14 ms·

Communism isn't some "radical" boogeyman, it's just a process to eliminate inequality. (Why should there be any inequality at all?) We don't need to be diminuti

Communism isn't some "radical" boogeyman, it's just a process to eliminate inequality. (Why should there be any inequality at all?) We don't need to be diminutive about relatively different ideas; that's unhelpful at best.

hash-set 10y ago
Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead left in its wake.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  There have been nowhere near enough actual trials of communism to conclude anything fully. The core examples were all poorer countries with various problems, corruption… To reject communism as a concept over the atrocities of Stalin et al is as reasonable as rejecting capitalism because the U.S. was built on slavery and the genocide of first peoples. The atrocities were real, and they did connect to economics, but to just assert that capitalism is the slavery of U.S. history or that communism just is gulags and bread lines is extremely short-sighted. Neither system was anything like the core principles of the economic models (which are just models, so we should reject anyone who focuses only on the models and not on practical reality, but we can't treat each real-world case as the definitive case either).
  - darawk 10y ago
    While you are right, many people (e.g. Hayek) argue that collectivism entails authoritarianism and control. That the two are inextricably linked, due primarily to the local knowledge problem. I'm not necessarily arguing that that is the case just trying to explain why people make this argument. The idea is that, logically, any economically communist country will, by definition, eventually come to resemble the Soviet Union, China, and other negative instances. We can debate whether or not that is so, but I think it's a legitimate debate to have, especially being that all known examples have in fact worked out that way.
  - 4WIW 10y ago
    You can say the same thing about National-Socialism or any other ideology out there. There are just not enough countries to try them all on, and I am not sure why should we...
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      National Socialism (i.e. Hitler) was based fundamentally on nationalism and racism. We can reject it because the principles themselves are unethical. We can reject it even if it had succeeded economically! If you want to make an argument that the principles of communism are unethical, that's an independent argument from the claim that certain historic attempts had various atrocities and therefore you reject the principles (even though many of the atrocities are not related to the principles — Stalin disappearing his political enemies has no basis in communist principles…
      - 4WIW 10y ago
        1. My argument was about "National Socialism and any other ideology out there", you focused only on the first part. Even if you filter out unethical ones (not sure how, but let's say you can), there would still be too many to try, and not sure why should we keep trying theories instead of letting the society evolve in a natural way. 2. Specifically about giving communism a fair trial despite all past failures because it is "ethical": no thanks. I find its principle of "dictatorship of the proletariat" unethical and proven disastrous. 3. Stalin disappearing his political enemies was rooted at least in part in Lenin's cornerstone principle of "democratic centralism" which was critical ingredient for the success of the communist revolution. Trying to decouple the two doesn't do history justice.
        quadrangle 10y ago
        The point is that you should argue why you find "dictatorship of the proletariat" unethical and not confuse the difference between ethics and economic viability. There's definitely philosophical problems with communism and communist thinkers of various sorts. No denying that. But the screwed up crappy attempts at something like communism simply don't invalidate all of the principles which must be considered separately. Basically, if you run a shitty version of an experiment, you don't get to then claim you proved the null hypothesis. It's one thing to say "we can't afford to experiment" and another to say "we had [shitty] experiments and so now we can conclude things." You could argue for no more trials and still accept the fact that we never got any good trials from which to conclude enough about the real principles.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    Review "The Black Book of Communism" for a catalog of the death and misery from communist countries, over and over. Voluntary communes and Kibbutzen have failed as well - none have been capable of operating without subsidy.
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      All you're saying is that attempts at communism have all had major problems. That's true, but it's not enough to be conclusive. If you want to pick examples that point various ways, you can note that Cuba has corruption, lack of democracy, is an impoverished island suffering the effects of significant economic embargoes in the global system and yet still vies for having one of the best health care systems. They even a top country in providing doctors to serve abroad in troubled places! And the Soviet Union was a horrendously corrupt place that failed in most respects to live up to communist ideals and yet still managed to compete technologically with the richest countries on the planet despite being economically far far far weaker in fundamentals. The U.S. only barely beat the Soviets in the space race etc while being massively richer. The Soviets had many orders of magnitude more losses in WWII also. The history of Communism is one where anti-communists did everything they could to undermine any success, the trials were full of corruption and abuse, and even still they had notable successes. The kibbutzen failed not strictly because all the ideas were unworkable. They failed because they had to function economically in a larger context. None of them had wealth along the lines of successful capitalists either. Capitalists have only ever operated capably by controlling a lot of capital or getting subsidy, at least in the form of law enforcement that serves the side of capital. We can conclude that all attempts at communism so far have had serious flaws. We can also conclude that capitalism has always had serious flaws too. Anyone who takes a polarized one-sided view on this stuff can be rejected as just being dogmatic. Piketty is not one of these one-sided dogmatic people, he's actually interested in studying empirical evidence and not concluding more than the evidence can truly support.
