Can someone who has a grasp about Communism explain something?

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

In short, we are only as free, as our freedom enables the government to become more powerful. Our government is powerful, because we have been so productive, which has enabled our government to use our productivity to build a massive military, and to develop technology, and to exploit foreign markets through currency manipulation, and to arm and finance factions within countries(IE through our CIA), who further our own geopolitical interests.


You have a naive and idealist view of the world.

Perhaps some other involuntary influence is skewing his vision.

[Y2Jayy]

Originally Posted by Sweekansas

Now I really don't fully understand the whole concept of Communism so to those that do I have a question.

As far as I know, with Communism no matter whether you work a lot, or a little you should be earning the same amount. So does that not mean someone in the highest levels of the Politburo should not be being paid any more than your typical peasant farmer guy? And one complaint about capitalism was that there were people at the top making a lot more than those at the bottom, but when the USSR existed for example, didn't those at the top make a ton more than those at the bottom? In their minds how did they justify it? Didn't those at the high levels making and acquiring more than those at the bottom go inherently AGAINST their ideology?

There's a difference between communism and socialism. In communism, where there is enough for everybody, everyone would contribute as much as they could, and would receive whatever they needed. But communism is still a long way off. Even Communist countries don't see "true communism" as coming into existence within their lifetime, let alone in the next century. Marx specifically said that the emergence of communism was not something that could be created by political action, but would naturally arise as a result of economic progress and the material base that this progress would create.

I believe the best way to summarize it is this. Political action is necessary but not sufficient to establish communism. Also, technological progress is necessary, but not sufficient to establish communism either. The historical role of a Communist Party is to liberate the productive forces to establish the necessary technological conditions for communism to be able to exist, and also to establish a political system in which the reactionary classes cannot prevent this system from coming into being.

Would you accept being charged and forced to pay for the air you breathe? If you're like the average person, you would not. You'd see it as a scheme to privatize what rightly belongs to nobody and to everyone. But why is this so? It's because there's enough air for everyone to use. There's no scarcity. In the same way, if our society ever advances to the point where ALL human needs and wants are as abundant as air currently is, it would be illogical and unnecessary for private ownership of goods to exist. In other words, the sociopolitical structures that make sense to have are determined by the level of a society's technology. Just as it wouldn't make sense for a modern technological economy to be governed by a feudal political system, it wouldn't make sense for a super-advanced society to have private ownership. Our current sociopolitical structure is, according to Communist ideology, just a temporary phase of history that will eventually be superseded. The function of the Communist Party is to accelerate these changes, to bring about Communism as quickly as possible.

I think the ultimate reason why communism will fail is because our lives are too short, and the Communist worldview only makes sense if you're thinking on a centuries-long time horizon. It's also why we're not doing much about climate change. We'll all be dead before it gets too bad...in the same way, why would people sacrifice for a system that will only come into existence at an indefinite point in the future, if at all.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Sweekansas

Now I really don't fully understand the whole concept of Communism so to those that do I have a question.

As far as I know, with Communism no matter whether you work a lot, or a little you should be earning the same amount. So does that not mean someone in the highest levels of the Politburo should not be being paid any more than your typical peasant farmer guy? And one complaint about capitalism was that there were people at the top making a lot more than those at the bottom, but when the USSR existed for example, didn't those at the top make a ton more than those at the bottom? In their minds how did they justify it? Didn't those at the high levels making and acquiring more than those at the bottom go inherently AGAINST their ideology?

Are you talking about the USSR OR Communism?
Because the USSR was only dubbed as "Communist" country ( after the name of the party that ruled it - the Communist party of the Soviet Union,) but if was never a communist country for real - they officially acknowledged that theirs was a country of "developed socialism."
And no, whether you worked "a little" or "a lot" DID make difference. It did make difference as well, where exactly you worked, in what industry/ in what position and so on.
I don't know exactly how much "those on top" were making - ( we are talking government I assume,) however whatever their salaries were, it was not as important as their privileges, i.e. special stores and hospitals. ( So the gap in payments per se was not all that huge.) In this case they thought that they were deserving of these privileges, since they were taking care of the rest of population. So when they were pointing at capitalism and condemning it, they were basically saying that in capitalism the capitalists on top, while striving for more and more money, leave the lower classes ( at whose expense they make all their riches) with nothing, while in the S.U. everyone was guaranteed a roof over one's head, affordable food, family care, rent, transportation - things like that.

