• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is Comminusm?

What is Comminusm?
Click to expand...


A system that works quite well for hive insects.....humans, not so much.
 
SapphireSpire said:
(edit: Of course I meant "What Is Communism" but there's no way to change the title or delete the OP so...)

I can't get a straight answer from anyone or anywhere on the internet. It's a jumble of circular and contradictory terms like
"everything is owned by everyone"
"everything is controlled by the government"
and "there is no government!"
Click to expand...

Try visualizing the true nature of every concept as hidden within a gemstone, and looking different depending on which facet you observe it through. The true nature of the concept remains the same, but can be visualized in various ways.

For Communism one such facet is Collectivism versus Individualism.
The various manifestations of Socialism, which is by definition collectivistic, weigh the good and rights of the collective above that of the individual. The more collectivist an ideology is, the weaker individual rights will be. And vice versa; the more individualisic it is, the weaker collective rights will be. Communism is very much on the heavily collectivistic end of that spectrum.

The problem with Collectivist ideologies is that once you get rid of certain inalienable individual rights, you lose the protection against tyranny they were instituted to guarantee in the first place. Sometimes this happens incidentally, as various opportunists discover and exploit this weakness over time, and sometimes bad people institute Collectivism because it is the easiest way to remove those protections in the first place.

As long as Humans remain opportunistic, this eventual outcome is guaranteed. This is the root of the common trope "If not for Human nature, Socialism would be great!", which is as about as deep an observation as "If not for gravity, Frogs wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped!".
 
Last edited:
SapphireSpire said:
(edit: Of course I meant "What Is Communism" but there's no way to change the title or delete the OP so...)

I can't get a straight answer from anyone or anywhere on the internet. It's a jumble of circular and contradictory terms like
"everything is owned by everyone"
"everything is controlled by the government"
and "there is no government!"
Click to expand...

Don't worry. Under Communism you would have plenty of time to consider its true nature after the cell door clanged behind you.
 
Sweden said:
Don't worry. Under Communism you would have plenty of time to consider its true nature after the cell door clanged behind you.
Click to expand...

Huh? This makes no sense.
 
truthatallcost said:
A plot by a small minority to create hatred of what was the current power structure in Russia (monarchy) in order to gain power themselves. Anybody who tells you it was about finding utopia with communal living, and was 'hijacked' by some rare fluke of bad luck, is an idiot. The original Bolsheviks were terrorists, bullies, and racists, according to the American journalist John Reed, who went to Russia seeking this great communal utopia, and died for it.

John Reed (journalist) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

No, the revolution of 1917 was a reaction to the millions who were deliberately starved by the absolute monarchist and and nationalistic anti-Semite, Czar Nicholas II. He paid for that with his life and those of his family. Reed died of typhus, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the revolutionary government. Your link only briefly hints at the horrors of life under Nicholas Romanov if you were poor or a minority.
History is your friend: STATISTICS OF RUSSIAN GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
Huh? This makes no sense.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't really , does it? I was trying to point out that under communist rule say one wrong thing and one ends up in jail.
 
soylentgreen said:
If taken literally. Or as americans seem to do demand that it be treated as gospel.

The modern day experiment is that of workers coops. But that is using the ideas marx first talked of and progressing them rather than treating it as an ideology that must be adhered to.
Click to expand...


He didn't have much to progress. Where he envisioned a violent revolution long brewing, we experienced development. Where he envisioned a never ending struggle against abject poverty, we experience a social safety net. Where he saw the worker forever a slave unless vested in capital, we find minimum wage and labor rights.

He didn't see world development the way it happened. In his mind, the archetype struggle with climatic battle was at hand. He was wrong. Instead, world development.

Sure, some of his concepts serve to inform and provide perspective. But as far as him providing vision? No, he failed in that regard. He should have been talking about rights instead of revolution.
 
Bum said:
A system that works quite well for hive insects.....humans, not so much.
Click to expand...

