It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is it that people with no knowledge of communism are so against it?

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:36 PM
I was able to read up to page 5 of this thread, but then as happened when I was halfway through Marx and Engels, I stopped reading.

It's clear the OP is one of those new pinkos, all idealistic and full of energy to put towards a utopian ideal.

"Sure, it's been done poorly in the past, but WHAT IF it was done properly this time, you know like the Spanish commies during the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s? Sigh... what if..."

Good for her. Unfortunately, just like our current "Capitalism at all costs" system communism has proven to be detrimental to society. One of the definitions of insanity is to keep trying the same things over and over the same way and expecting a different result.

Despite how "deeply reactionary" or "wrong thinking" this post may be to our radical socialist brethren and sistren, I'm more ideologically left than I am right. Communism is a failed doctrine designed only for angry university students. Oh, that one college lecturer you know is a hard-core communist? Well, that's what we in the biz like to call an immature old dude.

If there was a communist revolution in my country I'd literally take up arms against them - history has shown us that at first it's all like "comrades" and "equal shares for everyone!" Then it becomes talk about "dissent and counterrevolutionary thought" and "secret police" and all that. Screw that. Not on my watch, baby.
edit on 3-1-2013 by nottelling because: I added some deeply reactionary punctuation and counterrevolutionary spelling corrections so as to complety discredit my argument and prove my position as an Enemy of the Glorious Socialist People's Republic Of This Thread (GSPROTT for short).

edit on 3-1-2013 by nottelling because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2013 by nottelling because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2013 by nottelling because: Because sometimes editing can be fun

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:40 PM

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheJourney

. Communism REQUIRES the use of power. A state power; a paramilitary force that carries out the policies of the government. Society simply could not function without such an apparatus.

Gold Star for your post BTW. Re "the use of power": it was the Chinese Communist Chairman Mao Tse Tung (Zedong) who said that "all political power proceeds from the barrel of a gun." That about sums it up.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by dontreally
Take this ridiculous and puerile notion that communism could thrive outside a state-like structure. HOW? You made the claim, but failed to flesh it out with a theoretical explanation.

Just like anarcho-capitalism, except egalitarian.
edit on 3-1-2013 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:52 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

What the hell are you on? Hayek advocated at most a mixed system, with some concessions to government interference, i.e in waste management, and stuff like that. To claim otherwise is patent bull$hit.

I'll mention something else. People with leftist sympathies i.e. liberal, spiritual universalism, have no qualms about using totalitarian powers to force their viewpoint on others.

Hayek as well as Milton Friedman also pointed out the irony that in a capitalist society, socialists are allowed to pursue their subversive political goals, whereas in a socialist society, no such presence exists because the government forbids any and all subversive political activity.

If that doesn't prove capitalisms moral superiority, I don't know what does.

Also, the difference between capitalism and communism could be interpreted as the fight between quality and quantity. Marxism thinks all things are economical. Humans are turned into mere economic pawns in it's system. We have no higher interests then to have "enough" to live. By giving people an equal share, socialism also undermines human choice: people are now subject to educational institutions, a media, and government that pushes the official philosophy. Individuals are undercut. The individual is disdained. To create peace, people must be deprived of the blessing of individual choice.

Conversely, capitalism, which makes use of capital, paradoxically defends individual freedoms. Its paradoxical how that works. That socialisms economic focus on equality ends up irreparably harming individuals, thereby reducing diversity and thus quality of living (who would like just a red carpet versus a beautiful mosaic?). Capitalism, which seeks to reward individual merit and so create conditions of inequality, nevertheless preserves diversity by keeping the governments hands far away from meddling too much.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:56 PM
The beauty of this thread is it avoids having to deal with the people who do have knowledge of communism and are against it.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by TheJourney

Libertarian Capitalism has the benefit of impersonal market forces. Its strength lies in the non-interference of human beings. Conversely, anarcho-socialism relies on the real time decision making of human beings: who will get what? what will be subsidized? etc.

At the current rate of things, the probability of libertarian socialism ever becoming a reality is akin to my dog growing wings and flying off to valhalla.

