Why are people against communism?

[The Marquis]

no
it just sets you up to prove the inverse

You said "contentment breeds mediocrity". I was merely commenting that you certainly seem to be the proof of that.
So tell me. How does it feel, now that you largely have what you desire?

It is not on me to prove that you haven't become rusty, Gusty.

 

[madanthonywayne]

In spite of testimony by more than a handful of highly regarded neurologists, ample empirical documentation of the fact that I seize pretty much, well, all the time, all the employment termination crap, etc., I was turned down for disability: the primary reason being that I ought to be able to do something because of my 150+ i.q.

Have you tried hiring a lawyer? It seems hard to believe you wouldn't qualify for disability.

 

[Tiassa]

You can't figure it out?

Old, perhaps, but also rather definitive, Tiassa. You can't dismiss that one and one equals two rather than three simply because you've heard it before.

I'm just pointing out—

"The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another."​

—your straw man.

 

[wynn]

Those Stockholm Syndrom movies didn't play, but I am already familiar and rather entertained by the concept.

They aren't about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome .

 

[Bells]

Then you should get your facts straight. The peasant class lived better under Lenin than under the aristocrats. This is a fact. Of course there are those who oppose progress, and they are dealt with; what's your point?

And who is the peasant class today?

The peasant class when Lenin forced himself into power [yes, that's right, he returned because he saw a power vacuum] and forced the "peasant class" to remain the peasant class... In other words, they were still exploited and forced to remain uneducated lest they start to question his authority. They continued to be exploited because instead of being oppressed by the aristrocacy, they were now being oppressed by the leadership that kept telling them it was now for their own good.

The peasant class were forced to remain the peasant class by Lenin and he fed them the line that they were the fuel for the cause.. They were never deemed equal and any who dared protest about their treatment were "re-educated" or killed. But that is what you're into, isn't it? This is what you said in the Monarchy thread:

There are people who oppose progress in every revolution. They can be re-educated; we will treat them with justice, of course, but they will need to be re-educated.​

Forgetting of course that this went against Marxism at its very core, because it was oppressing and exploiting "the people". It created a further vacuum. Lenin kept the peasant class as the peasant class so that they could not be empowered to rise up and protest against his abuse and repression and forced labour he directed them into.

The peasant class did not live better under Lenin. They just bought the party line that it was for the common good and for a while, they were happy to be forced to give up their culture, their religion, their desire for education for their children and their desire to be deemed equal. They had no rights.

Compare that to the poor of today and you will realise that the "peasant class" were never given the right to not be the peasant class.

How is equality and sharing "exploitation"? The only people who were "repressed" were the capitalist vermin trying to poison society.

No. Those repressed were also the educated class, who dared question the State and the "peasant class" who dared desire or want something better than being a mere "peasant"..

Lenin espoused human nature at its worst.. Fear and repression, upon a weakened populace for his own political gain.

Communism is the end goal. Socialism is the intermediary; by the way, Marx did believe in proletariat revolution, not evolution (it was evolution from socialism to communism, revolution from capitalism to socialism).

You have very little grasp of Marxism. Marx believed in the revolution after the evolution. That society has to move on its own accord to the point where there is a revolution.. A cycle of sorts.

He would not have agreed with or approved of "re-education camps" and forced labour. That is not Marxism, nor is it true communism. True communism is an ideal and is not something that one can force into being.. It has to be a natural order.

I don't; if a handful of capitalists want to try hurting the people, however, then it is only justice that they are dealt with.

What justice?

Your brand of communism gives no one rights. Only what you deem acceptable. There is no equality because if anyone dares question the leadership, they'd be "re-educated"..

Which in turn hurts the people because you then breed fear and terror amongst "the people", which will ultimately lead to anger within "the people"..

The people have always been enthusiastically behind communist revolution.

You mean the people who were not given a true choice in the end?

We've abolished capitalism? I must have been living under a rock.

No. You are just mildly dumb if you think your version of communism is correct or even true.

However, the whole failure to account for human nature argument is old. Hell, I've even discussed it here a few times. Indeed, it is part of the failure of top-down revolutions as I've discussed them.

True Marxism or 'communism' would always fail because of human nature. While the argument is old, it is also not incorrect or false.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

They aren't about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome .

Oh Yeah Patty Hearst . Yeah good Time for Me Shinning event in my Life . Wood Stock of Me life .
She could have been me baby sitter in an alternate universe . Yeah Way .
So Me Bridget and Mike Coy boy was traveling to L.A. to see some friends and on the way back we decide to to go to Hearst Castle . They claim it is the only real Castle on the west coast . The tour guide said " The way it is around here is if it looks gold it is gold . Gold inlay in the swimming pool tile work for gods sake . Anyway we are in the guest house and I stop cold in Me feet . The rest of the group is going on and I can't move . Mike Coy Me friend room mate and travel buddy comes up to Me and says " we got to go the groups getting away. Then He adds " What is the matter with you , why you staring at that picture like a zombie. I open my mouth and say " That is my Grand Father . That is a picture of my fucking grand father . He says " Fuck Mike you will say anything . Get the fuck out of here lets go . So we leave , but Bridget buys a book on the life of Randolph Hearst . She is reading it as we are driving back to Sacramento . Then all of a sudden she said " There is a Greathouse in this Book . They call him old Cajure Greathouse and Talk about how they had to send him to Japan to get him out of there hair . They were talking about Clarence Ridgley Greathouse The U.S. Ambassador to Japan . That is another big story in it self as he was in Korea around the time of Queen Min.
Anyway First Cousin to Isaac Ridgley Me Grand Father ,so you get the drift . I didn't learn this shit until later in life but I sure knew that was Me Grand Fathers picture in the Castles guest house .

 

[The Marquis]

I'm just pointing out—

"The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another."​

—your straw man.

How is this a straw man?
Perhaps I'm being a ilttle harsh with the "all" (although it does appear quite true in the case of the op'er) but I've yet to meet an individual who manages to address it effectively.

Perhaps you'd care to try?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

They aren't about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome .

I saw it, it's a paradoy on anti-socialism, and also utterly irrelevant to the context of the conversation it was in (other than random entertainment value).

 

[United for Communism]

And who is the peasant class today?

In much of the West, the working class. But in non-republican nations, there still exists a system of feudalism...perpetrated by those you defend, the landowners. It is one thing to defend land ownership where land is justly acquired (homesteaded, which I still do not find perfect)...but why do relatively few individuals get to own 2/3 of arable land in a country though they have never worked it?

That is wrong. They use that leverage to siphon off wealth from the people in the form of rent even though they have NEVER worked the land and own it merely because their ancestors were very brutal aristocrats.

When I say peasant class, I am referring mostly to the undeveloped world, which is enslaved by foreign interests. In the West, I refer to the working class, since there isn't much of a peasant class.

The peasant class when Lenin forced himself into power [yes, that's right, he returned because he saw a power vacuum] and forced the "peasant class" to remain the peasant class... In other words, they were still exploited and forced to remain uneducated lest they start to question his authority. They continued to be exploited because instead of being oppressed by the aristrocacy, they were now being oppressed by the leadership that kept telling them it was now for their own good.

Your view of history is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. Lenin wasn't a perfect man, like I said; but he was true of heart and he AT LEAST got rid of the aristocrats, and got rid of the Royal Arses. He also brought to the forefront the great injustice that was Russian landownership, where land was held by a minority of aristocrats that never worked the land and yet profited form the labor of the workers. He also called out Western imperialism and colonialism.

Lenin also brought education, health care, and jobs to the peasants, and improved the literacy rate (much like Che Guevera, another hero you probably hate).

Sheesh, he sounds so evil....

The peasant class were forced to remain the peasant class by Lenin and he fed them the line that they were the fuel for the cause.. They were never deemed equal and any who dared protest about their treatment were "re-educated" or killed. But that is what you're into, isn't it? This is what you said in the Monarchy thread:

There are people who oppose progress in every revolution. They can be re-educated; we will treat them with justice, of course, but they will need to be re-educated.​

I think it's rather natural for people to be extremely angry after CENTURIES of oppression..but wait, were it up to you, you'd have them wait around for "peaceful reform". Wait around and continue to be exploited.

