Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
x6 The problem with communism, along with other utopian, rationalist, philosophies, is that they don’t take human nature into account.
They assume that everyone will put the good of the community above personal gain, and don’t need accountability or oversight.
Edited by megaeliz on Mar 12th 2019 at 11:21:14 AM
It is actually really sad that it was the Greeks that were used as the basis of Western society, for Persia was quite a bit closer to what we would today consider a model society.
For as much as some classists like to parrot around how democracy and such were invented in Ancient Greece, they were actually really terrible about putting those ideas into practice, what with their belief of "Might Makes Right", the limited number of people with an actual voice when it comes to State matters, and general xenophobia and sexism.
Which is actually kinda fitting that the alt-Reichers idolise them so much, and a deserving red flag to boot.
Yes, socialism and communism are quite utopian goals. And aspects of our society right now would probably seem utopian to people in the past. "It's utopian" is not a valid criticism, and attempting to get as close to that utopia as humanly possible isn't some kind of naive endeavour. Especially when each step taken towards that goal lands us in a better place than the last one.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."Mind you, I (loosely) describe it as this:
1. Socialism is the government providing a social safety net to prevent anyone from being poor.
2. Communism is the government enforcing equality.
Which I think is a good if lightly inaccurate way of separating the two for people who don't understand either.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Mar 12th 2019 at 8:38:07 AM
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Both wrong. Governments can give safety nets in capitalist economies for example, which means it wouldn't be socialism, and communism does not necessitate giving that sort of power to the state.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
x3 Mind, I don't want to imply that Ancient Greece didn't have it's good points, or that it isn't worthwhile to study and even emulate some (and I want to greatly emphasize some) aspects of it, but fact of the matter is, it is very whitewashed in the modern day.
But this is getting off-topic-y, I'm sure there's some history thread where we can discuss this better.
The biggest problem with Communism, that I'm surprised no one has brought up yet, is that it literally demands that a certain class of people (in the case of Communism, the Middle and Upper class Bourgeoisie) be almost completely killed off in order for another class of people (the proletariat and 'petite bourgeoisie') to take power. Considering that killing entire groups of people, no matter who they are or what they believe in, is horrendous period, that is the ultimate failing of Communism; that it requires death and displacement of one group of people for another to gain power.
This gets into philosophy, but capital-S Socialism is generally used to describe Marxian ideology in its pure form, whereas little-s socialism is used to describe any economic system in which wealth is redistributed for the benefit of the society, and/or in which the government owns some of the means of production.
The United States, along with most other Western countries, practices socialism, but not Socialism.
Communism, in its most recognizable form, is not Marxian in origin, but rather comes from Lenin, Stalin, and Maoist doctrine, in which a revolutionary party seizes the apparatus of state until such time as it can hand power over to the collective will of the people and create a true Socialist utopia.
I haven't read Marx in his entirety, but I do not believe that his Socialist ideology necessarily involved the outright murder of the bourgeoisie. Indeed, it rather flailed on the actual mechanism for the transition, instead describing an inevitable process in which the proletariat would become fed up with their exploitation and throw a revolution. The mass-murder part was an "innovation" of his devotees.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 12th 2019 at 11:59:05 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"No it doesn't. That's a hyperbolic interpretation if I've ever seen one.
No, because many communists are against the idea of a government at all.
The way I'd phrase it, Fighteer, is that Socialism is by definition "not Capitalism" and it's a completely different economic model, while welfare and social programs within capitalism are socialIST in nature.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Mar 12th 2019 at 4:01:40 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."There's basically 4 basic parts to Communism. Now this is a pretty big oversimplification but it'll work to understand the basic underpinnings of the system.
1. The upper classed dominates and has control over the oppressed working and lower classes.
2. The lower classes rise up and overthrow the ruling upper class.
3. A powerful and all reaching temporary nation state is formed to facilitate the redistribution of goods to the newly liberated workers.
4. The state is abolished leaving the workers in the means of production and a stateless, collectivist society takes it's place and everyone lives happily ever after.
Absolutely nobody ever makes it past step 3.
Oh really when?
x4 To be fair, I've never directly read Marx's works either, but from what I've read about it, mostly on scholar sites and Wikipedia, he does basically say that at some point, the Class Struggle between the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat will turn violent and the Proletariat would overthrow the Bourgeoisie to establish the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' that would eventually form a true Communist society. Perhaps I do need to actually read the Communist Manifesto to see what it actually says, but from what I've read on the subject, it does appear that Marx says 'violence is the only way'.
x3 From what I've read on the subject, yes, Marx theorized that a Dictatorship of the Proletariat
interim period is required to fully establish a Communist society.
x2 Again, maybe I do need to read the actual Manifesto...
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Mar 12th 2019 at 12:03:40 PM
![]()
![]()
You are describing anarcho-socialists. Communism, as described and practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and their followers, involves several steps:
- The progressive exploitation of the working class (proletariat) by the capitalist class (bourgeoisie), leading inevitably to a revolution.