      - WalterBright 10y ago
        > major problems That's a bit of an understatement. It has a pretty much 0% success rate, for both coercive and voluntary attempts. > capitalism has always had serious flaws too Yes, but nothing like the communist failures, and capitalism has had incredible success stories. > The Soviets had many orders of magnitude more losses in WWII also. Nobody doubts the heroism and sacrifice of the Red Army in WW2. That's a whole 'nother topic, though. > The U.S. only barely beat the Soviets in the space race etc while being massively richer. The USSR was able to direct massive resources at single problems, at the sacrifice at most everything else, but the US could do it with little sacrifice. > did everything they could to undermine any success Nobody made the communist countries perform mass slaughter. > The kibbutzen failed not strictly because all the ideas were unworkable. They couldn't feed themselves. No communist system has ever been able to feed itself. All have required imports from capitalist economies, or starved, or tolerated capitalist farmers.
  - nickff 10y ago
    How many more millions of test subjects must die before you accept the negative result?
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      The only important question in terms of test subjects dying is whether they don't die under some other circumstance. The U.S.S.R and Chinese dictatorships were/are horrendous. On the other hand, Cuba has major ethical problems but subjects dying isn't these days really among them. Cuba does a better job of keeping people healthy and secure than the U.S. does. There's no homeless sick people in Cuba basically. Everyone gets quality medical care even though the country is massively poorer in fundamental resources than the U.S. The people dying in the cases you are referencing did not die because of the ideas of communism. The atrocities were carried out in the name of communism but had no basis in actual communist ideas.
- DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
  If deaths caused by leaders purporting to advance communist ideals can be attributed to communism, then how many have died at the hands of those purporting to advance capitalist ideals? Would it be reasonable to attribute these deaths to capitalism as well? I really don't these type of conclusions are a positive contribution to economic discourse.
  - darawk 10y ago
    Are there significant examples of that in history? I would be looking only at governments causing the deaths of their own citizens. I don't think it'd be fair to count foreign wars there. EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not implying that they do not exist. Genuinely don't know of any and would be curious if you do.
    - turar 10y ago
      Pinochet's Chile for example.
      - darawk 10y ago
        Thanks for that. That seems like a pretty solid example. In reading about it, I would nitpick one detail that seems non-capitalist to me: they didn't allow the currency to float. This is a pretty big deal, from my admittedly limited understanding of economics. If you don't allow the currency to float, your import/export ratios can't respond to market forces, and in a globalized economy this can be catastrophic, especially during a global downturn. To quote from the wiki: "One of the junta's economic moves was fixing the exchange rate in the early 1980s, leading to a boom in imports and a collapse of domestic industrial production; this together with a world recession caused a serious economic crisis in 1982, where GDP plummeted by 14%, and unemployment reached 33%" Of course, you can't prove a counter-factual. There's no way to know for sure what would have happened if they hadn't done this. But it seems to me that this, at least somewhat, mitigates the significance of this particular example.
    - geogra4 10y ago
      bengal famine, laotian genocide
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Mikeb85 10y ago
  And millions were killed by fascism, by colonialism, and by other -isms. There is nothing inherent to communism/socialism that necessitates killing, plus historical context is a thing.
- broke_wagon 10y ago
  Carrying a communist (or capitalist, or ...) banner around as you pillage doesn't make you a communist (or a capitalist, or ...). Attack the system, not those who usurp its name. Only then we can have a discussion.
  - broke_wagon 10y ago
    I am painfully aware that this argument seems prone to a "no true Scotsman" defense, but really, the basic principles of communism are very much at odds with many of its famous "proponents" (usurpers).
- turar 10y ago
  You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.
  - barney54 10y ago
    Usually communism requires totalitarianism. I don't know of any examples where communism didn't require totalitarian as long as we are talking about the country level. But I'd like to hear some counter examples I'm not thinking of.
    - turar 10y ago
      No countries actually had communism, but if we're talking about socialism, then you're mostly right. My opinion is that there are many reasons for it, including: - Those countries were poor and without sufficiently established democratic institutions. - Those countries had to immediately mobilize to defend from richer capitalist countries (lead by the US) trying to undermine them in any possible way. Constant defense mode leads to totalitarianism. That doesn't mean that socialism requires totalitarianism by nature.
      - BurningFrog 10y ago
        Central planning of all production means that the central planners controls everything in society.
        turar 10y ago
        Central planning is not a requirement for socialism. In fact, the only significant difference between capitalism and socialism is a democratically controlled workplace, which is inherently less authoritarian than capitalistic totalitarian workplace governance. It's also ironic how people constantly conflate "democracy" and "capitalism" on one hand, and "totalitarianism" and "communism" on the other, while completely accepting totalitarianism during a significant portion of their life -- their workplace.
    - yk 10y ago
4WIW 10y ago
Maybe on paper; in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: the criteria is how good are you in serving your current leader/mentor/sponsor and how lucky/good are you in choosing your next one. While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems.
- turar 10y ago
  Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.
  - nickff 10y ago
    This is a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If you would like to avoid the fallacy, you could make arguments such as 'more socialist systems are associated with _ positive outcome', or socialism is more moral because _. I lean strongly against socialism, but would prefer everyone made better arguments for their causes; G.A. Cohen is a good starting point for moral/ethical arguments in favor of socialism. Update: parent comment was substantially changed since my comment was written. It originally said something to the effect of: 'but true socialism has never been implemented'. Perhaps I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion/deception.
    - y80 10y ago
      This isn't a no true scotsman, that commentor is correct. The state building ideologies of the 20th century are inherently authoritarian, but if you think they're the only components to socialist thought then you're simply uninformed. There are a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist schools of thought, most notably anarcho-communism. There's also mutualism which is a market based socialist system. Socialism isn't about state control, the socialist states that existed (and still do sort of exist, notably Cuba) see themselves as transitionary states between capitalism and socialism, up until the time they're no longer necessary (I don't defend this approach, there's multiple reasons why I believe this is wrong). These states never claimed to be practicing socialism, but they remain socialist states because of their end goal. If you're interested in stronger well structured arguments for socialism, from an anti-authoritarian perspective I recommend reading the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon for more theoretical looks at property and the state. Kropotkin is great for anarcho-communism. Here's some books I recommend with free links: The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Check this one out first) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c... What is Communist Anarchism? (Or this one first, they're both great intros) By Alexander Berkman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-wh... Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchi... Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua... And not particularly an ideology book, but an interesting firsthand recount by George Orwell of his time fighting with Socialists and Anarchists against the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War which is called "Homage to Catalonia"
loki49152 10y ago
Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything. Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  The definition of evil is not based on being out of touch with reality. "Tragically flawed" would be a better term for what you are talking about.
  - orasis 10y ago
    I like to define "evil" as a cause whose effects compound negatively toward human wellbeing. so I think their use of "evil" is fine.
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      The way evil is used as a word by most people, your definition stretches far too wide. The connotation of "evil" is far more appalling than merely anything negative for human well-being. By your definition far too many things are evil to the point where the word is pretty mild, which is not how most people use it. In short: you are doing poor communication to redefine it so differently from normal use.
- ap22213 10y ago
  By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control). What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
aminok 10y ago
You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. The goal of eliminating resource inequality absolutely does not justify this violation. It's totally absurd on so many levels.
- nabla9 10y ago
  What you say would be true if property would be an issue with two people when they meet one-to-one. There are different kinds of property on a sliding scale. 1) Your personal belongings, tools of trad and other things needed for living are considered yours by everyone in practically all cultures. That's property protected by ethics and morality. 2) Anything past that is service that society/government provides for people living in advanced society. It's not a moral issue anymore. It's a issue of society agreeing on tax rate and forms of property protection. It would be helpful to at least acknowledge that most people dont' agree with unlimited property rights morals and stop preaching like it's god given truth.
  - aminok 10y ago
    >2) Anything past that is service That is just an arbitrary distinction to justify your greed for the property of others. We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Whatever argument you make for the right to appropriate natural resources as 'personal' property can be applied to the right to appropriate natural resources as 'non-personal' property. These debates get very philosophical, but when you step out of the theoretical for a moment, and think about what it means to tax someone's income, it's self-evident what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. Taxing income requires a law demanding that a person disclose personal information on all of their private income to the government. Anyone who refuses to surrender their privacy and disclose this extremely personal information faces the potential punishment of being thrown in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness, and suffer from physical and sexual abuse. This is overt mass-surveillance enforced through threats of incarceration. Then, once a person has disclosed this personal information under threat of imprisonment, a tax on income requires demanding that people hand over a share of this currency that they've received in private trade. This tax debt is unlike other types of debt. It's a debt obligation that a person assumes without their consent. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my property. If you came up to me in the street, and demanded I give you a share, and attacked me when I refused, you would know, instinctively, that you're being an aggressor, and so would every bystander who witnessed the assault. It's merely the obfuscation provided by using layers of government intermediaries that obscures this fact when you do the same thing through the political process.

hash-set 10y ago

Yeah, tell that to the millions of dead left in its wake.

quadrangle 10y ago
There have been nowhere near enough actual trials of communism to conclude anything fully. The core examples were all poorer countries with various problems, corruption… To reject communism as a concept over the atrocities of Stalin et al is as reasonable as rejecting capitalism because the U.S. was built on slavery and the genocide of first peoples. The atrocities were real, and they did connect to economics, but to just assert that capitalism is the slavery of U.S. history or that communism just is gulags and bread lines is extremely short-sighted. Neither system was anything like the core principles of the economic models (which are just models, so we should reject anyone who focuses only on the models and not on practical reality, but we can't treat each real-world case as the definitive case either).
- darawk 10y ago
  While you are right, many people (e.g. Hayek) argue that collectivism entails authoritarianism and control. That the two are inextricably linked, due primarily to the local knowledge problem. I'm not necessarily arguing that that is the case just trying to explain why people make this argument. The idea is that, logically, any economically communist country will, by definition, eventually come to resemble the Soviet Union, China, and other negative instances. We can debate whether or not that is so, but I think it's a legitimate debate to have, especially being that all known examples have in fact worked out that way.
- 4WIW 10y ago
  You can say the same thing about National-Socialism or any other ideology out there. There are just not enough countries to try them all on, and I am not sure why should we...
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    National Socialism (i.e. Hitler) was based fundamentally on nationalism and racism. We can reject it because the principles themselves are unethical. We can reject it even if it had succeeded economically! If you want to make an argument that the principles of communism are unethical, that's an independent argument from the claim that certain historic attempts had various atrocities and therefore you reject the principles (even though many of the atrocities are not related to the principles — Stalin disappearing his political enemies has no basis in communist principles…
    - 4WIW 10y ago
      1. My argument was about "National Socialism and any other ideology out there", you focused only on the first part. Even if you filter out unethical ones (not sure how, but let's say you can), there would still be too many to try, and not sure why should we keep trying theories instead of letting the society evolve in a natural way. 2. Specifically about giving communism a fair trial despite all past failures because it is "ethical": no thanks. I find its principle of "dictatorship of the proletariat" unethical and proven disastrous. 3. Stalin disappearing his political enemies was rooted at least in part in Lenin's cornerstone principle of "democratic centralism" which was critical ingredient for the success of the communist revolution. Trying to decouple the two doesn't do history justice.
      - quadrangle 10y ago
        The point is that you should argue why you find "dictatorship of the proletariat" unethical and not confuse the difference between ethics and economic viability. There's definitely philosophical problems with communism and communist thinkers of various sorts. No denying that. But the screwed up crappy attempts at something like communism simply don't invalidate all of the principles which must be considered separately. Basically, if you run a shitty version of an experiment, you don't get to then claim you proved the null hypothesis. It's one thing to say "we can't afford to experiment" and another to say "we had [shitty] experiments and so now we can conclude things." You could argue for no more trials and still accept the fact that we never got any good trials from which to conclude enough about the real principles.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  Review "The Black Book of Communism" for a catalog of the death and misery from communist countries, over and over. Voluntary communes and Kibbutzen have failed as well - none have been capable of operating without subsidy.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    All you're saying is that attempts at communism have all had major problems. That's true, but it's not enough to be conclusive. If you want to pick examples that point various ways, you can note that Cuba has corruption, lack of democracy, is an impoverished island suffering the effects of significant economic embargoes in the global system and yet still vies for having one of the best health care systems. They even a top country in providing doctors to serve abroad in troubled places! And the Soviet Union was a horrendously corrupt place that failed in most respects to live up to communist ideals and yet still managed to compete technologically with the richest countries on the planet despite being economically far far far weaker in fundamentals. The U.S. only barely beat the Soviets in the space race etc while being massively richer. The Soviets had many orders of magnitude more losses in WWII also. The history of Communism is one where anti-communists did everything they could to undermine any success, the trials were full of corruption and abuse, and even still they had notable successes. The kibbutzen failed not strictly because all the ideas were unworkable. They failed because they had to function economically in a larger context. None of them had wealth along the lines of successful capitalists either. Capitalists have only ever operated capably by controlling a lot of capital or getting subsidy, at least in the form of law enforcement that serves the side of capital. We can conclude that all attempts at communism so far have had serious flaws. We can also conclude that capitalism has always had serious flaws too. Anyone who takes a polarized one-sided view on this stuff can be rejected as just being dogmatic. Piketty is not one of these one-sided dogmatic people, he's actually interested in studying empirical evidence and not concluding more than the evidence can truly support.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      > major problems That's a bit of an understatement. It has a pretty much 0% success rate, for both coercive and voluntary attempts. > capitalism has always had serious flaws too Yes, but nothing like the communist failures, and capitalism has had incredible success stories. > The Soviets had many orders of magnitude more losses in WWII also. Nobody doubts the heroism and sacrifice of the Red Army in WW2. That's a whole 'nother topic, though. > The U.S. only barely beat the Soviets in the space race etc while being massively richer. The USSR was able to direct massive resources at single problems, at the sacrifice at most everything else, but the US could do it with little sacrifice. > did everything they could to undermine any success Nobody made the communist countries perform mass slaughter. > The kibbutzen failed not strictly because all the ideas were unworkable. They couldn't feed themselves. No communist system has ever been able to feed itself. All have required imports from capitalist economies, or starved, or tolerated capitalist farmers.
- nickff 10y ago
  How many more millions of test subjects must die before you accept the negative result?
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    The only important question in terms of test subjects dying is whether they don't die under some other circumstance. The U.S.S.R and Chinese dictatorships were/are horrendous. On the other hand, Cuba has major ethical problems but subjects dying isn't these days really among them. Cuba does a better job of keeping people healthy and secure than the U.S. does. There's no homeless sick people in Cuba basically. Everyone gets quality medical care even though the country is massively poorer in fundamental resources than the U.S. The people dying in the cases you are referencing did not die because of the ideas of communism. The atrocities were carried out in the name of communism but had no basis in actual communist ideas.
DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
If deaths caused by leaders purporting to advance communist ideals can be attributed to communism, then how many have died at the hands of those purporting to advance capitalist ideals? Would it be reasonable to attribute these deaths to capitalism as well? I really don't these type of conclusions are a positive contribution to economic discourse.
- darawk 10y ago
  Are there significant examples of that in history? I would be looking only at governments causing the deaths of their own citizens. I don't think it'd be fair to count foreign wars there. EDIT: Just to be clear, i'm not implying that they do not exist. Genuinely don't know of any and would be curious if you do.
  - turar 10y ago
    Pinochet's Chile for example.
    - darawk 10y ago
      Thanks for that. That seems like a pretty solid example. In reading about it, I would nitpick one detail that seems non-capitalist to me: they didn't allow the currency to float. This is a pretty big deal, from my admittedly limited understanding of economics. If you don't allow the currency to float, your import/export ratios can't respond to market forces, and in a globalized economy this can be catastrophic, especially during a global downturn. To quote from the wiki: "One of the junta's economic moves was fixing the exchange rate in the early 1980s, leading to a boom in imports and a collapse of domestic industrial production; this together with a world recession caused a serious economic crisis in 1982, where GDP plummeted by 14%, and unemployment reached 33%" Of course, you can't prove a counter-factual. There's no way to know for sure what would have happened if they hadn't done this. But it seems to me that this, at least somewhat, mitigates the significance of this particular example.
  - geogra4 10y ago
    bengal famine, laotian genocide
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Mikeb85 10y ago
And millions were killed by fascism, by colonialism, and by other -isms. There is nothing inherent to communism/socialism that necessitates killing, plus historical context is a thing.
broke_wagon 10y ago
Carrying a communist (or capitalist, or ...) banner around as you pillage doesn't make you a communist (or a capitalist, or ...). Attack the system, not those who usurp its name. Only then we can have a discussion.
- broke_wagon 10y ago
  I am painfully aware that this argument seems prone to a "no true Scotsman" defense, but really, the basic principles of communism are very much at odds with many of its famous "proponents" (usurpers).
turar 10y ago
You're confusing communism with totalitarianism.
- barney54 10y ago
  Usually communism requires totalitarianism. I don't know of any examples where communism didn't require totalitarian as long as we are talking about the country level. But I'd like to hear some counter examples I'm not thinking of.
  - turar 10y ago
    No countries actually had communism, but if we're talking about socialism, then you're mostly right. My opinion is that there are many reasons for it, including: - Those countries were poor and without sufficiently established democratic institutions. - Those countries had to immediately mobilize to defend from richer capitalist countries (lead by the US) trying to undermine them in any possible way. Constant defense mode leads to totalitarianism. That doesn't mean that socialism requires totalitarianism by nature.
    - BurningFrog 10y ago
      Central planning of all production means that the central planners controls everything in society.
      - turar 10y ago
        Central planning is not a requirement for socialism. In fact, the only significant difference between capitalism and socialism is a democratically controlled workplace, which is inherently less authoritarian than capitalistic totalitarian workplace governance. It's also ironic how people constantly conflate "democracy" and "capitalism" on one hand, and "totalitarianism" and "communism" on the other, while completely accepting totalitarianism during a significant portion of their life -- their workplace.
  - yk 10y ago

