TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Why The Tolerance of Communism?

Go To

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#151: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:20:14 PM

I haven't seen any pure Leninist states, so one conclusion to be drawn is that Leninism falls short at the point where someone needs to get from the status quo to the socialist worker's paradise. Stalinism addresses that, but its solution is mass murder and oppressive totalitarian rule. So yeah.

Again, I would like the apologists for Socialism (in its original Marxian form) to offer me one single example of that political/economic philosophy being applied to national governance, or anything like it. Because if you cannot, then you've got a case of "The Party cannot fail, it can only be failed" going on. And I mean a nation of enough size that it matters. If you offer some island country with 500 people living in communist paradise, I'll facepalm at you.

edited 15th Sep '17 12:25:10 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#152: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:32:44 PM

The only purely Leninist state was, well, Russia under Lenin, the only redeeming feature of which was that it was not yet as bad as it was going to get under Stalin. I have some sympathy for Lenin as a person, but the state he built only looks good in comparison to what came after.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#153: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:35:15 PM

It still seems odd to me to distinguish between socialism and communism on the ground that they have different strategies rather than one being a precondition for the other to exist. What does USSR stand for, again?

RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#154: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:37:45 PM

Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

[up][up]I find Lenin's regime to be superior to the one immediately before it.

edited 15th Sep '17 12:38:29 PM by RAlexa21th

Continue writing our story of peace.
Grafite Since: Apr, 2016 Relationship Status: Less than three
#155: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:38:43 PM

@M84: I'm pretty sure that communism would still get the same amount of fondness today even if it had gone to war with America, except in the US itself probably.

And to elaborate on your ideas of brutality, the genocide/expulsion of minority populations is a feature of any nazi regime, regardless of who is in charge, while the purging of dissenters is a not a default feature of communism, more like one of dictatorial regimes.

Life is unfair...
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#156: Sep 15th 2017 at 12:43:54 PM

And to elaborate on your ideas of brutality, the genocide/expulsion of minority populations is a feature of any nazi regime, regardless of who is in charge, while the purging of dissenters is a not a default feature of communism, more like one of dictatorial regimes.

Now there's a dodge. To claim that violence is inherent to fascism but not to Communism is to ignore the fact that every single Communist regime has dissolved into violence. You can say "oh that's because they became dictatorships" but since they all became dictatorships that's another example of distinction without difference.

Every Communist state has followed in Stalin's bad example and has made purges and manmade famines a key part of how it operates. The killing fields of Cambodia were not an accident. The Great Leap Backward was not undertaken in ignorance of Soviet policy. Communist states mirror the Soviet model, and the Soviet model was based on politicide, and genocide.

edited 15th Sep '17 12:44:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#157: Sep 15th 2017 at 1:44:11 PM

@Raineh Daze: it would actually be more correct to say that Communism is a subset of Socialism at least in the sense that Socialism as a broad set of ideas existed before Marx began his writing.

Sure, Marx defined Communism as the end state of Socialism, but the statement in practice is used interchangeably with Marxism and any other Marxist derived views (Luxembourgian, Maoism, Trotskyism etc.) and I don't see any reason not to continue using it that way, especially when there are (or at least were) plenty of non-Marxist Socialist ideologies out there.

RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#158: Sep 15th 2017 at 1:51:16 PM

[up] But it's troublesome when an argument relies upon Communism = Stalinism = Marxism =/= Socialism to somehow arrive at the conclusion that support for communism as a concept means support for Stalin and is therefore wrong and that it can be totally divorced from socialism.

unknowing from somewhere.. Since: Mar, 2014
#159: Sep 15th 2017 at 1:58:35 PM

Ok, the whole "is a bug, not a feture" really get annoying: is not a bug, is a GLINCH, and a very damn bad one a that because it come with the idea of clash and the idea of removing the bad people, just because its not atach to racial theory dosent mean it get a pass or should get one.

Also we crap in libertarian ideology when they never get into their utopian sociaty, while comunist get a pass compare to facism because the later is more honest about being awfull?.

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
RainehDaze Nero Fangirl (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
Nero Fangirl
#161: Sep 15th 2017 at 2:53:54 PM

[up][up] Every attempt at adopting any level of Libertarian economic ideas tends to end in monopolies and the market finding some way to implode. Some level of communal ownership, such as state ownership of infrastructure, actually works. I suppose it gets a better rep because you can piecemeal incorporate its ideas.

Mio Since: Jan, 2001
#162: Sep 15th 2017 at 3:06:15 PM

But it's troublesome when an argument relies upon Communism = Stalinism = Marxism =/= Socialism to somehow arrive at the conclusion that support for communism as a concept means support for Stalin and is therefore wrong and that it can be totally divorced from socialism.

