4 ms·

Look, I think communism sounds great, but the problem is that it simply doesn't work in practice. In other words, it has been tried, it just doesn't work. To s

by Rury 3y ago

Look, I think communism sounds great, but the problem is that it simply doesn't work in practice. In other words, it has been tried, it just doesn't work. To see why, you can categorize the forms of government as so: - Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority - Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority - Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority - Communism/Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more you equally distribute power amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes. In particular, notice all the forms of government (except for communism) has a way to settle disputes without resorting to violence. For example, in Democracy, you settle disputes by voting, where the majority wins, and the rest don't get their way. This ability to settle disputes without violence, is what makes us civil and what makes society a society. Without it (such as with communism), you are in complete anarchy, where raw might/ability (eg successful violence/persuasion) is the only thing there is left to settle disputes. Thus, those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority", and is why over time, communism/anarchy will naturally change into one of the other forms of government.

actuallymaybeez 3y ago
Actually Yugoslavia and Pre 1978 Romania were not that bad. They produced a lot of their own things. Yugoslavia had a strong economy with lots of industry. Same for Romania and their prospects for oil development. The issue came in because the US wanted to break up the soviet bloc so the World Bank went to town and made sure that happened. We will never know what would have happened if Tito and Ceausescu would not have been squeezed by debt and foreign interference. Maybe the reason you don't see a good example of Communism besides maybe China/Viet Nam is because the west is actively engaged in making sure that doesn't happen.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  I do not know about Yugoslavia but it is certain that the Ceausescu regime would have ended up in misery either way. Having as a ruler an idiot who is capable of playing opponents against each other and who was enthralled by the prospect of having a personality cult ensures things will never end well for the people. I would argue that China and Viet Nam aren't good examples either.
maybetryit 3y ago
"For example, in Democracy, you settle disputes by voting, where the majority wins, and the rest don't get their way. This ability to settle disputes without violence, is what makes us civil and what makes society a society. Without it (such as with communism), you are in complete anarchy, where raw might/ability (eg successful violence/persuasion) is the only thing there is left to settle disputes. Thus, those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority", and is why over time, communism/anarchy will naturally change into one of the other forms of government." In the US only 50% of the population votes. The church doesn't pay taxes but lobbies the gov via proxies. Rich people definitely have more rights than the others. Just because they fight in court doesn't mean it's not called violence. Rich people are the authority in the US. They decide what you watch, what you buy and where you can spend your money. Just because they work for corporations doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchy. Rich people own America and they behavior of it's citizens, because they shape the contexts in which you live. They also own the rest of the world via Hollywood.
- Rury 3y ago
  You're right. The US isn't a democracy, it's predominantly an oligarchy/republic. And as matter of fact, no national government is purely a democracy (because a pure democracy at such a scale also doesn't work, because of how bureaucratic it would be). Most governments are hybrids to varying degrees. The way I categorized the governments here was just to show how things work, nothing prevents it from being a spectrum.
zb1plus 3y ago
"In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more you equally distribute power amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes." That's a pretty bold claim to make without and real evidence, perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy and attempts to realize a just society without a centralized authority holding monopoly on violence is simply due to material conditions being such that people cannot transition to a free lifestyle without a power hierarchy. Communism/Anarchist societies based on voluntary association are possible if humans are healed from the collective mental trauma of generations of systematic oppression by the power hungry oppressing them under the guise of Hobbesian necessity or sheer selfish personal interest. TLDR: Don't assume Hobbes without first providing an actual argument against Rousseau.
- Rury 3y ago
  You don't need real evidence. Just the most simplest thought experiment in the state of nature (which is anarchy). How do two wild animals win a dispute over something? They either fight violently, or intimidate (ie persuade) their opposition into getting their way. The act of avoiding violence (giving into intimidation), is an act to ceding to the other as the dictator. > perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy Yes, exactly! No human, nor animal, wants to be perpetually in violence, as it is very risky to living. So, if they wish to avoid violence whenever a dispute arises, they naturally subject themselves and cede to the other as the superior authority in the matter, letting them get their way. However, if a human/animal ever thinks the reward for winning a fight outweighs the risks of violence, they will indeed risk the fight. Repeated disputes where one continues to be the victor, conditions those in the matter who is superior and inferior, and a power hierarchy is naturally established. The only way communism can ever work, is if there is never any disputes. That is not a practical scenario outside a power hierarchy, and hence why it does not work in practice. And for those that don't see how "communism == anarchy", just look at how "public == many", and "private == few".
me_me_me 3y ago
disclaimer, i dont think communism could ever work on current humans (there will always be people who will exploit system), it works great on paper or for ants etc. That said can you give me an example of the communism you described as "Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority" The best example i can think of is a 'proto' communist fraction in Spanish civil war as Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  I agree with both things. I think communism is unlikely to be achieved by current humans. Also that quote really does not describe either the ideal of communism nor does it describe the historical regimes under the communism brand. In fact, I think none of the 4 categories Rury described are truly correct. 1. "Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority" is wrong simply because no one ever rules alone. Monarchy is just oligarchy with extra steps. Most historical communism is here. 2. "Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority", equating these two is wrong because the second is supposed to have time limits and accountability. Oligarchs are aristocrats, senators are not aristocrats. 3. "Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority", democracy is much more diverse than that. 4. "Communism/Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority" this is anarchy not communism. And anarchy is indeed inherently unstable. There were branches of communist thought that were anarchist but by being anarchist they were doomed to failure. In practice we have only ever had variations of oligarchy that were more or less disguised and variations on democracy that were more or less direct. What has not been tried and is unlikely to be tried is a democratic communism.

by Rury 3y ago

actuallymaybeez 3y ago

Actually Yugoslavia and Pre 1978 Romania were not that bad. They produced a lot of their own things. Yugoslavia had a strong economy with lots of industry. Same for Romania and their prospects for oil development. The issue came in because the US wanted to break up the soviet bloc so the World Bank went to town and made sure that happened. We will never know what would have happened if Tito and Ceausescu would not have been squeezed by debt and foreign interference. Maybe the reason you don't see a good example of Communism besides maybe China/Viet Nam is because the west is actively engaged in making sure that doesn't happen.

alexvoda 3y ago
I do not know about Yugoslavia but it is certain that the Ceausescu regime would have ended up in misery either way. Having as a ruler an idiot who is capable of playing opponents against each other and who was enthralled by the prospect of having a personality cult ensures things will never end well for the people. I would argue that China and Viet Nam aren't good examples either.

maybetryit 3y ago

"For example, in Democracy, you settle disputes by voting, where the majority wins, and the rest don't get their way. This ability to settle disputes without violence, is what makes us civil and what makes society a society. Without it (such as with communism), you are in complete anarchy, where raw might/ability (eg successful violence/persuasion) is the only thing there is left to settle disputes. Thus, those who wield it typically end up becoming the "authority", and is why over time, communism/anarchy will naturally change into one of the other forms of government." In the US only 50% of the population votes. The church doesn't pay taxes but lobbies the gov via proxies. Rich people definitely have more rights than the others. Just because they fight in court doesn't mean it's not called violence. Rich people are the authority in the US. They decide what you watch, what you buy and where you can spend your money. Just because they work for corporations doesn't mean there isn't a hierarchy. Rich people own America and they behavior of it's citizens, because they shape the contexts in which you live. They also own the rest of the world via Hollywood.

Rury 3y ago
You're right. The US isn't a democracy, it's predominantly an oligarchy/republic. And as matter of fact, no national government is purely a democracy (because a pure democracy at such a scale also doesn't work, because of how bureaucratic it would be). Most governments are hybrids to varying degrees. The way I categorized the governments here was just to show how things work, nothing prevents it from being a spectrum.

zb1plus 3y ago

"In reality, society only works when there's a power hierarchy; it's the natural order of things. The more you equally distribute power amongst people, the more dysfunctional/less orderly/more bureaucratic society becomes." That's a pretty bold claim to make without and real evidence, perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy and attempts to realize a just society without a centralized authority holding monopoly on violence is simply due to material conditions being such that people cannot transition to a free lifestyle without a power hierarchy. Communism/Anarchist societies based on voluntary association are possible if humans are healed from the collective mental trauma of generations of systematic oppression by the power hungry oppressing them under the guise of Hobbesian necessity or sheer selfish personal interest. TLDR: Don't assume Hobbes without first providing an actual argument against Rousseau.

Rury 3y ago
You don't need real evidence. Just the most simplest thought experiment in the state of nature (which is anarchy). How do two wild animals win a dispute over something? They either fight violently, or intimidate (ie persuade) their opposition into getting their way. The act of avoiding violence (giving into intimidation), is an act to ceding to the other as the dictator. > perhaps humans have been conditioned to operate within a power hierarchy Yes, exactly! No human, nor animal, wants to be perpetually in violence, as it is very risky to living. So, if they wish to avoid violence whenever a dispute arises, they naturally subject themselves and cede to the other as the superior authority in the matter, letting them get their way. However, if a human/animal ever thinks the reward for winning a fight outweighs the risks of violence, they will indeed risk the fight. Repeated disputes where one continues to be the victor, conditions those in the matter who is superior and inferior, and a power hierarchy is naturally established. The only way communism can ever work, is if there is never any disputes. That is not a practical scenario outside a power hierarchy, and hence why it does not work in practice. And for those that don't see how "communism == anarchy", just look at how "public == many", and "private == few".

me_me_me 3y ago

disclaimer, i dont think communism could ever work on current humans (there will always be people who will exploit system), it works great on paper or for ants etc. That said can you give me an example of the communism you described as "Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority" The best example i can think of is a 'proto' communist fraction in Spanish civil war as Orwell described in Homage to Catalonia.

alexvoda 3y ago
I agree with both things. I think communism is unlikely to be achieved by current humans. Also that quote really does not describe either the ideal of communism nor does it describe the historical regimes under the communism brand. In fact, I think none of the 4 categories Rury described are truly correct. 1. "Monarchy/Dictatorship: Power in the hands of one, one person is authority" is wrong simply because no one ever rules alone. Monarchy is just oligarchy with extra steps. Most historical communism is here. 2. "Oligarchy/Republic: Power in the hands of a few, aristocrats are authority", equating these two is wrong because the second is supposed to have time limits and accountability. Oligarchs are aristocrats, senators are not aristocrats. 3. "Democracy: Power in the hands of many, majority is authority", democracy is much more diverse than that. 4. "Communism/Anarchy: Power in everyone's hands, everyone is equal in authority" this is anarchy not communism. And anarchy is indeed inherently unstable. There were branches of communist thought that were anarchist but by being anarchist they were doomed to failure. In practice we have only ever had variations of oligarchy that were more or less disguised and variations on democracy that were more or less direct. What has not been tried and is unlikely to be tried is a democratic communism.