NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't it funny how many people who talk about "freedom" and reject authoritarianism also support Communism, which is simply the ecomonic form of political absolutism, and reject capitalism as all-evil, even though it is the free-est of the economic systems? Now, I'm no lessie-faire (I know I misspellled it, no need to point that out) capitalist, and I realise that the system does need safeguards, and my conscience compels me to see the need for programs to help the lower classes of society, but I personally reject Communism and state-socialism as fericly as I reject facism and authoritarianism. I would think more people would see the contradiction in being politically libertarian and supporting communism, which puts all economic power in the hands of the state. Why don't they?

laizzez-faire
and its not really that funny.i was hoping for something actually funny.oh well

Isn't it funny how many people who talk about "freedom" and reject authoritarianism also support Communism, which is simply the ecomonic form of political absolutism, and reject capitalism as all-evil, even though it is the free-est of the economic systems?

Do you have examples of these people? I don't recall ever seeing that.

It has caused me much laughter, though.

Why don't they?

Fuck knows. Maybe it's because they are all idealists with the blindness of absolute faith. Maybe it's because they don't care.

Whoever they are.

Isn't it funny how many people who talk about "freedom" and reject authoritarianism also support Communism, which is simply the ecomonic form of political absolutism, and reject capitalism as all-evil, even though it is the free-est of the economic systems? Now, I'm no lessie-faire (I know I misspellled it, no need to point that out) capitalist, and I realise that the system does need safeguards, and my conscience compels me to see the need for programs to help the lower classes of society, but I personally reject Communism and state-socialism as fericly as I reject facism and authoritarianism. I would think more people would see the contradiction in being politically libertarian and supporting communism, which puts all economic power in the hands of the state. Why don't they?

Well my philosophies can all be reliably traced back to the idea that it is wrong to harm another human being. If law is meant to prevent harm, then if something doesn't cause harm then there should be no law against it(IE your rights end when they cause harm to others). It is from that that I am a Social Libertarian.

Now I see harm in a different way than most people. I see both harm by action and harm by omission. Harm by action is what most people think of - attacking someone, rape, murder, etc. Harm by omission is more complicated. Consider this - if a man is stumbling down the street, stabbed in the gut and bleeding, shouting 'for the love of god where's the nearest hospital!,' and you know where the nearest hospital is but continue by without saying anything - your will now plays a significant part in the continuance of his horrible condition. Though you have not harmed him as badly as the person who stabbed him, it is still a harm. You could help him with only a minor inconveinience to yourself, and most would agree that it is wrong to just pass him by and not tell him where the hospital is. But if pass him by you do, you have done harm by omission. Now replace stabbed man stumbling down street with starving/poverty stricken man, and your knowledge of the location of the hospital with a small portion of your money. Apply same formula as above.

Harm by omission is where I get my socialist ideas from. Harm by action is where I find the justification for laws against murder/rape/assault/etc. Since IMHO the law exists to prevent harm, it is justified in preventing both harm by omission and harm by action. I don't in the end see a contradiction between my socialist ideas and my libertarian ideas.

Of course I'm not a 'communist' per se. I don't believe in absolute equality, but in every human's basic right to life essentials - things like shelter, food, clothing, etc. - to be provided for by society if the person cannot provide them for himself. Society fulfills in the most efficient manner - taxes to the state, then state distributes where needed. The most concise label for my beliefs is Socialist, so that's what I am. However IMO my core beliefs trace logically from my prime opinion(do no harm), without significant contradiction.

Perhaps that made sense, perhaps not. It's more complicated than that, but I don't truly have the time to get into it fully. Hope that helps a little!:)

the condtradiction I see (not nessicarily in your views, but in the Communist viewpoint in general) is that you can get social justice (help for the bleeding/poverty stricken man) by giving all control to the state. Communsim/state socialism/state communism and anarch-socilaism/anarcho communism, the two main divisions of "socialism" both have the aim in helping that man stumbling down the street. The difference is, Lenin and Trotsky say you can help him by giving all power to the state, and the state will help him, which I find ludicris.

