Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? — Shawn

I think Stalin, for example, failed because he only pursued happiness. That and he killed 40 million people.

Did you have another communist in mind?

My thoughts are that this is the type of high-school philosophy that leads one to fall into a life of activism instead of growing up into a functional adult.

Those are, clearly, biases. But truly, I see nothing in this that needs any discussion. One eg of why:

If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone? — Shawn

This sentence is a many-more-steps version of "I know you can be underwhelmed, and overwhelmed - but can you just be whelmed?" (technically, you can, but in practice there's an obvious gap that the word doesn't fill because its incoherent).

You could treat that quoted question 'technically' and say something about the relation between an individual and their surrounding collective. But this would do nothing but explain the grammar.

I think Stalin, for example, failed because he only pursued happiness. That and he killed 40 million people.

Did you have another communist in mind? — Hanover

Yes, the other communists I had in mind were the positivists or scientists who were told by political leaders, and the party, to create a better society through technology and science. Again, this isn't a small minority of Soviet communists, at the time. After Stalin, this seemed to be a common ideology pursued by the US and USSR in the space race and whatever they translated the fruits of such a race into real world utility.

My thoughts are that this is the type of high-school philosophy that leads one to fall into a life of activism instead of growing up into a functional adult.

Those are, clearly, biases. But truly, I see nothing in this that needs any discussion. — AmadeusD

I doubt it. I think the gist here is associated with the simple fact that Soviet communists were really sincere about their intentions of improving the life of every individual, the collective, that is. Moreso, than any other political system communism was concerned with such an ethos.

I don't know why but this thread seems to be about why they were blind sighted by such an ambitious goal, and historically failed at it.

I doubt it. — Shawn

Which bit?

The rest of this lands in the same category as I assessed in the OP.

Soviet communists were really sincere about their intentions of improving the life of every individual, the collective, that is. Moreso, than any other political system communism was concerned with such an ethos. — Shawn

That does not seem to be either the purpose (other than the (practically speaking) arbitrary claim that it is by various parties) or the outcome. I'm unsure the bolded can be supported in any fashion that isn't fantastical. Particularly as the underlined undermines it. They aren't the same thing.
Perhaps this was the problem.

I'm unsure the bolded can be supported in any fashion that isn't fantastical. Particularly as the underlined undermines it. They aren't the same thing.
Perhaps this was the problem. — AmadeusD

What I'm hinting at is the facet of Soviet communism seemingly adopting a totalitarian stance towards happiness. Does that make sense?

I don't know why but this thread seems to be about why they were blind sighted by such an ambitious goal, and historically failed at it. — Shawn

They consciously abandoned morality. They believed morality was conditioning from an era that was passing. They wanted to make their world into hell because that's what they thought was necessary to facilitate a natural evolution into a new phase of human life. Their plan was: destroy everything and something better will take shape. They were utterly and completely deluded

Marx equated happiness with power. That was the mistake.

Just another case of bourgeoise dictating their views to the proletariat because they deem themselves wiser and more worldly.

Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? — Shawn

The goal of the system is not the pursuit of happiness.

Karl Marx correctly pointed out that the ruling mafia has the political power and is therefore supposed to own and control all the means of production.

That is why the erstwhile feudal lords owned pretty much all the land.

The fact that the bourgeoisie owned the means of production -- the businesses and factories -- without also having the political power, was and still is highly unstable.

Societal stability required a return of the feudal lords, who have both the political power as well as complete communist power and control over the economy.

I agree with Marx' analysis.

You will own nothing.
The ruling mafia will own everything.

The golden rule is that the man with the sword owns all the gold and makes the rules.

The ruling mafia may appear to tolerate private ownership. That is actually an illusion.

With one press of the button, your house gets foreclosed, your car gets impounded, your bank accounts are frozen, your salary gets arraigned, and the next morning you get kicked out of your house, unemployed, homeless, and begging in the streets for mercy.

If you don't have the political power to protect what you own, then you effectively own nothing at all. Welcome to the real world.

Certainly makes more sense - But i seriously doubt this formulation of soviet Russia.

bourgeoise dictating their views to the proletariat because they deem themselves wiser and more worldly. — I like sushi

But...but...they are?

If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone? — Shawn

Regardless of the plans of a ruling class, regardless of any strictures imposed by authoritarian governments, people always find work arounds and recontextualize happiness in the spaces they can find. Ditto capitalism and its own multifarious deficits.

I think Stalin, for example, failed because he only pursued happiness. — Hanover

I think that Stalin spectacularly succeeded because he had as much power or even more so than the imperial feudal lords that he replaced. The goal of the ruling mafia is more power. Stalin was one of the greatest mafioso in the history of mankind. I truly admire him.

That and he killed 40 million people. — Hanover

That is indeed a potential failure. The goal is to subdue. The goal is not to kill, because that effectively removes power over the individual who has been eliminated. The question is if he could have gained all his power without causing that much collateral damage? Maybe not.

I truly admire him. — Tarskian

As your eyes met his in deep admiration, he'd have murdered you too.

As your eyes met his in deep admiration, he'd have murdered you too. — Hanover

A good number of people successfully managed to get out of the Soviet Union before it was too late.

Same for Nazi Germany.

SE Asia -- where I am now -- were colonies back then. Hence, to avoid like the plague. Same for colonial Africa.

However, there were quite a few independent countries in South America that would take pretty much anybody in. Paraguay apparently still does.

I would have admired Stalin's and Lavrentiy Beria's exploits from there. Stalin was originally a bank robber. That is why he became so good at his new mafia job.

I would probably have tried to subscribe to the newsletter of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) in order to follow up on the eradication of the multitude of "class enemies".

These guys were fantastic at propaganda. Probably even better than now. They were greatest mafia gang in the history of mankind.

It's interesting to analyze how Marx' epithet about "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," got totally redone in terms of collective happiness.

Anyone know why this happened?

Soviet communists were really sincere about their intentions of improving the life of every individual — Shawn

Which is why they raped and killed the Romanov family (including a sickly 13-year-old boy), then starved millions of Ukranians to death, and then later after beating Germany in WW2 they raped hundreds of thousands of German women?

Marx as well was a drunkard who had an illegitimate child with his maid, whom his best friend Engels had to take fatherhood of, his best friend who constantly had to give Marx money because he couldn't bother to support his own family. Not to speak of Marx's poems where he claims to have struck a deal with Satan.

But somehow supporters of this lunacy have the same right of vote as normal people.

Marx as well was a drunkard who had an illegitimate child with his maid, whom his best friend Engels had to take fatherhood of, his best friend who constantly had to give Marx money because he couldn't bother to support his own family. Not to speak of Marx's poems where he claims to have struck a deal with Satan — Lionino

Marx isn’t one of my favorite thinkers, but this just comes across as ad hominem gossip. I don’t quite see what Marx’s personal life has to do with his political philosophy. Unless you can connect the two maybe you should focus on his ideas.

The typical response to critics of Marxism who refer to Stalin is to try to distinguish true Marxism from his brand of mass murder and destruction.

You, on the other hand, accept the criticisms joyfully, embracing its horrors.

Pretty idiotic, but novel.

Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself? — Shawn

Happiness wasn't even on the agenda.
The final goal of the idea was the physical welfare of every member of society. The interim goals were to wrest power from the owner class, redistribute wealth, rationalize the means of production and make sure every member of society had food, work, shelter and access to services.
The final goal of the 'leaders' was to take over the rulership from the upper class. Their interim goals were to eliminate their rivals, silence dissent, consolidate their power and control over land, industry, commerce and social organization by appointing their political lackeys - however incompetent, to all key positions and giving unlimited license to their enforcement agencies.

I think the gist here is associated with the simple fact that Soviet communists were really sincere about their intentions of improving the life of every individual, the collective, that is. — Shawn

They were killed or jailed early on; their adherents relegated to positions of no influence.
Communism didn't fail. It was smothered in the cradle.

Firstly, you have to clarify what you mean by “happiness”—e.g., hedonic, eudaimonic, autonomistic, etc.

If it has been collectively decided to aim for happiness on an collective level, then what meaning could individual happiness mean to anyone?

If by “happiness” you mean roughly ‘well-being’ and ‘flourishing’ by fulfilling one’s Telos (i.e., eudaimonic happiness), then the collective happiness has no such conflict; for the collective goal is to suit society towards each being’s happiness. This kind of state would ban, like a parent who prohibits their children to do things which the child may not even realize is bad for them, certain unhealthy acts and habits that inhibit the well-being of the citizen—even if the citizen is not harming someone else in partaking in the act or habit.