4WIW 10y ago

Maybe on paper; in practice, communism has been a process of structuring inequality differently: the criteria is how good are you in serving your current leader/mentor/sponsor and how lucky/good are you in choosing your next one. While this criteria exists in all systems, it is the most defining one in communism and other authoritarian systems.

turar 10y ago
Communism isn't inherently authoritarian.
- nickff 10y ago
  This is a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. If you would like to avoid the fallacy, you could make arguments such as 'more socialist systems are associated with _ positive outcome', or socialism is more moral because _. I lean strongly against socialism, but would prefer everyone made better arguments for their causes; G.A. Cohen is a good starting point for moral/ethical arguments in favor of socialism. Update: parent comment was substantially changed since my comment was written. It originally said something to the effect of: 'but true socialism has never been implemented'. Perhaps I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion/deception.
  - y80 10y ago
    This isn't a no true scotsman, that commentor is correct. The state building ideologies of the 20th century are inherently authoritarian, but if you think they're the only components to socialist thought then you're simply uninformed. There are a multitude of anti-authoritarian socialist schools of thought, most notably anarcho-communism. There's also mutualism which is a market based socialist system. Socialism isn't about state control, the socialist states that existed (and still do sort of exist, notably Cuba) see themselves as transitionary states between capitalism and socialism, up until the time they're no longer necessary (I don't defend this approach, there's multiple reasons why I believe this is wrong). These states never claimed to be practicing socialism, but they remain socialist states because of their end goal. If you're interested in stronger well structured arguments for socialism, from an anti-authoritarian perspective I recommend reading the writings of Bakunin and Proudhon for more theoretical looks at property and the state. Kropotkin is great for anarcho-communism. Here's some books I recommend with free links: The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin (Check this one out first) https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c... What is Communist Anarchism? (Or this one first, they're both great intros) By Alexander Berkman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-wh... Anarchism and Other Essays by Emma Goldman https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchi... Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutua... And not particularly an ideology book, but an interesting firsthand recount by George Orwell of his time fighting with Socialists and Anarchists against the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War which is called "Homage to Catalonia"