My question was more a question of how politics/the economy is set up, rather then the porpose of the institutions.

the condtradiction I see (not nessicarily in your views, but in the Communist viewpoint in general) is that you can get social justice (help for the bleeding/poverty stricken man) by giving all control to the state. Communsim/state socialism/state communism and anarch-socilaism/anarcho communism, the two main divisions of "socialism" both have the aim in helping that man stumbling down the street. The difference is, Lenin and Trotsky say you can help him by giving all power to the state, and the state will help him, which I find ludicris.

My question was more a question of how politics/the economy is set up, rather then the porpose of the institutions.

Dude, that's not real Communism. That's perverted Communism. We ("We" being those of us who call ourselves Communists, barring those of us like DHomme) are anything but the people you described.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

This should open your mind a bit.

laizzez-faire
You mean you actually spell it LIKE THAT?

(laissez-faire, you mean)

Dude, that's not real Communism. That's perverted Communism. We ("We" being those of us who call ourselves Communists, barring those of us like DHomme) are anything but the people you described.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

This should open your mind a bit.

Okay, haven't read much of that link, but it says it's an anarchist FAQ. Communism=Anarchy now?

Dude, that's not real Communism. That's perverted Communism. We ("We" being those of us who call ourselves Communists, barring those of us like DHomme) are anything but the people you described.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/

This should open your mind a bit.

That's anarchism, or anarcho-communism. Which I think is a great system. But it's not the state-communism espouced by Marx, Engles, Lenin, and the like.

It was the communists that, along with Franco's facists, supported by Hitler, destroyed the Spanash anarchists, who had a working anarcho-communist society.

but I personally reject Communism and state-socialism as fericly as I reject facism and authoritarianism.
1. State socialism is not communist, and it is not bad in itself (I am a Socialist, but not a Marxist). In fact, Engels rejected state socialism as apllied by Bismarck or the Social-Democrats.
2. State ownership is not anti-democratic.
3. The concept of state intervention is, in pure ideological terms, a necessary stage towards collective ownership in Marxism. Socialism is described as a "phase".
4. The real point about fascism is not wether you reject it, but if it rejects you. My point: fascism is only secondary as a revolutin, it stemmed up as a reaction to various forms of (then existing) Socialism, promoting a society in which state control and capital would go hand in hand - "corporatism". Corporatism means to exclude class-conflict as a notion, advocating that all classes could "collaborate" in a new society. BUT, and this is MOST IMPORTANT, fascism is the direct contribution of a system that means to preserve the world in capitalist terms. The ugly part, that no free-marketeer would assert, is that much of the classical, middle-of-the-road attitude could be conquered by such a "solution". (If you people wish to debate me on this, at least get passed the "we have changed since then" argument. No: the more things change, the more they stay the same.)

Communism, capitalism, whatever. In my opinion, if one's idea of running a nation involves following an ideology as closely as possible, one has already failed.

That's anarchism, or anarcho-communism. Which I think is a great system. But it's not the state-communism espouced by Marx, Engles, Lenin, and the like.

It was the communists that, along with Franco's facists, supported by Hitler, destroyed the Spanash anarchists, who had a working anarcho-communist society.

Ugh, don't even get me started with "State Communism"...

Isn't it funny how many people who talk about "freedom" and reject authoritarianism also support Communism, which is simply the ecomonic form of political absolutism, and reject capitalism as all-evil, even though it is the free-est of the economic systems? Now, I'm no lessie-faire (I know I misspellled it, no need to point that out) capitalist, and I realise that the system does need safeguards, and my conscience compels me to see the need for programs to help the lower classes of society, but I personally reject Communism and state-socialism as fericly as I reject facism and authoritarianism. I would think more people would see the contradiction in being politically libertarian and supporting communism, which puts all economic power in the hands of the state. Why don't they?

You are ill informed, my friend.

Communism is an economic model. Nothing more.

It is 'the means of production, in the hands of the producer'.

There is no automatic implication of statism or absolutism in the phrase 'communist'.

