Is Communism Inherently Toxic?

[Revoltingest]

Capitalism makes promises to all (i.e. Trickle Down economics), not just those who start a successful company. Many capitalist authors assume that the wealthy will make wise investments in the community and their employees, and that everyone who is a part of it will be blessed when the capitalist class is wealthy. But what they don't mentioned are the nations that are stuck in poverty because they play a peripheral role in global capitalism, the poverty that exists here, the poor qualities and standards that have been introduced to enhance the profit side of capitalism, the pillage of the earth for profit, or the wealthy neglecting social responsibility and leaving many with sub-standard livings such as lacking access to health care and higher education (and often times even a half-way decent public education). Without regulations (and even often with) capitalism leaves society too vulnerable to the worst of people taking over and having power in a system that allows the transfer of power to easily bypass the political system, and has even lead many to stating the state should be ran like a business, even though the state is not a business.

But without actually starting & running a business, one couldn't know what it's all about.
Without experience, one might fall prey to anti-capitalist propaganda, & believe such things.
So if a person who has no business experience can talk about capitalism, then one who hasn't
read Marx's works may discuss socialism & communism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But without actually starting & running a business, one couldn't know what it's all about.

Capitalism isn't just starting and running a business though. It's like saying we might fall into anti-state regime propaganda because we've never ran a state, even though we are suffering from the hands of the state. But you don't have to have experience with running a state, or have even been to Mosul recently, to know that ISIS is very brutal and harsh and isn't doing a good job at operating their "state," and deserve all the criticism that is thrown at them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But without actually starting & running a business, one couldn't know what it's all about.

And even if we do look at that, most of them take years to finally turn a profit, many function on a very thin margin, and many of them fail.

 

[Revoltingest]

Finally, we've established that one cogently comment on socialism without extensive reading of Marx.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how reading a book equates with starting a company...

Exactly!
It doesn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you are misinterpreting what ShadowWolf was getting at.
She was trying to say in order to make meaningful comments on communist ideology one may want to actually read some of the initial works instead of firing shots in the dark like some of the early posters due to misconceptions and blatant false information implanted by western educational systems and the old anti-red propaganda wave.

No, I think I sussed her claim correctly.
I just disagree that necessary to have more than knowledge of the essential points of a system in order to comment upon it.
My addressing double standards about expertise being required only confused the issue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't follow...

Reading a book about a subject is not the same as having direct experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but how is one expected to have a direct experience of communism when there has arguably never been a true communist state?
Shouldn't someone arguing for or against something educate themselves to the best of what they are arguing against?

Some things don't require extensive knowledge of the subject, eg, astrology, YE creationism, palm reading.
It is enuf to be familiar with the definition of such things in order to deal with specific claims made.

To say that one must do extensive reading is an unrealistic & unnecessary requirement,

 

[Revoltingest]

You never know, some of the earlier posts were... uneducated to say the least.

If you take issue with any of my posts, feel free to address them.

 

[psychoslice]

Communism can be toxic, but so can capitalism if taken to the extreme.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just disagree that necessary to have more than knowledge of the essential points of a system in order to comment upon it.

To say that one must do extensive reading is an unrealistic & unnecessary requirement,

If you don't know something, then you don't know it and can't comment properly on it. There is a reason why laymen are not considered as credible as someone who academically or scientifically studies a subject. Ken Ham knows enough science to be able to use some of the lingo, but he doesn't understand it well enough to know why he rambles on about nonsense. With a more complex system (pretty much any economic, political, or social theory), you can't know about unless you have done some research and have covered some core material. It happens a lot in philosophy with certain authors, especially Friedrich Nietzsche, where someone has a casual and more pop-culture understanding of him, and they fail to realize the bigger picture which includes how difficult Nietzsche can be at times. It's like someone who doesn't actually really know that much about Star Trek, but has a more casual understanding of it and you can tell because they claim that Spock has no emotions, meaning they don't know enough about the series to know Spock has the occasional emotional outburst, but they know about "live long and prosper" and of course they've heard about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

 

[Laika]

To read communist literary works might interest some of its fans & critics, but not me.
And it's not necessary in discussing economic systems. We have dictionaries &
encyclopedias to sufficiently describe the various systems.
By analogy, I needn't read the Bible or Koran in order to criticize those systems either.

