Jump to content
Holton

Tell me how Communism is bad

Recommended Posts

Without referencing the classic strawman arguments - why oppose an ordered society that distributes surplus among the people? I'm actually looking for serious theory here, not just pointing to China and saying how bad they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who says communism is bad it's 10/10 awesome :) 
Now to be honest my thinking is communism must be our final goal to reach through democracy may be what I feel we should take positive sides of communism and use it in democracy and at the end of the day it will be good for us. 

Now there is a very fundamental thing every policy created in earth till now have some positive and negative side our job must be to use positive sides of each and every system we have and try to combine them to get something with less negative stuffs ofc you can't have things which don't have any down side :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer is way, way fewer deaths. Might as well look at WWII, compare Allied war crimes against Axis POWs to Axis war crimes against Allied POWs.

 

Anyway, theorize that an "ordered society" that "distributes surplus" has to resort to barbaric methods to do so, resulting in atrocious human costs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good day I'm having. I'm feeling very relaxed, and posting here has been very enjoyable. Thank you Pride, for initiating this dialogue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with Communism is that historic examples of communism have failed. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea... seems like everyone communism spreads, death and oppression follows.

 

The 'that's not real Communism' argument never quite stuck with me. It seems like the same communists who say the historic versions of communism isn't true communism want to do exactly what the historic communists wanted to do.

 

I suppose in the future who technology gets crazy and we don't have to worry about food or work, then true communism will be achieved. I think by that point, that will be okay. However, anything else will just end poorly.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would anyone know? There's never been a communist system in place.

 

^ End of thread as the classic Communist defense is now in effect (in record time). Communism has been the ruling ideology in many countries but actually has been in none, and you can't explain that <Bill O'Reilly face>.

 

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Nope, Communism has never been done because Communism is really Anarchism or something.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with Communism is that historic examples of communism have failed. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea... seems like everyone communism spreads, death and oppression follows.

 

The 'that's not real Communism' argument never quite stuck with me. It seems like the same communists who say the historic versions of communism isn't true communism want to do exactly what the historic communists wanted to do.

 

I suppose in the future who technology gets crazy and we don't have to worry about food or work, then true communism will be achieved. I think by that point, that will be okay. However, anything else will just end poorly.

But communism has never been tried. True communism is anarchic in natire, considering there cant be a form of ruling class.

tl;dr true communism has never been tried and never will be. Human Nature ensures that will never happen.

 

Also the USSR was not communists, they were an Authoritarian State-Command Economy which was inevitable to fall. Their system really only works well in war.

Edited by Abigail Griffin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But communism has never been tried. True communism is anarchic in natire, considering there cant be a form of ruling class.

tl;dr true communism has never been tried and never will be. Human Nature ensures that will never happen.

 

Also the USSR was not communists, they were an Authoritarian State-Command Economy which was inevitable to fall. Their system really only works well in war.

 

Then why not just call yourselves Anarchists? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But communism has never been tried. True communism is anarchic in natire, considering there cant be a form of ruling class.

tl;dr true communism has never been tried and never will be. Human Nature ensures that will never happen.

 

Also the USSR was not communists, they were an Authoritarian State-Command Economy which was inevitable to fall. Their system really only works well in war.

 

Abby! ^_^

 

True communism is Marxism, and Marxism is the lack of a ruling structure and perfect harmony. Such a thing is only possible in a post-scarcity society (which I do believe humanity will become eventually). However, modern communists push the label of 'that's not true communism' but still want to the do the things the 'not communists' did. That's what I don't get.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with Communism is that historic examples of communism have failed. There've been no instances of communism thus far in history. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea.Socialists or straight capitalists. If they claimed they were communist at all it was a deceitful thing to do... seems like everyone communism spreads, death and oppression follows.

 

The 'that's not real Communism' argument never quite stuck with me. It seems like the same communists who say the historic versions of communism isn't true communism want to do exactly what the historic communists wanted to do. Marx has specific requirements for communism to even be attempted and no country meeting those have yet to try communism. We have no examples of communism until one that fits tries it.

 

I suppose in the future who technology gets crazy and we don't have to worry about food or work, then true communism will be achieved. I think by that point, that will be okay. However, anything else will just end poorly.