[skepticratic]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

It depends on how people define freedom. I find that often there is a confusion in this issue, the same people who claim the have certain rights which are really just a dictation to another to provide for them. Regulation, like my law example should never treat a business like a criminal or pro actively punish. It should be reactive (arbitrate liberty violations only) and place the responsibility in the peoples hands to seek a certain level of expected behavior. If a business does not comply, then I can as a free individual choose not to do business with them and tell others of my experience with a given issue. Again, the point is minimal government to arbitrate a violation, not attempt to regulate to avoid any possibility of occurrence. Remember, heavy regulation is how big business colludes with government to shut down competition.

I think we'd agree that plenty of regulations currently in effect are bad things. They hurt small business owners and are put in place by big corporations that can handle the regulations. And as you said, big business will use their influence on government to create these regulations. But here's the thing; if there are regulations that limit the powers of big business, then that can't happen. And those are the kinds of regulations I think are necessary.

You said government has created many monopolies and indeed they have. It's my view that the government has the responsibility to end that. Going back to Teddy Roosevelt (consider this my response to that), he was called the trust buster for a reason. And no, he was not perfect, but he was, in my view, absolutely correct in the belief that big business conglomerates needed to be broken up as they are, by nature, threats to freedom. The Republican party at that time was filled with people who were owned by bug businesses (you know, like nearly all of our politicians now) and Roosevelt at least put that on hold, and even if not all of the things he did were star-spangled awesome, that's at least an improvement.

For clarity, it is my view that government regulation should prevent power and money from amassing in a single source as whoever has that wealth can use that to buy power and oppress the people by means of government control. And this isn't just based on Bernie Sanders/Donald Trump rhetoric or something. Very wealthy people do this all the time. The Founding fathers didn't trust corporations for their ability to manipulate political power and limited what they could do. Hell, go back to the Republic of Florence in Italy c. 1400. The Medici family was a family of rich bankers who funded political campaigns, so much so that when leaders of other cities came to Florence, they'd visit the Medici mansion before meeting with any elected officials. A certain level of inequality is reasonably acceptable, but at a certain point, it destroys freedom.

We don't have a free market though. What we have had for most of our history is heavy government regulation, basically socialism. We haven't known a free market most of this countries history. Government has always been in th driving seat dictating to the market the winners and losers.

Indeed. I think there's a certain level of inevitability with that which is why a focus on republican government is necessary. More public oversight of government (and in my view business) would result in more freedom overall. I'm not saying it would magically make all problems go away. Literally nothing can do that and anyone claiming they have a plan to do so is an idiot and deserves to be told they're an idiot by literally everyone who has ever lived. Exaggerating a bit obviously, but my general point is to encourage skepticism of utopian ideals. And yes, that includes Marx. But it also includes Adam Smith and John Locke and basically every political philosopher who's job is to argue that if their ideals were implemented exactly as they see them, things would be ok. And maybe that's true. If Marx could run a country and everything goes exactly his way likes it's a game of Sim, maybe things would be perfect. But, nothings works like that. This does not invalidate their views though. The principles and ideals of Smith, Locke, Marx, Rawls, and anyone else all have value, outside of the literal methodologies they say should exist.

Completely free, sure, but a liberty based government is not without regulation. Some exists, but it is reactive mostly and it makes no steps to dictate to the market or shape it for any purpose. The federal governments sole purpose is to defend the states from invasion and handle disputes between the states in the basic spirit of the declaration of independence and constrained to the specific limitations that the federal constitution provides.

A liberty based government is only concerned about infringement of liberties, not if someone is getting their "fair" share. The problem is that people keep wanting to fix the system to solve equality issues regardless if there is a liberty violation. That is progressive policy, that is communist thinking and it is not compatible with a liberty based government.

But again, there is a link between class and liberty. To restate the basic point, those with less usually end up mattering less to those who have more. And yes, the government enables the super wealthy to do this, but this doesn't mean the government alone is the bad guy. Both business and government should be subject to public oversight.