Come on Revoltingest, you're alot smarter than that. If you can understand a system of government without ever reading its propaganda, or a religion without reading its key texts, what is to stop you from running a business without ever reading the accounts? These things have very practical applications for their adherents; much the same way as we use science to understand the world, the communist "worldview"was itself considered a science, and one in conflict with "bourgeois" science.

What has taken me alot of time to accept was that the Communists do not share the same sense of "reality" as Liberals. the amount of philosophy involved is so much that it is comparable to a religious war; both sides cliam to believe in the "one true faith" and it is only by reading each others texts that you start to understand them. Whilst Communism isn't a "religion" it is probably better to think of it as one- as whilst liberalism, conservatives and socialist are political ideologies, they share roughly the same set of philosophical assumptions about human rights, government by consent and morality even if they have a different interpretation of it. Communism, does not share it, which is why it is labelled (and inaccurately) "totalitaria". it is very alien, and for the most part people think it's a dellusion, a religion, pseudo-science, or just plain crazy. Doing so saves people the trouble of thinking about who they are and how they reached their opinions whilst others came to very different conclusions. The truth is more complex as Marxism was the product of enlightenment thinking but departs from the mainstream understanding of the world in alot of heretical ways. like some sort of parrelell universe. (e.g. History is considered a Science). This means it feels something like a maze and it is quite easy to get lost, or to be lost whilst convinced you know where you are. (And for what it is worth, I think most members of the "far left" come under the second catagory).

After ten years, I can say I still don't understand it or fully accept it, but I have learned a whole lot more about how the society I was brought up in established certian bias as self-evident, whilst leaving a great deal "invisible" and hidden in the background. The appeal of Communist theory is it makes alot of things intelligable and that can be quite a "rush" as you suddenly feel you have enough information to change everything; the sense of empowerment is the attraction. Of course, that isn't the same as having expertise to discuss science, art, culture, music, history simply because communism is a worldview and a formula applied to everything else, nor does that sense of being empowered mean that power may perhaps become an end in itself. A sticking point for me (apart from the ethics) was the cliams made about the political and ideological nature of science which, whilst very logical, still clashed with my more "bourgeois" tendencies of thinking there is a universal science "above class ideology". it's eerily similar to debates over creationism and evolution, but they could still be right- it's just a big risk to take because of how controversial it would be without having the background scientific knowledge to argue it convincingly.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you don't know something, then you don't know it and can't comment properly on it.

No argument.
But tis not for you to set limits upon others.
No one needs to read Marx to understand what socialism & communism are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Come on Revoltingest, you're alot smarter than that.

Am not!

If you can understand a system of government without ever reading its propaganda, or a religion without reading its key texts, what is to stop you from running a business without ever reading the accounts? These things have very practical applications for their adherents; much the same way as we use science to understand the world, the communist "worldview"was itself considered a science, and one in conflict with "bourgeois" science.

What has taken me alot of time to accept was that the Communists do not share the same sense of "reality" as Liberals. the amount of philosophy involved is so much that it is comparable to a religious war; both sides cliam to believe in the "one true faith" and it is only by reading each others texts that you start to understand them. Whilst Communism isn't a "religion" it is probably better to think of it as one- as whilst liberalism, conservatives and socialist are political ideologies, they share roughly the same set of philosophical assumptions about human rights, government by consent and morality even if they have a different interpretation of it. Communism, does not share it, which is why it is labelled (and inaccurately) "totalitaria". it is very alien, and for the most part people think it's a dellusion, a religion, pseudo-science, or just plain crazy. Doing so saves people the trouble of thinking about who they are and how they reached their opinions whilst others came to very different conclusions. The truth is more complex as Marxism was the product of enlightenment thinking but departs from the mainstream understanding of the world in alot of heretical ways. like some sort of parrelell universe. (e.g. History is considered a Science). This means it feels something like a maze and it is quite easy to get lost, or to be lost whilst convinced you know where you are. (And for what it is worth, I think most members of the "far left" come under the second catagory).

