The Goals of Communism

[Timber Loftis]

Real communism has not occurred.

As BTS and I discussed on this issue, there is one thing we actually agreed on: true communism would necessarily be near-anarchy.

This is because the notions:
1. The state owns everything, and
2. All people are economically equal, and
3. Some person or group of persons run the state,
Added with basic human nature of two types regarding the Lust for money or power or control of other,
EQUALS:
Totalitarianism or some other governmental form other than communism - and the people are NEVER equal.

So, BTS and I did agree that pure communism would be near-anarchy. BTS, however feels that model *could* occur.

I feel it still could *not* occur because of the above-mentioned natural human desire (by at least *some* humans) to control others or have power over others, as well as another human tendancy -- laziness/free rider syndrome.

But, it is without argument that it never *has* occurred.

And, /)eathkiller, great post on Cuba. Given all the folks I know who got out of Cuba, it seems in keeping with what I've heard.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Real communism has not occurred. As BTS and I discussed on this issue, there is one thing we actually agreed on: true communism would necessarily be near-anarchy. This is because the notions: 1. The state owns everything, and 2. All people are economically equal, and 3. Some person or group of persons run the state, Added with basic human nature of two types regarding the Lust for money or power or control of other, EQUALS: Totalitarianism or some other governmental form other than communism - and the people are NEVER equal. So, BTS and I did agree that pure communism would be near-anarchy. BTS, however feels that model *could* occur. I feel it still could *not* occur because of the above-mentioned natural human desire (by at least *some* humans) to control others or have power over others, as well as another human tendancy -- laziness/free rider syndrome. But, it is without argument that it never *has* occurred. And, /)eathkiller, great post on Cuba. Given all the folks I know who got out of Cuba, it seems in keeping with what I've heard.

Just to clarify, I don't think that it just *can* occur, I think it is inevitable at some point. Of course, that loses a lot of significance when you consider I don't give myself a timeline for it. I personally don't think I'll see it in my lifetime, lets put it that way.

Also, by saying it would be close to anarchy I think I need to point out what I mean exactly. Its not total anarchy in that a state still exists, just not in any political form. The state exists normally to uphold the winner of the class struggle, as now it upholds capitalists against proletariats, and as in the USSR it upheld the proletariat against the peasantry. So in a classless society the state will wither as a political entity and cease to have any meaningful effect on our lives other than as a minimum necessary administrative force. I'm not a total anarchist - I don't believe cooperation will be sufficient to create an equal society. Ah hell, if want to talk about Anarchism shouldn't we try and grab Azzy and Seph - I think they were the forums representatives from the anarchist side of things. And they were only suspended right?

Cloudy - I know what you are saying is that Communism is not possible (something I think we will have to agree to disagree on), but it came out as if you were saying the Communism leads to repression because the Soviet Union went that way. I get that a lot, and it gets really annoying because I think the Soviet Union was one of the most despicable regimes ever to grace this earth and it owes nothing to Marxism in any way. If Marx had been alive when Lenin led the revolution he would have told him not to I expect... And he would certainly have been on Stalins list of people to kill, thinking the way he did...

All I'm trying to say is that the Soviet Union is completely useless as an example in an argument on Communism, as it simply wasn't Communist! But strangely it comes up every time regardless... :s

[Cloudbringer]

Barry, that would be because the USSR, China, Cuba- all were supposedly trying to be communist states or claimed such at any rate. It's hard not to bring them up when they are the major visible places where it was supposedly tried and failed miserably.

I still maintain, as TL does, that by sheer dint of human nature, you will not see 'true communisim' in a human society. Now, by virtue of my religious beliefs, I don't worry about that so much as when Christ comes again, we won't be concerned about politicial systems.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Barry, that would be because the USSR, China, Cuba- all were supposedly trying to be communist states or claimed such at any rate. It's hard not to bring them up when they are the major visible places where it was supposedly tried and failed miserably. I still maintain, as TL does, that by sheer dint of human nature, you will not see 'true communisim' in a human society. Now, by virtue of my religious beliefs, I don't worry about that so much as when Christ comes again, we won't be concerned about politicial systems.

The thing is that while the doctrine was often tried in those countrys it was very rarely tried in either the way or circumstances that its fairly obvious Communism needs. I don't mean to be ratty, it just sometimes feels like I'm banging my head against a brick wall saying that to person after person... And theres always someone left to jump up and say: "But what about Russia?!?", which after a while precipitates me wandering off in a sulk muttering stuff about know it all Americans... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

As for the human nature point I understand this, but until someone points out to me exactly what they think human nature is then I won't agree. And, before someone starts to do just that, I should point out that you can't infer anything about human nature by looking at historical examples. That is human nature when in special circumstances, under Communism the circumstances will be different and thus people will act differently from how they do now. If you can prove to me that the desire for comparative wealth is intrinsic to humanity, not just intrinsic to society, then I'll take my hat off to you, because I think thats impossible. Human nature is a term widely used, but hard to pin down.

And as for the coming of Christ, I don't know when he will come but I'd quite like to make the best out of things until then!

[Timber Loftis]

But, Barry, what about Russia?? [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But, Barry, what about Russia?? [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img]

Thats it! I'm outtahere!

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Attalus]

Well, Barry, we can prove anthropologically that very primitive societies often own things communally, but as soon as they advance, the more powerful indivduals begin to amass status symbols which they will not share. Private ownership of land begins to take prescedence over communal use, for instance. And, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is a noble sentiment, but the unfortunate fact is that most people are lazy, selfish, and greedy. The hippie communes of the '60's fell apart for this very reason. Too few people worked, and too many wanted to lay around and get high all of the time.

[ 02-05-2003, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Attalus ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Attalus: Well, Barry, we can prove anthropologically that very primitive societies often own things communally, but as soon as they advance, the more powerful indivduals begin to amass status symbols which they will not share. Private ownership of land begins to take prescedence over communal use, for instance. And, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," is a noble sentiment, but the unfortunate fact is that most people are lazy, selfish, and greedy. The hippie communes of the '60's fell apart for this very reason. Too few people worked, and too many wanted to lay around and get high all of the time.

Exactly. Someone has to determine what your 'means' and 'needs' are and that makes them more 'powerful' than you are. Differences in priviliges lead to jealousy, misuses of 'power' etc. Sorry, I just don't see a 'pure' communist state as being anything but a utopic theory, at best.

[Timber Loftis]

Well, Attalus, I agree with the laziness/selfishness attributes you mention. It only takes one lazyass to ruin the collective.

But, not all advanced forms of societies give up the communal life. Dolphins, for instance.

[Attalus]

I was speaking of human societies, Timber. Anthropos means human. For better or worse, dolphins seem less lazy and greedy that Homo sapiens. I loved it in The Hitchhiker when they abruptly disappeared, leaving a note saying, "So long, and thanks for all the fish."