5 ms·

I anticipated that your argument would go in this direction. It's a common line of argument for modern Communists. It's why I touched on what has happened when

by Kalium 11y ago

I anticipated that your argument would go in this direction. It's a common line of argument for modern Communists. It's why I touched on what has happened when attempts are made. Again, a state of affairs that cannot be achieved by acceptable means is not an experiment worth repeating. There is no reason to think that a future attempt will have different results from past attempts. Given the costs, why would you think this a reasonable thing to try? Have you seriously considered the possibility that what you want is untestable, because to get to that state requires some intermediate stages we consider unacceptable? Put another way: if a friend tells you that they have invented a way to solve all energy problems forever, they just need to start with a perpetual motion machine, how seriously would you take them?

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Are you suggesting a leaderless society cannot exist or merely that it is hard to achieve? As for past attempts, they were communist in name only. If I said the air doesn't exist because I can't find unicorns, that's the level of absurdity that calling a dictatorship a communist society exists in.
- Kalium 11y ago
  I'm suggesting that in all previous attempts to reach the state you consider heretofore unreached, the states passed through have highly undesirable consequences. The uniformity of this result is striking and the consequences grave. I'm suggesting that attempting to create a Communist society is a really bad idea. Every previous attempt to do so has led to exceptionally bad consequences. You've provided no reason to think that a new effort will avoid repeating these mistakes. In fact, all you've done is insist that the end goal of Communism has not been achieved. That a leaderless society has not yet been created in the name of Communism isn't relevant to what has resulted from historical attempts to create such. It matters not one whit to the question of what all previous attempt to achieve such a goal have produced. Is your goal of a leaderless society with shared means of production achievable? I don't know. I do know that I don't think it's worth killing another thirty million people for the sake of another attempt at finding out. History strongly suggests that that is a significantly more likely outcome of an attempt than the creation of a stable leaderless society with shared means of production. It's in no way relevant that (Russia|China|North Korea|Cuba) are not or have ever been genuinely Communist in an idealist sense. It doesn't matter if there ever has been a True Scotsman. In conclusion, every attempt at Communism has failed. This is because every attempt to get to Communism has failed. This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism. This in turn suggests that Communism cannot ever be evaluated because it is not achieveable by means we consider acceptable. Thus, the initial question of "Has Communism been attempted and failed, where Communism is defined in a textbook manner and the transition to it ignored?" is rendered null and void. In other words, if you can't find unicorns, it might be time to reconsider the policy of virgin human sacrifice in order to search for unicorns.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism." It's clear now this is the core of your argument, so let's explore possible transitions further. First of all, let's examine direct democracy. Direct democracy is closer to communism than any of the attempts (by nation states) that have been given its name. In the age of the Internet, direct democracy is easier than ever to organise. Effectively, you need two things: 1. An inclusive, informative news media. 2. A way to collect votes. Are two things above hard to achieve? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say they were more than achievable. How does direct democracy pave the way for communism? Firstly, it begins the process of breaking down the power structures that currently exist, and provides an alternative means of organising society that can fill the power vacuum. Secondly, it gets people used to the balance between the individual and the collective. We can achieve great things when we work together, but that should not come through forceful means, the rights of the individual to choose their own path should still be valued. Thoughts?
    - Kalium 11y ago
      I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure. You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all. Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established. You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media. Or how nearly-hairless primates react to the presence of tribes other than their own. Along the way, you've also ignored the implicit power structures inherent in having news media systems and voting systems. So, let's go back to the problem here. All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates? The core of my argument is that every time someone who thinks like you gets taken seriously at a society-wide level, a crapload of people die and the end goal is never achieved. So far, you've failed to make a case that this time is different.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "Are you suggesting a leaderless society cannot exist or merely that it is hard to achieve?" At the end of the day, someone has to be the one to make the call to press the button.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    That can happen democratically, you don't need to give the final say to a single individual or small group.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others while simultaneously introducing all the problems of the tyranny of the majority. In your efforts to try to fix bugs, you are re-introducing older bugs. Have you considered that a rewrite from scratch may not be ideal here, given how hard it is to get a functioning system?
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Explain what makes democracy incompatible with communism. Also, note that the tyranny of the majority only applies if and when force is applied. Being in a minority is not necessarily problematic.
        Kalium 11y ago
        > Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others Here is the explanation you seek, friend. You are implicitly re-creating a leading class. The problem only appears solved because the class is implicit instead of explicit. And historically, you've probably killed a couple million people by now.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others" Persuasion is far more palatable than physical force. Furthermore, in a direct democracy, those with charisma still do not make the final decision, all decisions go to a vote. If an individual proves influential, then they have a level of power, but opinions that serve the influential individual at the expense of their audience are not likely to gain traction.

by Kalium 11y ago

ZenoArrow 11y ago

Are you suggesting a leaderless society cannot exist or merely that it is hard to achieve? As for past attempts, they were communist in name only. If I said the air doesn't exist because I can't find unicorns, that's the level of absurdity that calling a dictatorship a communist society exists in.