In fact, many forms of communism are actively anti-statist... like anarcho-communism... which is directly democratic, and decidedly anti-absolutist.

Isn't it funny how many people who talk about "freedom" and reject authoritarianism also support Communism
Good point.

Isn't it funny how many people don't think enough?

Including making sweeping generalizations?

Good point.

Isn't it funny how many people don't think enough?

Including making sweeping generalizations?

Swish.:p :D

In fact, many forms of communism are actively anti-statist... like anarcho-communism... which is directly democratic, and decidedly anti-absolutist.

Indeed!

Your understanding of communism is quite simplistic. Communism is basically a name for a form of socialism, an economic system and not a form of government any more than capitalism is a form of government.

Good point.

Isn't it funny how many people don't think enough?

Including making sweeping generalizations?

Oh that's not quite a sweeping generalization,he only was talking about err...just about every citizen of a democracy.

I would think more people would see the contradiction in being politically libertarian and supporting communism, which puts all economic power in the hands of the state. Why don't they?
It's rather more complex than that. Most communists advocate a minimal or non-existent government. Most communists see capitalism as authoritarian and heirarchical (let's face it; it is). Most communists also consider private property to be theft, because before modern societies emerged, people owned property collectively. Only in the past few thousand years have people taken things by force and declared them to be their "property".

In a communist system, communism is freedom.

the condtradiction I see (not nessicarily in your views, but in the Communist viewpoint in general) is that you can get social justice (help for the bleeding/poverty stricken man) by giving all control to the state.
You're just thinking of "liberty". This can be broken down into positive liberty, for example, my right to spend money; and negative liberty, for example my right not to get blown up on the way to work. Socialists, as was made clear by Kroisistan, tend to go for negative liberties over positive liberties.

That's anarchism, or anarcho-communism. Which I think is a great system. But it's not the state-communism espouced by Marx, Engles, Lenin, and the like.
Marx and Engles didn't support that form of communism, and neither do most communists today.

It's rather more complex than that. Most communists advocate a minimal or non-existent government.
I have yet to meet one. The idea that the state can [or even will] "wither away" is a ridiculous one. Communists are quick to point out that people refuse to relenquish power when it is given to them, and then in the next breath proclaim that their followers are the only exception to this rule.I'm sorry, but I see a number of problems with this, and it's one of the reasons why I prefer an ideology that's at least honest with itself.

Most communists see capitalism as authoritarian and heirarchical (let's face it; it is). Most communists also consider private property to be theft, because before modern societies emerged, people owned property collectively. Only in the past few thousand years have people taken things by force and declared them to be their "property".
Yes, and before modern societies emerged the average life expectancy was in the thirties worldwide, and people died regularly from diseases we can cure with a simple shot today. Before modern society emerged the Church was the be-all and end-all of moral authority, and people ran around in rags waving swords at each other.

The advent of private property has been nothing but a boon on civilization [excepting, for the moment, irrational and/or hurtful uses for said property]. Because an incentive to succeed was created, people went out and did great things. There's a reason we left the barter system in the dust, Swimmingpool, and we've never looked back.

Well, I guess some of us do. For all the spite Communists have for reactionaries, they seem to prefer turning the clock back by twelve [i]hundred years as opposed to the 50-150 year backtrack real reactionaries favor.

In a communist system, communism is freedom.
My ass.

Well, communism is freedom for several reasons.
The statist communist (Hoxhaists, Maoists, Mormons) say it's freedom. You can't question the central planners.

