Communism and Totalitarianism.

Author: BigPimpDaddy

Posts

Total: 30
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
I find it strange how the two are equated.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Capitalism has a huge vested interest in portraying communism as intrinsically unjust and anti freedom. They cannot afford to let people know that they could be free of the cult of work and the exploitation of corporate interests.

BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
They often point to totalitarian communist states like ussr and other totalitarian "communist" revolutions.
Despite the fact that there have been plenty of anarcho communist, socialist, marxist movements but turn into
totalitarian regimes because of capitalist interventions and wars.
Even successful socialist states get crushed by capitalist countries.
its a shame.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Technically, they should not be equated in theory, but they are correlated in practice. Ideally, communism is community control of the means of production. It can work in small contexts, as in communes— which, ironically, can exist just fine in free, capitalist countries.

Totalitarianism rears its ugly head when communism is employed on a large scale, mainly because of human nature. Larger populations have to be coerced into sharing wealth, for one. The leaders at the top tend to hoard and protect their wealth and power, for another.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
A vestigial reaction. Throughout most of human history there was not enough to go around. Now we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry because it feels wrong to just give stuff away. It is not wrong though. I do not do worse because you do better. Quite the opposite. Who knows how your life will benefit me in the long run. 
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Sorry— you lost me at “vestigial reaction.” I also don’t see how what you said next concerns what I said.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,946
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
@BigPimpDaddy
Now we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry because it feels wrong to just give stuff away. It is not wrong though. I do not do worse because you do better. Quite the opposite. Who knows how your life will benefit me in the long run. 

Humans, to smart for their  britches always leads to dead end irrespective of which planet their seed takes hold on.  This lady discovered the evidence of some of the oldest life on Earth in rocks in Australia and she has come to the conclusion, I state above, and have given my prognostication of the end-date-humanity on this planet Earth.  2232 { approx. }.

Watch her video and see what conclusion you come too.   Humans, or any mind-accessing creatures, will always out-smart themselves before they destroy the ecological systems that sustain them.  The gods could even play betting games to see which mind accessing creatures will last the longest before destroying the ecological system that sustain them.

They will always choose capitlistic systems and that always is dead in because of greed, and inability to come to unified whole smartness to prevent localized dumbness, that only sees personal standard of living always rising, as they destroy the ecology.  :--)(--:   To smart and too dumb at same time. 


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
Sorry— you lost me at “vestigial reaction.” I also don’t see how what you said next concerns what I said.
Vestigial as in evolutionary leftover. The desire to protect limited resources is an evolutionary advantage that hurts us now that we have plenty to go around but don't really know how to share effectively. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Despite the fact that there have been plenty of anarcho communist, socialist, marxist movements but turn into
totalitarian regimes because of capitalist interventions and wars.
The 'because' is a lie.

They turn into that all on their own each and every time. You are the one looking at extreme cases to find an excuse whereas those who dislike Communism don't look to the extreme cases, they notice a trend very consistent in a system that defies all human motivation to work and do well in life.
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
@rationboy

The 'because' is a lie.

They turn into that all on their own each and every time. You are the one looking at extreme cases to find an excuse whereas those who dislike Communism don't look to the extreme cases, they notice a trend very consistent in a system that defies all human motivation to work and do well in life.
Care to do a debate?

"THBT: Communism is not inherently authoritarian.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,675
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
The ussr was not turned authoritarian due to “capitalist intervention“
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
Not really, it would become us both semantically battling appealing to the authority of our dictionaries. I didn't say the theory of Marx is inherently authoritarian, I said there's no way to enforce it without being authoritarian and so far this has consistently been proven correct.

I am certain I'd win though, because all dictionaries define Communism as the more brutal, tyrannical variant of what Socialism is however you'd of course argue that this is due to the dictionaries needing to abide by definitions provided post cold-war.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Vestigial as in evolutionary leftover. The desire to protect limited resources is an evolutionary advantage that hurts us now that we have plenty to go around but don't really know how to share effectively. 
Resources are no longer limited?

Assuming your claim as true, human nature remains unchanged. Large populations still have to be coerced into sharing what they believe they have earned, and the elites of society will want to retain more money and power than the general populace. Hence, authoritarianism/totalitarianism… and concentration of wealth (via political power rather than via enterprise).

Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@secularmerlin
Capitalism has a huge vested interest in portraying communism as intrinsically unjust and anti freedom. They cannot afford to let people know that they could be free of the cult of work and the exploitation of corporate interests.

I'm all for taking down the system. It kinda sucks, but when you see what people claiming to have been communists have done with Venezuela and Cuba or what pol pot and mao and Stalin have done while flying the communist flag, it's understandable why people would equate it with totalitarianism.

Also if you are familiar with communism, than you do realize that an oppressive totalitarian regime always precedes the communist state. I think Marx wrote a lot about this. 

There is nothing wrong with sacrificing for some future benefit, but how exactly do we know the benefit is worth it since this is all theoretical? How do we know the totalitarian who precede communism will actually be able to have their power removed?
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
-->@BigPimpDaddy
Technically, they should not be equated in theory, but they are correlated in practice. Ideally, communism is community control of the means of production. It can work in small contexts, as in communes— which, ironically, can exist just fine in free, capitalist countries.

Totalitarianism rears its ugly head when communism is employed on a large scale, mainly because of human nature. Larger populations have to be coerced into sharing wealth, for one. The leaders at the top tend to hoard and protect their wealth and power, for another.
well said.
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
you do realize that an oppressive totalitarian regime always precedes the communist state. I think Marx wrote a lot about this. 
False, the opposite of true.  Obviously, the people cannot control the means of production without democracy.  If there's no democracy than by definition the people are not in control and so the economic plan is not Socialism or Communism, whatever labels the authoritarians apply.

When Paul LaFargue coined the term Marxism and called for giving up on democratic reform in favor of revolutionary overthrow, Marx wrote him and "If one thing is certain, I am not a Marxist"
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
Resources are no longer limited?
Finite yes but we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry and leave many houses vacant while people remain homeless. This is not a supply problem it is s distribution problem. Our distribution system is capitalist. That is the problem. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wylted
Totalitarian and fascist regimes rarely call themselves fascists or totalitarians. It is sort of like if you had a corporate oligarchy where profit determined executive policy but called it a representative democracy. Mislabeling a thing does not change its essential nature. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I think fascists were pretty open about being fascists
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wylted
I think fascists were pretty open about being fascists
Not in political climates where fascism is a dirty word. They must identify with some other political system in that case in order to gain a foothold. 
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@secularmerlin
fair enough but I can't tell if you are talking about actual fascists here or just being liberal with the word 
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
@Rationboy
fair enough
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wylted
fair enough but I can't tell if you are talking about actual fascists here or just being liberal with the word 
Actual fascists are not socialists. That is all I have said. I have not actually given any examples of a fascist regime.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
free of the cult of work and the exploitation of corporate interests.
Free of the cult of work? As if work is unjustly meted out? You're kidding, right? Work is not a cult; it is a requirement of personal responsibility. You were not born to be coddled to, entitled, or otherwise dismiss personal responsibility. THAT is exploitation of the rest of us, who find personal satisfaction, or at least the income personally earned to care for ourselves and our families.

Don't you mean exploitation BY corporate interests? That is your typical mantra. You're at war with capitalism. If you have ever lived under communism, or totalitarianism, you would know that it is slavery of thought and action. Your individual worth just isn't. Period.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@cristo71
communism is community control of the means of production
No, that is socialism, allegedly. It doesn't help when Democrats, no calling themselves Social Democrats, would like you to think it is community control, but a read of the AOC official description of the Green New Deal, https://www.gp.org/gnd_full    will tell you that the government would establish a federal commission to conduct "budget participation," meaning government oversignt of privtre industry budgeting. That's otherwise called government control, which is:

Communism is government control of the means of production.
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@RationalMadman
@BigPimpDaddy
...you'd of course argue that this is due to the dictionaries needing to abide by definitions provided post cold-war.
Who needs A dictionary? A read of the Communist Manifesto is clear enough what its intentions are and how it defines its vocabulary.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
it is a requirement of personal responsibility
Why? Automation is at an all time high.one person can produce as much as one hundred in the same period of time. Why is work necessary for everyone as a full time obligation? One of the biggest complaints people have about their jobs is how much of their job is completely unnecessary. Why do you feel people are obligated to do unnecessary work?
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
Communism is government control of the means of production
Not even close; why are you talking about the green new deal?
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Finite yes but we throw away enough food to feed the world's hungry and leave many houses vacant while people remain homeless. This is not a supply problem it is s distribution problem. Our distribution system is capitalist. That is the problem. 
Capitalism isn’t just a system of wealth distribution; it is also a system of wealth creation.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
It is a system of exploitation of labor for profit. Profit dictates policy in a capitalist state.