead to a drastic loss of public faith in the system or signs of dangerous activity would have action taken against them immediately. Religion? That's a little sketchy. I'd personally like the removal of the church from the state, as it is mostly now, but to the point where we aren't "founded in Christianity", period. But as for total eradication, I don't really know. I guess it depends on the active religions in the future and the religious violence present.

 

 

 

Diversity is necessary to an extent. The previously mentioned stances are an example, but I also wouldn't go totally Trueman Doctrine on any nation unwilling to conform. And privacy, well, that's sort of out. Little other way to monitor the aforementioned revolutionary talk. Mostly electronic, though, and checking for keywords in certain patterns probably. I guess that's how they do e-mails and the like now.

 

 

 

This is honestly your view of an ideal world?

[Giordano]

Ignoring Stalin's definition of Communism and instead using that of Marx's finalized product, pure communism is not a perfect system. I can't believe how anybody would think it is. Absolutely no work would be done because why bother? No class ranks, no extra bonuses, no money to be spent on the things you want, we'll all be the same. No, I'll hate that. There HAS to be classes in this world. The problem with our current situation is that the higher-ups won't let the lowers advance. But if we let everybody have the same opportunities then we'll have a decent society. It's a variation of socialist but not full-blown communism.

 

 

 

Something needs to drive humanity to advance: climbing up the class ranks. Communism does not allow that.

 

 

 

On a side note, Hellzbellz' post is so right. :lol:

[Lenticular_J]

This is honestly your view of an ideal world?

 

That's why I don't like to try and project my ideals to others. There's no such thing as a world-wide ideal (except maybe a delicious, refreshing Coca-Cola), so I just try and adjust this mess of other people's ideals [bleep]ing up the world to my own.

[Nom]

Ignoring Stalin's definition of Communism and instead using that of Marx's finalized product, pure communism is not a perfect system. I can't believe how anybody would think it is. Absolutely no work would be done because why bother? No class ranks, no extra bonuses, no money to be spent on the things you want, we'll all be the same. No, I'll hate that. There HAS to be classes in this world. The problem with our current situation is that the higher-ups won't let the lowers advance. But if we let everybody have the same opportunities then we'll have a decent society. It's a variation of socialist but not full-blown communism.

 

 

 

Something needs to drive humanity to advance: climbing up the class ranks. Communism does not allow that.

 

 

 

On a side note, Hellzbellz' post is so right. :lol:

 

 

 

I would suggest reading Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy. Bellamy was a socialist in the Gilded Age of America and the book is basically a depiction of an America that has completely adopted socialism by the year 2000. He addressed those issues, basically by leaning on the inherent "goodness" of human nature. The book is a serious chore to read, Bellamy's tone is horribly condescending, and there are massive holes in his argument, but it's still interesting to look at a pretty well-planned society functioning on socialism.

 

 

 

I personally hated the book and let it show in the essay I had to write on it lol.

[Zygimantas]

But I want to have more land then the next guy, I want to make more money, I want to showoff. Being equal with everyone else is just not natural.

[Quoi_Tu]

But I want to have more land then the next guy, I want to make more money, I want to showoff. Being equal with everyone else is just not natural.

 

But why do you want to make more money? Money shouldn't be an end, maybe a means, but never an end.

[Zygimantas]

But I want to have more land then the next guy, I want to make more money, I want to showoff. Being equal with everyone else is just not natural.

 

But why do you want to make more money? Money shouldn't be an end, maybe a means, but never an end.

 

So I can eat better food, drive a better car and spend more money on hobbies and such. I do not mean just making more money for doing nothing different from anyone else, I mean working harder then the next guy. I should be able to choose if i want to work 18 hrs a day, make more money and buy more land then my friend, even if there may be no point.

[eias]

But I want to have more land then the next guy, I want to make more money, I want to showoff. Being equal with everyone else is just not natural.

 

But why do you want to make more money? Money shouldn't be an end, maybe a means, but never an end.

 

So I can eat better food, drive a better car and spend more money on hobbies and such. I do not mean just making more money for doing nothing different from anyone else, I mean working harder then the next guy. I should be able to choose if i want to work 18 hrs a day, make more money and buy more land then my friend, even if there may be no point.

 

Why would you want better advantages when you have everything that you need and there's no complaints about it?