Well, I'm personally not making the argument that all Communism is Stalinism, but the fact that pretty much all Communist states in practice were at least pretty close to Stalinist is difficult to ignore.

Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#163: Sep 15th 2017 at 8:01:38 PM

Again, I would like the apologists for Socialism (in its original Marxian form) to offer me one single example of that political/economic philosophy being applied to national governance, or anything like it. Because if you cannot, then you've got a case of "The Party cannot fail, it can only be failed" going on.

Well, I'm not a Socialistnote , but what I can say is that Socialism, in its original form, had many different definitions. The early socialist and proto-socialist views predate Marx, Engels and their writings. In a Marxist perspective, one of the key ideas for the proletariat is to rise and call the shots in regards to the means of production, distribution and so forth. In their theory, this is not necessarily achieved through national governance (as in, centralized governance), though it's one of many possible paths, but through groups of organized workers taking over the means of production, in order to stop the exploitation by the owners of the big Capital note .

The thing that latter-daynote  Marxist theorists and practitioners didn't take into account (such as Lenin, though he tried to do something about it at first) was the first roadblock: how does one: A) de-centralize (or outright dismantle central) government in order for the groups of workers to establish their ground; and B) how does one deal with cases where there's not a strong, developed industry (such as in Russia) or where interconnected relationships between workers can't be established quickly (e.g. either due to geography, geo-political factors and wars going on around them, and/or establishment of democratically-agreed rules and cohesion between and within local collectives).

There's also C) in regards to the Russian case during that period right after October: how do we solve the balance of power between the national government and the local/regional soviets? Their attempt did not solve this problem, and the soviets' autonomy were crushed by Stalin, after he rose to power.

The Soviet parties failed to take these points into account and couldn't figure out a way to solve their complexities. There were attempts at it (e.g. scientific socialist paths that the USSR took, especially before and after Stalin), but they failed to go the next level (I suggest this series of documentaries, namely the first episode, though the other episodes are also very much worth a watch). Then, there were the power plays that began to play a couple of years before Lenin's death (where Stalin and his goons began his rise to power), which, in the long term, destroyed any possibility of Communism becoming a reality in Russia and the other Socialist Republics. Thus, we can conclude that the Party failed. Hard.

There are, however, other roads, which haven't been attempted yet, either partially or in full (e.g. the anarchist roads, the libertarian note  roads, the non-Marxist socialist roads, to name a few). The major problem (and this is why I'm not alligned with Communism and Socialism, even if I agree with some of their valid criticisms of capitalism and its structures), is not so much the end goal as it is the 'how do we get there?' part.

Some roads have been attempted (namely the authoritarian and totalitarian ones), which ended badly. Smaller-scale attempts have been tested, which yield decent results, but which require local communities to have a decent level of both autonomy and a good sharing of roles within it (scoff at 500 people groups all you like, but someone's gotta start somewhere, even if it's a small level, in order to learn from factual/historical mistakes). These results were temporary, however, due to the massively strong appeal and absorbing power of capitalism and the presence of conflicting personalities that abused the roles (to name two out of many things). From failed attempts, this is something that we can learn.

There is another path I can speculate on, which is one that certain Chinese theorists within the Party there might be thinking about, which is to increase their brand of capitalism, in order to reach a place where, one day, economy does not become a concerning word in the management of the nation. In other words, whether it's socialism or communism, it would follow the ongoing period of intense capitalism. Whether this will turn out to be the case or not (it could easily fail, due to ongoing corruption and capital flight), I can't tell. I'm not a futurologist, and China continues to be an intriguing and challenging system to me (intellectually speaking).


(As a sidenote, I wish there would be a system capable of replacing Capitalism, Communism and Fascism and cause a massive paradigm shift, but so far, I've got nothing, because I'm nowhere near a decent enough level of intelligence to come up with an entire system capable of taking into the account the needs and desires of most peoples on Earth),

EDIT: For clarity and organization.

edited 15th Sep '17 8:58:16 PM by Quag15

Nikkolas from Texas Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#164: Sep 15th 2017 at 8:14:45 PM

[up] I just want to lend you my sympathies. Everyone today seems to be able to say I'm Left, I'm Right, I'm a Socialist, I'm a whatever. Everyone I follow is some way influenced by Marxism which leads to ideas and views I sympathize with...but I don't really care for Marxism itself. I've been all over the political spectrum, including the crazies parts of Left and Right. and I just never found anything that actually totally suited me.

Can't speak for you but for me, it's quite frustrating.