If by “happiness” you mean roughly ‘self-autonomy’, then you end up with a state which seeks to try to equally provide the most freedom to each person. This is roughly the state which the west has adopted.

If by “happiness” you mean roughly ‘supreme pleasure’ (i.e., hedonic happiness), then you end up with a state which tries to provide the most pleasures to each person.

Etc.

As you can see, no concept of ‘happiness’ has this inherent issue that you speak of where the collective happiness overrides the individual’s happiness; because the state is responsible for the happiness of each citizen. You seem to think that ‘collective happiness’ would be a supervenient happiness upon the society as a whole which overrides the happiness of the citizen itself (viz., the bee can be sacrificed for the hive).

Was the failure of communism mainly due to pursuing happiness not as a methodology or process; but, as the final goal of the system itself?

There’s absolutely nothing communistic per se about a society being oriented towards happiness of each citizen; and, in fact, this is, in the sense of autonomistic happiness, what western societies are geared towards. Likewise, communism failed, and will always fail, because of its methodological approach to securing the well-being of citizens: it tries to do so by inevitably having the government decide what is valuable, how valuable it is, and who should have it.

I think Stalin, for example, failed because he only pursued happiness. That and he killed 40 million people. — Hanover

:lol: :up:

You, on the other hand, accept the criticisms joyfully, embracing its horrors. — Hanover

I think that the horrors of Marxism naturally followed from their doctrine.

Same for Nazism. There was absolutely nothing unexpected to what happened. There was no surprise whatsoever. Hitler had spelled it out very clearly in Mein Kampf what he would do.

Stalin wanted power. He wanted maximum and absolute power. Can we deny that he successfully achieved his goal? You can only be disappointed in Stalin if he had not achieved his goal, but he clearly did. In terms of his own ambitions, Stalin was a runaway success.

You can only be disappointed in Stalin if he had not achieved his goal, but he clearly did. — Tarskian

Kind of like I should be impressed with Jeffrey Dahmer. He set out to murder and then eat people, and by God he did it. What's not to like?

Feels trollish, but I'll wait and see how things develop. Regardless, it's not interesting enough to keep my attention.

Seems like bashing on Stalin really dismantles whatever the Soviet Union was or became after him. Go figure.

Kind of like I should be impressed with Jeffrey Dahmer. He set out to murder and then eat people, and by God he did it. What's not to like? — Hanover

https://aspectsofhistory.com/when-stalin-robbed-a-bank/

When Stalin Robbed A Bank

The story of Stalin's other career

Stalin knew it would require great daring to pull off such a coup. He also knew he would need the help of a dependable gang of fellow criminals. These were easy enough to find in Tiflis: Stalin had already been involved in previous robberies and had a trusty band of individuals whose services could be called upon. The robbery was meticulously planned. Twenty heavily armed brigands loitered in the city’s central square, awaiting the arrival of the carriages.

It wasn't Stalin's "other career". He just kept going!

Unless you can connect the two maybe you should focus on his ideas. — Joshs

Someone's ideas for how society ought to be directed do not deserve consideration if one is a degenerate in a moral and financial sense.

Unfortunately, we gave it consideration, and unseen misery (and stupidity) followed.

Hitler had spelled it out very clearly in Mein Kampf what he would do. — Tarskian

You didn't read it, did you?

the Soviet Union was or became after him — Shawn

A slowly declining system where the socialist elements had to be removed one by one until we ended up in a corporative capitalist oligarchy called the Russian Republic?

A slowly declining system where the socialist elements had to be removed one by one until we ended up in a corporative capitalist oligarchy called the Russian Republic? — Lionino

Sure, but, my point is that the Soviet Union wasn't only about the mistakes and atrocities conducted by Stalin. Just my two cents.

You didn't read it, did you? — Lionino

He "explains it all" in just two of the chapters.

His pseudo-intellectual theory on the Jews:

- VOLUME I. A RETROSPECT. Chapter XI. RACE AND PEOPLE

Why he was going to go to war with Russia:

- VOLUME II. THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST MOVEMENT. Chapter XIV. GERMANY'S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE

The rest is boring. I fell asleep too often. So, I stopped reading.

You seem to think that ‘collective happiness’ would be a supervenient happiness upon the society as a whole which overrides the happiness of the citizen itself (viz., the bee can be sacrificed for the hive). — Bob Ross

Yes, and that was how happiness was rendered only by the party for the party.