[It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer

[mOgliE]

Hello world.

Have been away for lon and following HellFish advice I'm starting a selfmod thread. Feel free to say whatever you want as long as it's not trolling.

So why starting this thread? Because there is this sentence I hear and read a lot that always triggers me a bit. Right wing people mockingly saying that you have to be a complete retard to be a socialist and that the argument "it's not real communism" is stupid. This argument is just saying that USSR or whatever "communist" country failure isn't a proof of communism failure because... Well it wasn't real communism.

And this argument is... Perfectly valid though a bit short-sighted.

I dare anyone to give an example of a real communism state in our world, present or past. There are none.

There is this HUGE MISTAKE made by tons of people who believe that communism = no private property = everything belongs to the state. Which is a very brutal and stupid interpretation of communism manifest. Communism doesn't mean everything belongs to the state but everything is owned by the people. In particular for Marxists (which are the most common kind of communists) it's not that there should be no private property but that anything being used in the economy (the means of production) should belong to the workers using them. (Which means very VERY limited private property because depending on interpretation pretty much anything can be considered being part of the economy)

But let's simplify all this by saying that, in communism, the means of production are supposed to belong to the people.

The people.

Not the state, the people. That's where lies the "it's not real communism".

Because what are exactly countries like Venezuela or USSR or Cuba or North Korea? They're countries where state is all powerfull, meaning the leaders are all powerfull. What do you call such countries? Dictatorships. And it doesn't matter if the dictatorship calls itself communist or islamic or democratic or whatever. A dictatorship is just a dictatorship, a country where the people are oppressed by a very small group having the power. It's not communism at all! It's the opposite of communism.


So no it wasn't real communism. But why is it a short-sighted answer? Well because it seems that every time a country adopts communism it falls immediately into a dictatorship. So even if those countries aren't communist, if every country trying to adopt communism falls into dictatorship 2 days later... Well it means that even if there is a slight difference, communism leads to dictatorship.

And that's right. At least that WAS right. Communism means that the people own and control everything equally, but that wasn't possible, what was used was that people were represented by a government THEN this government controls everything (hence the dictatorship).

But maybe we have an alternative solution now. Maybe we can do things differently... What if we didn't use the government to control things? What if we did it ourselves directly? With our technologies we no longer have a use for representative politics. Direct democracy is completely possible.


So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 if you're interested

[TECSHARE]

Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry

[mOgliE]

Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry

Please do come back

But I believe it would be a no true scotman if I'd say that communism works because the failure weren't true communism. Which is not my point, just saying that the given examples aren't counterexamples but rather indication that communism leads to dictatorship.

[mOgliE]

Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry

Please do come back

But I believe it would be a no true scotman if I'd say that communism works because the failure weren't true communism. Which is not my point, just saying that the given examples aren't counterexamples but rather indication that communism leads to dictatorship.

Didn't you....literally...just get done doing that? I guess it is just a convenient coincidence those are the same instances eh?

No I... Did you read me? ^^

That's not a coincidence at all and I explain that communism leads to dictatorship not because of what communism is but because of how it's implemented. The problem isn't communism/socialism but how we handle it. And my point is that new technologies might allow us to implement it in a different way.

[mOgliE]

Your entire op was just saying past Communism was not true Communism... I say it is a fallacy, you deny you said it, then turn right around and say but no it will work this time. Your logic is circular.

Oh ok so you actually didn't understand my OP at all ^^

I'll try to make it shorter and easier:
-Past "communist countries" were not communist but dictatorship
-They failed to implemant communism and were transformed into dictatorship in the process

No true scotman would be saying "those states aren't proof of communism failure because that was not the right kind of communism"
I'm saying "they tried to implement communism but failed and were transformed into dictatorship on the way"

It's not that they implemented something which is not real communism, it's that when trying to implement it they failed completely and utterly because communism isn't compatible with representative governments. That's my point. Hope it was a bit clearer.

[bluefirecorp_]

Technocracy with heavy favor towards automation ~= socialism.

Start with government to prove a mostly automated front-end and then expand from there. Automation may be more expensive in the short term, but overall, it's a valuable investment.

The only hitch is the government "automation" probably should be open source so the people can vote on the "changes" in the code of law.

Once we automate government in this way, we can automate industry similar. This way, as an individual, if you want change in a product, you just fork the automation framework to create your own version.

[mOgliE]

It is always the same thing with Communists... its not that they are wrong, its just that I don't understand it and simply need to hear it repeated enough times to be suitably indoctrinated via operant conditioning. YOU ARE LITERALLY STATING THE SAME ARGUMENT  only in a SLIGHTLY different way. I think after a few hundred million lives lost we should just give up on the ol' Communism, what do you say?

So for you "Implementing A" and "Trying to implement A but fail and implement B" is the same?
My point is saying that failure is linked to representative government, not the ideological concept.

It's exactly the same as saying that flying is impossible because you weren't able to fly just by moving your arms. It's not that flying is impossible, it's that you need a different kind of technology and a different approach.

Technocracy with heavy favor towards automation ~= socialism.

Start with government to prove a mostly automated front-end and then expand from there. Automation may be more expensive in the short term, but overall, it's a valuable investment.

The only hitch is the government "automation" probably should be open source so the people can vote on the "changes" in the code of law.

Once we automate government in this way, we can automate industry similar. This way, as an individual, if you want change in a product, you just fork the automation framework to create your own version.

Exactly, excellent comparison ^^

From what I see, most problems from the different economical or ideological systems come from representative government which is just elective dictatorship with extra step. If you can acti directly in the code as you say, then you create something completely different where you can apply your ideology/economic ideas.

[mOgliE]

I'm doing this step by step because you're so biased that you don't seem to actually read me. My point is not saying that communism works but that previous communist countries failed because of the representative government system. So that it's worth thinking about a communist direct democracy. Thinking about it, not saying it's the solution. There is a "can" in the title you know?

Considering you are the one floating the premise that "it is not real Communism", you are the one that needs to demonstrate that your ideology has any SUCCESSES to EVEN JUSTIFY trying it again.

Why so? I never said communism works that's absolutely not my point... Please re-read me because I never wrote that and will never because I don't believe so. That's not the point of this OP.

I think after hundreds of millions of lives lost over the past hundred years or so "trying Communism" it is safe to say you better have some good fucking evidence before we try this dumpster fire of an ideology again at all.

Agreed. That's more the point of this OP which is to say that those deaths are linked to the dictatorship, which is a consequence of how communism was implemented.

Your premise in the op is literally just a "no true Scotsman fallacy" combined with some circular logic as a pathetic misdirection tactic. You aren't arguing facts you are attempting to condition me to your ideology via brute force and repetition.

I'm taking your link as a reference:

1"During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group."
Didn't do this

2"Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group."
Didn't do this

It's not a No True Scotsman because I'm not saying at all that communism works or is good or whatever.

My point is I am saying THE IDEOLOGICAL CONCEPT IS THE PROBLEM.

Then as you love to say, if you bring a new argument please provide evidences to back it up.

Hey I got a question for you Mr. workers rights. Did you know the USSR was bankrupted right around the Bolshevik revolution, and Wallstreet bankers not only helped plan it, they funded it, and helped Marxism and Communism take power from the Tsar? That's right. Your precious ideology was the invention of Wallstreet and European bankers!

Don't see the link with the argument... And until you bring any proof of that you just sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me ^^

It is a system of controlled opposition. Red vs Blue. Us vs Them. Republican vs Democrat. Only on a global scale. It is right in your face. The symbol of Communism, the hammer and sickle, are ancient. The hammer represents building and creating, and the sickle represents destruction and the harvest. Capitalism comes in and builds society up. The people get too much power and influence or society becomes otherwise imbalanced, such as via the financial debasing, then Communism is brought in to strip the nation of resources systematically until there is nothing left. Then the process is started all over again. We don't have to submit to harvesting.

I disagree strongly with the last part, first I don't see how what you describe is historically accurate because it just never happened anywhere. Second because the "opposition cycle" you talk about is much more linked to inequalities cycles for me. But that's a whole different argument you're discussing here ^^

[bitmover]

Everytime, everywhere in the world, someone tried to implement a socialist economy the results wereonly poverty, massacre, millions of deads, hungers... But no, that was not the true socialism. Let's try again and killmore people and make more governments rich.

Liberalism, on the other hand, always made the people have better lives, with more freedom and real development in all areas (culture, technology...)

All poor countries in the world are not really capitalists, but socialists.
I live in one of them: Brazil. We have a socialist economy now. We are fucked.

Take a look at https://www.heritage.org/index/

It's an index of economic freedom. All good countries in the world are living liberalism economies, while bad countries are living socialist economies.

I bet you live in a rich country.

[mOgliE]

Everytime, everywhere in the world, someone tried to implement a socialist economy the results wereonly poverty, massacre, millions of deads, hungers... But no, that was not the true socialism. Let's try again and killmore people and make more governments rich.

Answer is in your sentence, problem is linked to the government not the economic idea

Liberalism, on the other hand, always made the people have better lives, with more freedom and real development in all areas (culture, technology...)

Where would you rather live? USA or Norway?
Cause if you look at the hapiness rankings of countries, top ones are definitely socialist countries.

All poor countries in the world are not really capitalists, but socialists.

What?? No not at all. Africa is the poorest continent and is more or less a capitalist paradise...

I live in one of them: Brazil. We have a socialist economy now. We are fucked.

No you don't have a socialist economy, you're just in an elective dictatorship :/

[BADecker]

Some thoughts.

Socialism is a difficult thing for fairness. The reason is that all people are different, and they all have different needs to operate efficiently. The best people who can tell what the needs of a person are, is the person himself or the people near him. This means that socialism can only be applied to the general basics of people... food, water, clothing, basic housing, etc.

People thrive on some kind of desire to better themselves and their possessions/conditions. In other words, if the particular form of socialism takes away opportunities to be better - make more "money" - it will only produce a mediocre society.

Generally speaking, when people work together in a socialistic way, and when they are positive about the socialism they are working in, nature provides an abundance of property and advancements for the people. To be fair, the benefits of this advancement, whether it be in property or science or "money" or living conditions, needs to be applied for all people... not simply stored up, nor used the ways a "dictator" might use it, except by the formal agreement of all the people of the society.

There are many writings about how to apply socialism correctly. Most people have their own form of socialism in their own family. Good socialism must allow freedom in such a way that unfair advantage can never be taken against any of societies members. This has to include a form of socialism where people can remove themselves and their property from the society if they want... but at least themselves if they had formerly agreed to pool their property, making it theirs no longer.

Blockchain technology is something that can help with all this. But the whole idea of socialism is extremely complex. Many of the writings by popular socialism thinkers are not realistic, but have elements in them that allow socialism to become a dictatorship... or the next most dangerous thing, a democracy.

[mOgliE]

Some thoughts.

Socialism is a difficult thing for fairness. The reason is that all people are different, and they all have different needs to operate efficiently. The best people who can tell what the needs of a person are, is the person himself or the people near him. This means that socialism can only be applied to the general basics of people... food, water, clothing, basic housing, etc.

People thrive on some kind of desire to better themselves and their possessions/conditions. In other words, if the particular form of socialism takes away opportunities to be better - make more "money" - it will only produce a mediocre society.

Generally speaking, when people work together in a socialistic way, and when they are positive about the socialism they are working in, nature provides an abundance of property and advancements for the people. To be fair, the benefits of this advancement, whether it be in property or science or "money" or living conditions, needs to be applied for all people... not simply stored up, nor used the ways a "dictator" might use it, except by the formal agreement of all the people of the society.

There are many writings about how to apply socialism correctly. Most people have their own form of socialism in their own family. Good socialism must allow freedom in such a way that unfair advantage can never be taken against any of societies members.

It's incredible but I actually globally agree with what you wrote. First time ever I believe.

This has to include a form of socialism where people can remove themselves and their property from the society if they want... but at least themselves if they had formerly agreed to pool their property, making it theirs no longer.

That would be ideal but... Very complex to put in practice. I mean the problem is not to put the person away of this society but to find another society accepting this person. And more, it's a bit unfair because all "new persons" by that I mean all persons born in this society won't be given the choice.

Blockchain technology is something that can help with all this. But the whole idea of socialism is extremely complex. Many of the writings by popular socialism thinkers are not realistic, but have elements in them that allow socialism to become a dictatorship... or the next most dangerous thing, a democracy.

What the hell it means that I more or less agree with a full BADecker post? Omg what's happening? 

[Carlton Banks]

I dare anyone to give an example of a real communism state in our world, present or past. There are none.

That's true. Communism was promised many times, and autocratic dictatorial tyranny was delivered instead.

There is this HUGE MISTAKE made by tons of people who believe that communism = no private property = everything belongs to the state. Which is a very brutal and stupid interpretation of communism manifest. Communism doesn't mean everything belongs to the state but everything is owned by the people.

Right. Voluntarism, liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism all say that too. People should own everything, not the state.

In particular for Marxists (which are the most common kind of communists) it's not that there should be no private property but that anything being used in the economy (the means of production) should belong to the workers using them. (Which means very VERY limited private property because depending on interpretation pretty much anything can be considered being part of the economy)

But let's simplify all this by saying that, in communism, the means of production are supposed to belong to the people.

The people.

Not the state, the people. That's where lies the "it's not real communism".

Because what are exactly countries like Venezuela or USSR or Cuba or North Korea? They're countries where state is all powerfull, meaning the leaders are all powerfull. What do you call such countries? Dictatorships. And it doesn't matter if the dictatorship calls itself communist or islamic or democratic or whatever. A dictatorship is just a dictatorship, a country where the people are oppressed by a very small group having the power. It's not communism at all! It's the opposite of communism.


So no it wasn't real communism. But why is it a short-sighted answer? Well because it seems that every time a country adopts communism it falls immediately into a dictatorship. So even if those countries aren't communist, if every country trying to adopt communism falls into dictatorship 2 days later... Well it means that even if there is a slight difference, communism leads to dictatorship.

And that's right. At least that WAS right. Communism means that the people own and control everything equally, but that wasn't possible, what was used was that people were represented by a government THEN this government controls everything (hence the dictatorship).

So that's where the problem with Marxist influenced communism starts.

To change a situation where big infrastructure (including manufacturing) is owned socially, there's no way to do it without overwhelming force. For that, you need organisation too, so a government was always there to say "you can own an equal part of everything, if you give us the power we need to enforce it". Enough people accepted that, then the government stole mostly everything, and used groupthink and propaganda to cover it up.

And that happened every single time communism was implemented (well, attempted).

But maybe we have an alternative solution now. Maybe we can do things differently... What if we didn't use the government to control things? What if we did it ourselves directly? With our technologies we no longer have a use for representative politics. Direct democracy is completely possible.


So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

"Scientific" or "algorithmic" communism isn't realistic either. Someone needs to writes the rules for the algorithms and design the scientific models. If everyone were equal participants writing the rules, no rules would ever emerge from the ensuing arguments. The temptation for very smart, but very selfish, people to corrupt such a technocratic system is too great, the concentration of power will inevitably attract corruption, just like any government.


The real answer is for people to use powerful tools to make themselves more powerful, and to form strong groups that people can leave if they choose.

We're probably arguing more or less for the same thing, except I want to choose which group I belong to, and how much of my stuff is owned by others in the group. I'm likely to lean towards "not much", and people like you (who want "real communism") will have to accept that, or become the new tyranny. And how respectful I am, to give you such a choice!

[mOgliE]

That's true. Communism was promised many times, and autocratic dictatorial tyranny was delivered instead.

Exactly, which leads to the question "is it possible to get one without the other?". Which is the whole point of this OP. I'm glad someone got it cause I had a feeling of hitting a wall with TECSHARE xD

"Scientific" or "algorithmic" communism isn't realistic either. Someone needs to writes the rules for the algorithms and design the scientific models. If everyone were equal participants writing the rules, no rules would ever emerge from the ensuing arguments. The temptation for very smart, but very selfish, people to corrupt such a technocratic system is too great, the concentration of power will inevitably attract corruption, just like any government.

I disagree here

To take something we all know (even if I'm convinced possibilites are more or less infitine and the best solution is yet to be created) let's take the constitution/laws system that is currently used. The rules aren't the laws but the constitution, because laws can be changed easily while constitution is supposed to structure society. If you change constitution you change society in a redical way.

So you're saying not everyone can participate to writing the rules? Why not? Of course not everyone can agree on something, that's impossible, but why couldn't a vast majority agree on something?

The real answer is for people to use powerful tools to make themselves more powerful, and to form strong groups that people can leave if they choose.

We're probably arguing more or less for the same thing, except I want to choose which group I belong to, and how much of my stuff is owned by others in the group. I'm likely to lean towards "not much", and people like you (who want "real communism") will have to accept that, or become the new tyranny. And how respectful I am, to give you such a choice!

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice. And i mean, it's just a fact, you can't have this choice that's all. You don't whose where you're born, well it means you don't chose which kind of society you live in, and if you're born in a group leaning towards the "nearly everything" while you're more on the "not much" side... Well I don't have a solution.

And I don't think those groups can coexist, it seems to me that those groups can only fight each other until one remains ^^

[BADecker]

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice. And i mean, it's just a fact, you can't have this choice that's all. You don't whose where you're born, well it means you don't chose which kind of society you live in, and if you're born in a group leaning towards the "nearly everything" while you're more on the "not much" side... Well I don't have a solution.

And I don't think those groups can coexist, it seems to me that those groups can only fight each other until one remains ^^

That's why most kids, when they grow up, leave the family. Each individual is his own group, so to speak. It's only when individuals agree on being a group that they can become a group. Even Stockholm Syndrome groups of captives are captive by agreement. Why do they agree? Because the alternative is too scary.

[jonemil24]

I'm not sure if this could be what's @OP is trying to say, this video tried to explain the difference between socialism and communism and it says;

"according to Marx, socialism is a precursor to communism and the next logical step after capitalism"

And this was the second time that I've heard of that quote. Can someone who had read or knew about the communist manifesto confirm if Marx really said that? If this were true, I wont make any arguments about socialism and communism.

The idea of Marx is a stateless, moneyless, and classless society, while the idea of socialism is heavily understood as equally shared profits within a "cooperative". Can someone tell me if my view of socialism is right?

So this is how I basically understand communism and socialism, communism is a utopian system that can only be achieved if socialism is put into practice.

If you're looking for a community with the idea of socialism, or the idea of "equally shared profits", the kibbutz from Israel is a good example, IMO. Some said that the kibbutz are enjoying this equally shared profits, but if an outsider would want to join their system, it must pass their exam and is required to donate money.

Imagine if that community became self-sufficient, gathered all the knowledge, built their own vehicles, have their own army and weapons, made their own phones, computers, what will be next? Communism, world domination, or it will eventually collapse? I'm not sure if the word trust is known to them or if their system is entirely a trustless community. But here's the catch, if someone doesn't trust this equally shared profits, or if some member of the kibbutz community will suspect about their profit, a decentralized blockchain can be a good public ledger for them. Let me correct @OP, it must be decentralized/public blockchain and not just blockchain.

This is my basic understanding of capitalism - "follow where the money flows", and my country tried to follow it.

Back then, my country was the number 1 exporter of rice, but my government doesn't believe that agriculture is the first step to industrialization, and now we are importing it. My family, both my mom and dad, were from a family of farmers, but most of them sold their agricultural lands, and their excuse is that money generated from farming is not worthy enough for their hardwork. Too much competition leads to excess of food, the middleman who buys their crop back then said that there is too much rice to consume. Today, the middleman's excuse of buying the crops harvested is still the same. I'm not sure who should I believe, the middleman who says that there is too much rice, or my government who always kept on importing rice just to fill the scarcity.

EDIT: I do own an agricultural land, but it's not income generating, which part of the class should I belong? I'm not basically paying tax, FYI.

[Carlton Banks]

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice.

And so you're advocating that the group I was born into can do anything they want with me (or anyone else), as long as some of them agree that it's ok?

Conversation over.

Have fun in your dictatorship, sorry, commune. I hope everyone else chooses to do something nice to you

[mOgliE]

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice.

And so you're advocating that the group I was born into can do anything they want with me (or anyone else), as long as some of them agree that it's ok?

Conversation over.

Have fun in your dictatorship, sorry, commune. I hope everyone else chooses to do something nice to you

No that's not what I said please quote me entirely ><

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice. And i mean, it's just a fact, you can't have this choice that's all. You don't whose where you're born, well it means you don't chose which kind of society you live in, and if you're born in a group leaning towards the "nearly everything" while you're more on the "not much" side... Well I don't have a solution.

You don't have a choice of which society you live in because you're born in it that's what I said!

Of course then you have all the choice in the world to try to change it. But you don't chose where you start from which is the main thing that will influence your life.

And I'm sorry if you're shocked by this but the group in which you're born will do whatever it wants to you.. That's already the case and it will always be. A group decides what should and should not be done to its members. Simple example if you're born in Western countries the group decided you must get mandatory first education and can't have sexual relationships before a certain age. Would you be born in an Islamic dictatorship the group would have made very different choices... The kid born has no saying in this

[bluefirecorp_]

From what I see, most problems from the different economical or ideological systems come from representative government which is just elective dictatorship with extra step. If you can acti directly in the code as you say, then you create something completely different where you can apply your ideology/economic ideas.

Representative democracy used to be effective when a single individual didn't represent literally hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Originally, there was a single congressional member per around 40-60k citizens. Now it's closer to 250k-500k citizens.

It's crazy to think that individuals can be represented by someone that's job is to represent 250-500k other people.

I've proposed implementing a liquid democracy system to replace the house of representatives, and I'll probably be running for my state house on that platform; which the individual voice matters.

[bluefirecorp_]

Back then, my country was the number 1 exporter of rice, but my government doesn't believe that agriculture is the first step to industrialization, and now we are importing it. My family, both my mom and dad, were from a family of farmers, but most of them sold their agricultural lands, and their excuse is that money generated from farming is not worthy enough for their hardwork. Too much competition leads to excess of food, the middleman who buys their crop back then said that there is too much rice to consume. Today, the middleman's excuse of buying the crops harvested is still the same. I'm not sure who should I believe, the middleman who says that there is too much rice, or my government who always kept on importing rice just to fill the scarcity.

EDIT: I do own an agricultural land, but it's not income generating, which part of the class should I belong? I'm not basically paying tax, FYI.

I wish I had a lot of agricultural land for development purposes. There's so many things you can utilize that land for.

However, besides the inherent value of land itself; the problem there seems the middle-man more than anything. If you were a rice farmer and grew everyone's rice, they'd be happy with you in a simple system; unless your rice was the worst rice ever...

Anyway, what're talking about again? I already think I stated the 'best' solution to the problem; which is technology and development

Communism is only fair when it's anacho-communism or something similar. People need their absolute liberties regardless of the cost to "society"; they exist for explicit purposes of keeping personal freedoms.