[skepticratic]

Originally Posted by NxtGen

I reject this as it is the very excuse statists give to ignore the individuals liberty. They claim people don't understand, they are stupid, they just don't know, but government knows and government can fix it. This is at the core of these collectivist systems, they just do not respect the individual, they are considered lesser.

I don't think statists are the only ones who could use that argument though. Marx was arguing that workers were being exploited for their labor, saying this is oppression. Bernie Sanders describes $7.25 as a starvation wage. The average hourly wage in 1860 was about $0.10, and in today's standards, is around $2.75. Granted, cost of living may have been different, it's still fair to say that Marx probably would have sucked a dick to get workers in his day that kind of money. In fact, just for fun, $7.25 in 1860 is equally to nearly $200 in 2016. If you pitched a wage like that to Marx, he'd probably tell you to be more reasonable.

In a liberty based society, there is no blame for continued poor treatment to the individual. Each individual is responsible to themselves and they can choose to be oppressed or not. They can choose their working conditions or not. They can weight what they will accept for the benefit that it will gain them. There are no victims when you choose to accept your oppressor. Again, this concept is the failing of collectivist. Marx does not respect the individual, he considers them lesser, unable to think and act in their own best interests. He points to a person who chooses mistreatment and claims they are without choice, yet there is no slavery in this discussion as the individual is free to choose their own path. Not everyone worked in such conditions, not everyone was subject to employers of such bad treatment. Not everyone lived under such, yet Marx disregards the individuals choice and lumps all into a collectivist means to generalize them to his favor.

This is how collectivists end up killing millions of people. They care not of the individual, only of their generalized assumptions of the whole. One size fits all, all must conform... Freedom is slavery... etc...

But if you can choose to be oppressed, you are not being oppressed. If I'm a slave, but I'm free to go, I'm not a slave. And sure, the government can maintain the institution of slavery, but individuals also did. And we can say that those individuals abused government power, and sure, but this still makes a central point of mine more clear. Oppression doesn't always start with the government. The government may be the mode to do so, as it's the easiest to use, but individuals can use their influence to make the government do what they want.

I think it's debatable rather or not Marx doesn't value the individual, but regardless of that, I think it's important to note that collectivists, as a whole, don't all not value the individual regardless of what Marx things. A contrast between collectivists and individualistic is generally about economic philosophy and not necessarily about social philosophy, which would be better contrasted with libertarian and authoritarian principles. Libertarians collectivists do exist, and they value individuals. Just as authoritarian individualists exists. Based on popular opinion, these seem like oxymoron, but they aren't. Anarcho-Communism argues for no government and people will voluntarily form what are basically unions and work for each other and authoritarian right wing ideology is basically it's a free market until the state decides you aren't helpful (classical fascism if you will; not to be confused with Hitler's National Socialism, which was sort of center right, with a foot in center left).

You are entitled to you own opinoins, but not your own facts. You are word smithing if you are reading that as my claim to an active attack on communists.

More specifically... :is the killing of them in defense of their tyranny of free people."

in the defense of their tyranny of the free people.

Do you know what that means? It means the communists will demand compliance, we will not comply.

They will come to enforce, we will resist..

They will escalate in violence to kill to force compliance or as Marx said, eliminate those who would impede a communistic goal, we will return in kind.

Make no mistake, they will be the aggressor, they will show up under the threat of violence. They will be the murderers, we will kill in self defense.

There is no defense of the aggression to which such collectivist principals will surely come to bare on the free thinking individual.

If someone demands compliance, so be it. BUT, I wouldn't say all collectivists or communists would demand compliance. After all, you're threatening to kill over their hatred of capitalism is, in it's own way, demanding compliance.

Regardless, you said at one point that I would be the aggressor. Here's my official position: so long as free speech is not being violated, there is almost never a need nor justification for violent revolution. And let me be clear on what free speech is: it's freedom of thought (which would include things like political speech and religious/political ideology), freedom of press, the right to vote, and the right to assemble and peacefully protest. These are means to fight political revolutions without killing or inciting violence. Once you take away any aspect of free speech, you bring whatever violence falls upon you on yourself. That's my position. If that sounds like an aggressor to you, so be it.