To support such an enterprise, rationally speaking, whats implicitly understood is subversive political activity: i.e the taking over of education and media establishment, which, not surprising, appears to be happening. But so long as a strong, conservative, rational base continues to exist, socialists who day dream of a non-hierarchal society will have to one day use violence against their opposition. Brewing a civil war might facilitate that ambition of theirs.

In any case, so much of what's important to the left is plainly irrational. David Gerlenter, the Yale professor of computer science, recommends partial educational reform, the move from the professor taught school room to internet education, where students study in a lab. Unfortunately, given the domination of the school system by post-modernists, this would be the only practicable way to preserve aspiring intellects from being zombified by their teachers.

Conformity, by the way, works both ways: one can dress liberally, think liberally, and be a petty conformist all at the same time.
edit on 3-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:15 PM
Not everyone who is opposed to communism is uninformed.

Personally, I treasure and value and strive for personal wealth and improving my quality of life for myself...and my family. I see nothing wrong with owning a vacation home where my family can enjoy our private beach near the lake and we can ride our jetskiis, boat and kayaks. I see nothing wrong with taking random vacations and enjoying any food we want to try, without having to answer to anyone. I want the freedom to work hard enough and grow my family's wealth so that my kids can take life by the balls and do whatever they want to live happy. Pursue their dreams, visit exotic places, buy nice things. Under communism, that would no be possible.

Communism = shìt...and a sorry excuse of an existence.
edit on 3-1-2013 by Unidentified_Objective because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by dontreally

You're projecting. My anarcho-communist vision would be totally voluntary. It would arise out of anarcho-capitalism. I have no idea where you're getting the idea of violence. With no state, people could voluntarily group together to form such a society, and anyone who didn't want to participate would not be forced to. They could simply go somewhere else.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:56 PM
I dont believe "communism" by definition has ever existed. The system that existed in Russia and remaining communist states are totalitarian regimes run by autocrats for autocrats, often killing millions of their own citizens to do so. . They used the guise of "communism" to gain control of the state and take total power. I personally dont believe communism would ever work because it depends on mass altruism and no such thing exists. People can be compassionate, but are inherently selfish. There is nothing wrong with a regulated capitalist society. The problem with our capitalism is not capitalism, its that its not regulated and has run amok. if we can re-regulate it, we can bring back jobs and a good standard of living, all without having to resort to communism.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:12 PM

Originally posted by openminded2011
The problem with our capitalism is not capitalism, its that its not regulated and has run amok.

I'm afraid you've bought into the mainstream line if you believe that the problem with our economy is that it is 'not regulated.'

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:18 PM

Originally posted by nottelling
One of the definitions of insanity is to keep trying the same things over and over the same way and expecting a different result.

Right..... and trying it differently does not fall into this category whatsoever.

I don't know why you would try to paint it as such when you yourself said it was a different application... do you think Einstein would oppose people trying new methods of a theory? You think he would call them insane?

I wonder what word Einstein would use to define that assertion of fallacy.

I don't believe in communism at all, but it just infuriates me when people use this argument against it. It's incredibly idiotic and non-linear. If you don't understand what Einstein is saying, then don't quote him as if you do.
edit on 3-1-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
I agree. Most so-called communists just use that fact that communism is most logical and makes the most common sense to become dictators. Examples are the USSR, cuba, North Korea, etc. But nobody ever talks about Spain before Franco's coup. I believe that unless you've read the Communist Manifesot, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, State and Revolution: by Lenin, the Foundations of Leninism, The New Class: Djilas, Combat Liberalism (communists detest liberalism), I do not believe that you have right to talk about it. There are many more works that ought to be read on the matter. Most of ATS believes the lies of the West, but if any, those of you whom have truly studied the communist works, what is your argument against it?
edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2013 by NysgjerrigDame because: (no reason given)

I don't care if you want to be a communist.

As long as you don't force your views on me or any other human being, you can go do whatever you please.

Just to piggyback off of my post from earlier today;

AND if you DO intend to force communism (or anything else) on other people against their will, don't be surprised if you get attacked for those views. There is a long history of rebellion against the monopoly of force and maybe that is why so many people have a negative perception of communism from failed models of Cuba, N.Korea, Russia, Germany, and China. The greed for power and the idea that 'the end justifies the means' is what became of a single ruler who came to power and modeled their newly ruled societies after Marxist ideals. Power should never be channeled into one place.