Quag15 Since: Mar, 2012
#165: Sep 15th 2017 at 9:03:45 PM

[up]Thank you for your kind words.[tup] I understand where you come from, and my experience of engagement with political groups and ideologies has been fairly similar (with a bigger focus on agreements and disagreements both key political and economic issues, and the inability of supporters/members of a given ideology and political party note  to think about and address every possible negative consequence of their policies and ideas/philosophies that either arose or will arise in the future).

Hence why I'm still exploring different political ideas and trying to see where could I fit in, like (I assume) you're doing.

edited 15th Sep '17 9:08:09 PM by Quag15

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#166: Sep 15th 2017 at 10:33:25 PM

[up][up] Same here...I consider myself a centrist, since I usually keep away from the parties which are more at the fringe (meaning which I consider either too far to the right or too far too the left), but between the moderate parties, I am pretty much an ever changing voter. I actually did flirt with the concept of communism and/or socialism too when I was younger, but I came pretty early to the realisation that humans are not made for that kind of system. Some of us are, they are happy with the simple things and don't need any lofty goals, but a lot of us are more driven than that, they want and they need some form of competition. And they want a reward for their wins.

I am very much pro adding socialists ideas into our societies, but I don't think that pure socialism is possible on a large scale.

edited 15th Sep '17 10:35:33 PM by Swanpride

math792d Since: Jun, 2011 Relationship Status: Drift compatible
#167: Sep 16th 2017 at 4:18:11 AM

I'm mostly a Social Democrat by process of elimination. I've found more left-wing groups too insular and narrow-minded, laser-focused on their electorate to the detriment of solidarity, and hostile to the EU.

I've found liberal politicians at best naïve and at worst to be paid harbingers of the demon that is 21st century capitalism in all its worst forms.

And I resent the idea of the center because I'm not arrogant enough to think the answer's in the middle and it's just that too many people are too dumb to see it. We had our mealy-mouthed, centrist liberals and the consequences were a rise in racism, fascism and naked consumer egotism, and frankly I'm holding the cowardly, centrist politicians almost as accountable for the shit we're drowning in as the hipster fascists who eventually took the throne from them.

But ultimately, we're not abolishing capitalism any time soon, and a purely socialist nation has never really worked, so for now, it seems like the solution is to find the most efficient way to put some shackles on runaway capitalism, and I don't think the liberals or conservatives are ever going to get that balance right.

edited 16th Sep '17 4:30:42 AM by math792d

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#168: Sep 16th 2017 at 4:44:51 AM

[up] That is my main problem, because nobody really seems to. There is always something I consider objectionable in any party. Hence my habit to change my vote pretty often.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#169: Sep 16th 2017 at 4:46:46 AM

[up]I almost feel fortunate since the decision to vote Democratic or Republican is pretty damn easy for me these days.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#170: Sep 16th 2017 at 4:48:38 AM

[up] Don't. Having the choice between only two options isn't really a choice at all.

M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#171: Sep 16th 2017 at 4:58:03 AM

Oh I don't like having only two options. What I do sort of like is that one option is so much worse than the other, making the decision a fairly simple one for the most part. The downside of course is that the other option is so much worse.

It'd be like if the only options you had were the CDU or the Af D. And yes, that is a horrifying scenario.

edited 16th Sep '17 4:58:45 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
pwiegle Cape Malleum Majorem from Nowhere Special Since: Sep, 2015 Relationship Status: Singularity
Cape Malleum Majorem
#172: Sep 16th 2017 at 3:40:56 PM

These days, asking me to choose between Republican and Democrat is like asking me whether I'd rather contract cancer or AIDS.

This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
AmbarSonofDeshar Since: Jan, 2010
#173: Sep 16th 2017 at 8:35:53 PM

Both siderism, lovely. Also not on topic.

thatindiantroper Since: Feb, 2015
#174: Sep 16th 2017 at 9:21:48 PM

He never said he wouldn't pick the cancer.

Superdark33 The dark Mage of the playground from Playgrounds and Adventures Since: Jan, 2013 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
The dark Mage of the playground
#175: Sep 17th 2017 at 6:05:24 AM

If anything, the Republicans would be a bullet to the brainstem while the Democrats are a VERY strong flu that can be cured by having a rest and drinking herbal tea (get it cos some people iunno refer to the inevitable socialist democrat takeover as herbal tea party for some reason).

Communism in and of itself does bring justice for people who really deserve it, people like Martin Shkreli(?), Sheldon Edelson & Rupert Murdoch, All these Natural Resource Robber Baron Oligarchs, stock sharks who gamble with people's livelyhood and all of these other Captain Planet Villians. Its very attractive to just want to hang them from lampposts because they can just walk freely doing atrocities and irreversible damage to humanity and the planet.

So slowly, as these various rich assholes get more and more outragous, people get more and more radicalized and that can end badly.


Total posts: 774
Top