That is one of the better explanations. And no, I don't give a damn what the dictionary definition is, because that is a realistic real life definition.
Beehives are indeed the pure DEMONSTRATION of communism.
And no, the human race cannot act like a beehive, but some very strict fundamentalist churches try very hard to give the impression that they do.
 
snakestretcher said:
No, the revolution of 1917 was a reaction to the millions who were deliberately starved by the absolute monarchist and and nationalistic anti-Semite, Czar Nicholas II. He paid for that with his life and those of his family. Reed died of typhus, and was an enthusiastic supporter of the revolutionary government. Your link only briefly hints at the horrors of life under Nicholas Romanov if you were poor or a minority.
History is your friend: STATISTICS OF RUSSIAN GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
Click to expand...

I'll have to come back to this later, but one quick note- the author of your source writes, "Taking into account all the democide under the Czar, possibly near 900,000 to almost 1,500,000 Russians, subjects of the Russian empire."

Very shortly after gaining power, the Bolsheviks began ethnic cleansing and genocide.

"Decossackization (Russian: Расказачивание, Raskazachivaniye) was the Bolshevik policy of systematic repressions against Cossacks of the Russian Empire, especially of the Don and the Kuban, between 1917 and 1933 aimed at the elimination of the Cossacks as a separate ethnic, political, and economic entity. policy was established by a secret resolution of the Bolshevik Party. On January 24, 1919, a secret resolution of the Bolshevik Party local branches ordered to "carry out mass terror against wealthy Cossacks, exterminating all of them; carry out merciless mass terror against any and all Cossacks taking part in any way, directly or indirectly, in the struggle against Soviet power"

The the most reliable estimates indicate that between 300,000 and 500,000 were killed or deported in 1919–20" out of a population of around three million.
------------

I can't believe communism still has defenders today. What draws you to it, if you don't mind?

Decossackization - Wikipedia
 
truthatallcost said:
I'll have to come back to this later, but one quick note- the author of your source writes, "Taking into account all the democide under the Czar, possibly near 900,000 to almost 1,500,000 Russians, subjects of the Russian empire."

Very shortly after gaining power, the Bolsheviks began ethnic cleansing and genocide.

"Decossackization (Russian: Расказачивание, Raskazachivaniye) was the Bolshevik policy of systematic repressions against Cossacks of the Russian Empire, especially of the Don and the Kuban, between 1917 and 1933 aimed at the elimination of the Cossacks as a separate ethnic, political, and economic entity. policy was established by a secret resolution of the Bolshevik Party. On January 24, 1919, a secret resolution of the Bolshevik Party local branches ordered to "carry out mass terror against wealthy Cossacks, exterminating all of them; carry out merciless mass terror against any and all Cossacks taking part in any way, directly or indirectly, in the struggle against Soviet power"

The the most reliable estimates indicate that between 300,000 and 500,000 were killed or deported in 1919–20" out of a population of around three million.
------------

I can't believe communism still has defenders today. What draws you to it, if you don't mind?

Decossackization - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I'm defending nothing; whatever gave you that idea? I clearly pointed out that the revolution of 1917 was a reaction to the Romanov monarchy treating Russian citizens like serfs.
 
ecofarm said:
He didn't have much to progress. Where he envisioned a violent revolution long brewing, we experienced development. Where he envisioned a never ending struggle against abject poverty, we experience a social safety net. Where he saw the worker forever a slave unless vested in capital, we find minimum wage and labor rights.

He didn't see world development the way it happened. In his mind, the archetype struggle with climatic battle was at hand. He was wrong. Instead, world development.

Sure, some of his concepts serve to inform and provide perspective. But as far as him providing vision? No, he failed in that regard. He should have been talking about rights instead of revolution.
Click to expand...

Marx gave an accurate description of the world he lived in. Violent revolution was the only means by which the poor could break the strangle hold the rich and monarchy had on power.

And you are wrong. It was not world development but the exact opposite. WW1 was the cause of the fall of the monarchists hold on power. Because that war killed many of the blood lines off. It allowed a vacuum that the working class exploited to gain rights .

