Communists Unite!

[HotPocket]

Anyone here believe that communism is the final stage in human social behavior?

I, for one, happen to believe such a thing.

The main reason being is that communism provides the needs for the whole community, equality for all. All for equality. Also, there is much evidence that communistic communities work much better in small amounts. If the capitalistic world ever ends (which it probably will), communism seems like what is naturally going to replace it. A small communistic community that is run well will function perfectly. As opposed to the corrupt communism countries we see today that are a bad example of Marxism's full potential

What do you think Smogon?

 

[jamespicone]

I'm more of a socialist. The market has proven to be undeniably more efficient at providing some services - it just needs to be carefully controlled in some areas, and in some ways, to try and overcome its disadvantages.

 

[Raj]

Well communism is great on paper, but human beings seek to be better/different from everyone else. Someone's gotta lead it, which naturally puts them above the rest. Can't work like it's supposed to....

 

[HotPocket]

I'm more of a socialist. The market has proven to be undeniably more efficient at providing some services - it just needs to be carefully controlled in some areas, and in some ways, to try and overcome its disadvantages.

That is what we did just a few days ago, we elected a socialist (by all means and purposes)

The cause just has to be great enough to pull us into full blown communism, that is why socialism is working now. It is like a warm blanket during winter.

Well communism is great on paper, but human beings seek to be better/different from everyone else. Someone's gotta lead it, which naturally puts them above the rest. Can't work like it's supposed to....

That is why its going to take some social evolution, people are going to have to see that they are different from each other. But in those differences they have the right to share everything and be equal to everyone.

 

[FiveKRunner]

I can only see communisim working if it's something such as in the book The Giver (Lois Lowry) where everyone is blind to the fact that it is communism. Since all of the people know nothing else, except for Jonas, the receiver of memory, they accept their place in society and do their best to hold up their end of making sure the community runs smoothly.

One thing I do see happening in the political future is the GOP dissolving for the most part or shifting so to the point that they basically become Libertarians. Moral and traditional values are destined to fade as time goes by. Eventually, there will be very little for them to stand on in the social aspect and they'll become largely Libertarian, meaning that they only disagree with the Dems on economic decisions.

 

[Morm]

I cannot even believe that people think this is viable.

Do you have any idea how many mammalian animals have a 'society' that is truely communist/socialist? 1; Naked molerat. I'm sure we all know what they are blah blah. Point is that EVERYWHERE you look within the crown group mammalia, there is a pecking order to be had be it territory, mates, food sources, position in the pack etc etc. Do you honestly think that a product of this group will ever be able to handle this in a society (Naked Mole Rat doesn't count, it's just plain fucked up)?

Hell, just look at the primates- totally full of pecking order. Pecking orders mean that some eat better than others, live better and whatever other non communist properties you care to apply to them.

What it all boils down to is that it is against our nature to do so. Don't say that 'oh well we live in a society with buildings and blah blah it's against nature'. It is within humanities nature to alter their environment; has been ever since the first tool was used by a human ancestor/relative so that arguement can be shot down before it even takes off.

 

[jamespicone]

That is what we did just a few days ago, we elected a socialist (by all means and purposes)

I wouldn't describe Obama as a socialist. I'd describe him as slightly left of centre. :P

I cannot even believe that people think this is viable.

Do you have any idea how many mammalian animals have a 'society' that is truely communist/socialist? 1; Naked molerat. I'm sure we all know what they are blah blah. Point is that EVERYWHERE you look within the crown group mammalia, there is a pecking order to be had be it territory, mates, food sources, position in the pack etc etc. Do you honestly think that a product of this group will ever be able to handle this in a society (Naked Mole Rat doesn't count, it's just plain fucked up)?

Hell, just look at the primates- totally full of pecking order. Pecking orders mean that some eat better than others, live better and whatever other non communist properties you care to apply to them.

What it all boils down to is that it is against our nature to do so. Don't say that 'oh well we live in a society with buildings and blah blah it's against nature'. It is within humanities nature to alter their environment; has been ever since the first tool was used by a human ancestor/relative so that arguement can be shot down before it even takes off.

Depends on your definition of 'communist'. Some animals certainly have different degrees of community and others.

Plus, the whole nature argument is just silly. Consider the closest animal to humans, genetically speaking, the Bonobo chimp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

As we can see, it is against our nature to not have sex on a regular basis, both heterosexual and homosexual, sometimes with children.

 

[Cathy]

Well communism is great on paper

What a fine piece of propaganda.

