Poll: My friend is a Communist

[Don Savik]

Countries these days like North Korea and Cuba that say their "communist" are just Dictatorships. Lets be real here.

The last true communists we killed when we came to America. Now they're some of the richest capitalists in the country. Funny how that turned out. Yay gambling.

Communism isnt bad, but so many uneducated idiots think its the same as a totalitarian dictatorship, because so many totalitarian dictatorships call themselves "communist". Everyone having an equal role in the community? Equal distribution of power for the good of everyone? Sounds better than any system I know, only problem is it never can be replicated in real life.

Now your friend joining a "communism cult" as you put it? Kind of concerning. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't know what the word meant either.

 

[peruvianskys]

Bad regulation and lack of regulation(which caused the bailouts sense no one was minding the chicken house) and bending over for corporations pretty much sides in the direction of unfettered capitalism. Are we there yet, no but that's the direction in which the powers that be want to go in.

Its still dysfunctional capitalism (or libertarianism under a certain light )anyway you look at it.

No, it's not. The government in America is so deeply, inexorably intertwined with the market that the current US economy is essentially a libertarian nightmare. Try and understand what you're talking about before you post.

I feel like people who use markets, free speech, and personal freedom to advocate for communism are like environmentalists who fly around the country to tell people why cars are bad for the environment; it's the hypocrisy born of comfort. Ask her to give up every piece of property she owns to a collective and then see what system she most wants.

Communism isnt bad, but so many uneducated idiots think its the same as a totalitarian dictatorship, because so many totalitarian dictatorships call themselves "communist". Everyone having an equal role in the community? Equal distribution of power for the good of everyone? Sounds better than any system I know, only problem is it never can be replicated in real life.

So the problem with communism is that it can't possible exist, and when it is tried, it inevitably descends into totalitarian death parties?

I think that is a big enough problem to make the assumption communism = bad a valid one. If a system is so incredibly utopian and poorly thought out that it can have only disastrous results in the real world, then it's an idea that should be cast aside. If I was a surgeon who tried to pioneer a radical unicorn-based cancer treatment, but all my patients died because it didn't end up working, the proper response would be "This guy is a loony, let's stop listening to him" and not "You know, it worked really well on paper, why is everyone so misinformed?"

 

[marurder]

You haven't said much of what she agrees with, most of the OP is your opinion. I live in China [and not from China either], most people are 'content' here. Much the same in other countries - brainwashed for sure - by the completely controlled media here, but none-the-less content.

I believe in large government, socialist sure, but not communism. That is a tad to 'extreme' but when I see my country selling off assets to the private sector THEN the subsequent removal of services from regular populace due to the privatization of what I consider important services (banks, communications etc) and decreased funding for education (this was prior to the economic recession.

But enough about that - your friend, not enough information about her ideals, so I said "no".

 

[Pyro Paul]

What? If she's "only really capable of having children" then how will living in a capitalist society (which is what I assume you mean, a republic can be capitalist or communist, there's no conflict there) suddenly make her capable of more?

Because in a capitalist society you can own things.

The value of your life is not determained by the sweat of your brow, but rather the collective of what you own.

As such, rights and ownership to specific things can give an individual much renown, say, or prowess in society despite their limited capability to acctually prodictively add anything to said society they belong to.

"more equal" is an absolutely meaningless term...

the term 'More equial then Others' is a jab at communism which promotes an equial/fair distribution of wealth amongst the populace. However, the point is, your share is as equial to the amount of effort provided under the provision: 'you get what you need'... and those that work harder need more.

Why communism becomes corrupt so easily is because there is no inherent measurable value to be placed behind immaterial goods such as leadership, entertainment, and intelegence.

The man that draws the blueprints for a building does not put as much effort into the task as the workers that build said building... but with out his skills that building would of never got off the foundation... so exactly what is his share?

is his contribution more or less then that of the worker?

 

[Cereals]

It depends really.

I've studied politics at college (that's British college, not the American kind) and one of the units was political ideology

basically, communism is part of the larger theory of what is usually referred to as socialism, usually anyway. by my count there are 3 distinct ideologies within socialism that could lead to a communist society.

the first is Marxism (if you already this stuff feel free to skim to make sure/skip). This is the original theory and within we see the stages of society, Marx himself said that he had merely interpreted history and it was up to others to act upon it. the first two stages aren't really important, with the 3rd being feudalism, the 4th being capitalism, the 5th being socialism and the 6th being communism. This is why some communists were in fact glad (in a way) to see that society was developing to become more capitalist, as this meant the stages were moving as Marx defined, which would inevitably lead to Socialism and then Communism.

