d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Rip Che Guevara
Prev1891011Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 22,442
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
Oct 11 2019 03:44pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 11 2019 11:39am)
the crux of conversations about communism rest on a no true scotsmen fallacy. ala: "yes communism has failed, miserably, but that's not REAL communism".

it's both a fail by the anti-communist to call what has been labelled as communism communism, and a fail by the pro-communist to suggest real corruption free communism can exist.

communism invariably leads to cronyism and/or authoritarianism.

however, communism hasn't been entirely unsuccessful depending on what metric you use. China was a fairly successful communist state, brutal and authoritarian sure, but they smoothly transitioned into their modern socialist state on a pivot. and by linking science, business, and culture to the state they've made incredible progress. Russia isn't a real democracy, so even after their fall they really just rebranded. and in small populations communism works just fine, such as island nations with low population and simplified economies and worker roles.

communism as a system works fine in theory, but in reality people are too greedy. the only viable realistic communist state that could work would be algorithmic and run by a computer, not a human. and we're nowhere near that level of complex ai yet.


I think that's because there's a reluctance to entertain the fact that no society of size exists as a singular form of government, and that this is both true for the anti and pro-communist groups. We all exist in an integrated system, such as how the United States isn't simply a democracy, but rather it's a federal republic with democratic elections.

Communism gets derided in examples of authoritarian, militaristic governments, but those authoritarian or militaristic components of those societies are antithetical to communist philosophy. To condemn communism because of its connection to these oppressive governments misses the nuance to me. It's like dismissing democracy itself because North Korea refers to itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Oct 11 2019 04:11pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ Oct 11 2019 04:44pm)
I think that's because there's a reluctance to entertain the fact that no society of size exists as a singular form of government, and that this is both true for the anti and pro-communist groups. We all exist in an integrated system, such as how the United States isn't simply a democracy, but rather it's a federal republic with democratic elections.

Communism gets derided in examples of authoritarian, militaristic governments, but those authoritarian or militaristic components of those societies are antithetical to communist philosophy. To condemn communism because of its connection to these oppressive governments misses the nuance to me. It's like dismissing democracy itself because North Korea refers to itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.


to the last point i'd say that oppression is an end result of a small group of people pooling all the money and deciding how it's spent. imo communism invariably leads to oppression because no bargain can be struck on a societal wide scale for how the money should be spent.
Member
Posts: 22,442
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
Oct 11 2019 04:15pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 11 2019 03:11pm)
to the last point i'd say that oppression is an end result of a small group of people pooling all the money and deciding how it's spent. imo communism invariably leads to oppression because no bargain can be struck on a societal wide scale for how the money should be spent.


Does that mean communism is bunk then? No singular form of governance (or lack thereof) is perfect. Invariably, any society of size that seeks to implement communism will be doing so in an integrated way.

There's legitimate criticism of democracy, particularly when taking in its singular form and applied as a direct democracy, but that doesn't make democracy bunk.
Member
Posts: 93,001
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Oct 11 2019 04:40pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ Oct 11 2019 05:15pm)
Does that mean communism is bunk then? No singular form of governance (or lack thereof) is perfect. Invariably, any society of size that seeks to implement communism will be doing so in an integrated way.

There's legitimate criticism of democracy, particularly when taking in its singular form and applied as a direct democracy, but that doesn't make democracy bunk.


i'd vote bunk, yes. i think that voting power doesn't eliminate gripes but makes it so that when voted on the population only has the population to blame. if i had it my way we'd vote for representation AND vote on their policy proposals. so that every tax break or gender neutral bathroom is a product of the people.
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
Oct 11 2019 08:51pm
Quote (balrog66 @ Oct 11 2019 05:07pm)
Idk man. Ask around in what used to be the Soviet Union and there are plenty of folks who lived in it who yearn to be back in a communist society. And it's not out of some type of Stockholm Syndrome, and they weren't bigshots in the political system either. Life was actually better for them.

It ain't even close to being as black and white as you paint it out to be.

Stalin, Mao and his ilk have done atrocious things. But I don't see anyone here ever mentioning Churchill starving the entirety of the Bengal province of India (2.1m to 3m dead). Dude's widely acknowledged as one of Britain's greatest leaders. When he's actually a mass-murdering cunt on the same magnitude as Pol Pot. Similarly, the US-supported purges of communists in Indonesia by Suharto and his buddies, half a million to 3 million alone in that incident.

There is no need to make this a pissing contest, as capitalism has been around for longer than communism and will without question pee the farthest, even if you take the ludicrous numbers from the Black Book of Communism.


Not Stockholm syndrome, but a mix of nostalgia and patriotic revisionism, along with despair at rampant corruption in an otherwise declining society.
You see a bit of that in American nostalgia for the 50s. People yearn for simpler times where the rules were clear-cut, forgetting how complex the situation was.

The Soviet economy was in decline well before the collapse of the USSR. Highly dependent on oil/gas revenue, with overmatched central planners increasingly irrelevant to a burgeoning secondary economy.

It's not wrong to pine for those days when you had to suffer through the corrupt morass of the 90s that followed, but the underpinning of social collapse in the Soviet Union was the result of communism. Even with almost unparalleled natural resources, Russian communism never had any shot of long term success.
Member
Posts: 49,896
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Oct 11 2019 09:48pm
I think the optimum system would be a technocracy personally, every person in each role needs to be experienced in the field and have a solid record.
Lobbying would have extreme limitations.
Corporate and developer donations would be banned.
No bill would be allowed to have unrelated riders attached to it.
Major issues would be put to a vote of the people, with a majority vote passing.
Tyranny of the majority, if you want change then convince the people.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Oct 11 2019 09:50pm
Member
Posts: 18,212
Joined: Jul 15 2014
Gold: 107.77
Member
Posts: 33,928
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Oct 11 2019 11:22pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Oct 11 2019 02:39pm)
the crux of conversations about communism rest on a no true scotsmen fallacy. ala: "yes communism has failed, miserably, but that's not REAL communism".

it's both a fail by the anti-communist to call what has been labelled as communism communism, and a fail by the pro-communist to suggest real corruption free communism can exist.

communism invariably leads to cronyism and/or authoritarianism.

however, communism hasn't been entirely unsuccessful depending on what metric you use. China was a fairly successful communist state, brutal and authoritarian sure, but they smoothly transitioned into their modern socialist state on a pivot. and by linking science, business, and culture to the state they've made incredible progress. Russia isn't a real democracy, so even after their fall they really just rebranded. and in small populations communism works just fine, such as island nations with low population and simplified economies and worker roles.

communism as a system works fine in theory, but in reality people are too greedy. the only viable realistic communist state that could work would be algorithmic and run by a computer, not a human. and we're nowhere near that level of complex ai yet.



Quit your job then commie
Member
Posts: 49,896
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 3.88
Oct 11 2019 11:38pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Oct 12 2019 04:22pm)
Quit your job then commie


Can you even read?
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Oct 12 2019 06:00am
Quote (Plaguefear @ Oct 12 2019 01:38am)
Can you even read?


Lol no. He has idea what we are talking about most the time.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1891011Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll