I can't answer for "people," but my own misgivings are, succinctly, vanguardism, essentialism, and the absolute faith in the proletariat (with no regard for the lumpen) for salvation. Not to mention, it's overreliance upon structuralist critique--unless you're the creative sort like Zizek or Badieau.
Why are people against communism?
- Thread starter United for Communism
- Start date
I can't answer for "people," but my own misgivings are, succinctly, vanguardism, essentialism, and the absolute faith in the proletariat (with no regard for the lumpen) for salvation. Not to mention, it's overreliance upon structuralist critique--unless you're the creative sort like Zizek or Badieau.
You just got browny points and kisses too . I am a communist in reality . Live in a capitalistic society and as they say when in Rome. So I scratch like a chicken to get Me some seed. Maybe I can plant the seeds and it will grow bushes . Time will tell .
Can humans change there nature ? Yeah probably . Change is slow. It is like monarch butterfly . It takes generations to get to where it is going . Why would anyone think humans would be any different . Separate circles of influence prevent Communism from working. Groups of exclusion. We got all kina bags of tea ! All different sizes . At this point in time there are to many bags with self interest . Some day there will be more of a community as a whole and you know I think it is speeding up to that very end with all the globalization going on . Plus the dependence of the world on economic fronts . All rapped up tied together like a big Christmas present ( Offended people insert birthday for Christmas)
Oh yeah, and Lenin? Seriously? I could get behind Mao long before Lenin. You will be doing yourself a great service by looking towards Trotsky rather, and thinking about that whole means-and-ends thing. (Hint: Hegel was onto something.)
That was a time of enormous upheaval; Russia was not an industrialized country, and of course there was bound to be conflict. But the peasant class lived better under communism than under feudalism. This, you cannot deny.
Why do you continually defend capitalist exploitation?
This is not supposed to happen in theory, however.
Human nature is not static; it has, and can, change. You have been raised in a culture that values greed, which is why we are greedy. Let us be raised in a culture that values community and hard work, and see what will happen.
parmalee, Lenin was not a perfect man. But I do admire his strong willingness to defend the proletariat, his keen acumen which observed the unfairness, and his strong determination for revolution.
It seems you haven't learned even as much as most communists, who have historically been their own best critics. Dictatorship is evil and no one should tolerate it for one moment.
You can't encourage individual ambition without reward. That reward creates people of different economic levels. We can deal with that by heavily taxing the rich, not to eliminate the rich, but to help level the playing field and give as many people as possible the opportunity to also improve their situation. You want perfection, and I realize that's impossible, so compromise is the best approach.
We won't defeat capitalism without it, however; capitalism is evil, too, and often in bed with the dictator.
Democracy should exist once communism has been reached, but during the socialist phase, we cannot trust things to "democracy", where 51% of an oppressed, manipulated proletariat will impede progress because of a popularity contest.
I do agree that it is a hard road; therefore, there ought to be a system of checks and balances with the vanguard party, and rotating leadership (citizens should become leaders in their local communities).
Localism, and checks and balances, are our friends.
What greater reward is there than serving your community? And contrary to myth, communism does not say that the lazy man ought to receive the same as the hard-working man. "He who does not work, shall not eat". - Lenin
Compromise maintains the evil. I do not see how that is just.
For me, the matter of "revolution" is problematic in itself. I mean, just look at the word! What does revolution, divorced of political connotations and denotations, suggest to you? (There's a beautiful passage by Zizek, in Living in the End Times, IIRC, which elaborates upon this quite well.) Permanent revolution resolves some of these issues, but not all. Rather, I favor resistance and rebellion (again, there's a brilliant passage in Camus on this, but I've gotta track it down).
Resistance and rebellion are the precursors to revolution.
Did you see that Spidey ? I think I got to watch me mouth . I said " get ready for spiral time and what the next day over 500 points down on de stock market and it is not just the U.S. "Un" certainty is going to crush all economic drivers .
Spideys a robin hood! spideys a robin hood! Well at least you be a bird . Better than being a maggot in the crack of an ass . Not a very pleasant way to ride a donkey I tell ya .
They certainly can be, but needn't necessarily be. I'm hardly a "reformist"--though neither am I so keen to condemn reformists as that only perpetuates alienation--but revolution necessarily posits that which (ideally) is to replace the existing order. And for me, that reeks of vanguardism and representationalism which are every bit as oppressive and alienating as the existing order dominated by capital. (By that, it should be clear that I am also an opponent of "representational" democracy.)
Revolutions have accomplished great things throughout history, however; French, American, and Russian revolutions come to mind.
Well... I don't know. As Spidergoat remarked, Marxists are typically their own best critics--and on matters of "greatness," I am reminded of Tolstoy's ruminations on "great men" and the Great Man theory. The revolutionary Marxists, while uncannily prescient--in fact, far more so than any other varieties of theorists--could not anticipate advanced or late capitalism. In the present age, radically different strategies--and tactics, especially--are warranted.
A Path of Transformation
Well, you don't need to mangle Churchill. The problem we've seen with the revolutionary attempts so far is that while the movement came from the people, the revolution itself was top-down.
A rough explanation I formulated a few years ago:
We're on the path to that transformation, but it is a long and winding road, indeed. That, in my opinion, is what the whole right wing battle of ideas is about. They recognize that their era is coming to a close, and fight tooth and nail to win a little more time. All they want is for their greed to see them to the grave, and then, they hope, the next generation will continue to stand in their stead, demanding iniquity as a fundamental right.
So they're pulling out every last bit of venom they have, trying to wreck the schools, infect society with every possible bigotry, and consolidate as much wealth as possible. Meanwhile, as the social-conservative right wing is melting down, too, it seems they're simply going crazy.
GeoffP said:
Well, you don't need to mangle Churchill. The problem we've seen with the revolutionary attempts so far is that while the movement came from the people, the revolution itself was top-down.
A rough explanation I formulated a few years ago:
There's a reason Marx said he wasn't a Marxist. But that's the point of dissolving the Party, too. It's time to see if the people have the tools they need to build toward a proper Revolution. Society will evolve into a Marxist condition. It's already happening. The proper Revolution won't require bloodshed or overthrow. It will happen naturally ....
.... When I was a kid, my father was strongly anti-Communist. One of his reasons, he explained to me, was that he didn't want the government controlling his education, health care, retirement, and so on. But now the bourgeoisie provides those things through the companies they own. With government, you can demand fulfillment of the social contract. Government institutions are supposed to be for the best interests of the people. Corporations, on the other hand, answer to the bottom line. Their only commitment to integrity is the belief that the appearance of integrity is good for profits. Decisions are being taken out of people's hands. Sure, we have a choice: inadequate option A, counterintuitive option B, or counterproductive option C.
.... When I was a kid, my father was strongly anti-Communist. One of his reasons, he explained to me, was that he didn't want the government controlling his education, health care, retirement, and so on. But now the bourgeoisie provides those things through the companies they own. With government, you can demand fulfillment of the social contract. Government institutions are supposed to be for the best interests of the people. Corporations, on the other hand, answer to the bottom line. Their only commitment to integrity is the belief that the appearance of integrity is good for profits. Decisions are being taken out of people's hands. Sure, we have a choice: inadequate option A, counterintuitive option B, or counterproductive option C.
We're on the path to that transformation, but it is a long and winding road, indeed. That, in my opinion, is what the whole right wing battle of ideas is about. They recognize that their era is coming to a close, and fight tooth and nail to win a little more time. All they want is for their greed to see them to the grave, and then, they hope, the next generation will continue to stand in their stead, demanding iniquity as a fundamental right.
So they're pulling out every last bit of venom they have, trying to wreck the schools, infect society with every possible bigotry, and consolidate as much wealth as possible. Meanwhile, as the social-conservative right wing is melting down, too, it seems they're simply going crazy.
parmalee and Tiassa, I can see that we are better off today than we were in the past; we are moving toward equality, but here is the worry: that, in our movement, we reach a place that isn't quite true communism or true equality, and yet we become content there and forget about the distant vision (communism). This is one qualm I have with democratic socialism...we are forgetting the long goal ahead, which is true communism.
That's like saying to your 4 year old that they can eat their dinner after they have ice cream. There can't be any "phases", nothing free can come from dictatorship. The counter to a popularity contest is an informed electorate and publicly financed elections.
I'm trying to say this: we won't reach communism through democracy, because the capitalist class will never willingly give up their exploitation; they will want to compromise at best (hence democratic socialism) but they will never accept full communism.
Not even communists believe in communism anymore. Haven't you read any Slavoj Zizek?