Kalium 11y ago
I'm suggesting that in all previous attempts to reach the state you consider heretofore unreached, the states passed through have highly undesirable consequences. The uniformity of this result is striking and the consequences grave. I'm suggesting that attempting to create a Communist society is a really bad idea. Every previous attempt to do so has led to exceptionally bad consequences. You've provided no reason to think that a new effort will avoid repeating these mistakes. In fact, all you've done is insist that the end goal of Communism has not been achieved. That a leaderless society has not yet been created in the name of Communism isn't relevant to what has resulted from historical attempts to create such. It matters not one whit to the question of what all previous attempt to achieve such a goal have produced. Is your goal of a leaderless society with shared means of production achievable? I don't know. I do know that I don't think it's worth killing another thirty million people for the sake of another attempt at finding out. History strongly suggests that that is a significantly more likely outcome of an attempt than the creation of a stable leaderless society with shared means of production. It's in no way relevant that (Russia|China|North Korea|Cuba) are not or have ever been genuinely Communist in an idealist sense. It doesn't matter if there ever has been a True Scotsman. In conclusion, every attempt at Communism has failed. This is because every attempt to get to Communism has failed. This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism. This in turn suggests that Communism cannot ever be evaluated because it is not achieveable by means we consider acceptable. Thus, the initial question of "Has Communism been attempted and failed, where Communism is defined in a textbook manner and the transition to it ignored?" is rendered null and void. In other words, if you can't find unicorns, it might be time to reconsider the policy of virgin human sacrifice in order to search for unicorns.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  > "This is significant because it calls into question the plausibility and achieveability of any kind of transition to Communism." It's clear now this is the core of your argument, so let's explore possible transitions further. First of all, let's examine direct democracy. Direct democracy is closer to communism than any of the attempts (by nation states) that have been given its name. In the age of the Internet, direct democracy is easier than ever to organise. Effectively, you need two things: 1. An inclusive, informative news media. 2. A way to collect votes. Are two things above hard to achieve? Depends on who you ask, but I'd say they were more than achievable. How does direct democracy pave the way for communism? Firstly, it begins the process of breaking down the power structures that currently exist, and provides an alternative means of organising society that can fill the power vacuum. Secondly, it gets people used to the balance between the individual and the collective. We can achieve great things when we work together, but that should not come through forceful means, the rights of the individual to choose their own path should still be valued. Thoughts?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    I think that primates are instinctual hierarchical creatures, much given to hierarchies of power. I think we are also subject to a wide variety of cognitive flaws and easily misled by emotions. I think that any political philosophy based on blithely ignoring the traits of human psychology is highly likely to fail. I further think that historical attempts to do so have displayed a disturbing tendency towards spectacular failure. You have also erred in other ways, such as assuming that an identical balance between the individual and the collective is desirable for all. Further, you've assumed that breaking down current power structures will be followed by your preferred "means of organizing society" being adhered to instead of new power structures being established. You've also ignored tribe-forming behaviors that can be reasonable expected to occur around active, inclusive, informative news media. Or how nearly-hairless primates react to the presence of tribes other than their own. Along the way, you've also ignored the implicit power structures inherent in having news media systems and voting systems. So, let's go back to the problem here. All historical attempts to transition to Communism have resulted in terrifying numbers of dead people. This is so strikingly uniform that I am disinclined to think it an accident. Why would this time be any different at all, given that we're still dealing with the same nearly-hairless primates? The core of my argument is that every time someone who thinks like you gets taken seriously at a society-wide level, a crapload of people die and the end goal is never achieved. So far, you've failed to make a case that this time is different.
s73v3r 11y ago
"Are you suggesting a leaderless society cannot exist or merely that it is hard to achieve?" At the end of the day, someone has to be the one to make the call to press the button.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  That can happen democratically, you don't need to give the final say to a single individual or small group.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others while simultaneously introducing all the problems of the tyranny of the majority. In your efforts to try to fix bugs, you are re-introducing older bugs. Have you considered that a rewrite from scratch may not be ideal here, given how hard it is to get a functioning system?
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      Explain what makes democracy incompatible with communism. Also, note that the tyranny of the majority only applies if and when force is applied. Being in a minority is not necessarily problematic.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        > Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others Here is the explanation you seek, friend. You are implicitly re-creating a leading class. The problem only appears solved because the class is implicit instead of explicit. And historically, you've probably killed a couple million people by now.
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "Now you're implicitly allotting power to those with the charisma and reach to sway others" Persuasion is far more palatable than physical force. Furthermore, in a direct democracy, those with charisma still do not make the final decision, all decisions go to a vote. If an individual proves influential, then they have a level of power, but opinions that serve the influential individual at the expense of their audience are not likely to gain traction.