Jump to content

Photo

Why is communism a bad word?


  • Please log in to reply
206 replies to this topic

#51
Mudran

Mudran

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

So it's just easier to blame the rich people or blame the government, is that it?

 

And to be clear ... My father was a Boilermaker with an average income, which he spent almost entirely on my older sister. The A$$hole would insult me in front of friends and guests and tell people that I was a mistake and an unwanted child.

My primary school, was a little over 4 miles from where I lived, and was only a single building (one room, with one teacher) for all classes and grades, and I walked there every day. I didn't even own a pair of shoes until I was 7 years old, and when the school insisted that I had to have a pair, my a$$hole father gave me an old pair of my sisters shoes (with pink love hearts drawn all over them) So i started doing a paper route in my local area to buy my own. My high school was over 15 miles from my house, and I had to ride a bicycle to get there (which I bought myself second hand).

 

I left school (and my piss poor family) when I was fifteen, and I've been working ever since. I now have a net worth in the six digit range, I own 6 properties (houses and units) outright and have nearly paid off my seventh. I have 2 university degrees and am working on my third, by doing classes and studies at night after work. It wasn't "easy" but there were no physical impediments to me succeeding as I have, only laziness and self entitlement could have stopped me, but I didn't let them.

 

That is the opportunity Capitalism gave me and others (that, and a refusal to just give up and whine about how bad my life was), which Communism ( or Marxism) wouldn't have given me.

 

So yes, I DO deny that poor people (however you want to define that term) "have" to work and as such preclude there being anything they can do to improve their situation, with no recourse whatsoever, but then, I'm in "denial" apparently ...

 

Plus, you castigate others for using the term "human nature" as an excuse for them not to even try and change things and as such they aren't "good" people, but then you turn around and claim that poor people can't help themselves, and rich people are the root of all evils, and we can't change that, because that's just how the world is. You don't see the double standard there?

 

Take your SJW nonsense and proselytizing out on someone else please.

 

This - that is something communism can never give. I always have to remind myself such stories to have some hope - for me this is the sense of life - to fulfill your dreams and visions and communism took that away from people. If I could describe it in a different words (I almost forgot about) it would be - the world of unfulfilled dreams. When I look at my parents I see people who got old, spending their lives for nothing, being nothing, all their dreams stuffled under their night time pillows and notes. Communism never allowed people to do what they wanted, never even allowed to have visions - like those cows allowed to live eat and sleep to be milked and killed for meat and nothing more. That is why in communism you had no value - not just for others, but for yourself. 

 

I realised that the reason why I had to talk about practical communism is the question self - why is communism a bad word - it is for me.

 

 

But back to the topic - I had to read the communistic manifest and what wiki says about Marx - it is easier in my language than in english, so here it is: 

 

they generally didn't believe in personal property - I saw results in my country and it was the worst you could do to economy - in reality people don't care about anything they don't own, so workers started to steal everything because it did belong to the state, so according to them it belonged to everyone, so practically they were not stealing. Also they didn't use any effort to make it better, they were just doing what they were told without any initiative, because initiative is connected to risks,but why take risks if you have no personal gain? Also all the buildings became ruins, because nobody cared if they look good or not, there was no competition. Also people didn't care about their own houses too - I don't know if it that was their nature or if they simply applied general trend and stop to care about anything. But now you can see repaired farms everywhere and nice looking houses. 

 

and the manifest itself:

When it comes to land properties I may agree with them when it comes to nature - forests and parks. Because basically capitalism is about making money, but sometimes you want to preserve values which don't produce any money, that is when state should take over, but only forests and so on, not farms or properties already making money for the reasons I said above. Also what we saw in UK - when a private company takes over something so needed as transports it will almost disable it for people. So not only perserving values, but also key important holdings. And also the land property in UK was a terrible experience for me. I was used to go everywhere in my country, but in UK it felt like I couldn't do almost anything. And I agree with free schools for kids. 

 

It looks like reaction to their generation problems with too much rich and powerful people abusing their powers they coudl do nothing about - that would apply to corporations today, but maybe they would change some details if they would see reality today in this generation. 


Edited by Mudran, 14 February 2018 - 07:52 AM.


#52
Mudran

Mudran

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Now I translated all the comments and at the beginning was said that marxism was about not owning too much, not about a republic owning everything. Then there is that problem - who will say how much you should own? And how they wanted to achieve this? Because it looks like they wanted revolution? Also that everyone should be equal - I was told that there was class system in that time with really poor people, so he meant classless system. It could be also translated: Marx wanted simply better conditions for workers in those times when it was really bad - why it should be valid now, when it was achieved already (atleast in socialistic countries) If it is simply humanity ideals, what makes it politically valuable opinion? And if it is the same like socialism, why not say that socialism is the better option than capitalism and just forget about communism completely? I guess wiki doesn't cover all the details and no, I'm not going to read those books :tongue:.

Still I don't understand what is the difference between socialism, Marx, and Monastery taking care of orphans.

 

Maybe I also don't like communism because it came too late - there was democracy already in my country and they didn't call it communism, actually they disagreed with communistic ideals because it refused individuality - but maybe they saw Russia as an example already. They were humanists - so why not praise humanism?


Edited by Mudran, 14 February 2018 - 08:33 AM.


#53
Mudran

Mudran

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

And if you want to cleanse Marx, just talk about Marxism - nobody knows what it is and it is not connected to bloody history :) . Question is if it is right even to attempt to cleanse it...



#54
NightmareRex

NightmareRex

    Enthusiast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 130 posts

becuase the communist chinese who murder there own peaople control almost all of holywood here in america. when do rthe reasearch find out lots of stuffs.

 

like if we are forced to play fallout 666: IRL forced cant choose not to play edition. it is hillary and bill who gave kim jun un nukes in first place and therefor the true criminals would be our own government hiding in safty in fallout shelters WE PAID FOR via tax dollars, yes it is your RIGHT to demand entry into them.



#55
Mudran

Mudran

    Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts

Now I'm confused totally :)

 

I was asking around what is the original communism and the answer was that it can be difficult to understand, because of so many interpretation, so maybe it would be better to have some points of what it is in this thread, otherwise it is hard to avoid connection to the real communism. 

 

And the conclusion was that communistic original ideas about community can be attractive to young people who are freshly out of home and parents and they are looking for some close relationships, but the leadership is given by someone with natural authority, so in such small community it can work. But not for long, after some time most of poeple will go their own way.

 

And also to countries living in poverty where it is almost impossible to fulful your dreams because the whole country is down. It is a question if in such country would actually help to have dictatorship in the name of better good. Because simply any dictator will always try to take all the power and anything else is democracy.

 

But otherwise I believe society without classes is not possible, it is like ants without a queen or something. 

Because even if I look around - there are workers - who are OK with authority above them, if they have food and living space, there are artists, who are independent, there are businessmen who can see the possibilities of making money and there are leaders, so if communists wanted simply to remove biased attitude to people comming from such conditions, then again - democracy can do it much better. 

 

So I would say some parts of communism tries to make the world better, but it is tainted by the lack of different aspects of how it should work in reality and so it feels that it has to turn to totalism sooner or later...



#56
Fkemman11

Fkemman11

    Filthy Animal

  • Premium Member
  • 2,663 posts

There are some interesting answers to why Communism has failed here. I think it sums up why Socialism or Communism are not popular today. To sum it up, I would say that it is simply too restrictive of individual freedoms and rights. The poor would embrace it as they see their overall quality of life improve and this would work in a country like China where most of the population is farmers. But, in more developed countries like in Western Europe and the U.S., this would actually stunt the nations natural growth. Capitalism is most certainly NOT the ideal system of govt. It has many flaws that need to be corrected and it may not be well suited to smaller or less developed countries in the World. Countries must be allowed to grow naturally for themselves and decide how they are best governed as opposed to the idea that one form of govt is the best and everyone should use it.

 

One very smart practice of the Roman Empire was that when they occupied a another country, they did not try to change the way things were done there. They only garrisoned the area and I think they even left some of the local officials in place so as to maintain order and keep things running smoothly. This left the local populace mostly intact and free to go about their business as usual. Hell, I think they did not even try to change local religious beliefs and actually slowly adopted some. Flexibility and non-interference with local affairs was one thing that I think allowed for the Romans to build such an expansive empire- something modern global powers would do well to emulate.



#57
CLOSERTOTHECRACK

CLOSERTOTHECRACK

    Stranger

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

marx was great at pointing out problems, and his critique of capital is nothing to sneeze at. Despite its numerous flaws historical materialism has proved itself useful, but now id say that what it has to offer has been eclipsed by systems thinking and ecological treatments of the humanities.  He wasn't good at revolutionary theory at all and shouldn't be taken seriously for most of it, actually i would say that his communist manifesto ruined socialism and labor movements with dogmatic bullhock. That is clearly evidenced buy his "marxists" followers. Marx is important and had alot of important thing to say that are worth while to know, they same can be said about many "marxists" but the entire concept of "marxism" and the existence of people calling themselves "marxist" annoys me, and would probably annoy marx as well.

 

Dont pretend that Marx didnt lay the ground work for the soviets, he empowered Lennon Mao and all the red bourgeoisie to seize power. The bolsheviks ruined revolutions all over the world, precisely because they bought into the Marxist idea that a transition state is necessary. Marx, actually Marxists caused vanguardism, because they took marxism as a doctrine.

Statists suck, marxists are red bureaucrats, and im not okay with that.

 

of course this isnt why communism is a dirty word, the real reason is 100 years of corporate-liberal propaganda.

the reason why Marxist revolutions have never resulted in communism is because of Marxist theory itself.

funny enough communism has more or less been achieved in anarchy, until it was destroyed by Bolshevik power grabs numerous times



#58
AJStoner

AJStoner

    Old hand

  • Premium Member
  • 786 posts

Some of the hostility might stem from the hundred-million plus dead bodies we have accumulated because of it.  Communism/socialism are grievously unrealistic, utopian fantasies rooted not in a desire for equality or a belief in fraternity but rather resentment and envy and I say this as a former evangelical Trotskyite.   It ignores everything we have come to understand about human nature because it doesn’t like it and nothing more.  Every society that has attempted to implement it has, without fail, degenerated into a police state with its economy laid waste in short order because it is fundamentally destructive, not creative—defining itself entirely in the negative.  That said, credit where it is due.  Though his “cure” was far worse than the disease, he had capitalism’s number in many regards and it is unraveling before our eyes in much the fashion he predicted.  He was an authentically brilliant economic analyst.  As a social philosopher he was an inept, ham-fisted fool of the first order.

Indeed, the greatest sin of communism/socialism is that it creates an absurd false dichotomy where rational people are forced to rush to the defense of a corrupt and degenerating capitalist model that desperately needs major reform because the only other option allowed into the discussion is clearly and fatally flawed.  There is a reason the ultra-capitalist corporate media props this up as the only alternative to the status quo—it is a battle they know they will win.
 



#59
TheMastersSon

TheMastersSon

    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the political discussion in our still-largely-objective media when Nixon first "opened the gate to China" in 1970/71. It was the single most catastrophic collapse of free market capitalism in human history. Prior to 1971 our country lost exactly ZERO jobs to China, because the free market was properly limited to free countries. It's been an inevitable and inexorable road to collapse ever since Nixon's treason, regardless of who we elect to office. We've been rearranging deck chairs on The Titanic ever since, regardless of which major party controls our federal government. It's now decayed to the point where our traitor president has imposed delusional "tariffs" on a regime that dictates the value of their own "currency", and that doesn't even recognize private ownership rights. Unlike all other major trading partners on Earth. They simply adjust their currency value to compensate for these tariffs, and we're all back to square one except at much higher prices. Mission accomplished, again. The same government that continues pretending it's possible even in theory for free market capitalism to compete with totalitarian Communism, has now imposed tariffs that are necessary only because of this same treason and perpetual deceit.

This latest round of smoke and mirrors is brought to us by the same man who made it a point to brag, "I've made a lot of money in China" during his own presidential campaign. As I've said in other discussions, our federal government has been dead and simply awaiting final burial since 1971, and vultures really do gather at the carcass. As always the situation is eventually self-correcting, either integrity is restored to the global free market or it will simply finish evaporating in response to this forced "competition" with totalitarian Communism. 85% of America's food is now produced by four companies. Etc.

Edited by TheMastersSon, 04 May 2018 - 04:41 PM.


#60
Wammbo

Wammbo

    Stranger

  • Supporter
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Communism = People in power like to abuse it = dead people as result.

Communism in it's true form with no people in power = best possible version = Never going to happen, there are always people who like to abuse others.






Page loaded in: 0.962 seconds