Why is communism a bad word?

[PkSanTi]

Yes, you're right. It'd be so nice if everyone could see, even behind the most economics and hard works of Marx, such as The Capital or the Grundrisse, the sound humanity and true concern for the others that lies on the bottom of his theory. I too think that his diagnoses of capitalism's inner issues and contradictions are today more worth of attention than ever. Thanks, Jimmy!, great contributions.

[Mudran]

I am aware of issues comming with industrial revolution. I think what I remember - communism was born among poor people forced to live as animals under the feet of rich people who owned all power and there was no way how to change it - only by numbers. With industrial revolution it became more visible,but also the numbers of people possible to gather was bigger, so it became possible to set up some rules. I wouldn't want to live like they had to, so I'm glad for it - the root of communism. But can it stay for long as a pure essence, with "everyone is equal" kind of thinking? I agree with that it was the weak spot in their theory.

 

I know you said no politics, but I will try to take just an example I know about:

What I saw as the biggest problem of communism applied into eastern Europe was rejection of religion. I was thinking about this for long time and I think it goes together: there will always be some leader, there will always be someone rich because he knows how to make money. But if you put those people down you have to establish someone else in their place, so in my country the theory was that comunism is feared because it is the rule of incompetent people who had to put better people down, so they can rule instead of them and they have to do it by force, because naturally they wouldn't be there - this was reality in my country. So the next step is - to look around who could threaten their ruling position - and that is religion. Why is it such a problem? Even in America some people wanted to reject religion and live together as hippies, but this was different. They wanted everyone to be atheists, because if there is no god, there is nothing supernatural and if there is nothing supernatural then if you can do something only in your strength and you cannot get any help, then you lose hope under dictature and you become obedient, and that was the worst about communism, because without hope people turn into animals and do the worst things. And that is why people from western Europe doesn't believe people from eastern Europe, because they don't have a good reputation.

So you can see capitalists and communists are actually the same - they want to rule, only communism is the bigger lie.

 

Another feature of applied communism is that if everyone is equal, then all differences will be persecuted. I know it does sound strange - I was able to track down their hate for any kind of supernatural,but variability? But I think it leads to the base of statements of communism - people simply aren't equal. That is truth and if you deny the truth, it will lead to all kind of extremes where you have no idea how it could end up there.

 

 

If you look at fascism it was strange hybrid - in Germany they started with socialism connected to nationalism, they never really said that everyone is equal, only that all Germans are equal in being better than others, so they promised to give them better condition under rule of someone, who will lead them to better world, but it was orchestrated by rich german bankers who wanted to start a war and they wanted to use unhappy masses for it. so I guess for them communism with base in big Russia was the threat?

I know fascism was even in other countries, but I never understood how it could be applied there and how they could be all allies.

 

I think the balance is what is right - both extremes don't lead to anything good.

 

For example in my country the best period was when we separated and created a new republic - people were nacionalists in a good way - they tried to work for their new republic and in order to achieve the best results they put the best people in important positions and worked hard so the new republic would last, they had order and firm rule,but based on democracy - not that everyone is equal, but that everyone has the right to be treated as a human and so on, basically what UN statement is about.

That is different from communism who deals with riches mainly.

 

But my apologies if I said something wrong - I don't know anything deep about those philosophies.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Mudran

[PkSanTi]

Regarding what you said about equality: we discuss that with Jimmy in the former posts, very superficially analysing which was the concept of equality that marxism has, and it is different to how you described it. That inhuman way of considering equality among man is a twisted one, applied but some dictators -mostly in China, but they're not the only one-, but not the one Marx and marxism have as a theory. If you are curious on which is the true concept of equality in Marx's theory, just read the posts we wrote, or look for the word "equality" and read just the ones in which that was the topic. Because it would be too long and too much of a waste to write down again what equality means under Marx's theory. (Actually, that's why I didn't want to discuss governments; because they policies, most of the time because of the greed of their leaders, rarely match with Marx's true intentions and theory. Anyhow, you're commentaries of actual governments did made a fair point, so I would not pick you on that.)

 

Bottom line, equality on marxism doesn't want everyone to be the same. If you don't want to read Marx's works, which is understandable -not everyone has to like reading economy or philosophy-, there's as I said a very brief, quickly and superficial explanation on the former posts. It will give you another way of understanding what communism really wants.

[JimmyRJump]

@Mudran:

 

Like so many people, you confuse the idealist concept as written by Engels and Marks in their Communist Manifest with what politicians made of it and how they used it. To grasp what Communism means, you simply have to understand the word itself. Communism: the sense for community, in other words, the communiity is put in front of the individual.

 

In that respect, we already have a threat to the establishment right there, because, when you have a community vying for itself as one strong unit, then the political leaders are made redundant, since the community will look inside itself for answers and solutions, not towards political or financial leaders that cannot be trusted.

 

As far as economical abuse goes, I mentioned the Industrial Revolution, but things went pear-shaped long before that. What started the rise to power of the bankers is the moment paper money was introduced. Before paper money, you paid with either silver or gold, or coins that had an amount of metals in them that gave the coin its worth. Once you had paper money, the money no longer had an intrinsic worth but only represented a certain worth, guaranteed by the bank.

 

Gold, silver and coins, once in circulation, cannot be controlled because there's no issuer. Paper money however can be controlled because there's someone who issues it and gives the worthless paper a value they want. Once you put a value on something, you can artificially manipulate that value, especially when you own the product itself.

 

Look at diamonds. They're incredibly valuable. Why? Because they are rare. It's the law of supply and demand. A high demand and a low supply increase the value. The thing is that diamonds aren't as rare as we are led to believe. On the contrary, there's literally tons of rough diamonds being dug up every year. But, those rough diamonds are seldom chiseled into real diamonds and those that are, 90% of the end product disappears in vaults, never to see the light of day. Here in Antwerp, we have De Beers, the largest diamond manufacturer in the world. They also have the largest bank vaults in Europe where they keep all their diamonds hidden, just to keep the price high.

 

Manipulation also happened on the stock markets through speculation. Speculation is making a prediction for whatever product's future availability with regards to region where the product comes from/is manufactured, political balance of the region, and so on.

 

Speculation on stock markets is now forbidden for oil products, but the traders have found a solution for keeping prices high artificially: instead of transporting crude oil to its destinations while a price is bargained, now they steer the oil tankers into international waters where they throw their ankers and the content is then sold through auction to the highest bidders...

[HeyYou]

Pure communism will never work because: Humans.

[JimmyRJump]

Pure communism will never work because: Humans.

Well, it works in a few hundred small to larger businesses in Argentina, after the World Bank brought the thriving economy of the country to its knees and hundreds of local workers took over bankrupt companies to run them in a non-hierarchy, communal fashion and the money that's left after taxes and investments is distributed among the owners/workers of the business. It goes from localised warehouse chains to small car factories and so far all is well. Until banks find a way to screw-up things again for the people involved.

[PkSanTi]

I'm actually from Argentina, so it's a nice coincidence that you mentioned that. Yeah, I don't know if things work so well here in that projects; they did when the crisis (year 2001) arrived, and people did work together to stand over it. Hard times... over 50% of poverty and unemployment among the total of the population. It's impressive how we managed to put those number's down to 16% and 8% per cent respectively just a few years ago... until the last government came. Which is quite what you meant by the banks finding a way to screw things up again... not far from the current situation, haha! Just give us some time and, as things are going, we'll be facing another crisis in a couple of years (crisis are endemic to capitalism, but it amuses me how some politicians seem experts in breeding them amazingly fast). Also repression and violence are back... Well, but times for Argentina.

 

But, to get back to the topic in question, I don't won't to think that communism won't work because we are humans. Yes, we are capable of evilness and corruption, but we are also, in the words of Miguel Hernández,

 

'The animal that sings,
the animal that cries and settles down',

 

so let's not take off all of our credit. We are capable of good. The question is: are we willing to put our efforts to help another human? But this is, in the bottom, a philosophical posture: to believe or not to believe in human kindness. There are fine arguments on both sides, and I won't try to convert anyone, since it lacks a point.

[TheMastersSon]

The question is: are we willing to put our efforts to help another human?

That's an entirely different question than whether Communism is a practical form of government. Communism is simply totalitarian socialism with no popular representation or accountability.

 

Pure communism will never work because: Humans.

Bingo. It's the same reason unrestrained (or "deregulated" in today's vernacular) capitalism can never work. Edited January 20, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[JimmyRJump]

 

The question is: are we willing to put our efforts to help another human?

That's an entirely different question than whether Communism is a practical form of government. Communism is simply totalitarian socialism with no popular representation or accountability.

 

Pure communism will never work because: Humans.

Bingo. It's the same reason unrestrained (or "deregulated" in today's vernacular) capitalism can never work.

 

First: wrong view again as you confuse what politics made of Communism with what Engels and Marx wrote down. What you say is already a result of the bad name Communism got thanks to politics.

 

Second: capitalism will always fail regardless of financial markets being regulated or not, because our banking system devaluates our currencies constantly by creating money that doesn't exist outside the books of the banks, in the form of interest. This, plus the fact that a central banking system makes it so that the debt a nation has towards the central bank is always larger than the amount of money that has been minted/printed by forcing nations to lend their starting capital at their "local" central bank and having to pay that money back with at least ten per cent interest. Something that is impossible as those ten per cent don't exist.

 

Regulations were put in place after the 1929 crash that went from a financial crisis to an economical one. After that, regulatory measures were taken to, among other things, prevent investment banks from doing business with local credit banks. Alan "the market doesn't need regulations because the market regulates itself" Greenspan was the guy to deconstruct all these safety measures again. At one point he was also the Director of the Federal Reserve (a private bank).

 

Something to observe (and off topic) is that in 1920 there was a far bigger crash than the one in 1929, but the former stayed a finacial crisis and never bacame an economical one. You know why? Because in 1920, the federal reserve poured all the money that came into their branches, back into the market so that factories could keep paying their workers, workers could buy stuff and so on. In 1929 however, the Federal Reserve blocked every penny that rolled into their banks and the market ran dry. Factories could no longer pay their workforce, people had no money to buy anything and nothing got manufactured because people didn't have the money to buy goods anyway. Thanks to that, the financial crisis became an economical one. All caused by the Federal Reserve. When the first wave of the crisis was over, the Federal Reserve bought-up six-thousand smaller banks which had gone broke, for a nickle and a dime. But the economical crisis of 1929 was the manufactured foundation for the second world war. WWII was purely and simply a manufactured event, started by those who hold the markets, to be able to make enormous profits.

[TheMastersSon]

Second: capitalism will always fail regardless of financial markets being regulated or not, because our banking system devaluates our currencies constantly by creating money that doesn't exist outside the books of the banks, in the form of interest.

IMO that comment is a proper indictment of the current corrupted state of our former capitalist monetary and banking systems, not of capitalism itself. E.g. nobody compelled Nixon to send secret envoys to Beijing to commit the greatest single act of treason against free market capitalism in human history, Trump's solution for our China problem was to have his son-in-law meeting with the PRC with no lawyers present, etc etc etc. Traitors the lot, and nothing is done because the lot now includes a majority of our country. But whether such corruption and destruction are inevitable and inherent to adequately regulated capitalism is a matter of opinion, it took almost exactly 200 years for our capitalist experiment to fail. Edited January 21, 2018 by TheMastersSon