And the biggest mistake is the belief that he provides vision. This is nothing more than an attempt to glorify him by putting him in the position of some kind of prophet, he was not. He was an ordinary man who talked of a philosophy. His words should be seen as educational. of historic interest rather than something bordering on religious like visionary. He did not fail in that regard. Those who treat his words as visionary such as the many who oppose communist philosophy do, have failed to understand him.

Marx gave quite lengthy arguments about rights. as an example

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/humanrights/lecturepodcast/marxs_critique_of_rights.pdf

Not that i expect you to read it but that here is an example of his discussions of rights.
 
soylentgreen said:
Marx gave an accurate description of the world he lived in. Violent revolution was the only means by which the poor could break the strangle hold the rich and monarchy had on power.

And you are wrong. It was not world development but the exact opposite. WW1 was the cause of the fall of the monarchists hold on power. Because that war killed many of the blood lines off. It allowed a vacuum that the working class exploited to gain rights .

And the biggest mistake is the belief that he provides vision. This is nothing more than an attempt to glorify him by putting him in the position of dome kind of prophet. he was not. he was an ordinary man who talked of a philosophy. His words should be seen as educational. of historic interest rather than something bordering on religious like visionary. He did not fail in that regard. Those who treat his words as visionary such as the many who oppose communist philosophy do, have failed to understand him.

Marx gave quite lengthy arguments about rights. as an example

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/humanrights/lecturepodcast/marxs_critique_of_rights.pdf

Not that i expect you to read it but that here is an example of his discussions of rights.
Click to expand...

Marx failed to foresee the realization of the Enlightenment. To him, it was armed overthrow and forced redistribution. But the world found a much better way. A way that Marx, in the end terribly limited, never even smelled.
 
ecofarm said:
Marx failed to foresee the realization of the Enlightenment. To him, it was armed overthrow and forced redistribution. But the world found a much better way. A way that Marx, in the end terribly limited, never even smelled.
Click to expand...

Given the world he lived in i would dare anyone to show that someone of that time could have had any vision of enlightenment.
Given that it was not enlightenment but instead a terrible war of attrition that brought about the ability to overthrow the power structure of the time, he was far more correct than you are.
 
soylentgreen said:
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/staff/robertfine/home/teachingmaterial/humanrights/lecturepodcast/marxs_critique_of_rights.pdf

Not that i expect you to read it but that here is an example of his discussions of rights.
Click to expand...

I quote, from your source:

There is much confusion in the literature over the nature of Marx’s critique of rights in general and the rights of man in particular. In this lecture I may well make more clouds than I clear, but my aim is to confront the dogma, often accepted for different reasons by Marxists and anti‐Marxists alike, that Marx was some kind of legal nihilist who had no time for the idea of rights and basically saw the rights of man as an ideology of class rule (spreading among the exploited classes the illusion that they were free) and as a technique of class power (individuating and neutering the collective organisation of workers). Among current human rights activists and theoreticians this construction of Marx has sometimes led to the erroneous judgment that Marx is of little or no value to the student of human rights.
Click to expand...

And need only say, spare me. That's clearly apologism.
 
soylentgreen said:
Given the world he lived in i would dare anyone to show that someone of that time could have had any vision of enlightenment.
Given that it was not enlightenment but instead a terrible war of attrition that brought about the ability to overthrow the power structure of the time, he was far more correct than you are.
Click to expand...

Is that an undergrad sociology lecture apologizing for Marx's dismal grasp of the Enlightenment?

Yes, it is. Let's make note of its admissions - first. Then we can grovel for specks of decency in his work.

Let's review the opening paragraph again:

my aim is to confront the dogma, often accepted for different reasons by Marxists and anti‐Marxists alike, that Marx was some kind of legal nihilist who had no time for the idea of rights and basically saw the rights of man as an ideology of class rule (spreading among the exploited classes the illusion that they were free) and as a technique of class power (individuating and neutering the collective organisation of workers). Among current human rights activists and theoreticians this construction of Marx has sometimes led to the erroneous judgment that Marx is of little or no value to the student of human rights.
Click to expand...


Now you wanna look to obscure work, the younger years, to apologize for his glaring intellectual blindspot.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
I quote, from your source:



And need only say, spare me. That's clearly apologism.
Click to expand...

No, that is trying to deal with the confusion and ignorance about what marx has said.

Even your own words that he should have talked about rights instead of revolution demonstrates your own ignorance of the fact that he did talk about rights.
 
ecofarm said:
Is that an undergrad sociology lecture apologizing for Marx's dismal grasp of the Enlightenment?

Yes, it is. Let's make note of its admissions - first. Then we can grovel for specks of decency in his work.
Click to expand...

No that would be you still pretending that enlightenment was the cause for changes in social class.structure. When in all possibility those changes would have only been achieved through revolution if the first world war had not happened.
 
soylentgreen said:
No that would be you still pretending that enlightenment was the cause for changes in social class.structure. When in all possibility those changes would have only been achieved through revolution if the first world war had not happened.
Click to expand...

Tell it to the hand.
 
ecofarm said:
That sounds complicated.

Simple version: utopia in which economic class is eliminated.
Click to expand...

The availability of edible food, wearable shoes and clothes declines as well. Why is this direction even considered as viable again?

"During the 1960s and 1970s, the Communist Party elite rapidly gained wealth and power while millions of average Soviet citizens faced starvation. The Soviet Union’s push to industrialize at any cost resulted in frequent shortages of food and consumer goods. Bread lines were common throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Soviet citizens often did not have access to basic needs, such as clothing or shoes."
 
SapphireSpire said:
(edit: Of course I meant "What Is Communism" but there's no way to change the title or delete the OP so...)

I can't get a straight answer from anyone or anywhere on the internet. It's a jumble of circular and contradictory terms like
"everything is owned by everyone"
"everything is controlled by the government"
and "there is no government!"
Click to expand...

OP-er, are you a middle or high school student? I ask because, unless you're doing a survey to discover what folks think communism is, I can't think of any other reason for you to ask "what is communism." What communism is has been very well defined and exposed in myriad places on the Internet.
"What is Communism?"/"What is communism?" just isn't the sort of question one needs to ask anyone, most especially "random" folks/strangers on the Internet. Google (or any other search engine) is a fine gateway to many excellent and accurate answers to that question, and the answers range from very simplistic to comprehensively nuanced and expositive.
 
snakestretcher said:
I'm defending nothing; whatever gave you that idea? I clearly pointed out that the revolution of 1917 was a reaction to the Romanov monarchy treating Russian citizens like serfs.
Click to expand...

It's indefensible to start a revolution based upon allegations of oppression and cruelty, and then to go with this new form of governance, and kill 60-100 million people, as the Soviet Union did. Life under the old czar was never as bad as this.

What I'm getting at is; why are Russian Communists not seen as threatening as German Nazis? The common reply I've received from this question , is that Communist Russia didn't try to eradicate an entire group of people based upon ethnicity, while the Nazis did, and that is why Russian Communists aren't hated with the same fervor. But in fact, they did enact ethnic genocide, more than once.

There must be something more to people's continuous fascination, and flirtation with communism, and the Bolshevik era.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Viva la revolucion.
Click to expand...

Viva la execution!


920882.jpg


The original revolutionaries rarely made it to old age, & most were murdered. A fitting end I'd say.
 
SapphireSpire said:
(edit: Of course I meant "What Is Communism" but there's no way to change the title or delete the OP so...)

I can't get a straight answer from anyone or anywhere on the internet. It's a jumble of circular and contradictory terms like
"everything is owned by everyone"
"everything is controlled by the government"
and "there is no government!"
Click to expand...

Communism, like socialism, is a system of government which defies God and oppresses people in the name of goodness. It usually finds its start in the fertile ground of wicked unrest enflamed by wicked lying propaganda promoted by wicked savage barbarians for wicked selfish purposes. Communism never creates a happy peaceful prosperous society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom