4 ms·

The takeaway of Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc. is not that communism is bad but rather that concentrating too much power in too few hands is bad. For instance

The takeaway of Mao, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, etc. is not that communism is bad but rather that concentrating too much power in too few hands is bad. For instance Hitler, Shah of a Iran, etc. Especially when the leaders have simplistic notions. For example, Idi Amin, Maduro, Baby Doc Duvalle, etc.

ameister14 9y ago
Sure - communism simply requires the centralization and concentration of power and so is incredibly vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Since when a prerequisite for communism is nationalisation? As far as I'm aware the actual communism was supposed to be ran by worker committees and not "party" or "leader". And does not have to involve central planning at all. Do not confuse it with authoritarianism. Or stalinism which was a variant of it.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I'm not confusing it, I'm going from what Marx and Engels said. "Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible." "If it should become necessary for communist society to regulate the production of men, just as it will have already regulated the production of things, then it, and it alone, will be able to do this without difficulties. It seems to me that it should not be too difficult for such a society to achieve in a planned way what has already come about naturally, without planning, in France and Lower Austria. In any case it will be for those people to decide if, when and what they want to do about it, and what means to employ"
    - danharaj 9y ago
      Organization and planning are not the same as centralization and concentration of power. It would be absurd to conflate the two. So do these quotes justify your claim or not?
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        purposed organizations were worker committees or what is essentially the more democratic version of worker union. With some relatively minor central oversight. Sometimes committee of experts (not government ones). Definitely the policies were not supposed to be subsumed by national ideology or ideas of people in charge.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        In order to effectively execute such planning and transition from capitalist to communist, it required concentration of power in the federal government - further management was required to maintain equitable distribution of population, labor and resources. That's why, in the transition period, power would end up concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. Obviously eventually the idea was that the State would cease to be anything more than a mechanism for distribution of resources and stop managing people, but there are an awful lot of problems with that, conceptually. Also, the guy I responded to said it didn't have to involve central planning. It kinda does, at least Marx and Engel's version does.

ameister14 9y ago

Sure - communism simply requires the centralization and concentration of power and so is incredibly vulnerable to authoritarian takeover.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Since when a prerequisite for communism is nationalisation? As far as I'm aware the actual communism was supposed to be ran by worker committees and not "party" or "leader". And does not have to involve central planning at all. Do not confuse it with authoritarianism. Or stalinism which was a variant of it.
- ameister14 9y ago
  I'm not confusing it, I'm going from what Marx and Engels said. "Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for men in their aspect as species. Historical evolution makes such an organisation daily more indispensable, but also with every day more possible." "If it should become necessary for communist society to regulate the production of men, just as it will have already regulated the production of things, then it, and it alone, will be able to do this without difficulties. It seems to me that it should not be too difficult for such a society to achieve in a planned way what has already come about naturally, without planning, in France and Lower Austria. In any case it will be for those people to decide if, when and what they want to do about it, and what means to employ"
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Organization and planning are not the same as centralization and concentration of power. It would be absurd to conflate the two. So do these quotes justify your claim or not?
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      purposed organizations were worker committees or what is essentially the more democratic version of worker union. With some relatively minor central oversight. Sometimes committee of experts (not government ones). Definitely the policies were not supposed to be subsumed by national ideology or ideas of people in charge.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      In order to effectively execute such planning and transition from capitalist to communist, it required concentration of power in the federal government - further management was required to maintain equitable distribution of population, labor and resources. That's why, in the transition period, power would end up concentrated in the hands of a small group of people. Obviously eventually the idea was that the State would cease to be anything more than a mechanism for distribution of resources and stop managing people, but there are an awful lot of problems with that, conceptually. Also, the guy I responded to said it didn't have to involve central planning. It kinda does, at least Marx and Engel's version does.