This is the beauty of the non-aggression principle and free markets (or true capitalism). You don't have to hate it because nobody is forcing you to get on board. If you can set a better example and voluntarily get more people to your communist society then you have proven your model.

I don't see how anybody can disagree with this. Morality is key.

edit on 3-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 08:56 PM
[shakes index finger at the OP in a rabidly anti-pinko rant] ...and another thing... Communism's idea of equality ends up (in theory) bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator - i.e. a few clicks up from poverty. Sure, the state is supposed to provide for the basics, but where's the incentive? Where does mankind's natural desire for cool and nice things come into the equation?

Communism'd be much more palatable if their idea of equality ended up raising everyone up to the highest common denominator. If we all had everything we needed and wanted, then there's no resource wars and no poverty and no one can use their wealth as a means of power over anyone else.

Star Trek-style replicators, anyone? Note: I'm not talking about the Stargate SGI replicators because the latter are evil and will spray acid on you if they consider you to be a threat.

What are the arguments against equality based on the highest common denominator?

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:01 PM
reply to post by TheJourney

You're projecting.

What am I projecting?

My anarcho-communist vision would be totally voluntary.

Like the Kibbutzim? Its funny. Two epidemiologists who've studied the Kibbutz over 20 years discovered some pretty startling things about it.

First, the Kibbutz worked from the premise of forming a non-hierachal society. So, no families, no gender distinct, equal distribution of the work and profits. What they discovered was that women didn't want to do the jobs usually associated with men, choosing instead to work with children, as teachers, educators, whereas the men stuck to the factory and farm work. Despite the Kibbutzniks efforts to forcibly change women to make them like their vanilla male standard, women rebelled, or rather, unconsciously inclined towards those areas they have a natural, biologically evolved connection with i.e. parenting, nurturing. This is the beauty of women, something feminism has insidiously derided.

Thank God though. It was important for women to liberate themselves from the shackles of religious bigotry. But today, it's even more important that they liberate themselves from the radical feminism that tries to make women more like men.

My point? Communism, and leftists in general, are absolutely wrong about the interchangeability of the sexes.. We are different. I know it dampers their theory of people being identical in structure, the external or internal being of little practical importance. Jung somewhat inspired this new age proclivity of seeing people as externally one sex and habit, but the process of if individuation requires the conscious integration of the shadow side, the anima for man and the animus for women. When that happens, all people become androgynous. This is all pseudo-psychology, to put it bluntly. Even if men have a typically female aspect and women a typically men aspect, these are SMALLER than the predominant trait embedded in the genes of their physical organism. To imagine otherwise is to dabble in mythology.

Hierarchy, difference, is as much a part of the fabric of existence as biology is integral in forming our likes and dislikes. Of course, it's only partial, since free will and the person make up another half. Hardcore rationalists and radical leftists both go too far in their assumptions of human nature and existence; the former looks only at the biological, and forgets the person, while the latter looks only at the metaphysical, and forgets the real.

It would arise out of anarcho-capitalism. I have no idea where you're getting the idea of violence. With no state, people could voluntarily group together to form such a society, and anyone who didn't want to participate would not be forced to. They could simply go somewhere else.

You've been sorta sparse on the details. In any case, this idea was thought up long ago. Such a system fails in attracting people, unfortunately.
edit on 3-1-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:24 PM
I believe the idea behind communism is a good one.

Though it has not been done correctly, and whilst people are still run by egos it will never be able to be done correctly either.

I do not look down on it anymore than other political stances.
edit on 3-1-2013 by ssophia because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by ANOK

So I can be a feudal serf or an individual. Well, perhaps I'm just a low born dunce, but I choose to be an individual and will fight to the death to retain that over collectivism (which is extremely unnatural outside of the classroom or the basement of someone who lives in books and fantasy realms).
Collectivism is true slavery.
If true communism were possible, which it is not, it would still be a true evil. Forced "equality" is for tiny tiny tiny minds that think they are big.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame

Communism in its purist form is great for society in theory only. The reason it does not work is because it requires everyone to be honest and that is not the way people really are. The reason capitalism/democracy works is because it trust no one. It is set up in a two part system of checks and balances to keep greed and corruption at bay but even that is not enough as American politics has proven and China and Russia has pointed out. Democracy like Rome over a long period of time when corruption/greed works its ways into laws passed by the senate and the house over the long run economically and militarily leads the country to ruin. So even capitalism/democracy is not perfect either. The problem with a government is that greed, corruption, hate, and war along with financial ruin and environment destruction sooner or later leads all governments and civilizations on earth to ruin. And will eventually destroy our planet and all life on it too. The problem is people blame each other and the style of governments being used but the real problem is not each other and the problem is not our style of governments it is us mankind. We have no one else to blame but ourselves but as it goes we blame everyone and everything else but ourselves and we blame our style of governments. Even a dictatorship can be a very good and fruitful form of government if the right people are running it. Communism can be a very fruitful government if the right people are running it. Democracy is successful because of checks and balances and because it works on greed and corruption which is really at the heart of all mankind. So because democracy/capitalism fits our traits as a species it is the mankind's most successful and best form of government.

edit on 3-1-2013 by Reactor because: corrections

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Wildbob77
If communism was actually a wonderful way to run a country then at least one communist country in the world would have been amazingly successful.

Then everyone would want to live there..

My question, where is it?

This ones easy:

We've never had true Communism and the PTB will do everything in their power to insure we don't. Reason being: They will have to work just like everyone else, not just sit ahigh.

I'm surprised so many here at ATS fall so easily for the illusion?

I repeat: TPTB will INSURE Communism NEVER works because they would no longer be elite, they will have to WORK like everyone else.

They insure communism never works by placing and supporting tyrant psychopaths in countries that even THINK about communism. They then allow these sick people to install statist systems yet call themselves communists. To top it off they are SURE to broadcast the atrocities committed and highlight how lucky American citizens are. After all this they then send our soldiers to kill the tyrants they first supported and placed in power.

We may not have the technology to implement communism on a grand scale yet. It would have to be implemented in a ALREADY FREE country. That's what's been missing from the equation.

We need a tech where we can account for and hold responsible EVERY individual in society. That way sick people wouldn't obtain positions of power in the government and then skew the economic system of communism.

If communism was what you have been taught, we would have it here in America. What better way to control your populous? The next best thing to a statist government is a capitalist society. Not as much overt control, but they make money hand over fist.


Think on this for a minute, and reevaluate what you believe about commuism.

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by NysgjerrigDame

In a perfect world........
There would be no greed. If there was no greed, then everyone would contribute equally to society and each would be taken care of by that same entity. They would do their respective jobs, smiling all the while, then go home to their apartments, always being careful to limit their child making to the appropriate number of children determined by the government. The Doctor next door would collect the same benefits as the garbage collector in the apartment above him. Yes, utopia. Until.........DUN DUN DUN!!!! someone gets greedy and thinks they deserve just a bit more than others. Then it all starts to unravel quite quickly. The Doctor sees the shop keeper revolting about his wages being the same as the garbage collector! He should be paid more, he has more responsibilities! Then the Doctor starts to think about all his training and hard work. He thinks he should defect and move to a capitalist country and make some real money. Then all the other doctors jump on that bandwagon. Soon after that everyone dies a horrible death. See why communism just doesn't work?

I wouldn't call it "greed" though. I'd call it self interest. It is natural to want to reap the benefits of your own labor.

No, it goes beyond self interest. It moves into the realm of greed...

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:50 PM
Looking through this thread you can see why communism will not work yet. The people aren't ready. You have people who acknowledge that they are basically "all about me". You have people worried about their individualism to extreme measures!

What most people don't realize is that individualism is what keeps this world harsh. Individualism is akin to separatism. Recall the Tower of Babel, why were the people punished: Because they were becoming as ONE and working together. The gods then decided that man must be punished, SEPARATED and insured that they will never become as ONE.

They did an awesome job because people are still fooled into thinking individualism is the way to go.

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in