Leninism was also uniquely necessary to Russia because Russia wasn't industrialized (and it became industrialized under communism, what a coincidence, right?)...Marx's theory applied to industrialized societies. Russia was an agrarian one.

The peasant class did not live better under Lenin. They just bought the party line that it was for the common good and for a while, they were happy to be forced to give up their culture, their religion, their desire for education for their children and their desire to be deemed equal. They had no rights.

I think it is pretty darn well for the common good if land is redistributed from feudal lords to the peasants who work it. I think it's also great that Lenin brought education, health care, and jobs to the people, and inspired a Soviet Renaissance of culture.

Religion is stupid anyway, and the Church has always been oppressive.

No. Those repressed were also the educated class....

Let's try thinking for a little while.

The "educated" were almost exclusively those of the upper tier of society...the same people who were aristocrats and landowners. Of course it makes sense that the educated of that time period, during that situation, were also the ones opposing communism.

Lenin espoused human nature at its worst.. Fear and repression, upon a weakened populace for his own political gain.

So what, violence can't be used for good? It can, and has been.

Lenin was caught in a remarkable time. As a land lawyer in feudal Russia, he WITNESSED the great injustice against the peasant class.......he was very emotionally motivated by his cause, which was the empowerment of the peasant and working class.

You can hate him; I hate ignorant pro-exploitation conservatives like you. But he was still a hero.

You mean the people who were not given a true choice in the end?

Their "choice" was equality..or worse yet, they could be like the dumbasses in the UK who defend Monarchy, as you rightly pointed out, because they don't know any better.

True Marxism or 'communism' would always fail because of human nature. While the argument is old, it is also not incorrect or false.

Except it doesn't have to; you are brought up to be a cynic of human nature.

It's discussions like this that I find to be both somewhat amusing and downright disgusting. And both of those feelings are the result of the total ignorance and stupidity I see expressed in this thread.

I'll attempt to be as blunt as possible in an effort to get the point across to the deluded non-thinkers here - which certainly includes the OP who evidently knows absolutely nothing about human psychology.

The idea that a self-sustainable communistic society/economic system can be created is totally absurd. Anyone can read all the books they want and still know nothing about how REAL people operate and respond to each other in the REAL world.

Every attempt to create such a society has utterly failed - yet people like the OP (and others who support such absurdity) also fail because they never attempt to discover WHY those exercises were all disasters.

Leaving aside entire nations for the moment (for which such an experiment would be magnitudes of order more difficult to make work anyway), let's look as some other very simple examples. During the 1960s, there were several "Hippie communes" of various sizes set up in the U.S. - most notably in California due to it's mild, favorable climate. Yet every single one of them failed.

Why? That's the question the OP and others refuse to ask or even attempt to identify. But the answer is quite simple, really. Most of the members were more interested in sitting around strumming string instruments, drinking herbal teas, chanting, dancing, etc. than they were in working. That resulted in the few who WERE actually working to provide food and clothing for the rest becoming so disgusted and disenchanted that they simply quit and left the group. And, of course, since the group couldn't survive without workers, it quickly dissolved and "utopia" ceased to exist.

Unless people are motivated to work and produce by a reward system they consider worth their efforts, the majority of them will not. Simply being provided with the bare necessities of live is NOT enough of a reward.

Communism treats every individual as nothing more than a cog in a machine. People will always resist being only a cog. The vast majority of us aspire to be more than that - the rest are just too lazy to care either way.

And to show how deeply the OP's delusion is, he would also (given the chance) do away with Free Speech, ownership of land and other freedoms we also enjoy and hold dear.

The sad truth is that every couple of months, some other undereducated, non-thinking dummy will still come in here and start singing the glories of communism or anarchy. <heavy sigh>

What is more rewarding than working for the common good?

 

[Bells]

In much of the West, the working class.

Which is comprised of who?

But in non-republican nations, there still exists a system of feudalism...perpetrated by those you defend, the landowners.

"Non-republican nations"? You mean countries like North Korea where the rights of the people are being stomped?

It is one thing to defend land ownership where land is justly acquired (homesteaded, which I still do not find perfect)...but why do relatively few individuals get to own 2/3 of arable land in a country though they have never worked it?

Who owns 2/3 of arable land nowdays? The Queen? You realise the Queen actually owns very little property outright, yes? No?

What about dictators like Lenin? When he seized land, he went on to force the peasant class into complying with his wishes by seizing their grain and at times, forcing them into starvation.. The very peasant class you keep carrying on about who need equality.

That is wrong. They use that leverage to siphon off wealth from the people in the form of rent even though they have NEVER worked the land and own it merely because their ancestors were very brutal aristocrats.

You mean like your ancestors did when they claimed land that wasn't theirs?

When I say peasant class, I am referring mostly to the undeveloped world, which is enslaved by foreign interests. In the West, I refer to the working class, since there isn't much of a peasant class.

Do you mean the "peasant class" that is at present poisoning themselves searching for the minerals you are currently using each time you turn on your computer or mobile phone?

You are their aristocrat. I can assure you, when they do rise up, it will be your exploiting arse they come for.

I adore your hypocrisy and your stupidity.

Your view of history is so wrong, I don't even know where to start. Lenin wasn't a perfect man, like I said; but he was true of heart and he AT LEAST got rid of the aristocrats, and got rid of the Royal Arses. He also brought to the forefront the great injustice that was Russian landownership, where land was held by a minority of aristocrats that never worked the land and yet profited form the labor of the workers. He also called out Western imperialism and colonialism.

Lenin also brought education, health care, and jobs to the peasants, and improved the literacy rate (much like Che Guevera, another hero you probably hate).

Sheesh, he sounds so evil....

Lenin was an opportunist and a warmonger.

He seized the land of the "peasants" and their grain and shipped it home to Moscow, and let the "peasants" starve and die until they complied with his wishes.

And Che. My God you're comparing the two? Lenin was the type that Ernesto actually went up against in South America. Lenin forced over 5 million peasants to death through starvation after the grain they grew was requisitioned by Lenin's army..

I think it's rather natural for people to be extremely angry after CENTURIES of oppression..but wait, were it up to you, you'd have them wait around for "peaceful reform". Wait around and continue to be exploited.

Leninism was also uniquely necessary to Russia because Russia wasn't industrialized (and it became industrialized under communism, what a coincidence, right?)...Marx's theory applied to industrialized societies. Russia was an agrarian one.

You are not advocating freedom though. You are advocating a system that will bring further oppression and repression.. where human rights no longer exist and where the peasants are no longer given a choice about who or what they want to be. Your version of communism involves invoking a class and caste system and forcing people to death and/or what you call "re-education camps"..

At this rate, the only thing I can assume is that you are either a troll or just stupid.

What Marx felt and wrote about was what he witnessed and experienced first hand. Those conditions are not exactly the same today. You are the aristocrat today, the educated individual who is using a computer that is made from components gotten from means that would make you cry if you were actually serious. In short, you are a hypocrite.

And you dare say that causing the deaths of millions is necessary? Talk about your 'let them eat cake' moment. He forced them to their deaths because they were peasants and they had what he wanted.. in short, he became the very aristocrat he supposedly deplored.

I think it is pretty darn well for the common good if land is redistributed from feudal lords to the peasants who work it. I think it's also great that Lenin brought education, health care, and jobs to the people, and inspired a Soviet Renaissance of culture.

Religion is stupid anyway, and the Church has always been oppressive.

If people wish to be religious, it is not for you to determine they should not be. Banning religion is more oppressive.

As for the "common good".. Lenin seized more land from peasants and then starved them to death when his army seized their grain than he did from the aristocrats.

Let's try thinking for a little while.

The "educated" were almost exclusively those of the upper tier of society...the same people who were aristocrats and landowners. Of course it makes sense that the educated of that time period, during that situation, were also the ones opposing communism.

Which would make Lenin an aristocrat or part of the "upper tier". He was an educated man.

You are now advocating that education is dangerous..

I guess you could be like Lenin and force the peasants to remain peasants by restricting their access to education..

So what, violence can't be used for good? It can, and has been.

You think starving and terrorising millions of peasants is good? The very peasants you are now apparently trying to say need protection and thus, a communist State must come into being?

Lenin was caught in a remarkable time. As a land lawyer in feudal Russia, he WITNESSED the great injustice against the peasant class.......he was very emotionally motivated by his cause, which was the empowerment of the peasant and working class.

He empowered the peasant and working class to bring himself to power. Or did that little fact escape you? He was an opportunist and he twisted the very notion of communism to suit his means and the result of the deaths of millions of peasants on his order.

You can hate him; I hate ignorant pro-exploitation conservatives like you. But he was still a hero.

If you wish to be a mass murderer and commit a holocaust against the poor, then sure, I guess he would be your hero.

Their "choice" was equality..or worse yet, they could be like the dumbasses in the UK who defend Monarchy, as you rightly pointed out, because they don't know any better.

They do know better and they support their Monarchy. It is not your choice and has nothing to do with you.

Your version of communism is not about equality. It is about the acquisition of power to force your beliefs upon others..

Except it doesn't have to; you are brought up to be a cynic of human nature.

Quite the contrary. I am a supporter of human rights and the right of choice. Something that obviously escapes you.

 

[wynn]

I saw it, it's a paradoy on anti-socialism, and also utterly irrelevant to the context of the conversation it was in (other than random entertainment value).

Actually, upon second thought, the title "Stockholm Syndrome" was fitting to the idea of the feature - namely that the Swedes are suffering Stockholm Syndrome at the hands of Communism/Socialism, and that they need to be saved from it.

 

[wynn]

The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another.
This character says on the one hand that human nature changes, and yet on the other, for the system he despises, he assumes it will not.
His arguments are applied selectively rather than universally.

I agree.
I don't see why Tiassa thinks this is a strawman.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Yeah ditto !!

 

[wynn]

What is more rewarding than working for the common good?

If only it were clear what that is ...

 

[birch]

Originally Posted by The Marquis
The basic hypocracy of all who espouse communism is that they assume that human nature is somehow different for one economic system than it is for another.
This character says on the one hand that human nature changes, and yet on the other, for the system he despises, he assumes it will not.
His arguments are applied selectively rather than universally.

and the flaw with those who demonize communism is they tend to not want human nature to change because it would mean changing themselves. but humans have changed and they do improve or make even revolutionary strides while all along there are naysayers who think things should just stay as they are. history is like that.

ufc:

i think the world is headed towards a better balance than what is now. i think more communist principles will happen naturally in the future on a worldwide scale. this is because rampant capitalism with it's greed hurts a lot of people as well. remember, there has never been true communism so those who have very cynical views of it is not due to communism but the failures of people. but people can learn from the past. i think technology will have a really critical force for more communistic principles to be able to work. it may happen one day.

there was a time in the distant past where no one would have believed that slavery would be considered wrong or that women's rights would be considered or even fought for etc.

i think you have good ideas but i think people think you are getting ahead of yourself or not considering the time that we live in right now BUT there needs to be more people who even consider the issue or start which you are doing. you will have a lot of naysayers due to past failures though but that doesn't mean it can't be successful in the future with the right formula which at the heart of it will be people who will be ready for it, when and if that happens.

 

[chimpkin]

I think s/he's being entirely too doctrinaire and entirely too bloodthirsty.

It's not that I don't want a modicum of social equality and justice...it's just that I don't tend to think revolution will really do that...that evolutionary social change is better suited for bringing about the sort of differing attitudes needed to make a better society.

There's intangibles that are very important.
People have to be acculturated differently.

 

[The Marquis]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

This oft-quoted line does not eliminate exploitation; it merely shifts the focus of exploitation from those who have ability to those who do not.

The theory of communism is as much about about greed, or envy, as any other.

Envy, under the guise of altruism.
Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it.

 

[The Marquis]

Actually, I was just reading this fellow two above me.

remember, there has never been true communism so those who have very cynical views of it is not due to communism but the failures of people. but people can learn from the past

Still completely failing to realise that true free market capitalism isn't about exploitation any more than communism is, and in reality doesn't exist either, due to those very same human flaws.

He's not only throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but refusing to acknowledge there is a baby in there to begin with.

 

[John99]

Believe it or not they teach these fantasies in high school. I heard the same exact thing from my German teacher.

So if theres never been "true communism" the wtf is it?

 

[MicroCubedX3]

about the original Q? It has failed every country that tried it that's why period.