Anyway, I have a tool to help the Smogon mods weed out communists to ban:

http://colin.shoddybattle.com:81/communist.htm

 

[C. Falcon]

chaos is only 8% communist.

We are safe (For now) from his 8% communistic ways.

 

[Morm]

Colin I have newfound respect for you.

jamespicone, I honestly don't know why you drew that conclusion. Of course animals have different degrees of community...

yes, lets use an analogy of sex using my logic to...wait, what did you do there?

 

[eric the espeon]

What a fine piece of propaganda.

Anyway, I have a tool to help the Smogon mods weed out communists to ban:

http://colin.shoddybattle.com:81/communist.htm

Colin your suicide applet looks very useful, but its not working for me..

Also lol at most of the stuff there.

Edit: I think there is something wrong here:
There is a 33 per cent chance that Carl Marx is a communist.
This person is a Keynesian, which means his policies are the road to serfdom — but not for a while. Keep an eye on him.

 

[Deck Knight]

Anyone here believe that communism is the final stage in human social behavior?

I, for one, happen to believe such a thing.

The main reason being is that communism provides the needs for the whole community, equality for all. All for equality. Also, there is much evidence that communistic communities work much better in small amounts. If the capitalistic world ever ends (which it probably will), communism seems like what is naturally going to replace it. A small communistic community that is run well will function perfectly. As opposed to the corrupt communism countries we see today that are a bad example of Marxism's full potential

What do you think Smogon?

I think that if the Russians, the Chinese, and the Cubans can fail at it so miserably as to create an oppressive dictatorship each and every time that no amount of "if we only had the right people to run it" is going to take the veneer off the shared misery, suffering, and death that Communism tends to cause.

Communism is an epic failure. It should be relegated to the dustbin of history, and only be mentioned in history books as the philosophy that killed hundreds of millions and imprisoned millions more. Karl Marx's philosophy centers around class warfare and envy. Bourgeois = bad, Proletariat = Good, so you always have a bogeyman to blame when The Party screws up.

 

[FinnRagetti]

I think that if the Russians, the Chinese, and the Cubans can fail at it so miserably as to create an oppressive dictatorship each and every time that no amount of "if we only had the right people to run it" is going to take the veneer off the shared misery, suffering, and death that Communism tends to cause.

Communism is an epic failure. It should be relegated to the dustbin of history, and only be mentioned in history books as the philosophy that killed hundreds of millions and imprisoned millions more. Karl Marx's philosophy centers around class warfare and envy. Bourgeois = bad, Proletariat = Good, so you always have a bogeyman to blame when The Party screws up.

I agree but disagree with this statement. Communism in practice as seen in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Russia, is not the Marxist communism that we think of and ended up resulting with a dictatorship. But, to be relagated into the history dustbins, i believe that it its absurd. I believe communism can work in smaller pieces like this community, but not on a large scale, with over 100+ million people. Communism does bring about equality if everyone works together

 

[Deck Knight]

I agree but disagree with this statement. Communism in practice as seen in Cuba, North Korea, China, and Russia, is not the Marxist communism that we think of and ended up resulting with a dictatorship. But, to be relagated into the history dustbins, i believe that it its absurd. I believe communism can work in smaller pieces like this community, but not on a large scale, with over 100+ million people. Communism does bring about equality if everyone works together

So does capitalism. Every time I here some detractor talk about the "gap between rich and poor" I laugh. You know why?

Because our "poor" are so rich that their primary health problem is obesity, they eat and live indoors, and they have only 1 motor vehicle. Those that work tend to have 1 or 2 jobs, those that don't are usually generational welfare leeches.

Compare this to the "poor" in communist nations. They starve to death, have no shelter, and no chance at upward mobility. That's why poor people in other nations flocked to and continue to flock to America. Socialism and Communism are so "redistributive" that basically they are a caste system. If you are born wealthy you will stay there and if you are born poor you will never be able to escalate, because you will never be able to keep enough of your own money to invest in something that will lift you up.

 

[Luduan]

I cannot even believe that people think this is viable.

Do you have any idea how many mammalian animals have a 'society' that is truely communist/socialist? 1; Naked molerat. I'm sure we all know what they are blah blah. Point is that EVERYWHERE you look within the crown group mammalia, there is a pecking order to be had be it territory, mates, food sources, position in the pack etc etc. Do you honestly think that a product of this group will ever be able to handle this in a society (Naked Mole Rat doesn't count, it's just plain fucked up)?

Hell, just look at the primates- totally full of pecking order. Pecking orders mean that some eat better than others, live better and whatever other non communist properties you care to apply to them.