- A Communist Party would take over in the wake of this revolution and exercise absolute control over the apparatus of state.
- The State would seize all means of production and redistribute them fairly to the populace.
- At such time as the apparatus of capitalism was sufficiently dismantled and the "people were ready", the Party would cede power to the people, dissolving the state and forming a Socialist utopia as idealized by Marx.
As should be apparent from history, none of the attempts at Communism ever got past the third phase... or the second, depending on your point of view.
Edit: Double-ninjaed.
To clarify, Marx did feel that violence was inevitable, but as the natural progression of history as people got fed up with their capitalist masters, not as a directed process.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 12th 2019 at 12:06:36 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This all seems more complex than necessary.
Implement Warren’s plans that would guarantee partial ownership of companies by employees. Implement strong pro-union/workers’ rights laws. Change the definition of full time employment to less hours, say 30 a week instead of 40. Implement anti-income inequality taxes such as wealth tax, estate tax, etc. Cap interest on student loans and create an aggressive loan forgiveness/reduced payment policy. Then implement a negative income tax.
You maintain current system of government but with vastly different economic policy.
Socialism is usually associated with Marx, but it greatly predates him.
America is a capitalist society, and I wouldn't say it practices socialism to any real degree. This is in large part because capitalism is more flexible than people realize (Adam Smith was actually not some hyper-libertarian John Galt wannabe), so there's no particular reason to think of many so-called 'socialist' programs as such.
Leviticus 19:34All I'll say is that many modern communists would not consider themselves followers of those people, or would want to be connected with them. I wouldn't say modern communists would want to stage an actual physical revolution either.
And anarcho-communists are still communists.
Going to socialism wouldn't necessitate changing the system of government, per se. Wall Street on the other hand...
I've had this idle thought recently on whether the failure of 20th century Communist states (by which I mean they were authoritarian) is the fact that because they came to power through force, those with force therefore retained power by force, and the catch-22 of a non-totalitarian socialist state was that the socialists who wouldn't have been totalitarian are the same socialists who wouldn't have staged an armed revolution in the first place. So only the punch-happy shitheads got in.
Marx actually thought Capitalism would collapse pretty soon, he underestimated the flexibility of Capitalism to accomodate certain socialist elements to keep the ship level.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Mar 12th 2019 at 4:14:53 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.""And anarcho-communists are still communists." Only in the sense that they believe in the end goal, but if they aren't willing to be part of the Glorious Workers' Revolution, then they are never going to get there. Oh, they can create their little communes, but those have no power and are insignificant on a macroscopic scale.
Communist states failed partly because of their authoritarian nature, but mainly because of the intense and unavoidable corruption inherent to the State both operating and profiting from the means of production. In these states, loyalty to the Party supersedes all other qualifications for obtaining power, such as competence and integrity. Naturally, the incompetent and corrupt will become the ones in charge, and will run the apparatus into the ground.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 12th 2019 at 12:18:30 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
x4 I'm actually 100% on board with a Debt Forgiveness Program; the Federal Government, for 2 years, should take everyone's Debt (individuals, businesses, entire Governments) so long as they willingly give it up, and just add it to the National Debt. Yes, that would balloon the Federal Debt, but it would also be a massive stimulus to the entire country. People wouldn't have to worry about whether they need to eat or pay bills; businesses wouldn't decide whether to lay of workers, raise prices or declare bankruptcy; cities won't have to become controlled by single auditors. All these groups would have 0$ of debt, and would then be willing to spend more and save more. It'd be a massive boon, similar to how Washington taking every State's Debt was a boon, and Obama's debt forgiveness program immediately helped eased the Recession.
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Mar 12th 2019 at 12:19:32 PM
I'd limit the program to some basic value like $50,000, and exempt collateralized debt such as mortgage loans. This would effectively be a highly progressive reverse-taxation scheme, which would significantly stimulate the economy.
I would be concerned about people running up new personal debt in the wake of the program, but that's a social problem as much as it is an economic one.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 12th 2019 at 12:22:47 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I typically don't refer to 'communists' who aren't from the Marxist-Leninist strain as such. Technically incorrect, but I think the term 'communism' is best used to refer to Marxist-Leninism. Other strains of Marxism are just hardline socialism.
Leviticus 19:34And many socialist and communist thinkers are not in favour of the state having the means of production. In fact, most definitions of Socialism (and Socialism as a big umbrella term includes Communism) state that the workers, not the state, have collective ownership of the means of production. Now, in the case of places like the USSR, that was done through the State as I understand it, but State control is very much an optional feature.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

Populations that surpass that number require more rules, more regulations, more delegation, more hierarchy and bureaucracy in order to maintain order. When you get to that point, the idea that everyone is an equal part of a collective is pretty much dead.
Disgusted, but not surprised