After ten years, I can say I still don't understand it or fully accept it, but I have learned a whole lot more about how the society I was brought up in established certian bias as self-evident, whilst leaving a great deal "invisible" and hidden in the background. The appeal of Communist theory is it makes alot of things intelligable and that can be quite a "rush" as you suddenly feel you have enough information to change everything; the sense of empowerment is the attraction. Of course, that isn't the same as having expertise to discuss science, art, culture, music, history simply because communism is a worldview and a formula applied to everything else, nor does that sense of being empowered mean that power may perhaps become an end in itself. A sticking point for me (apart from the ethics) was the cliams made about the political and ideological nature of science which, whilst very logical, still clashed with my more "bourgeois" tendencies of thinking there is a universal science "above class ideology". it's eerily similar to debates over creationism and evolution, but they could still be right- it's just a big risk to take because of how controversial it would be without having the background scientific knowledge to argue it convincingly.

The best way to understand socialism, communism, capitalism, etc is to apply systems analysis to them & to have played the game.
Marx seems a dreamer who didn't understand human nature.
To fully understand his dream is necessary only to understand him & his acolytes.....but not economics.

 

[Laika]

The best way to understand socialism, communism, capitalism, etc is to apply systems analysis to them & to have played the game.
Marx seems a dreamer who didn't understand human nature.
To fully understand his dream is necessary only to understand him & his acolytes.....but not economics.

"The days of indifference are gone. The danger today in our attitude toward communism is of a very different kind. It lies in the fact that we have come to abhor communism so much that we no longer recognize the necessity of understanding it." (Richard Nixon)

 

[Revoltingest]

"The days of indifference are gone. The danger today in our attitude toward communism is of a very different kind. It lies in the fact that we have come to abhor communism so much that we no longer recognize the necessity of understanding it." (Richard Nixon)

I like indifference.
It helps to maintain serenity & objectivity.

 

[Laika]

I like indifference.
It helps to maintain serenity & objectivity.

If there is one reason I'd rather be a communist than a liberal, the deadening complacency of liberalism is at the top of the list.

 

[Ultimatum]

There are prosperous socialist countries like Canada, Sweden, and France,

Sweden isn't a socialist country, it never has been and it never will be.
Canada isn't a socialist country.
France was a socialist country, until the country voted out the left-wing failure that it was.

I mean, surely this is a troll post.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, just confusing social policies with socialism for whatever reason. Most people make the error

Aye, dictionaries should be used more.

 

[atanu]

North Korea, China, and the USSR—all totalitarian states, the common factor between which is their communist foundations. There are prosperous socialist countries like Canada, Sweden, and France, and there are capitalist countries like the U.S. and England that have thrived for a long time despite struggling in certain areas. But what about communist countries? Why do you think almost all of the major communist states have either devolved into dictatorships or lent themselves to fascist, bloodthirsty regimes?

Put differently, do you think communism as an ideology is inherently toxic, or has it only been misunderstood or misused this whole time?

If you have read 'Communist Manifesto', you will find it lofty, and well meaning and not toxic. It is not about imposing any system but it a theory of nature of soceital changes due to dialetical interactions of various factors but which Marx and Engels distilled down to the conflict between the people who possess means of production and who do not.

The theory, IMO, fails to fully incorporate the effect of basic egoic motivation to control. But, more than that, I feel that historically so called communistic states have had to defend their systems against strong external and internal powers and this has often resulted in big abberations and eventually to apparent end of a dream. Case of killing of Allende and installation of Pinochet in Chile and similar some other places bear this out. This may not be a general truth but more often there have been more dictatorial attacks or staged uprisings in democratic communist states.

In recent time also, it is very easy to blame muslim terrorists (who are no doubt gravely at fault) but very few remember the way Mr. Bush Senior and Junior both began aggression citing support of God.

My two cents.

(All this is Brahman, however. Just a play of trident forces).