The idea was that workers would realise they were being abused, and basically being treated as slaves, as they had very little money to spend on anything except essentials, meaning they were limited in life and could not develop themselves. When this happened the proleteriat (working class/ the people who work the means of production rather than own it) would develop a 'class consciousness' and overthrow the borgouise (the people who owned the means of production rather than worked it) and then they would communally own the means of production, all sharing equally in the profits it yielded.

Therefore, you could say in a roundabout way that she is a communist if she supports it because it will eventually lead to the workers suffering enough that they rebel. However, I personally believe this ideology is outdated and therefore not really valid as a way of identifying her as a Communist.

Next is Leninist-Marxism. This says basically that the Proleteriat cannot develop a class consciousness for themselves, and therefore need a vanguard party of people who are more intellectual to lead them to Socialism and eventually, Communism. Also, in this theory, rather than waiting for the stages of society to happen, it is said that capitalism can be skipped entirely and that socialism can be "manually started", so to speak. This is the way most Communist countries went, because as far as i remember both ideologies mentioned so far have a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" stage at the beginning of Socialism, to make sure that all enemies of the revolution are rooted out so that no resistance or attempts to revert the stages can be made. It is unlikely your friend is this as there are no longer any significant groups that overtly wish to start a revolution, so it would seem to be more sensible to go with the Marxian idea of waiting for fate to take its course.

Last is Revisionist Socialism. This states, in opposition to the previous ideologies, that the state is not a fundamental enemy of the people, and at that at worst it is neutral. At best, it can in fact be "captured" and used to gradually reform to Socialsism, rather than the traditional idea of a violent revolution to Socialism. In my opinion this is quite similar to modern society, as over the past century we have seen a large change in the freedoms that people are allowed, as well as the introduction of free healthcare and so on. Therefore, if your friend does say rhetoric about the revolution and also hates the current state, it is highly unlikely that she is a Revisionist Socialist.

TL;DR/conclusion, I would say overall that your friend is a Marxist Socialist, due to her belief in the revolution, as per the more traditional Socialist ideas, and also because she doesn't seem to be taking any distinct action described by any of the ideologies that would suggest she is actively trying to bring about the revolution. This would pretty much qualify her as one of the people basically sitting around and waiting for when the time is right and the revolution begins. So basically, yes, I would say that she is indeed a Communist.

P.S: I didn't mention the other versions of Socialism because they're basically even more watered down than Revisionist Socialism so it would seem highly unlikely that she belives them

 

[Korolev]

Like with me, it's probably just a phase. I was "communist" when I was a teenager - rapidly grew out of it by the time I was 18, though - a few history books cured that right out of me.

At any rate, Communists in the West are hardly dangerous. The dangerous communists are the rebels in India and Nepal and to some extent, South America (FARC). I wouldn't be too worried about your friend. Chances are, in 5 years, she'll be long out of Communism, and if she isn't, what's the worst she can do? Write a few crank letters to Newspapers? Stand around by herself holding up a sign calling for the overthrow of Capitalism and the Murder of Business people? She'll either grow out of it, or grow up a harmless crank that no one will listen to, other than other harmless cranks.

 

[CaptainKarma]

What? If she's "only really capable of having children" then how will living in a capitalist society (which is what I assume you mean, a republic can be capitalist or communist, there's no conflict there) suddenly make her capable of more?

Because in a capitalist society you can own things.

The value of your life is not determained by the sweat of your brow, but rather the collective of what you own.

As such, rights and ownership to specific things can give an individual much renown, say, or prowess in society despite their limited capability to acctually prodictively add anything to said society they belong to.

Yes, but how will she get these things if all she can do is make babies? You're scenario was basically "if a women can only make babies, all her other skills a useless, ergo communism bad" which kinda ignores the fact that if she has other skills, she can obviously do more to make babies.

"more equal" is an absolutely meaningless term...

the term 'More equial then Others' is a jab at communism which promotes an equial/fair distribution of wealth amongst the populace. However, the point is, your share is as equial to the amount of effort provided under the provision: 'you get what you need'... and those that work harder need more.

Why communism becomes corrupt so easily is because there is no inherent measurable value to be placed behind immaterial goods such as leadership, entertainment, and intelegence.

The man that draws the blueprints for a building does not put as much effort into the task as the workers that build said building... but with out his skills that building would of never got off the foundation... so exactly what is his share?

is his contribution more or less then that of the worker?

This is a bit of a problem, but not an insurmountable one. There are huge chunks of communist theory discussing how to allocate resources and labour. The key misunderstanding that I see cropping up, is when people envision work under communism as exactly the same working conditions and style as under capitalism. This makes their objections pretty easy to understand, an office drone under communism is still going to be an insignificant cog. But the whole idea of Marxism is that much of a persons labour under capitalism is siphoned off as profit. Under communism that wouldn't happen so (ideally) working hours are shortened, conditions improve etc etc. It doesn't solve the problem of dividing labour/resources, but it makes it a fair bit easier.

 

[peruvianskys]

The ideals of Communism are great. If your friend is down with the ideals, then that's great. That's all it takes to BE something. Identify as it. And if it's the ideals of a communist society that make her so envious of such a world, than I'd call your communist friend an idealist. History just says that it doesn't work very well.

Do those ideals include forced property redistribution, political oppression, mass murder, gulags, and genocide?

Because there has yet to be one communist society that has not resulted in these things. You cannot have a functioning communist state or society without these things. They are as inherently "communist" as the more utopian notions of brotherhood and unity that spoiled teenagers in capitalist countries like to swoon themselves silly over.

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

Only tangentially related to the thread.

I cannot stand those spouting off words like "revolution." Fools on the left and fools on the right all speak of hideously fast and violent shifts in society creating misery and social upheaval. Whenever I hear "revolution," I see a mountain of corpses. And these fools use whatever political and moral beliefs they claim to justify murder on such a scale.

Only a child and a fool would advocate such beliefs.

This is to say nothing of nationalism or socialism. The socialism of the non-revolutionary variety was adopted, to one extent or another, by fairly much all modernized states; but look at the states in which it was adopted by force and violently. Most of the time, even today, so many years later, those nations are shit-holes. This is to not even begin to speak about all the ghosts those revolutions created.

I tend to the "slow and steady wins the race" philosophy on the political and social.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

This is to say nothing of nationalism or socialism.

Nationalism and Socialism are unrelated. Socialism is an economic ideology while Nationalism is the belief that your country is greatest and can do no wrong. Its partially what lead to both World Wars. You can be a Nationalist nation and be Socialist.

Oh and while I'm at it Patriotism is not Nationalism. Patriotism is pride in your nation not militant belief that your nation is number one and should be the only one in the world. Just as Anarchy does not equal chaos.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I personally believe that Communism is no good, and whilst some thoughts and notions of, say, Marx are absolutely worthwhile reading and even a great pastime pondering on when not otherwise busy with leading a decent and useful existence, actually considering Communism to be an alternative to anything ranges from stupid to holistic denial of reality, ranging from human nature to the way anything actually works.

The only thing Communist propaganda seems to be good at is to cripple and disable host societies, manipulating politics into costly idling and turning laws and politics into farcical hollow shells of what they're supposed to be.

If your friend does not identify as being a Communist, she's either reached a higher level of revolutionary conscience or she truly believes that her own definitions of her actions are actually worth anything.

http://uberhumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/inspirational-quotes-10.jpg

 

[CentralScrtnzr]

This is to say nothing of nationalism or socialism.

Nationalism and Socialism are unrelated. Socialism is an economic ideology while Nationalism is the belief that your country is greatest and can do no wrong. Its partially what lead to both World Wars. You can be a Nationalist nation and be Socialist.

Oh and while I'm at it Patriotism is not Nationalism. Patriotism is pride in your nation not militant belief that your nation is number one and should be the only one in the world. Just as Anarchy does not equal chaos.

Socialism, at base, is about workers' ownership of the means of production. While that is certainly economic, it is undeniable that there is also a social component.

Nationalism is not necessarily the belief that "your country is the greatest and can do no wrong." Nationalism is the identification of some, often arbitrary, collection of individuals with a nation, acknowledging that nation is not the same thing as country or region.

Good thing that bit about patriotism has been cleared up.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with the thrust of my argument, that extreme revolutionary ideology, in practice, leads to mountains of corpses.

 

[The Rainmaker]

She is, and you should give her a cookie and join her "cult"

 

[Spinozaad]

No, she isn't.

There's a plethora of arguments why she is not and will never be a 'communist'. I'll be lame, and just bring forth the main one: communism is an essentially contested concept.

I haven't read any of the replies, but I bet your ass people discussed the 'essence' of communism, with someone no doubt claiming how the USSR 'was not communist'.

Here's a stupid joke to prove the point: What do you get when you have three communists in a room? A purge. What do you get when you have two communists in a room? First a schism, then a purge. What do you get when you have one communist in a room? A lot of statues commemorating how Comrade Communist saved true communism from the deviant bourgeouis class-enemies.

Captcha: 'pipe dream'. Exactly what all ideologies are. All of them.