 

 

^ End of thread as the classic Communist defense is now in effect (in record time). Communism has been the ruling ideology in many countries but actually has been in none, and you can't explain that <Bill O'Reilly face>. Communism doesn't have a government. Have these countries had governments? If so, already not communism.

 

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Nope, Communism has never been done because Communism is really Anarchism or something. No, t's communism and it has a lot of specific requirements that no nation attempting it has had.

 

 

But communism has never been tried. True communism is anarchic in natire, considering there cant be a form of ruling class.

tl;dr true communism has never been tried and never will be. Human Nature ensures that will never happen.

 

Also the USSR was not communists, they were an Authoritarian State-Command Economy which was inevitable to fall. Their system really only works well in war.

 

 

Then why not just call yourselves Anarchists?  Anarchism is different than communism so it makes no sense to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Communism never has been truly tried and it failed due to human nature, then why do people continue to subscribe to a failed ideology?

Edited by Octavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why not just call yourselves Anarchists?

Because I am not a communist.

 

I believe in a mixed economy, where vital services are nationalized, backed by Private enterprise.

 

I don't want a 'communist' society, as it isnt possible in todays society, nor will it be as long as humans stay a competitive speices, and competitive can be used for great things, so i do not wish to see that die.

 

Assuming im a pro-communist due to my partial pro-socialist views is idiotic, as I dont want to see private enterprise gone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abby! ^_^

 

True communism is Marxism, and Marxism is the lack of a ruling structure and perfect harmony. Such a thing is only possible in a post-scarcity society (which I do believe humanity will become eventually). However, modern communists push the label of 'that's not true communism' but still want to the do the things the 'not communists' did. That's what I don't get.

Those aren't true communists though.

 

Anyone who read the manifesto knows that they are not true communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Communism never has been truly tried and it failed due to human nature, then why do people continue to subscribe to a failed ideology?

It hasn't been tried. It's not a failed ideology or a successful one. It's an untested one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It hasn't been tried. It's not a failed ideology or a successful one. It's an untested one.

>It hasn't been tried

I think you mean to say it hasn't taken form in the exact way you want it too. Regardless of whether or not you think the USSR was truly communist is irrelevant insofar as addressing that it was at least an attempt at Communism and by your own admission, a failure.

Edited by Octavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anarchism is different than communism so it makes no sense to do that.

 

Go on. In your own words explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who says communism is bad it's 10/10 awesome :) 

 

I want to see this guy in the 60's. In America. 

 

Let's see how that turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>It hasn't been tried

I think you mean to say it hasn't taken form in the exact way you want it too. Regardless of whether or not you think the USSR was truly communist is irrelevant insofar as addressing that it was at least an attempt at Communism and by your own admission, a failure.

No, in the way Marx said it would. First the beginning needs an advanced capitalist economy rather like the current American one, then you turn it into a socialist country with excellent democratic features. Then eventually you start removing the government and move towards communism where there is no government. Have these examples you're considering had governments? If so, they're not communist.

 

Go on. In your own words explain.

I already did.

 

I want to see this guy in the 60's. In America. 

 

Let's see how that turns out.,

Yeah. Kill him for his opinions. Perhaps you can lynch him next to the black people who looked at the white women!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... How is simply saying that it is different explaining it? Explain the details that make this perfect pure form of Communism different than simply Anarchism, go on now. Fail and it will be quite apparent you simply can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... How is simply saying that it is different explaining it? Explain the details that make this perfect pure form of Communism different than simply Anarchism, go on now. Fail and it will be quite apparent you simply can't.

Because it is different. I'm not your researcher. Read some Proust and some Marx and figure it out on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ain't how it works. I know full well the differences between Communism, aka the form you say is not Communism and Anarchism... however I ask because I am puzzled how this apparently "ultimate pure Communism" is different from Anarchism as I can't quite see it.

 

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-anarchism/

 

I have searched, finding things such as the above which seem to go counter to what you have said and thus not be talking about "ultimate pure Communism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That ain't how it works. I know full well the differences between Communism, aka the form you say is not Communism and Anarchism... however I ask because I am puzzled how this apparently "ultimate pure Communism" is different from Anarchism as I can't quite see it. I haven't used any of those terms.

 

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-anarchism/

 

I have searched, finding things such as the above which seem to go counter to what you have said and thus not be talking about "ultimate pure Communism". There's naturally not because no one uses that terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.