loki49152 10y ago

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything. Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

quadrangle 10y ago
The definition of evil is not based on being out of touch with reality. "Tragically flawed" would be a better term for what you are talking about.
- orasis 10y ago
  I like to define "evil" as a cause whose effects compound negatively toward human wellbeing. so I think their use of "evil" is fine.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    The way evil is used as a word by most people, your definition stretches far too wide. The connotation of "evil" is far more appalling than merely anything negative for human well-being. By your definition far too many things are evil to the point where the word is pretty mild, which is not how most people use it. In short: you are doing poor communication to redefine it so differently from normal use.
ap22213 10y ago
By that description, it sounds like a Bogeyman [1] to me. Anyway, I live in a mostly Capitalist system, and it's also authoritarian. The only thing that seems to keep it from spiraling into complete evil is that a democratic Leviathan [2] happens to rule over it. (Of course, the capitalism is always in a constant assault for control). What's funny to me is that I have several neighbors who fervently describe themselves as pro-capitalist libertarians. Yet, when I'm out of coffee or I need my driveway plowed, they do it for free. Why is that? Probably because we are all friends and have common culture and mutual trust. When people invoke the idea of communism they usually mean: why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors. Sure, that's a daunting goal, of course. But, it's no less impossible as when people invented the idea of the social contract. Or any of the other million inventions that people said were crazy or impossible. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogeyman [2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

aminok 10y ago

You have no moral right to use violent force against someone to force them to give up their private property for the crime of having more than another person. The goal of eliminating resource inequality absolutely does not justify this violation. It's totally absurd on so many levels.

nabla9 10y ago
What you say would be true if property would be an issue with two people when they meet one-to-one. There are different kinds of property on a sliding scale. 1) Your personal belongings, tools of trad and other things needed for living are considered yours by everyone in practically all cultures. That's property protected by ethics and morality. 2) Anything past that is service that society/government provides for people living in advanced society. It's not a moral issue anymore. It's a issue of society agreeing on tax rate and forms of property protection. It would be helpful to at least acknowledge that most people dont' agree with unlimited property rights morals and stop preaching like it's god given truth.
- aminok 10y ago
  >2) Anything past that is service That is just an arbitrary distinction to justify your greed for the property of others. We either have a moral right to make exclusive use of natural resources or we do not. Whatever argument you make for the right to appropriate natural resources as 'personal' property can be applied to the right to appropriate natural resources as 'non-personal' property. These debates get very philosophical, but when you step out of the theoretical for a moment, and think about what it means to tax someone's income, it's self-evident what property rights are, and that violating them is an authoritarian infringement upon human rights. Taxing income requires a law demanding that a person disclose personal information on all of their private income to the government. Anyone who refuses to surrender their privacy and disclose this extremely personal information faces the potential punishment of being thrown in prison, where they are kept in a small enclosure, and where they often develop mental illness, and suffer from physical and sexual abuse. This is overt mass-surveillance enforced through threats of incarceration. Then, once a person has disclosed this personal information under threat of imprisonment, a tax on income requires demanding that people hand over a share of this currency that they've received in private trade. This tax debt is unlike other types of debt. It's a debt obligation that a person assumes without their consent. If I receive currency in private trade, that's my property. If you came up to me in the street, and demanded I give you a share, and attacked me when I refused, you would know, instinctively, that you're being an aggressor, and so would every bystander who witnessed the assault. It's merely the obfuscation provided by using layers of government intermediaries that obscures this fact when you do the same thing through the political process.