Why is communism a bad word?

[Mudran]

You didn't answer my question...

For me socialism is better because it leaves some ownership to state in exchange for taking care for the poor and old. They don't care about your opinions, your believes (ideally) , if you work for yourself or others, if you are rich or poor, if you are artist or worker. That does sound a lot better than communistic "theory". Like we are all equal, so even women will work the same like men, so my country is full of bitter old tired women, who used their energy to take care for kids, they don't have any hobbies, they don't have any dreams.

 

If you ask what was the worst about totalistic communism it wasn't only the lack of freedom, a lot of people will answer: uniformity and that is one of the basic teaching of communism... After seeing the new HBO mini TV series about Cernobyl I realized how this feeling is impossible to pass on. The impossibility to be yourself, express yourself and live what you want - I know that was totalism partially, but most some of it is product of communistic theory.

You are saying that we should read books, but isn't that similar to hearing from people who lived under that? Talking to many people describing their feelings during communism? Isn't that history recorded alive making your own mind?

You can read some theories in books, but the reality check is important aswell. Also what I read usually is that nobody really knows what communism is anymore. It started as revolution against feudalism then capitalistic feudalism and then maybe it is time to say which branch you are describing.

 

And you are attacking others for the lack of arguments, but you didn't offer any. If there is so much more why someone didn't describe it here?

Edited June 5, 2019 by Mudran

[Deleted67195711User]

You didn't answer my question...

For me socialism is better because it leaves some ownership to state in exchange for taking care for the poor and old. They don't care about your opinions, your believes (ideally) , if you work for yourself or others, if you are rich or poor, if you are artist or worker. That does sound a lot better than communistic "theory". Like we are all equal, so even women will work the same like men, so my country is full of bitter old tired women, who used their energy to take care for kids, they don't have any hobbies, they don't have any dreams.

 

If you ask what was the worst about totalistic communism it wasn't only the lack of freedom, a lot of people will answer: uniformity and that is one of the basic teaching of communism... After seeing the new HBO mini TV series about Cernobyl I realized how this feeling is impossible to pass on. The impossibility to be yourself, express yourself and live what you want - I know that was totalism partially, but most some of it is product of communistic theory.

You are saying that we should read books, but isn't that similar to hearing from people who lived under that? Talking to many people describing their feelings during communism? Isn't that history recorded alive making your own mind?

You can read some theories in books, but the reality check is important aswell. Also what I read usually is that nobody really knows what communism is anymore. It started as revolution against feudalism then capitalistic feudalism and then maybe it is time to say which branch you are describing.

 

And you are attacking others for the lack of arguments, but you didn't offer any. If there is so much more why someone didn't describe it here?

 

In Socialism, the government owns the farms and factories, and the products of those farms and factories. Every person contributes to the government based on some assigned schedule (quota). Goods are distributed by a bureaucrat who decides who gets what and when.

 

In Communism, the community as a whole owns the farms and factories, and the products of those farms and factories. Each person contributes to the whole as they are capable, and is permitted to take what they need.

 

The weak point in both these systems is human greed.

 

In communism, someone invariably decides they should get more because they work harder and contribute more. So they either start taking more for themselves and their family or they slow down their production to contribute only enough to cover themselves and their family.

 

In socialism, the bureaucrat (and the superiors of that bureaucrat) who parcels out the goods will decide that they can hold back more for themselves and their family and simply raise the required production levels.

 

In either case, the result is collapse of the system.

 

When a communist system collapses, it evaporates and everyone goes their separate ways. People are free to choose to participate in a communist system, or not. As I pointed out before, communes are the modern example of a communist system.

 

Socialism is under the control of the central government, the folks that have the army under their control. These folks have the power to enforce their dictates at the point of a gun (or under the treads of a tank). And that is what one sees in the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and in China today. Yesterdays anniversary of Tiananmen Square and the atrocities committed on that day are the perfect example. Tanks used to enforce the governments wishes.

 

Unfortunately, the WORD 'communism' as it is used today was coined following the end or WWII by one Senator Joseph McCarthy. He rose to infamy by accusing anyone and virtually everyone of being a communist or a "fellow traveler". Today the WORD 'communism' is used as a synonym for 'socialism' without any understanding of what the words means in reality. As I said in my original post, the WORD 'communism' is used as a linguistic shortcut for "authoritarian communism" or socialism, and is highly inaccurate.

 

And all of that came from reading books.

 

The issue of relying on experience as a basis for evaluating something is that experience is haphazard and arbitrary. No two people perceive the same event the same way, so two different people can have completely contradictory or polar accounts of the same event. Experience is always colored by ones own biases, beliefs and perceptions and are seldom viewed objectively.

 

To avoid repeating myself, here is what I said earlier.

 

Experience is a lousy source for anything but anecdotal information. And in spite of the trope, experience is a terrible teacher. Experience is haphazard, erratic and arbitrary. No two people have the same experience. And no two people experience the same event the same way. So relying on experience to make a value judgement is a risky proposition at best. Remember always that "first hand accounts" based on ''experience" are anecdotes. Anecdotes come with few to no verifiable facts, and 'word of mouth' is often a tactic used in disinformation and propaganda campaigns. Just look at what happened in El Norte during the 2016 Presidential campaign. So, I am prone to believe data which are repeatable, measurable and verifiable, and which comes from a reputable source. The kinds of data found in books.

 

And as an aside, the unreliability of 'experience' and 'first hand accounts' is one of the reasons that 'eyewitness testimony' is often discounted in a court of law.

[RGMage2]

 

No two people perceive the same event the same way, so two different people can have completely contradictory or polar accounts of the same event. Experience is always colored by ones own biases, beliefs and perceptions and are seldom viewed objectively.

I knew a man who immigrated to Canada from Serbia. He talked often of his life in the former Communist Yugoslavia. He spoke of hard times, but also of good times. Many shortages of things we take for granted. He reminisced of smuggling gasoline across the Romanian border, and having the border closed and vehicles searched by troops. I got the impression that in hindsight he enjoyed every minute of it - the exciting times of a young man.

 

He also spoke of having a job that didn't require much work. "No one worked very hard, not even the bosses, and no one cared." Which was why I suppose they didn't have a lot of the things we take for granted. He had money, he had food, he had a place to live, and he had the pursuit of women, and for him this was a good life. He never spoke of a lack of freedom or individuality, for in the context of his own life he had these things. Not political freedom, not a vote or a voice in the government of his country, but still the freedom to live his life, which for him I suspect was enough.

 

When he immigrated to Canada after the breakup of Yugoslavia, it was not for freedom or the opportunity to live in a democratic country for which he left his beloved Serbia. It was to escape the war which he feared his son would have to fight in. So though he came to the free world for a better life for his son, it was not for freedom.

 

When asked: Why Canada and not America? He answered "because they bombed my country and killed my people and I will hate them forever." Blood matters, it trumps almost everything.

 

He was only one man, not every man. He had his own perspective on the world and his place in it. No one can speak for everyone. There are as many different perspectives on our world as there are people living in it.

[Mudran]

To RG Mage2:

That doesn't mean individualistic view is wrong, even if it is different - still it does mean facts, which can be implemented into conditions, circumstances, background and different personalities and can be very valuable for historical and mainly psychological research.

 

To Black Swan Falcy:

Thank you for more detailed description, I finally remembered what I was told at school and did some additional research.

Communism is an ideology of no ownership, socialism is state control over economy. So put that two together and you get people with nothing working for the state, which is what russian communism was basically. You had minimum salary, owned almost nothing, everything belonged to the state (atleast in most of cases, I know some countries had exceptions or didn't follow that rule totally). But that is what gamers would call hard core version.

 

I think most of EU states has something like democratic socialism, which is the version I was describing. That State owns strategic things like roads, some education, some hospitals, some forests, historical buildings, army =things no individual should own, and at the same time they support growth and individualism of ordinary people, having higher taxis, but take care for poor, old etc. It is not beaurocrat who decides, but law, which government is responsible for that, which is voted by people, who are responsible for good votes, or organizing their own political group. The statement of humen rights are important in this, for me it has the most safeguard against totalism - it is still a group of people, but not 1 person. By having laws about different groups responsible for different areas, the influence of 1 overly rich person is limited. Still possible, but you have tools to fight it.

 

So what you described as socialism is russian version, what you described as communism is small community, which i also said it could work, if there is some greater good - like religion, nationalism, relatives (clans), or extreme conditions, but cannot work at the level of state because of reason described before.

 

EDIT.

 

I would like to know why communism is so attractive to some christians. In Bible I could see only form of charity - give what you have above your needs and what you want to give willingly. Many things were done based on charity and it works much better than no ownership. Because people who are capable of making a lot of money then have that money left for charity (if they wish), because they are encouraged by ownership, while in communism you was forbidden to have anything more, so you was discouraged from bigger activity. Maybe there is some "soft" version of communism possible, but it doesn't sound attractive to me. I admit - I have strong desire to own things I like - I really want to own every game I like, so I don't even prefer service model, because it doesn't offer it. Also I can see why before giving everything was attractive to poor people, but I don't see how it could work for everyone.

Edited June 6, 2019 by Mudran

[PinKushin1]

I haven't seen anyone mention the critique by Ludwig Von Mises yet. "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises is still one of, if not the, best critique of Socialist, Communist, and Keynesian economics to ever be written. Not a single socialist or communist has been able to answer the question of the economic calculation problem, Keynesians try but their answers leave much to be desired. You want to know why neither can work and is considered a bad word, read Mises and Rothbard. Marx also advocated for violence to be used against peaceful people by a dictatorship. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" ring a bell? Materialism, that Marxism is based on, is also completely incorrect in it's main assumption that history is linear. Marx's critique was also not against a free market because he never experienced or understood a free market. The economic system of the time was not free market capitalism, it was mercantilism. Marx also assumed, and it was central to his critique, that in a 'capitalist' economy, profits were destined to fall and costs destined to rise. This assumption is false and has been known to be false for almost 100 years. This assumption didn't even pass muster when Marx was alive, but no one had the data yet to show it. Marx's theory is also based on the assumption that Labour/cost of production creates Value, Carl Menger and the other Marginalists were able to disprove this and come up with the modern understanding of value (which has withstood all scrutiny for the last 100 years, and has empirical & rational proofs) by 1871. When practically all the base assumptions his critiques are based on are proven false the critique itself becomes worthless.

I also have to laugh at the idea Marx wanted equality for all. The Man was an anti-Semite who's personal correspondence with his detractors sounds almost exactly like the propaganda Hitler used against the Jews. He railed against the "capitalist jew" constantly in his personal letters and his daughter even admitted it when she published some of his unpublished works after his death. The free market is the only thing that can answer the economic calculation problem and leads to freedom and equality of opportunity for all.

I also have to laugh at the OP for trying his hardest to manipulate, through irrational framing of the argument, the conversation by saying the real world places where these economic hypothesis were tried shouldn't be used in the argument. You'll notice though I didn't need to bring them up, nor did Mises.

 

TLDR: Economic and Natural law makes any sort of Communist or Socialist economics an impossibility without causing mass shortages and likely death due to those shortages. If you want to learn proper economics and economic history check out https://mises.org/ They have free digital copies of practically every writing I referenced in my post, plus many more.

Edited September 21, 2019 by PinKushin1

[Deleted67195711User]

I haven't seen anyone mention the critique by Ludwig Von Mises yet. "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises is still one of, if not the, best critique of Socialist, Communist, and Keynesian economics to ever be written. Not a single socialist or communist has been able to answer the question of the economic calculation problem, Keynesians try but their answers leave much to be desired. You want to know why neither can work and is considered a bad word, read Mises and Rothbard. Marx also advocated for violence to be used against peaceful people by a dictatorship. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" ring a bell? Materialism, that Marxism is based on, is also completely incorrect in it's main assumption that history is linear. Marx's critique was also not against a free market because he never experienced or understood a free market. The economic system of the time was not free market capitalism, it was mercantilism. Marx also assumed, and it was central to his critique, that in a 'capitalist' economy, profits were destined to fall and costs destined to rise. This assumption is false and has been known to be false for almost 100 years. This assumption didn't even pass muster when Marx was alive, but no one had the data yet to show it. Marx's theory is also based on the assumption that Labour/cost of production creates Value, Carl Menger and the other Marginalists were able to disprove this and come up with the modern understanding of value (which has withstood all scrutiny for the last 100 years, and has empirical & rational proofs) by 1871. When practically all the base assumptions his critiques are based on are proven false the critique itself becomes worthless.

I also have to laugh at the idea Marx wanted equality for all. The Man was an anti-Semite who's personal correspondence with his detractors sounds almost exactly like the propaganda Hitler used against the Jews. He railed against the "capitalist jew" constantly in his personal letters and his daughter even admitted it when she published some of his unpublished works after his death. The free market is the only thing that can answer the economic calculation problem and leads to freedom and equality of opportunity for all.

I also have to laugh at the OP for trying his hardest to manipulate, through irrational framing of the argument, the conversation by saying the real world places where these economic hypothesis were tried shouldn't be used in the argument. You'll notice though I didn't need to bring them up, nor did Mises.

 

TLDR: Economic and Natural law makes any sort of Communist or Socialist economics an impossibility without causing mass shortages and likely death due to those shortages. If you want to learn proper economics and economic history check out https://mises.org/ They have free digital copies of practically every writing I referenced in my post, plus many more.

 

Well said, and well written.

 

The issue, however, is that some folks equate the economic theories of Communism and Socialism with the authoritarian governments which have instituted such economic theories. Thus, in the minds of some, Communism and Socialism are theories of governance and not economics. And that is what makes Communism (and Socialism) a "bad word", as it is assumed that Communism is about governance and not economics.

[Harbringe]

 

I haven't seen anyone mention the critique by Ludwig Von Mises yet. "Socialism" by Ludwig Von Mises is still one of, if not the, best critique of Socialist, Communist, and Keynesian economics to ever be written. Not a single socialist or communist has been able to answer the question of the economic calculation problem, Keynesians try but their answers leave much to be desired. You want to know why neither can work and is considered a bad word, read Mises and Rothbard. Marx also advocated for violence to be used against peaceful people by a dictatorship. The "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" ring a bell? Materialism, that Marxism is based on, is also completely incorrect in it's main assumption that history is linear. Marx's critique was also not against a free market because he never experienced or understood a free market. The economic system of the time was not free market capitalism, it was mercantilism. Marx also assumed, and it was central to his critique, that in a 'capitalist' economy, profits were destined to fall and costs destined to rise. This assumption is false and has been known to be false for almost 100 years. This assumption didn't even pass muster when Marx was alive, but no one had the data yet to show it. Marx's theory is also based on the assumption that Labour/cost of production creates Value, Carl Menger and the other Marginalists were able to disprove this and come up with the modern understanding of value (which has withstood all scrutiny for the last 100 years, and has empirical & rational proofs) by 1871. When practically all the base assumptions his critiques are based on are proven false the critique itself becomes worthless.

I also have to laugh at the idea Marx wanted equality for all. The Man was an anti-Semite who's personal correspondence with his detractors sounds almost exactly like the propaganda Hitler used against the Jews. He railed against the "capitalist jew" constantly in his personal letters and his daughter even admitted it when she published some of his unpublished works after his death. The free market is the only thing that can answer the economic calculation problem and leads to freedom and equality of opportunity for all.

I also have to laugh at the OP for trying his hardest to manipulate, through irrational framing of the argument, the conversation by saying the real world places where these economic hypothesis were tried shouldn't be used in the argument. You'll notice though I didn't need to bring them up, nor did Mises.

 

TLDR: Economic and Natural law makes any sort of Communist or Socialist economics an impossibility without causing mass shortages and likely death due to those shortages. If you want to learn proper economics and economic history check out https://mises.org/ They have free digital copies of practically every writing I referenced in my post, plus many more.

 

Well said, and well written.

 

The issue, however, is that some folks equate the economic theories of Communism and Socialism with the authoritarian governments which have instituted such economic theories. Thus, in the minds of some, Communism and Socialism are theories of governance and not economics. And that is what makes Communism (and Socialism) a "bad word", as it is assumed that Communism is about governance and not economics.

 

 

Actually its both , albeit not very good application of either. To understand (Socialism/Communism/Marxism) and why it produces the results it does you have to understand Marx and his times. The big thing happening in Marx's time was industrialization and a practice called standardization. They (society) was taking everything and trying to figure out ways with industrialization to make everything fit an efficiency model of work and production.. Now Marx took this and tried to apply it societally/politically , he basically tried to standardize society. It amazes me that people don't see he took his model directly from the capitalist class and what they had created. So you listen to these modern day socialist types and they always talk in terms of equity, ie equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity. That is a standardization of outcomes , exactly what Marx was trying to create.

 

Problem is it never works that way , there are always different outcomes in everything. And as a result it falls apart.

[Mktavish]

The funny thing about capitalism & business ventures is ... no business entity model ever functions democratically. They are feudal , socialistic & communistic ... And pretty much any other societal entity model also.

Freedom for all is a nice idea , but impractical to real world logistics. And I would wager that nearly everyone ... when faced with real world effects from more freedom for all. Would like to impose some dictatorial impositions to one level or another for somebody.

Which as population and connectiveness increase ... the desire towards curtailing freedoms also increases. Hence the rise of socialistic thinking.

[Oblivionaddicted]

The funny thing about capitalism & business ventures is ... no business entity model ever functions democratically. They are feudal , socialistic & communistic ... And pretty much any other societal entity model also.

Freedom for all is a nice idea , but impractical to real world logistics. And I would wager that nearly everyone ... when faced with real world effects from more freedom for all. Would like to impose some dictatorial impositions to one level or another for somebody.

Which as population and connectiveness increase ... the desire towards curtailing freedoms also increases. Hence the rise of socialistic thinking.

So according to you the less an economic system works democratically the more it is feudal , socialistic & communistic? http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif

Can you give the name of only one dictator who made a coup d'état or eliminated his opponents by creating a welfare-state or nationalizing a company? http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif Of course not because all the dictators need to oppress people is the police, the army, the justice and the medias and I'm sure you perfectly know it.

 

So according to you the state shouldn't intervein in the economy to ensure people remain free? If I follow your logic the less there are laws to prevent the bosses from oppressing the workers the more the workers are free. http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif

 

By the way what is democracy defined by:

-the degree of intervention of the state in the economy?

OR

-the separation of powers?

Edited October 10, 2019 by Oblivionaddicted

[Mktavish]

 

The funny thing about capitalism & business ventures is ... no business entity model ever functions democratically. They are feudal , socialistic & communistic ... And pretty much any other societal entity model also.

Freedom for all is a nice idea , but impractical to real world logistics. And I would wager that nearly everyone ... when faced with real world effects from more freedom for all. Would like to impose some dictatorial impositions to one level or another for somebody.

Which as population and connectiveness increase ... the desire towards curtailing freedoms also increases. Hence the rise of socialistic thinking.

So according to you the less an economic system works democratically the more it is feudal , socialistic & communistic? http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif

 

Is there an existing business that functions democratically ? And what would that look like ?

 

Can you give the name of only one dictator who made a coup d'état or eliminated his opponents by creating a welfare-state or nationalizing a company? http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif Of course not because all the dictators need to oppress people is the police, the army, the justice and the medias and I'm sure you perfectly know it.

 

Not sure why you asked this ... could you clarify ?

 

So according to you the state shouldn't intervein in the economy to ensure people remain free? If I follow your logic the less there are laws to prevent the bosses from oppressing the workers the more the workers are free. http://image.jeuxvideo.com/smileys_img/12.gif

 

No , I agree the government , by the people ... need to intervene , and keep the capital holders from taking advantage of people offering labor.

Labor is a complex subject ... not easily quantified. But I believe more in the right to work ... than workers becoming a union ... which then they do not really have control over their own labors given the eventuality of union consolidation power , creating a whole new entity. Often influenced by greed at the head :ermm:

 

By the way what is democracy defined by:

-the degree of intervention of the state in the economy?

OR

-the separation of powers?

 

Democracy is simply every persons vote/say matters.

But that is simply not practical to human interaction through space and time.

So we have to come up with compromises ... hence socialistic.

And even let capitalism do it's thing , sort of a survival of the fittest.

 

We are pretty far down the evolutionary road on all those terms.

The reality is way more complex than the human mind likes to view it as.