4 ms·

Does communism require totalitarianism?

nec4b 1y ago
Of course, how else can you achieve classless society. Do you expect people to freely give everything they have to the state, so it can redistribute their wealth around? Don't you know the concept of a class enemy and why so much of mass murdering was going on in communist countries?
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Catholic clergy do this.
  - nec4b 1y ago
    Not true, Catholic priests still have private property. But sure there are other religions that have this. It's voluntary and the percentage of people doing this is tiny.
    - cosmicgadget 1y ago
      So people have done this?
      - schoen 1y ago
        Generally monastics rather than all clergy.
      - nec4b 1y ago
        Yes, it has happen that some people have given away all their property and secluded themselves. I'm afraid to ask what is the point of your question. You surely don't think everyone will give up their wealth to the avant-garde and submit to them voluntarily. You do know how many millions had to die because of such ideas?
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    They don't give their property to the state. They sell it and donate it to the poor.
ivan_gammel 1y ago
Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become even stronger, to the point where it’s indistinguishable from socialism. If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking, it may be even not that bad.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  > Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).
matheusmoreira 1y ago
Of course. How else could you compel vast amounts of people to do hard labor for the benefit of others?

Of course, how else can you achieve classless society. Do you expect people to freely give everything they have to the state, so it can redistribute their wealth around? Don't you know the concept of a class enemy and why so much of mass murdering was going on in communist countries?

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Catholic clergy do this.
- nec4b 1y ago
  Not true, Catholic priests still have private property. But sure there are other religions that have this. It's voluntary and the percentage of people doing this is tiny.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    So people have done this?
    - schoen 1y ago
      Generally monastics rather than all clergy.
    - nec4b 1y ago
      Yes, it has happen that some people have given away all their property and secluded themselves. I'm afraid to ask what is the point of your question. You surely don't think everyone will give up their wealth to the avant-garde and submit to them voluntarily. You do know how many millions had to die because of such ideas?
- 1718627440 1y ago
  They don't give their property to the state. They sell it and donate it to the poor.

ivan_gammel 1y ago

Accelerated transition to it likely does. Gradual transition probably doesn’t. In social market economies redistribution is relatively strong but it can become even stronger, to the point where it’s indistinguishable from socialism. If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking, it may be even not that bad.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
> Gradual transition probably doesn’t. My country's current president had the exact same idea: install socialism in Brazil slowly to get people used to it so they don't launch a counter-revolution. We are currently a dictatorship of the judiciary and very much en route to become a Venezuela tier country. People work nearly half a year just to pay taxes and I'm not even accounting for inflation. The future already seems hopeless and bleak and he hasn't even fully won yet. > If done carefully while rewarding entrepreneurial initiative and penalizing rent seeking "Careful" is the understatement of the century. Many a socialist has tried, only to discover they are on the wrong end of the Laffer curve. Nobody really enjoys being utterly crushed by taxes in order to pay for the welfare of people they couldn't care less about. Taxes are tolerated because people believe they will indirectly benefit from it. Taxpayers expect taxes to be converted into useful infrastructure and services for everyone, themselves included. Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. Quite literally. Very often they find a way to exclude you based on your means. If you're rich or even middle class, it's not for you.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  Your reasoning is a fallacy of generalization of a bad example. Move to Europe and see how it might work. I pay a lot of taxes, but I do see value in paying them. > Socialism in practice is actually just wealth redistribution: taking from productive people to give to the poor and unproductive. This is wrong. Poor people can be productive. If salary inequality is high, the workers earn bare minimum doing most of the job while managers get their bonuses. Landlords may capture significant share of their income despite being absolutely unproductive. In such cases socialist policies may simply minimize inverse redistribution (exploitation).

matheusmoreira 1y ago

Of course. How else could you compel vast amounts of people to do hard labor for the benefit of others?