8 ms·

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

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)
- witty_username 10y ago
  > 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. Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor. > why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors Why can't we have that within capitalism? What does "act as neighbor" even mean? Does it helping one another for free? That already occurs for small tasks.
  - ap22213 10y ago
    With regard to neighbors, there is hard-wired reciprocity involved. And, if one doesn't reciprocate, they may eventually be cut off from future generosity. On the other hand, many people genuinely get pleasure out of helping others. And, there are certain classes of people to whom special treatment is given - like the elderly and children. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent. Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.
    - witty_username 10y ago
      > Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.
aminok 10y ago
Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  No, to the extent that Communism can be considered evil, it is because it leads to terrible outcomes. You can argue that the outcomes are a consequence of not enforcing a property system, but it's still the outcomes themselves which are bad.
  - aminok 10y ago
    The advocacy of violating human rights, in denying people a right to engage in voluntary economic interactions, and to the property they earn in said interactions, is also evil.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Where "violating human rights" apparently means "not using government violence to enforce exclusive control of resources by individuals". I'm not against capitalism as an economic system, but I find this moralising of its means rather than its end to be very distasteful.
      - aminok 10y ago
        First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into. Second, if the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents (homesteading natural resources).
broke_wagon 10y ago
Of course it's just a process. Capitalism is a process which centralizes surplus and power, i.e., increases inequality, and communism is a process which decentralizes surplus and power, i.e. decreases inequality. Calling communism unrealistic and disastrous is again just being diminutive. Communists want for people who do productive work to have an equal say in how work is done and what happens to the product. Not complicated, not unrealistic, and certainly not an inevitable disaster. In empirical terms, there's a lot more evidence for the disaster-causing tendency of capitalism than communism. At the very worst, the end result of communism is empirically unknown, since, to date, communism has not been allowed to flourish on a noteworthy scale.
- aminok 10y ago
  Capitalism is a process that respects individual rights and in particular, contract law. It is a process that is responsible for more poverty reduction than any other in history, and for which there is a trove of evidence indicating that it boosts economic growth rates.

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)

witty_username 10y ago
> 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. Even if there is no money involved, you may repay such favors in the future when they ask you. So it's more like borrowing a favor. > why can't we all have a society where we all act as neighbors Why can't we have that within capitalism? What does "act as neighbor" even mean? Does it helping one another for free? That already occurs for small tasks.
- ap22213 10y ago
  With regard to neighbors, there is hard-wired reciprocity involved. And, if one doesn't reciprocate, they may eventually be cut off from future generosity. On the other hand, many people genuinely get pleasure out of helping others. And, there are certain classes of people to whom special treatment is given - like the elderly and children. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a communist, and I'm not completely against capitalism. Capitalism can be beneficial, especially in distributing resources. And, I understand and agree that capitalism is not a zero sum game (at least at the instant of the transaction). But, transactions are rarely equally beneficial. In fact, in the long run, transactions can actually harm one or more parties, especially those indirectly affected. And, based on my observations, it seems easiest to 'win at capitalism' via monopoly, deception, manipulation, trickery, and abusing intent. Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. So, generally, I'm not a fan of it (although I've also made a lot of money from it). But, what I dislike even more is the cop-out that it's somehow impossible for us to do better - that somehow 'natural laws' prevent it.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    > Furthermore, what do we with those who are just unable to produce anything of value? it's implied that they just die. Capitalism doesn't stop a person from donating to those people. Indeed, that's what happens through the government.

aminok 10y ago

Communism is evil on a nightmarish scale because it advocates for violating an entire population's right to 1. their property, and to 2. engage in economic activity with other consenting adults.

aninhumer 10y ago
No, to the extent that Communism can be considered evil, it is because it leads to terrible outcomes. You can argue that the outcomes are a consequence of not enforcing a property system, but it's still the outcomes themselves which are bad.
- aminok 10y ago
  The advocacy of violating human rights, in denying people a right to engage in voluntary economic interactions, and to the property they earn in said interactions, is also evil.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Where "violating human rights" apparently means "not using government violence to enforce exclusive control of resources by individuals". I'm not against capitalism as an economic system, but I find this moralising of its means rather than its end to be very distasteful.
    - aminok 10y ago
      First of all, without the principle, human economic activity would simply be impossible. In fact, it is the most central principle of all human rights. Without homesteading, we cannot own our own bodies. Appropriation of natural resources is the process by which we assert a right over the bodily material that food (originally unclaimed natural resources) turns into. Second, if the government merely stopped protecting private property from aggressive seizure, that would be one thing. But communism advocates the government being the primary instrument by which people aggressively prevent others from existing as independent economic agents (homesteading natural resources).

broke_wagon 10y ago

Of course it's just a process. Capitalism is a process which centralizes surplus and power, i.e., increases inequality, and communism is a process which decentralizes surplus and power, i.e. decreases inequality. Calling communism unrealistic and disastrous is again just being diminutive. Communists want for people who do productive work to have an equal say in how work is done and what happens to the product. Not complicated, not unrealistic, and certainly not an inevitable disaster. In empirical terms, there's a lot more evidence for the disaster-causing tendency of capitalism than communism. At the very worst, the end result of communism is empirically unknown, since, to date, communism has not been allowed to flourish on a noteworthy scale.

aminok 10y ago
Capitalism is a process that respects individual rights and in particular, contract law. It is a process that is responsible for more poverty reduction than any other in history, and for which there is a trove of evidence indicating that it boosts economic growth rates.