The Best Form of Government Thread - Communism Discussions

frantic googling

jihodj said:

What about an inherent contradiction in the core of Christian theology, such as the day and time of Jesus' actual crucifixtion?

Click to expand...

What? How is that in the core Christian theology. The core of Christian theology is belief that Jesus died for the sins of humanity. That is also a matter on which I think someone could be judged not-a-Christian even if they were to claim that they were. People can make all sorts of ridiculous claims. But no, the day and time of his crucifixion are trivial pursuit questions.

jihodj said:

What about the schism between Shi'a and Sunni Islam? Is that not a foundational divide that leads to mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent positions, since the justification for the divide comes from varied interpretations of the Quran and Hadith?

Click to expand...

No. Rites of succession for caliph are not a "foundational" belief in Islam like say believing that Mohammed was the last prophet of allah. That would also, I think, represent a valid dividing line.

jihodj said:

Well, I made it very clear I wasn't referring to all socialist societies with this critique, though, but only communist ones. Communism being a subset of Socialism wherein the means of production and distribution of resources are, at least in principle, owned by users.

Click to expand...

No offense but you're really seriously starting backwards here. You're trying to use what needs to be your conclusion (your view of what communism is) as a premise.

jihodj said:

So your first choice doesn't hold. Now for the second choice, that socialism cannot include dogmas which preserve hidden class distinctions. I mean this is again just the no true scotsman.

Democratic socialism includes class distinctions both hidden and out in the open. Thats one sub set of socialism that most definitely includes that.

So I dunno man.

I still think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Click to expand...

Yes or no: are there any people who aren't Scotsmen?

Frenzied Wombat said:

No, the major "drawback" and primary reason why communism fails is basic human nature. People intrinsically don't want to be equal, they want to excel and be better than the "other". Also, power and money *always* corrupts, which is why every communist leader that is eating with the plebes during the revolution eventually ends up corrupted and building himself a gold plated swimming pool while his former comrades starve.

Click to expand...

I can give you counter-examples if you'd like.

khalid said:

These guys that you linked...
Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the link that you gave (so I don't think its unfair to be picky here) describes it as a society based around stateless anarchism. Seems the libertarians would want to claim that as a "success" for their arguments.

Click to expand...

Anarchism is and has always been a socialist tendancy. The Free Territory (like all anarchist spaces) operated on anti-capitalist grounds. You're RIGHT that "libertarians" should take credit, but of course that word was completely lifted from it's socialist roots to the point where now it's unrecognizable. The history on this is very clear.

khalid said:

Regardless, it existed from 1918 to 1921. A 3 year success doesn't mean very much, as almost any form of government could last for 3 years.


Is there some other example, or was the 3 year "success" of a group that is described as a stateless anarchistic society the best example of a successful communist state you can find?

Click to expand...

In terms of what you'd recognize as an actual nation the examples are pretty limited (I think for the fairly obvious reason that it takes resources to carve out a space militarily and traditionally people with any resources to spare weren't exactly receptive of the anarchist message). I think Catalonia during the Spanish civil war was also a good model (though it suffered from the same problem of it being toppled militarily within a few years). Again: I admitted all this before. I think a valid criticism of my preferences is that they may not come with the sort of brutal martial discipline that the survival of those very ideas depends on. The reason I brought up the Free Territory is that that was probably the least weak in that regard. The Black Army at least held their own for a while (until the Reds betrayed them after finishing off the White army).

ZyyzYzzy said:

Okay let's use your 1 example of a "communist" society. It can't provide protection from internal or external threats to those that compose it. Hint: this is one of the fundamental benefits and reasons societies exist. It is shit

Click to expand...

Well external and that's a (possible) intrinsic weakness I already admitted. Whether or not it can be done without falling to hostile outside forces remains to be seen.

MikhailBakunin said:

I can give you counter-examples if you'd like.

Click to expand...

Go ahead. I'm sure there's a few paltry communist do-gooder leaders in human history, but ultimately corruption is rife through all stratums of society because everybody wants more than the meagerness that everyone gets when things are homogenized. When I lived in Canada I used to take winter vacations to Cuba. Service and quality of any type simply doesn't exist in that country because nobody tries to do beyond the bare minimum, because what's the point? After the utopian revolutionary dream of everybody living in equality and harmony wears off, the realization that no matter how hard you try life won't be any different starts to set in, so why bother going the extra mile? The success of communism, and to a lesser extent socialism requires a philosophical acceptance that people are intrinsically selfless, when in fact it's the opposite, they're selfish.

jihodj said:

You're judging them as trivial. I think the rest of us kinda disagree. The time and manner of Christ's death is very important to the theology of his supposed demise and thus the theological implications inherent therein.

Click to expand...

I don't think they have theological significance at all. Certainly not core theological significance.

jihodj said:

But again, from the internal perspective, Muslims profoundly disagree, to the point they've waged wars over that foundational distinction, and have had goals of eradicting the other viewpoint as heretical and thus against Allah's will.

Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty deliberate misreading of history. I don't think you'd find much support now or historically in the muslim world for the claim that one or the other aren't actually Muslims. I think most people in the Muslim world understood and understand that those distinctions are mostly political (despite taking place within a religious institution).

jihodj said:

I think no matter what comparison made, you'll attempt to simply write it off by fiat because it is inconvenient to your position, not because they are in any way not viable models of comparison. They all very much so are.

Click to expand...

I have given you comparisons within the spheres you've provided me that I think would count and I've dismissed them because they MATCH my claim that those things represent litmus tests.

jihodj said:

How so?

Click to expand...

Well whether or not my counter-example applies to communism as well depends on it.

jihodj said:

There may or may not be, but so long as all the people we are discussing are self defining themselves that way, and are presenting themselves that way for the most part, and generally seem to share mostly similar views, etc. I have no justification for excluding them from that subset.

Click to expand...

Ok well what if they called themselves Scotsmen but had never been there and were born on the other side of the planet? Yes or no: would those people be Scotsmen?

Frenzied Wombat said:

Go ahead. I'm sure there's a few paltry communist do-gooder leaders in human history, but ultimately corruption is rife through all stratums of society because everybody wants more than the meagerness that everyone gets when things are homogenized.

Click to expand...

Except, of course, that there is an easy ideological cleaving between the two outcomes with historical support.

Frenzied Wombat said:

When I lived in Canada I used to take winter vacations to Cuba. Service and quality of any type simply doesn't exist in that country because nobody tries to do beyond the bare minimum, because what's the point? After the utopian revolutionary dream of everybody living in equality and harmony wears off, the realization that no matter how hard you try life won't be any different starts to set in, so why bother going the extra mile? The success of communism, and to a lesser extent socialism requires a philosophical acceptance that people are intrinsically selfless, when in fact it's the opposite, they're selfish.

Click to expand...

lol

I don't even know where to start here. You should read the rest of this thread I guess.

I mean, what use does communism even have? It's a social organization that makes the most sense in a post-demand world where invariably technology and automation would make it pointless anyway.

If you can make enough shit for everyone with robots, there's no need to have an overwrought political scheme to enforce it.

Maybe robot communism is the next great frontier. Rise, probetariat. Robotariat?

Palum said:

I mean, what use does communism even have? It's a social organization that makes the most sense in a post-demand world where invariably technology and automation would make it pointless anyway.

If you can make enough shit for everyone with robots, there's no need to have an overwrought political scheme to enforce it.

Maybe robot communism is the next great frontier. Rise, probetariat. Robotariat?

Click to expand...

Post-scarcity economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the overwrought political scheme to enforce it, I think it's the other way around. It's the government that keeps the union from going into the factory and working for themselves, it's the government that shows up to throw people out on the street when they can't pay their rent, it's the government that assures banks of interest collection. We have an overwrought political scheme enforcing a particular economic scheme.

jihodj said:

I think you're missing my point. Whether you or I find theological significance there is irrelevant. I call theology a snipe hunt through the wilds of human imagination. I certainly don't find theological significance there.

But the people within the group we're discussing, in this case Christians, or Muslims, or Socialists DO. That is what is important here.

Click to expand...

I think you're dramatically overselling the degree to which the Christians and Muslims would call those litmus tests (not that majorities actually matter for that question, but you're the one invoking their internal perspective).

jihodj said:

Uh....that division is the fundamental cause of the conflict between groups like the various factions in Iraq, between the Taliban/Al'Qaeda and ISIS, and so forth. So I think you're mistaken here.

Click to expand...

I'm aware and I think that division is, again, a matter of political distinction not whether or not those people are "Muslim" (even as viewed from within the faith).

jihodj said:

Yes. I"m saying I disagree with you. They are litmus tests. Whether the Eucharist is really turning into blood and flesh is a major division between Catholic and Protestant, for instance. Same as Mary worship.

Click to expand...

Those are not litmus tests for christian vs not-christian (which is where we came in). If you want examples that would fall supposedly fall prey to your claim of No-True-Catholic, we can come up with those too.

Either classifications have necessary conditions or they don't. What those conditions are is a matter debate. Invoking "No True Scotsman" in response to a disagreement about that doesn't do anything to advance that debate. It's just a way to declare victory without having to do the work.

jihodj said:

I reject your implied assertion that there is a fundamental difference between the two groups of communists we are discussing that is comparable to this sort of distinction involving a national identity based on a proximate location relationship.

I get your point here and I just disagree with it because I don't think the two things you are now trying to compare (People claiming to be Scotsmen who exist in a completely different place/time/society with no attachment to Scotland and Communists movements that include class distinctions during the transition to a classless society and those that do not) are equivalent.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely not a matter of merely including class distinctions "during the transition to a classless society." That difference that you're calling not-fundamental has to do with simultaneously claiming to want to overthrow the hierarchy of power in the workplace because of its repressive nature while openly reserving the right to maintain that power. If the entire impetus for throwing off capitalism is the elimination of that sort of power, it's not a minor matter to then claim the prerogative of keeping it precisely for the purpose of purifying the very political apparatus that is meant to replace it. That is not a "transition to a classless society." That is a transition away from it.

The thing is, it isn't like Lenin disagreed with the assessment. However you classify Lenin based on his own proclamations, it's not the case that he proclaimed that what he built was really socialist in character:

Lenin: To the Russian Colony in North America

The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.

Click to expand...

ZyyzYzzy said:

Guys laws are terrible. Why enforce let alone have them. We can all trust each other.

Click to expand...

Guys all laws throughout history have been great.

See how well that sort of dipshittery works?

ZyyzYzzy said:

You're right. Some laws are bad. Better not have any.

Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I said.

Are you always pissing your pants like this?