3 ms·

> The reason why communism is always associated with authoritarianism is mainly the process by which it is introduced: it is impossible that all citizens agree

> The reason why communism is always associated with authoritarianism is mainly the process by which it is introduced: it is impossible that all citizens agree that a state becomes communist All new systems are introduced by force, even capitalism. Do you think that at one point in the past everybody in Britain decided that the state should be capitalist and so everyone, on their own accord, moved from communal land so it can be passed in to private hands?

dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago
As a counter-example, the fall of communism in Eastern bloc was (mostly) a very peaceful process. A notable exception was Romania where the ruler was particularly cruel but in several other countries the system changed without one shot being fired, even though surely there were quite a few proponents of the old regime.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  The institution of whatever came after the fall of communism was done by force, just like the institution that came before it, for the reason you describe: it's impossible to get literally everyone in an entire country to agree on a government, so the government must be imposed by force.
  - TeaBrain 3y ago
    The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. This is due to how is it necessary to confiscate property in order to redistribute it in a communist system, which naturally has its opponents, as those who have worked for property believe they have earned it. Almost all of the Soviet states transitioned to market economy democracies without any conflict at all, so your assertion for the need of force is completely wrong. The transition was natural as the people naturally preferred a market economy system, which had led to an underground market economy being created during the Soviet days, known as the second economy of the Soviet Union.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. That is correct, and I was pointing out that it isn't specific to communism: any government or economic system will have at least 1 person who doesn't like it, but the system being created nonetheless requires imposing it by force, and maintaining it by force, which nearly every government does to this day.
    - Kbelicius 3y ago
      > The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. This is due to how is it necessary to confiscate property in order to redistribute it in a communist system And my original comment clearly shows that capitalism also had to be imposed for what once was communal needed to be confiscated in order to be redistributed. > Almost all of the Soviet states transitioned to market economy democracies without any conflict at all Indeed, a state capitalist society transitioned to market capitalism. Nothing needed to be taken from any one person but the state. Not really a new system, just new owners.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  I'd argue that that is not a good counter example. There is a reason why those that implemented the system used in USSR called it state capitalism. So for the factory worker in that regard little did change. The factory just got a new owner. Don't get me wrong, a lot did change, but in this regard little did.
nolongerthere 3y ago
That's simply false, capitalism is the natural order, people looking out for their own interests and working with others only when both parties agree to. Communism is forced labor/partnership, and requires disappearing all those who don't want to be part of the system and/or using extreme force to get dissidents to comply. Capitalism simply lets those who don't want to participate pave their own way.
- kibwen 3y ago
  > people looking out for their own interests and working with others only when both parties agree to Since we're already knee-deep in nitpicking terminology, this is describing the general philosophy of anarchism, not capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  What is false? That people were killed and run of their land so that it can be given to private ownership? Also, what is natural in me owning a factory on the other side of the world when I never left the city I live in?

dvfjsdhgfv 3y ago

As a counter-example, the fall of communism in Eastern bloc was (mostly) a very peaceful process. A notable exception was Romania where the ruler was particularly cruel but in several other countries the system changed without one shot being fired, even though surely there were quite a few proponents of the old regime.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
The institution of whatever came after the fall of communism was done by force, just like the institution that came before it, for the reason you describe: it's impossible to get literally everyone in an entire country to agree on a government, so the government must be imposed by force.
- TeaBrain 3y ago
  The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. This is due to how is it necessary to confiscate property in order to redistribute it in a communist system, which naturally has its opponents, as those who have worked for property believe they have earned it. Almost all of the Soviet states transitioned to market economy democracies without any conflict at all, so your assertion for the need of force is completely wrong. The transition was natural as the people naturally preferred a market economy system, which had led to an underground market economy being created during the Soviet days, known as the second economy of the Soviet Union.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. That is correct, and I was pointing out that it isn't specific to communism: any government or economic system will have at least 1 person who doesn't like it, but the system being created nonetheless requires imposing it by force, and maintaining it by force, which nearly every government does to this day.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    > The comment you are referring to wasn't referring to the difficulty in getting everyone to agree on a form of government, but on how it is impossible to create a large-scale communist economic system without imposing it. This is due to how is it necessary to confiscate property in order to redistribute it in a communist system And my original comment clearly shows that capitalism also had to be imposed for what once was communal needed to be confiscated in order to be redistributed. > Almost all of the Soviet states transitioned to market economy democracies without any conflict at all Indeed, a state capitalist society transitioned to market capitalism. Nothing needed to be taken from any one person but the state. Not really a new system, just new owners.
Kbelicius 3y ago
I'd argue that that is not a good counter example. There is a reason why those that implemented the system used in USSR called it state capitalism. So for the factory worker in that regard little did change. The factory just got a new owner. Don't get me wrong, a lot did change, but in this regard little did.

nolongerthere 3y ago

That's simply false, capitalism is the natural order, people looking out for their own interests and working with others only when both parties agree to. Communism is forced labor/partnership, and requires disappearing all those who don't want to be part of the system and/or using extreme force to get dissidents to comply. Capitalism simply lets those who don't want to participate pave their own way.

kibwen 3y ago
> people looking out for their own interests and working with others only when both parties agree to Since we're already knee-deep in nitpicking terminology, this is describing the general philosophy of anarchism, not capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
Kbelicius 3y ago
What is false? That people were killed and run of their land so that it can be given to private ownership? Also, what is natural in me owning a factory on the other side of the world when I never left the city I live in?