Can you take communists seriously?

If you run into people actually proclaiming they are proud socialists or communists, would you be able to take them at face value?

Because frankly I am finding myself instantly writing off their credibility with the things they say, much like I write off hardcore rightwingers.

I realize this dismissive attitude may end up taking me nowhere, which I why I want to see how others think of them.

edited 4th Mar '11 5:52:18 AM by Exploder

Yes.

...So you intentionally left socialist out of the thread title...?

Anyway... the first question would be what do communists/socialists, or communism/socialism itself, have that makes you unable to consider that a person would be aligned with such ideology without further requirement. Oh, yeah, you seem to mention thinking like a rightwinged.

^ Edited OP for clarity.

Communism and socialism are not the same. Please try not to conflate the two.

edited 4th Mar '11 6:00:10 AM by pagad

I sure wouldn't. Mainly because Communism is an insane and horrible idea, and the only person who could promote would be fucking crazy.

^I'd really like some proof of this.

edited 4th Mar '11 6:05:19 AM by Chagen46

I don't see why we cannot take communists seriously, unless we are to dismiss a good percentage of the world.

@Chagen: Canada is socialist, most of Europe is socialist, china is communist. There are key differences.

Also there's a difference between socioeconomical comunism (have the State handle means of production) and sociopolitical comunism (abolish social classes, terminate private property). To my knowedge, none of those implies the other.

I'd assume there is a similar difference between socioeconomical and sociopolitical socialism (but all the "socio-" makes it sound so redundant...).

And communism=|=communism. There've been plently takes on the original idea...

edited 4th Mar '11 6:31:33 AM by myrdschaem

"^I'd really like some proof of this."

Socialism is the name for a groups of beliefs of which communism is one, genearally communism is socialism that includes most or all of: abolution of private property, government ownership of all buisnesses, "vanguard party" and dictatorship of the protelitariate, belief in armed revolution, anti-theism.

china is communist

More like State Capitalist. Same for bureaucratized Stalin-era USSR and onwards.

Mainly because Communism is an insane and horrible idea, and the only person who could promote would be fucking crazy.

I didn't know a non-hierarchical world free of classism, racism, sexism, social stratification, hierarchy and elites is "a insane and horrible idea".

^I'd really like some proof of this.

The original Marxists considered them different than the other socialists of the era when Marx wrote 'The Communist Manifesto'. The Third International I believe made a distinction between 'democratic socialists' and the hard Marxists.

EDIT: for a period of time Marxists called themselves 'communists' to separate themselves from the other socialist groups and parties.

Also there's a difference between socioeconomical comunism (have the State handle means of production) and sociopolitical comunism (abolish social classes, terminate private property). To my knowedge, none of those implies the other.

que what? The politics of 'socioeconomical' and 'sociopolitical' communism cannot be separated that way. I don't even remember those terms being used before. The 'sociopolitical' aspects of communism, taken by itself is something that the Anarchists and Libertarian-Socialists would have done, due to their disdain for a state. "A workers' state is still a state"

edited 4th Mar '11 6:39:28 AM by BalloonFleet

I can take communists seriously. But I don't need to, since unlike hardcore right wingers, their ideas are merely infeasible, rather than abhorrent, and because they have such very bad publicity as to render them innocuous. As far as taking them at face value, my policy is to take every point of view at face value until an individual gives me a reason not to.

Chagen, please stop listening to your father when it comes to things like this.

Communism is a wonderful and noble idea, however, human nature gets in the way and we end up with the USSR and the PRC.

: Don't forget that the idea was written for Indtustrial revolutionized Brittania. It is a important piece of the puzzle on why it failed too.

I find it difficult to take the communist-leaning groups I've come across in the students' union seriously. There are some who have a realistic perspective, and they often seem to be the ones who actually came from a working class background. However, there are many others who seem to be frightfully idealistic about the whole thing; the group leaders all seem like the stereotypical "middle class kids who think they're the champions of workers' rights" communists or something like that.

That said, I believe that I am biased. While it is a pleasant idea, I have a hard time convincing myself that a pure communist society is realistically achievable so I am disinclined to take its most ardent proponents very seriously.

@OP, Not really.

Err, I am one.

I'd really like some proof of this.

A modicum of research on the internet - hell, even a quick Googling - would be sufficient.

I was in love with communism when I was younger and a part of me still is; I don't honestly think it's a viable political system because typically whoever is using it will go against what the spirit of communism really stands for.

Socialists, yes, because socialism in certain forms has been shown not only to work but to generally improve quality of life. Communists have the burden of proof to demonstrate to me that their brand of communism would be different from the generally-failed communist experiments of history. I mean, communism is a good idea in theory, but it assumes humans will act in ways contrary to their individual self-interest in far too many instances.

edited 4th Mar '11 8:51:01 AM by Chalkos

That depends on two things:

1. Are they being civil?
2. Failing that, do they have guns?

Communists have the burden of proof to demonstrate to me that their brand of communism would be different from the generally-failed communist experiments of history. I mean, communism is a good idea in theory, but it assumes humans will act in ways contrary to their individual self-interest in far too many instances.

Workers' Self-Management, Yugoslavia.

Not when they're talking about Communism. Usually.

Communism is (in my mind) anti-socialist because of the Vanguard Party, which had its roots in the original manifesto. It's just a glossy name on the same old idea that we need a roundtable of wise, enlightened supermen to lead us toward a future we're too dumb to understand for ourselves.

edited 4th Mar '11 10:05:07 AM by johnnyfog