I have yet to meet one. The idea that the state can [or even will] "wither away" is a ridiculous one. Communists are quick to point out that people [i.e. Capitalists] refuse to relenquish power when it is given to them, and then in the next breath proclaim that their followers are the only exception to this rule.I'm sorry, but I see a number of problems with this, and it's one of the reasons why I prefer an ideology that's at least honest with itself.
I agree with that on principle (and am not a communist). However, the point is that the theory these people believe in is not necessarily authoritarian. It is illogical, but that's another matter.
I also think it is unfair to judge people who believe in variants of communism that have nothing to do with Stalin, Mao etc. by ponting out failures in those systems. If anything, they have their own absurdities - and they are discussing them, not enforcing them.
"Communism" has several and distinct meanings. I'm tired of seeing people mixing them for the sake of argument. They are these:
- communism as a "factual" and "natural" state - the ideology of Anarcho-communists and some others (many gone extinct in the last 150 years). These people are not only liberal in their outlook, they were opposed to Marxism from its very beginning and were persecuted by Marxist regimes.
- communism as the last stage of development in the very complex portrayal and critique of human history that was presented by Marx and amended by Lenin (arguably, the very first divergence in Marxism - leading to distinct theories, most of which have never been applied).
- communism as the ideology of Marxist parties (again, a variety of traditions and practices) - meaning "having communism as Marx understood/foresaw it as an ultimate goal". Paradoxical as this is, to be authoritarian made sense inside the dogma.
- communism as an annoying insult (and a twist, and a misnomer) applied by the American right (and some other rights) to every socially-minded measure.

Oh that's not quite a sweeping generalization,he only was talking about err...just about every citizen of a democracy.
I'm thinking that this, too, is a sweeping generalization. (By the way, my earlier post was half in jest, as I too was making one.)

But anyway. Most citizens of democracies recognize that Communism and communism are different. One has proved itself as a whole system of living, including a strictly subordinate relationship with the government and its power. The other is an ideal of socioeconomic justice.

I have yet to meet one. The idea that the state can [or even will] "wither away" is a ridiculous one. Communists are quick to point out that people refuse to relenquish power when it is given to them, and then in the next breath proclaim that their followers are the only exception to this rule.I'm sorry, but I see a number of problems with this, and it's one of the reasons why I prefer an ideology that's at least honest with itself.


Yes, and before modern societies emerged the average life expectancy was in the thirties worldwide, and people died regularly from diseases we can cure with a simple shot today. Before modern society emerged the Church was the be-all and end-all of moral authority, and people ran around in rags waving swords at each other.

The advent of private property has been nothing but a boon on civilization [excepting, for the moment, irrational and/or hurtful uses for said property]. Because an incentive to succeed was created, people went out and did great things. There's a reason we left the barter system in the dust, Swimmingpool, and we've never looked back.

Well, I guess some of us do. For all the spite Communists have for reactionaries, they seem to prefer turning the clock back by twelve [i]hundred years as opposed to the 50-150 year backtrack real reactionaries favor.


I'd have to say, I disagree with almost everything you've said here.

As far as I can see, the modern form of capitalism, coupled with our slight democracy, is as doomed as the feudal model was... and will eventually pass.

We seem to be on the lookout for greater personal freedoms, for greater input in government, for greater moral and religious permissiveness... and these ideals are parhaps BEST realised, in a real-world-possible model, in the Direct Democracy of a Rational Anarchy. And, the strongest anarchy model is the voluntary community, with pooled means of production, and pooled resources.

This is the model we seek anyway... this is the model we seek for our families, this is often the model we seek for our circles of friends. It is the direction society is tending towards.

Is the advent of private property the spur to innovation? I seem no reason to believe it to be so. Einstein wasn't calculating for personal gain. Keppler wasn't looking to make money. Most of the truly great innovations have been from the pursuit of truth, not the pursuit of cash.

In fact, one COULD strongly argue that capitalism actively stifles many forms of innovation. If one looks at medicines, for example, pharmaceutical companies keep new advances on the books, quite often, until a 'new improved' product is needed as a product release.

Similarly, most of the true innovation in fuel technology is locked up in oil-company-owned patents. Innovation held hostage to profiteering.

All systems for attaining social justice have the same flaw: they all rely on human beings to act in a particular way. However, "human nature" covers such a wide range of behaviours (even within a single individual) that attempts to harness human nature and drive it toward goodness will always ultimately fail.

The only way for any system to work is for the greatest number of individual people possible to act ethically and in a manner considerate of the needs of others.