What it all boils down to is that it is against our nature to do so. Don't say that 'oh well we live in a society with buildings and blah blah it's against nature'. It is within humanities nature to alter their environment; has been ever since the first tool was used by a human ancestor/relative so that arguement can be shot down before it even takes off.

Primitive communist arrangements seemed to work rather well for quite a few societies, so I would disagree with this entirely (see: Native Americans before European destruction... er, 'colonization').

 

[Echo]

Primitive communist arrangements seemed to work rather well for quite a few societies, so I would disagree with this entirely (see: Native Americans before European destruction... er, 'colonization').

Emphasis on the term primitive. We're far from primitive these days (well, in the exact sense of the word) and it's already been proven that communism doesn't work with the developed communities and civilizations we have today.

 

[Misty]

Nobody here actually knows Marxism, I'm thinking.

Marx was definitely not a socialist. Marx knew socialism was worse than capitalism, and he was proven right. Socialism was a temporary step on the path to true communism.

(On that note - Obama is not a socialist either. Marx had a name for people like Obama - "bourgeois socialist", and he spends a whole section of the communist manifesto deriding these people.)

In Marx's eyes, capitalism is about exploiting workers to their limits, and when they reach that limit, capitalism falls and is replaced with socialism. The problem is that socialism is worse - the government replaces the capitalists as the new "ruling class", and Marx knew it. What Marx assumed was that socialists would again push the workers to their limits, and then socialism would be replaced by communism, where there is no "ruling class": no government, no capitalists, no aristocracy.

The truth is, a communist society, in Marx's vision, isn't THAT much different from a capitalist one. The differences are that there is no government, and none of the things that emanate from government (taxes, for instance); there are no CEOs and boards, because every company is run by the workers (or there is a CEO but he is entirely a figurehead at the mercy of the workers). It's very anarchic, in a way.

Obviously, yes, someone could TRY to use capitalist methods, but it would fail (this is Marx's opinion) because, in these conditions, workers would not accept the neo-capitalist's exploitation. It would essentially be a "been there, done that, not doing it again" reaction, because the workers would know where that slope goes.

 

[DREK]

what if they did not no where the slope goes?

 

[Jimbo]

I can only see communisim working if it's something such as in the book The Giver (Lois Lowry) where everyone is blind to the fact that it is communism. Since all of the people know nothing else, except for Jonas, the receiver of memory, they accept their place in society and do their best to hold up their end of making sure the community runs smoothly.

That's actuallly a really good example. I love that book ha.

Communism doesn't work for the reasons dragonites and others in this thread stated. I also don't believe Obama is a communist/socialist at all, but that's an argument for a different thread.

 

[Luduan]

Anyone who believes Obama is a socialist is completely ignorant of what the term actually means.

I am, in a sense, a "communist"; that is, I believe in direct worker control of the means of production and in the elimination of coercive, hierarchic social structures -- a very anarchic view. The difference between early communists and anarchists was mainly tactical: Anarchists believed that capitalism and the state should be destroyed simultaneously, while Marxists believed that state alone could allow the proletariat to maintain control. (This is, of course, before the idea of "anarcho-capitalism" existed.) This is best exemplified in an often quoted letter by Friedrich Engels:

The anarchists put the thing upside down. They declare that the proletarian revolution must begin by doing away with the political organization of the state. . . . But to destroy it at such a moment would be to destroy the only organism by means of which the victorious proletariat can assert its newly-conquered power, hold down its capitalist adversaries, and carry out that economic revolution of society without which the whole victory must end in a new defeat and a mass slaughter of the workers similar to those after the Paris commune. (Quoted in http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.html#bib5, ¶9)
​

This approach has its obvious weaknesses, evidenced in the brutal "Marxist" régimes of the last century.

 

[newbioform]

To me, the biggest hurddle of communism is knowledge. People will always act in their best interests and the only situation where everyone act accordingly in a communist society is when everyone has perfect knowledge i.e. they know that it's in their best interest to act fairly and everyone knows what to do and what they are doing. Communism works in smaller societies because people know each other. I can't see how communism can work in a large scale. I think in the unforeseeable future, when everyone knows everything, government will no longer be able to function and the world will go naturally to communism. Until then...

 

[Morm]

Primitive communist arrangements seemed to work rather well for quite a few societies, so I would disagree with this entirely (see: Native Americans before European destruction... er, 'colonization').

They still have a primitive pecking order. For example, Aztecs held priests in high reguard, shamen and healers were also held in high reguard. Hell, I've worked with the spirtual leader of a major first nation out here, as well as three of their elders- all higher on the chain politically and socially than all the others in their tribe. In what way is that communism?

Just so you're aware, they did have elders and spiritual leaders back then.

 

[Luduan]

They still have a primitive pecking order. For example, Aztecs held priests in high reguard, shamen and healers were also held in high reguard. Hell, I've worked with the spirtual leader of a major first nation out here, as well as three of their elders- all higher on the chain politically and socially than all the others in their tribe. In what way is that communism?

Just so you're aware, they did have elders and spiritual leaders back then.

To clarify: I was not referring to Mesoamericans but to the Amerindians of the North American Eastern woodlands (perhaps most dramatically illustrated by the communal culture of the Hurons). Private possession and property were alien concepts: Land belonged to the entire community, which gave use of land (not ownership) to individuals. I actually wrote a paper about this recently. One of the books I consulted quotes the 18th century mission John Heckewelder, writing about the Native American conception of ownership:

the Great Spirit . . . made the earth and all that it contains for the common good of mankind; when he stocked the country that he gave them with plenty of game, it was not for the benefit of a few, but of all. Everything was given in common to the sons of men. Whatever liveth on the land, whatsoever groweth out of the earth, and all that is in the rivers and waters flowing through the same, was given jointly to all, and every one is entitled to his share. From this principle hospitality flows as from its source. With them it is not a virtue, but a strict duty.*
​

Furthermore, respect for elders and shamans does not necessarily equal political power. Chiefs, for instance, had very little power: Decisions required unanimous approval of the entire community -- incidentally, this is from whence the word "caucus" derives," -- chiefs were required to hunt for and grow their own food and make their own belongings. If a chief became too autocratic, he ran the risk of being killed by his tribe (as happened to Pontiac). Real power was concentrated in the entire community, not a few individuals.


*W. R. Polk, The Birth of America (New York: Harper Collins, 2006), pp. 18-19.

 

[Ancien Régime]

\

The truth is, a communist society, in Marx's vision, isn't THAT much different from a capitalist one. The differences are that there is no government, and none of the things that emanate from government (taxes, for instance); there are no CEOs and boards, because every company is run by the workers (or there is a CEO but he is entirely a figurehead at the mercy of the workers). It's very anarchic, in a way.

Here's my take, though I might be WAY off base.

no government

Which means people can enter into voluntary arrangements without the State favoring one class of people over another. Thus, people will usually opt for the most efficient means of social organization. Ludwig von Mises proved definitively that free voluntary exchange >>>>>>>>>>> collective ownership and management of resources. In any case, even "corporations run by the workers" will seek to maximize the profit motive, and will likely compete with other "worker corporations", as not every worker doing the same job will be in the same "corporation".

there are no CEOs and boards, because every company is run by the workers

This is a stickier point, but it's entirely possible (actually quite probable) that the proleteriat will follow the profit motive and maximize profit as much as possible. Basically it translates to a much bigger board of directors, or a corporation where everyone has a roughly equal stake. I'm not sure how it would work in practice, but fundamentally, as Misty asserts, pure socialism isnt that much different than pure capitalism.

I figure that in time there will be uneven distributions of wealth, as people generally do not support equal pay for unequal work. The thing that people have to remember is that Communism is theoretically a stateless society - therefore people can work/trade/shop/produce as they wish.

However, since there is no State to crystallise and maintain uneven distributions of power, power and wealth will fluctuate, and the end result won't be total economic equality, just a much smaller curve than exists now.

In essence, what Marx and his descendants call "capitalism" is really Corporatism/Mercantilism/Statism/Fascism/Keynesianism depending on degree (let's throw in Leninism/Stalinism/Trotskyism/Maoism), while what he is advocating is way closer to "pure capitalism" (the Austrian anarchocapitalist model)

 

[Green Mage]

"Socialist" as a general term means a person who wants to let the state make the decision making for people.

Obama has Socialist plans. Does that make him a full-blown socialist? I don't think so (he's still too far left to be effective).

However, forcing companies to hire certain people is Socialism through and through (it's also Fascism since the people he'd force companies to hire are of his favored demographics). Forcing schools to teach far left ideals and removing the parent's choice to pull their children from those schools is Socialism. Taking from the people he doesn't care about and giving it to the people he favors is Socialism/Fascism.

I could go on and on, but the point is that Obama has Socialist ideals, but isn't really a Socialist. Although the president of the US Socialist party endorsed him completely, stating that America will go quietly into Socialism if Obama was elected.

But more to the point: Socialism as an answer to Capitalism has been tested on multiple occasions and failed miserably in every area. Case closed.

P.S. Marx wasn't a Socialist.