:up:

In modern lexicon doesn't communism not work more or less by definition?

The empirical record on the whole phenomena is all over the place, just as it is with capitalist liberal democracy.

But the reason we know communism doesn't work is that's how the word works. If something worked then it wouldn't be communism.

President Ronald Reagan 1980-1988 had a hand in the USSR's failure some commentators say. He didn't introduce military competition between the US and the USSR, but he did spend very heavily on stuff like the Star Wars Initiative (The plan to send Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader in to destroy the Kremlin) and other military projects, which compelled the USSR to spend more than they could afford to spend. The 'guns' in the budget reduced the amount of 'butter' for the Soviet people. Of course we were spending far too much (in my opinion) and couldn't afford it either, but they didn't ask me.

There was a program on PBS in the early 90s on how Russians felt about the demise of the soviet state. The post-soviet quality of life took a dive for many Russians, which probably colored their reactions, but many cited good things that the soviet system delivered. One of the things that was discussed was that there was an accessible bureaucracy to handle the complaints the people had about housing, streets, transit, markets, and so forth. It was accessible and reasonably responsive,

Joseph Stalin, may his soul rot in hell, was malevolent despot a good share of the time. He imposed famine on Ukraine in order to crush resistance to collectivization. He ignored all sorts of intelligence about Germany's planned invasion, and almost lost the country to Hitler. He had wiped out the military leadership, which had to be rebuilt to mount an effective defense. We can thank the soviet system rather than Stalin for the victory.

Another socialist enterprise worth discussion is Yugoslavia under Tito. One of Tito's achievements was to keep a lid on the various bubbling ethnic resentments which boiled over after Tito's demise. Tito's regime may have been the most effective of Eurasian communist states. North Vietnam might also be mentioned -- they beat us at our game, after all, no small achievement. North Vietnam may not have been a paradise, but it beat North Korea all hollow.

Well, I personally think that many European countries, from what I heard and read, is closer to what a Communist society than the actual Communist countries. I also think for a developing communist country, it'll inevitably have to borrow things from capitalist countries, so that to achieve socialism, degrees of capitalism is unavoidable. One last point is that I doubt that in a country ruled by dictatorship, where there is no balance of power and no way of checking the power, socialism can really be realised since the system would fail to be effient enough to produce enough science and technology to produce effectively to sustain a high quality of living for people.

If a socialist country is a country where the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled by the people and values economic equality, then I can't say that China fit in the descriptions very well. I don't know how China can manage to reduce economical inequality which is quite enormous currently. In terms of universal healthcare and education, China indeed has them but the quality of healthcare and education still has a long way ahead. As for other social services, I think the public transpotation system is very good as well as the digital payment. Delivery servies are very good as well, though it exploits may workers.

For me the answer is pretty simple i think.Look around you.Colleagues, friends, neighbors,social workers even family sometimes.
Do all these people seem ready or willing for you to follow the main "all equal" path of communism??
Don't judge by what they(we)say.Just by what you see they(we) do.

Even communists are so confused that they think they act equal and at the very end they do the exact same.They are just so confused that they don't event understand it themselves.
They just find silly excuses ,as we all do, to justify their(our) own shit.

Of course not all people are like that.There are really exceptional People who believe and act like that indeed.Personally i deeply,deeply admire them.

But the vast majority of people aren't like that at all.Ego is in our genes.Totally "killing" it ,or pretend that we can totally "tame" it,well i don't know if it is even possible.
And i don't know if ever the majority of people will reach to that spiritual level as to achieve it and be ready for applying a real communist or socialist system.

And i don't know if ever the majority of people will reach to that spiritual level as to achieve it and be ready for applying a real communist or socialist system. — dimosthenis9

That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism.

Both those terms have many definitions and variations, so to talk about them magically we must look to the most central element of them.

Communism is most tropically understood as the workers owning the means of production. That has rarely been tried at scale.

Socialism's most central aspect is caring for the well-being of everyone. Reciprocity is the cornerstone of civilization and no society or government has ever yet been legitimate at scale.

Even if a particular ideology meets that criteria, the nuances will completely charge the way it expresses, as will any number of arbitrary factors like how technology advances. Every instance of an ideology must be judged on its own particulars. Every class is ideology believes it's doing good.

As for the myriad of people who say socialism leads to mass murderer, that's a logical fallacy. Mass harm is Always done in the name of the some common good. Until a government actually exhibits caring for everyone, socialism hasn't been tried.

talk about them meaningfully*
typically understood*
class of ideology*

duck autocorrect

The empirical record on the whole phenomena is all over the place, just as it is with capitalist liberal democracy. — Moliere

We could say the same about classical monarchy, autocratic dictatorships, imperial dynasties, &c.

This is getting into the epistemological territory of identification. Is it communist because there is such a thing in-itself that is communist, or is it a mere descriptor that we apply to a phenomena because it fits sufficient relativistic criteria.

Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe

It makes sense for me also.There is really strong competition here ,as you mention.
It is much more easier to be followed.And doesn't require such hard fight as to change our own selves and our belief system first.
So seems also logical for me that communism remains an utopia, even if i still vote for leftist parties on elections.

As for the myriad of people who say socialism leads to mass murderer, that's a logical fallacy. Mass harm is Always done in the name of the some common good. Until a government actually exhibits caring for everyone, socialism hasn't been tried. — Kaiser Basileus

Socialism doesn't lead to mass murder. In an overwhelming number of cases, every time communism has been implemented on a large scale, it resulted in mass murder of its own citizens.

Mass harm is, indeed, always done in the name of the good. And the greater the promise of the good, the greater the harm. No one promises a greater good than the communist.

Government is constitutionally incapable of caring for everyone. In theory, government is constituted to care for its constituency, or at best, its citizenry at large. That is what makes it difficult for the communist government: not everyone belongs to its constituency, and they make things unequal and must be murdered so that everyone will belong to the constituency, equally.

seems also logical for me that communism remains an utopia, even if i still vote for leftist parties on elections — dimosthenis9

I think some of the principles of the left are invaluable to humanity as a whole, and even more to the individual in particular. (Add: ironically, Jesus was a leftist)

Do you see a relevant link between the current "leftist" political parties and communism?

have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist?

We could say the same about classical monarchy, autocratic dictatorships, imperial dynasties, &c.

This is getting into the epistemological territory of identification. Is it communist because there is such a thing in-itself that is communist, or is it a mere descriptor that we apply to a phenomena because it fits sufficient relativistic criteria. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'd distinguish between ideology, nation, state, and party. Communism is an ideology, nations are historical claims on territory, states control nations, and parties compete to control states. I'd also point out that nations work differently from monarchies and dynasties: the nationalist cause is self-determination within the framework of a nation. If you don't even have a nation then it's an understandable demand because it's the basic framework of power in the modern world. One could be said to be without a politics if you don't even have a nation.

"Communism doesn't work" is not specific enough to evaluate. Doesn't work, for whom? The right-wing politician in the OP? Well, that's not a surprise. Doesn't work for China, with an actual Communist Party in charge adopting to new circumstances just as one would predict a Marxist ideology would? (but that's not *real* communism, some way) Doesn't work for radicals who want more out of an apathetic government claiming to be The One True Free Way For the World?

Communism "hasn't been tried" by some, and "has been tested and found wanting" by others -- but I'd suggest that ideologies don't work like this line of thinking is stating at all. Ideologies are big-picture thoughts that often times don't give a specific evaluation for the particular activities of politics. Even when they do they touch the day-to-day at a step removed from a particular law being debated or policy being enacted or action being taken. They are whole ways of understanding a political world or order.

For my part I prefer the warts-and-all approach. Communism has been tried, and it's done horrible things and good things -- just like liberal capitalist nations. I'd say the common there is in the structure of a nation. To build a nation requires violence, or at least that's been the most common and effective method so far. And to keep a nation in control also requires violence -- there's something to be said for the theory that the modern state has a claim to a monopoly on violence. It's what keeps the state in order.

But the way that you and I know communism "doesn't work" in the manner proposed in the OP? I pretty much think it follows by definition. The usual arguments have been trotted out here -- that we're too selfish, or some such. So we define communism in this way where it cannot be realized, refer to the human nature we all know, and call it a day. Not even a single look into a history book is needed!

Well the only link i see as to be honest is that current leftist parties(some of them at least)are the closest to reality that communism can get.At least so far in mankind.
They are as if communism tries to wear a more realistic - pragmatistic suit.I find that better for sure than the utopia.

have you ever noticed that a lot of atheists are anti-communist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yeah i have.

I'd distinguish between ideology, nation, state, and party. Communism is an ideology, nations are historical claims on territory, states control nations, and parties compete to control states. I'd also point out that nations work differently from monarchies and dynasties: the nationalist cause is self-determination within the framework of a nation. If you don't even have a nation then it's an understandable demand because it's the basic framework of power in the modern world. One could be said to be without a politics if you don't even have a nation — Moliere

Solid breakdown. Important to distinguish these things. The nation is definitely the base unit for state and ideology. Nation is one's people. A person naturally assumes the ethics (and by extension the politics) of his people, otherwise they wouldn't be his people. This is the strength of patriotism. Unfortunate that nations are easily manipulated.

In classical marxism, ideology, state and nation become merged at the final staged of history. The problem is that in marxism, ideology is the base unit for state which forms the nation. It has it all fundamentally "flipped on its head" as it were.

I'd say the common there is in the structure of a nation. To build a nation requires violence, or at least that's been the most common and effective method so far. And to keep a nation in control also requires violence -- there's something to be said for the theory that the modern state has a claim to a monopoly on violence. It's what keeps the state in order. — Moliere

That's a certainty. I think it was Weber who called it the "legitimate use of force". I think the main difference is the efficiency by which communist regimes have systematically exterminated its own citizens. Compared to other examples in history of internal purges (even considering the advantages of technology), Communism holds all the records by far.

Thank you for your substantial reply, Hailey :up:

The peril of centralization just there. Economies perhaps have to be de-centralized in order not everybody makes the same mistakes. — ssu

Let's decentralize companies too then!

That is another point of communist confusion. Because it is materialistic at heart, the loftiest entity that a communist can recognize is the State. And given that tyranny is the default position of the State, it is very reasonable to be suspicious of any state that wants to centralize power in order to bring about some hypothetical utopia. Compare this to the competition, a metaphysical reality of infinite possibility and ethical certitude (God and religion are very compatible with the capitalist republic, which generally delivers a higher standard of living) . . . it makes sense that people can't make a spiritual commitment to communism. — Merkwurdichliebe

Fair warning; I'll be going off into a tangent here.

A higher standard of living for whom? At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. The US meanwhile is lagging in many metrics compared to other "capitalist" societies. I don't think capitalism is a good indicator - or in fact that this is really a question of economics. A lot of rich people and politicians like to pretend it is, because it keeps them rich but the result is people subservient to the economy and a certain class all the while extolling the virtues of capitalism and individualism. Classes are real (anyone denying this, please study some marketing which still uses the NRS social grade) and consistently cause problems as there are no people "all free and equal" but persons that are “responsible and cooperating members of their respective groups” (Rawls).

In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. It requires a learned legal profession to produce good lawyers, informed and interested citzenry to make political choices and educated politicians, leaders and visionairs to put into public discourse what we should be talking about. We need a vibrant society but what we have is egoism and decandency dressed up as philosophical liberalism. But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore (Randroids, tax-is-theft idiots and average US politicians).

When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to those restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission. (Hart, 1955: 185)

This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories.

Simmons believed in a debt of gratitude but fails to specify the content of the debt.

And of course there's consent to political obligation which is problematic as usually no such act is performed by citizens.

So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights).

Liberalism divorced from political obligation is just selfishness.

Let's decentralize companies too then! — Benkei

They are decentralized. Only some of them go bankrupt or out of business, but not all.

And if you have modern markets, an oligopoly of the large company and a multitude of smaller niche companies prevail.

But when the central planners have the infinite wisdom of what to produce and what not...

:rofl: You're answer is too funny!

Oligopolies aren't state monopolies. You have to notice the subject talked about. :wink:

A higher standard of living for whom? — Benkei

For all those who get easy and affordable access to food and energy.

At least from 1945 until 1970 health data of Soviet Union citizens improved more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe. — Benkei

Why did its rapid improvement stop after 1970? It can be atttibuted to the fact that czarist Russia was lagging behind the medical advancements taking place in early 20th century capitalist societies. So when the soviets began to catch up by adopting medical technology that was developed under capitalism, it was accompanied by a spike in general health.

In any case, the "tyranny of the State" is one of those catchphrases that I always find interesting. What is it? Is it their monopoly on violence? No problem in a democratic society. The tyranny of the majority? No problem when we have human rights and particulary due process. — Benkei

It certainly involves the monopoly on violence, but this is not the cause of state tyranny, only one of the means by which it can be carried out. Tyranny of the majority is not state tyranny, unless we are pointing to a specific tyrannical ochlocracy.

Tyranny of the state is not a difficult concept. It is when a government abuses its power (which is awfully close to sounding tautological, and probably why you call it a catchphrase.) There are different ways it can do this, different reasons for doing it, and different means by which it can commit an abuse of power. In the case of communist state tyrrany, it is quite distinct from other forms of state tyrrany.

But there are political obligations related to liberalism that self-styled, winner-takes-all, laissez-faire capitalist individuals ignore. — Benkei

I agree. Liberalism requires self moderation. And liberal societies need reasonable regulations. It is all about the balance, and even more, keeping the balance.

This is an argument for fairness but raises the question of what qualitative nature the benefits must have that they require a duty for the individual to perform their part (as the moral intuition is no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial). Enter natural duty theories. — Benkei

So, of these approaches, in my view the "fairness" argument can gain the most traction via natural duty theories such that the political obligation is not based on a moral transaction between people and wider society , but because it either a) promotes an impartial moral good, (utility or justice); or 2) is a moral duty owed by all persons to all others (universal rights). — Benkei

The key is here: "as the moral intuition is, no such obligation exists when the benefits are trivial". There is an inherent religiosity and competitiveness in capitalist republics that mitigates strongly against triviality for anyone willing to put a stake in the game.

Communism, on the other hand, struggles mightily with its own triviality. It expects everyone to do their duty and comply. However, the benefit is not so immediate, it is a rather vague and tenuous promise of a perfect world. Because it is a pipedream that lacks all substance and personal appeal, it has a hard time selling itself to anyone with the determination to make a good life for themselves (despite invoking things like utility, justice or universal rights). It appeals more to those with an inclination towards general malcontentedness.