I have yet to meet one. The idea that the state can [or even will] "wither away" is a ridiculous one. Communists are quick to point out that people [i.e. Capitalists] refuse to relenquish power when it is given to them, and then in the next breath proclaim that their followers are the only exception to this rule.I'm sorry, but I see a number of problems with this, and it's one of the reasons why I prefer an ideology that's at least honest with itself.
This is the crux of their problem. Most communists concern themselves with the ideal condition (the "end" result of successful communist transition... one without government). There's no attention to detail (that I see or hear from them) concerning how we'll arrive in that Utopia.
Those with power will (of course!) give it up "when the time comes".

For a group of supposed atheists, they sure have a lot of unwarranted faith.

Allow society to evolve naturally, no central planning. I take a Hayekian view of this situation.

For a group of supposed atheists, they sure have a lot of unwarranted faith.

Atheist is not actually a requirement of communism... and an 'atheist' state is no more atheist than a religious state is automatically 'religious'.

Atheist is not actually a requirement of communism... and an 'atheist' state is no more atheist than a religious state is automatically 'religious'.
Thanks for sharing, but that was hardly the content of my post (it was a sarcastic jab). I'd much rather hear a response to the valid question I posted. Got one?

Amoebistan, yeah I suppose I'm a gradualist in that respect.

I would think more people would see the contradiction in being politically libertarian and supporting communism, which puts all economic power in the hands of the state. Why don't they?

Because to a communist of the non-anarchist variety there is no contradiction at all.

The basic concept is, under a democratic communist state the capability of both the state and the capitalist to oppress the individual is eliminated, while in other systems one or both remain.

Thanks for sharing, but that was hardly the content of my post (it was a sarcastic jab). I'd much rather hear a response to the valid question I posted. Got one?

Having read your post, I don't see anything even resembling a question... although I suppose what you want is someone to debate the content of your assertions?

Sarcastic jab or otherwise, your last comment was erroneous. Just because SOME communists have been Atheists, doesn't make it a requirement of communism. Also - just because a 'society' is 'Atheistic', doesn't make ALL the people in that society Atheistic. Your 'sarcastic jab' falls flat, by making a joke at the expense of nothing but a strawman.

So - let's look at the actual post you made:

"This is the crux of their problem. Most communists concern themselves with the ideal condition (the "end" result of successful communist transition... one without government). There's no attention to detail (that I see or hear from them) concerning how we'll arrive in that Utopia.
Those with power will (of course!) give it up "when the time comes".

1) There is no reason to believe that ALL communists consider a result 'without government' to be desirable. This MIGHT be true for anarcho-communists... it is certainly not true for ALL communists.

2) The important thing IS the end result. Were the pro-capitalist factions in 'Soviet Russia' any LESS pro-capitalism JUST because they had an ideal, but no real roadmap on how to get there? The 'route' to communism varies from individual to individual... some might favour bloody revolution (it's been done before), some might favour a quiet coup, some might favour ballot box success.

3) This - one assumes - is the part you consider the 'question'... the idea that 'those with power' voluntarily 'give it up'...? How is this even relevent? Does the Conservative Party 'voluntarily give up' power when Labour beat them in an election? Does the Democrat Party 'voluntarily give up' power when the Republicans gain power?

When the balance of power changes, there are always some that accept it, and there are always some that oppose it. It is not a criticism of any GIVEN political model.

4) In the case of Statist communist regimes, those that had power might not even NEED to give it up...

Because to a communist of the non-anarchist variety there is no contradiction at all.

The basic concept is, under a democratic communist state the capability of both the state and the capitalist to oppress the individual is eliminated, while in other systems one or both remain.

I don't understand this communist line of thinking.

How can democracy undermine the state? Isn't a democracy still a state, with all of the powers of any totalitarian state?

When you look at it, the only way to communism is actually quite close to 'conservative' thinking.

In an anarchist society, people need to be rational and have good community spirit. Which is pretty much what the British Conservative party is always ranting on about.

Sweet irony...