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

[mOgliE]

Oh am I? I suppose that makes you unbiased in comparison?

No of course I'm probably as biased concerning liberal economy... Just trying to point out you should keep and open mind and stop putting words inside my mouth :/

Your point is not Communism works, just that it "COULD work", so lets try it again right?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. My point is communist countries failure is more linked to representative government than to communism so let's think about it again ><

-snip-

I've cut it all because you more or less say the same things on the rest of your post "you should provide evidence that communism works before wanting to go again"

But that's not at all my point, I'm not saying let's do communism, I'm saying "hey previous failures are linked to representative government which had a complete and total power which leads to dictatorship. What happens if we put direct democracy instead?"

See?

[1714162449]

1714162449

[1714162449]

1714162449

[1714162449]

1714162449

[coins4commies]

I think he is saying that USSR socialism didn't work because it was authoritarian so maybe we should try libertarian socialism.    I think we all agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea so maybe you should move past that being 100% of your argument against socialism/communism.

I posted this compass because you are only thinking in terms of left vs right.  A one dimensional argument in a two dimensional world.  All of your arguments have been against the top left corner of the compass.  The problem is, as a socialist, I have never met anyone who's ideology is up there.  They exist in history yes, and your arguments are sound against the USSR, but we are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum; in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass where authority comes from individuals via democracy and not from the government. 

[Coinifyx]

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

[bones261]

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

[coins4commies]

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  

Hes right... people do ask for Socialism when the economy is bad. That doesn't mean it will make anything better... in fact it is like pouring water on a grease fire.

I think he is saying that USSR socialism didn't work because it was authoritarian so maybe we should try libertarian socialism.    I think we all agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea so maybe you should move past that being 100% of your argument against socialism/communism.

I posted this compass because you are only thinking in terms of left vs right.  A one dimensional argument in a two dimensional world.  All of your arguments have been against the top left corner of the compass.  The problem is, as a socialist, I have never met anyone who's ideology is up there.  They exist in history yes, and your arguments are sound against the USSR, but we are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum; in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass where authority comes from individuals via democracy and not from the government.  

Don't speak for me. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. END OF STATEMENT.

Yeah lets just gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism resulting every time Socialism and Communism are implemented. Socialists are like a 18 year old with a credit card. They run around buying all kinds of crap they can't pay for, but in their minds it is ok, because they got a credit card to pay for things right?
Things will just "work out". That is not how it works, the chain in your brain is missing a link. Your picture doesn't present any argument against this reality. Very pretty colors though.

We definitely need to stop capitalism before it gets to a point of "grease fire". 

The statement in all caps literally denies the existence of the political compass.  You are saying that the left only exists at the very top left corner of the compass.  Literally everyone here is between somewhere near the middle and the very bottom.    This is why all of your arguments against modern leftist ideology are strawmen.  Yes we should gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism when discussing democratic socialism because it isn't relevant.   Instead of arguing with the 20th century, maybe you should argue with the people who are here and living in the 21st century.   

[mrcash02]

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

[mOgliE]

Ok I'm putting TECHSHARE on ignore. He doesn't read people so there is no point trying to discuss with him. Or he reads people and isn't able to make the difference between cause and consequence but that would be sad. Do feel free to feed the troll if you wish though.

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people

[mOgliE]

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

Completely!

Venezuela in much more complex than just saying "SoCialiSM FaiLLLLs" but that's a good example of power corruption and of how handing everything to the government is NOT a good idea.

But now what if there is no government but everyone rules equally? What if laws are proposed and voted directly by the citizens? What if there is no politician to be corrupted?

Now that's something that might work...

[mOgliE]

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.

Hey there, would you mind explaining us what you mean by that? I never heard of liquid democracy.

[mrcash02]

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

Communism alone leads to dictatorship anyway...

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Not everyone is interested in politics to rule the country they live, and many of the citizens don't have enough knowledge to say how things must be done in several sectors (economy, security, health, education, etc...), so it's normal to have representants, that have a similar opinion to the voters, but that are better prepared to work for the country, on the front.

There are many people who just want to work daily, earn money and buy stuff to thrive in life, they don't care about politics, ideologies, they just want to live in a confortable society, with the highest quality as possible. And if the person doesn't care about political choices, he/she won't have any idea about it, so it's better he/she won't have any power... Otherwise it can be a disaster.

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people

The same is said about Democracy, all of us have an equal share of power, and actually that doesn't guarantee benefits. If there are 100 corruptible politicians it's because a big parcel of those 50 millions voted for them, so they are somehow in agreement with those practices.

In other words, if the biggest part of the population is corrupt, illiterate, alienated the whole country will suffer, because they are the majority. And the few guys who could raise the country will be smashed because the minority's opinion doesn't matter.

From this perspective, the Communist system you say is similar to the Democracy we have, with the difference there wouldn't be representants. So instead of electing corrupt politicians, the corrupt people would be acting directly, messing everything around...

[af_newbie]

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.

I don't get it.  Are you proposing "no private or state property" rule?

Who exactly will control all the properties with no identifiable owners?

Without owners, it will be a complete chaos and anarchy.  People will walk into a place where you sleep (since we cannot call it your house) and take your personal belongings since they don't belong to you, your TV, the bed you sleep on, your car, your grandfather's watch etc. and you will have to agree to it since those things don't really belong to you.

Is this what you are proposing? People sharing everything they used to own with other people?

Criminal gangs would control everything in no time.  Wild West all over again.   

I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.  It is worse than a communist state idea.

[coins4commies]

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.

I don't get it.  Are you proposing "no private or state property" rule?

Who exactly will control all the properties with no identifiable owners?

Without owners, it will be a complete chaos and anarchy.  People will walk into a place where you sleep (since we cannot call it your house) and take your personal belongings since they don't belong to you, your TV, the bed you sleep on, your car, your grandfather's watch etc. and you will have to agree to it since those things don't really belong to you.

Is this what you are proposing? People sharing everything they used to own with other people?

Criminal gangs would control everything in no time.  Wild West all over again.   

I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.  It is worse than a communist state idea.

You need to distinguish the difference between private property and personal property. 


The socialist ideal is that everyone owns their personal property.  The capitalist ideal is that the capitalist class owns everything, including the personal property of the working class. 

[mOgliE]

I don't get it.  Are you proposing "no private or state property" rule?

Who exactly will control all the properties with no identifiable owners?

Without owners, it will be a complete chaos and anarchy.  People will walk into a place where you sleep (since we cannot call it your house) and take your personal belongings since they don't belong to you, your TV, the bed you sleep on, your car, your grandfather's watch etc. and you will have to agree to it since those things don't really belong to you.

Is this what you are proposing? People sharing everything they used to own with other people?

Criminal gangs would control everything in no time.  Wild West all over again.   

I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.  It is worse than a communist state idea.

Not at all.

First thing I'm proposing is a direct democracy, which would get rid of corruption and cooperation between governments and big corporations.

Second thing I would propose is more of a nation-owned company concerning the basic needs (health, food, education, real estate...). Which doesn't mean that those companies shouldn't exist without private competition. I'm all in for private companies if they want to compete with national companies no problem with that.

But the most important thing here is that I say we need the first thing and... We might try the second. But once the first thing is done then who am I to decide on the second one?

I don't see how anyone could refuse the direct democracy with any kind of logical argument. But the social economy system I have in mind is just an idea of how organising our society. We might go in a totally different direction if that's what is wanted.

The important thing is the direct democracy, which would already make our CURRENT situation so much better... Reducing the power of big corporation in an incredible way.

[mOgliE]

Communism alone leads to dictatorship anyway...

How coul communism in a direct democracy lead to dictatorship? I really don't see how it's possible would you mind enlightening me here? 

Not everyone is interested in politics to rule the country they live, and many of the citizens don't have enough knowledge to say how things must be done in several sectors (economy, security, health, education, etc...), so it's normal to have representants, that have a similar opinion to the voters, but that are better prepared to work for the country, on the front.

There are many people who just want to work daily, earn money and buy stuff to thrive in life, they don't care about politics, ideologies, they just want to live in a confortable society, with the highest quality as possible. And if the person doesn't care about political choices, he/she won't have any idea about it, so it's better he/she won't have any power... Otherwise it can be a disaster.

Three main ideas you have here:
-First, politicians are more capable that the averag Joe that's why it's good they make the decision. I think you're extremely wrong here, I don't know how it's done in your country but in mine one guy can be minister of education one day (without having even worked in this sector before) then minister of the environment another day (without having worked or studied in this sector before). Most of our politicians are DEEPLY incapable. Maybe your country managed to assure your leaders have some skills if show I'd love to hear how they're doing this!

-Second, that representants are somehow on the same line as their voters. Here again it's completely false in my country and an Harvard studies on American democracy showed how false it was in USA. Representants in USA vote laws at 70% on the line with the 1% most wealthy people in the country and 30% on the line with their voters. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B The representants represent mainly (if not only) the wealthy people, not the people who voted for them.

-Third, people need representants because they don't have time or knowledge or the will to take the matters in their own hands. Well I'd say that's a huge problem because a citizen who doesn't care about politics is not a citizen. I mean it in no offensive way, citizen means duties, the first of these duties being taking part of the city and the country life. If you don't want to care about politics no problem, but that means you're just an inhabitants of the country, not a citizen. So you shouldn't vote at all. Problem being that today, as people vote only every 3 to 5 years, people who don't care AT ALL about politics have as much weigth in political decisions as people actually caring.

The same is said about Democracy, all of us have an equal share of power, and actually that doesn't guarantee benefits. If there are 100 corruptible politicians it's because a big parcel of those 50 millions voted for them, so they are somehow in agreement with those practices.

In other words, if the biggest part of the population is corrupt, illiterate, alienated the whole country will suffer, because they are the majority. And the few guys who could raise the country will be smashed because the minority's opinion doesn't matter.

From this perspective, the Communist system you say is similar to the Democracy we have, with the difference there wouldn't be representants. So instead of electing corrupt politicians, the corrupt people would be acting directly, messing everything around...