 

[Mr.PlanetEater]

Socialism, at base, is about workers' ownership of the means of production. While that is certainly economic, it is undeniable that there is also a social component. True, but for the most part it's an economic ideology while something like Democracy or Monarchies are more social ideologies. Though I can agree that no matter what ideology you're talking about there's always an economic and social side

Nationalism is not necessarily the belief that "your country is the greatest and can do no wrong." Nationalism is the identification of some, often arbitrary, collection of individuals with a nation, acknowledging that nation is not the same thing as country or region.
Alright I concede, that is definitely one of the more common and used definitions

Good thing that bit about patriotism has been cleared up.

Anyways, this has nothing to do with the thrust of my argument, that extreme revolutionary ideology, in practice, leads to mountains of corpses.
I wasn't disagreeing with this, just trying to clear up a misunderstanding hence why I snipped it.

Responses are in bold, cheers.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Bad regulation and lack of regulation(which caused the bailouts sense no one was minding the chicken house) and bending over for corporations pretty much sides in the direction of unfettered capitalism. Are we there yet, no but that's the direction in which the powers that be want to go in.

Its still dysfunctional capitalism (or libertarianism under a certain light )anyway you look at it.

No, it's not. The government in America is so deeply, inexorably intertwined with the market that the current US economy is essentially a libertarian nightmare. Try and understand what you're talking about before you post.

I feel like people who use markets, free speech, and personal freedom to advocate for communism are like environmentalists who fly around the country to tell people why cars are bad for the environment; it's the hypocrisy born of comfort. Ask her to give up every piece of property she owns to a collective and then see what system she most wants.

Err who's advocating communism? It only works on the small scale(settlements,towns,ect) beyond that it falls apart due to human greed much like capitalism, libertarianism, ect, ect, ect.


Did you know capitalism is a economic system, libertarianism is a form of governance?

Yup. Of course, we haven't had a situation like that since the 1800s, but whatever.

More like 2007(or since the 90s) but who cares for facts right?

No. There are many "powers that be", and they all have different interests. The two most destructive are the major banks that have owned our country since 1913, and the socialoids. Both have a habit of engineering market failures via government intervention, and then claiming that the solution is... more government intervention.

I dunno its more a witless inept hydra that is a parasite upon the public.
At times anarchy seems a better choice.

Also no safety nets creates more strife,disease and cost than no safety nets.Tho safety nets with no logic or reason makes the net weaker and cost sky rocket.


The trouble with most socialoids is they think are aristocrats giving the poor cake at the cost of everyone else. Its quite sadistic really almost as bad as ignoring the issue like the reapers and lultarians(and I mostly side with the libertarians mind you but they are imperfect, still a better option than what we are given to chose from, can you say write in Ron Paul much? And yes I know hell will freeze over but I want to get his vote count as high as I can just to sit back with popcorn)

Dysfunctional capitalism? Hell yes, that's kind of like calling the jungles of Vietnam a "dysfunctional ecosystem" right after we dropped Agent Orange all over the fucking place. It was doing just fine until we started fucking with it. But libertarianism? Hell no. For one thing, libertarians universally opposed the bank bailouts, and overwhelmingly oppose the very existence of the Federal Reserve. A few even call for fractional-reserve banking to be outlawed on the basis that it's a form of fraud (and yes, libertarians are vehemently anti-fraud). There's nothing even remotely libertarian about our economy right now.

Your mixing economic and governance issues, tho I suppose its reasonable to say that one can have an economy based on libertarianism but that's still basically capitalism with a stricter rule set.

 

[StBishop]

I dunno, she supports it, that's enough I guess.

I find the idea of being "A democrat" or "A republican" more ridiculous to be honest. (Obviously this doesn't apply to actual members of those political parties.)

How so?

I can't imagine that a person would always agree with every thing a party stood for all of the time.

We 2 major parties in Australia and I don't agree with either on everything.
I think labor waste money and are an enemy to Australian businesses and therefore an enemy to our economy.

But I think the liberal party have their heads up their arses about climate change, immigration (actually but parties are dicks about this at the moment), and marriage equality (again, dicks all over the place on this one).

You see both parties have positives and negatives and I vote for the MP (who represents me and the people in their electorate at parliament) who will support the causes that I feel most strongly about at the time.

Right now I want to see gay marriage sorted out and I've voted accordingly. As I get older and have a family I'll probably want to see some tax cuts if I'm struggling or maybe see more support for education.

What I'm getting at is that there's no point in blindly being of one party unless you agree with them on everything and I can't envisage a person like that. Although I'm sure there are plenty of people like that.