You're completely right here! They are indeed responsible at least in part for the corrupt politicians. But why? Well again I don't know where you're from but in my country, it's not a democracy. We call it a democracy because we're used to calling it that way, but that's more an elective monarchy. You elect a king and then you can't do ANYTHING for 5 years as he has all the power and accounts to no one.

People are powerless. Hence they're no longer involved in political life. To give you an example, our previous president was elected by only 40% of the population, the 60% either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all. Why should they even vote? Whatever politicians say there is no way they'll be true to their words.

We have choice but without responsability. We have vote but we have no power. We're not complete hence we're not trying to become real citizens. We're just a small part of a big machine working without us...

[Iwillgotothemoon]

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.

I totally agree with what you said, and now they call themselves communist countries. They are not real communism. They are closer to the political power of the party state. The so-called party state means that the "party" is higher than the government, so their biggest problem is their governments, military, and large enterprises are all controlled by the party.

If you have been to any communist country, you will find that the actual top leaders in these countries are not the president/prime minister, but the general secretary of the party. The highest commander of their army is not the commander but the political commissar. The highest decision-making level of the company is not the board of directors but the party committee of the company.

This is a little different from dictatorship, they are usually not personal dictatorships, but a collective dictatorship. That is to say, there will still be struggles for power in their interiors. If most party members oppose their general secretary, then it is very likely that the general secretary will be overthrown and a new general secretary will be produced, but personal dictatorships are usually not overthrown from within.

[mOgliE]

I totally agree with what you said, and now they call themselves communist countries. They are not real communism. They are closer to the political power of the party state. The so-called party state means that the "party" is higher than the government, so their biggest problem is their governments, military, and large enterprises are all controlled by the party.

If you have been to any communist country, you will find that the actual top leaders in these countries are not the president/prime minister, but the general secretary of the party. The highest commander of their army is not the commander but the political commissar. The highest decision-making level of the company is not the board of directors but the party committee of the company.

This is a little different from dictatorship, they are usually not personal dictatorships, but a collective dictatorship. That is to say, there will still be struggles for power in their interiors. If most party members oppose their general secretary, then it is very likely that the general secretary will be overthrown and a new general secretary will be produced, but personal dictatorships are usually not overthrown from within.

It's like communist countries managed to make even dictatorship innefficient 

[mOgliE]

Of course you agree with the OP. He removes any dissenting opinions, then justifies eliminating arguments he has no reply to by calling those that challenge his ideas trolls. So much for Communism not being totalitarian right? Communists seem to have a fetish about censoring ideas that call their precious lord and savior Communism into question.

Quoting you for the people who might read this thread later.

All of what you said is in previous answers because I answered each and every claim you made one by one. If there is a single argument missing please notify me I'll edit this post.

I'm deleting your comments because I consider that your aggressive behaviour without any logic (you're not being logic, you talk as if everyone should know the strange hypotethises you have in your mind...) is just trolling. You're being circular and ignoring that the point of this OP is NOT that communism is the answer, but that socialism should be studied deeply to see if the combination of socialism and direct democracy could produce an interesting result. I'm not even saying it WILL I'm saying I don't see how it can't be better than what we have currently.

If you want to discuss how stupid communists are create your own thread. And deleting your aggressive comments while keeping all the arguments in previous quotes is NOT censoring in any way...

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 interestedEDIT: 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

[Iwillgotothemoon]

LOL 
I am very curious. Two people not from the communist countries(I guess) are arguing over communism. Well, let me tell you the true thoughts of the people living in the communist countries. In fact, They don’t care what communism is at all. For most of them, they only have one idea: make money--->migrate to the West.
This is the truest idea of ​​the people in the communist countries. They do not oppose the Communist Party. At present, the rule of the Communist Party can make the country more stable, but they also yearn for democracy in the West, so quietly make money and then quietly change their nationality to be the ultimate thing for the richers.

[af_newbie]

LOL 
I am very curious. Two people not from the communist countries(I guess) are arguing over communism. Well, let me tell you the true thoughts of the people living in the communist countries. In fact, They don’t care what communism is at all. For most of them, they only have one idea: make money--->migrate to the West.
This is the truest idea of the people in the communist countries. They do not oppose the Communist Party. At present, the rule of the Communist Party can make the country more stable, but they also yearn for democracy in the West, so quietly make money and then quietly change their nationality to be the ultimate thing for the richers.

+1

The privileged (probably white, middle-class kids) arguing about socialism.  They have no fucking idea what socialism or communism is.

If you lived under both socialist/communist and capitalist systems you would understand the fundamental flaws and benefits of each system.

They should interview people who lived in socialist and communist regimes. 

Instead, they think they "got it", and their interpretation of socialism will work (no matter the evidence to contrary) if they would only get a chance to implement it "properly".  LOL.

These guys are a joke.  Comedians really.

[bluefirecorp_]

It seems even more people are confusing authoritarian implementations of communism and socialism with theological implements of libertarian communism/socialism.

To most people, in the West, not living under an authoritarian regime; they see socialism as "democracy in the workplace".