Progressivism/Socialism/Communism; a failed Ideology

ChezC3 said:

So then it becomes the progressives, socialists, communists goal to use the coercive force of government to make people do as they think people ought.

Click to expand...

Yea like abortion opponents, opponents to equal rights, opponents to education, etc. etc. Oh way those are the right wing asshole evangelicals and conservatives.

Do you not see the problem here?

Click to expand...

Yea, you have no clue what is freedom.

Gus Fring said:

Communism actually is credited for industrializing many Third World countries, and it transformed China from a poor feudal society into one of the most advanced countries of the world.

Click to expand...

Now imagine what they could have done if they were free.

WillyPete said:

Marx's ideas were perverted pretty much immediately. The USSR was never an actual Communism, any more than the U.S is an actual Democracy. Both are just oligarchies on different points in a fairly broad spectrum.

At least the USSR collapsed, whereas the US largely still buys into it's own mythology.

Click to expand...

The reality is that what they got from the USSR is as close to communism as you can get. Communism requires heavy government control if it is to rise above pre-civilized bartering. That government control consolidates power, consolidated power breeds corruption, and corruption destroys communism.

Gus Fring said:

Communism actually is credited for industrializing many Third World countries, and it transformed China from a poor feudal society into one of the most advanced countries of the world.

Click to expand...

Actually false. It was servicing the great capitalist societies through the offer dirt cheap labor to the west that was responsible for creating the advanced nation that is China today. Even today China is not a great innovator, what they have is copied directly from western innovation.

So "communism" functioning only with the aid of giant capitalist benefactors is not really that great of an endorsement of China or communism.

Drawdown said:

Progressivism is simply a desire to improve the human condition through social reform. There is no manifest end goal other than make things better than they are.

Click to expand...

Sure through draconian measures, by calling all whites racist and giving more rights to .01% of the population than the other 99%.

Looks like a Trump is a socialist...he gave a governmental order as president to the private sector to do business with other nations.

jmotivator said:

The reality is that what they got from the USSR is as close to communism as you can get. Communism requires heavy government control if it is to rise above pre-civilized bartering. That government control consolidates power, consolidated power breeds corruption, and corruption destroys communism.

Click to expand...

Sounds about right. I don't think a real communism can survive past the village level, maybe an extended tribe. Probably a unified culture and relative isolation would help.

I'm coming to the conclusion that ALL governments are oligarchies, whatever they call themselves.

They aren't all equal in terms of performance, but as best I can tell they are all misleading their populations regarding how their government actually functions.

WillyPete said:

Sounds about right. I don't think a real communism can survive past the village level, maybe an extended tribe. Probably a unified culture and relative isolation would help.

I'm coming to the conclusion that ALL governments are oligarchies, whatever they call themselves.

They aren't all equal in terms of performance, but as best I can tell they are all misleading their populations regarding how their government actually functions.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think there is no real world incentive for collectivism after a group graduates beyond "so we can survive the winter" stage.

lwf said:

The point is you are no different than the average progressive. Don't try to pretend that you are somehow against government coercion to force people to follow what you think is right, and that progressives are somehow more authoritarian than conservatives. You do the same thing.

Click to expand...

I knew where you were going when first you went, as my previous post alluded if didn't out and out say

How unfortunate it is that you’ve insisted on devolving the conversation to this point.

I was trying to veer you away but alas, my attempts proved futile.

Yes. In society we have laws. If you don’t follow those laws there are consequences meted out by those we’ve given authority to do so.

This is not the nature of(sp) spirit of the thread or any discussion I was having. This is childish gotcha game BS that informed no one of anything interesting. Simple premises that all understand.

Congratulations. You were wonderful. Really.

Click to expand...

to let it sink in

I've nothing further to add.

jmotivator said:

The reality is that what they got from the USSR is as close to communism as you can get. Communism requires heavy government control if it is to rise above pre-civilized bartering. That government control consolidates power, consolidated power breeds corruption, and corruption destroys communism.

Click to expand...

No it was not. The ussr failed completely to enact any of the philosophy of communism. Theirs was nothing more than the use of a title empty of all substance.

Communism does not require heavy government control. That was leninism which in itself is a distortion of the communist principle of the right of the worker to control the government.

I will put to you the challenge which empirica ignored. Please name which communist doctrine that russia ever enacted.

jmotivator said:

Actually false. It was servicing the great capitalist societies through the offer dirt cheap labor to the west that was responsible for creating the advanced nation that is China today. Even today China is not a great innovator, what they have is copied directly from western innovation.

So "communism" functioning only with the aid of giant capitalist benefactors is not really that great of an endorsement of China or communism.

Click to expand...

It should also be pointed out that america built its empire on the back of slavery. As well, it can be pointed out that there was the forced indenture of workers without any rights or being any better off than slaves in the industrial revolution of capitalist europe.

So yes, your right china only did what capitalist america and europe did.

WillyPete said:

Sounds about right. I don't think a real communism can survive past the village level, maybe an extended tribe. Probably a unified culture and relative isolation would help.

I'm coming to the conclusion that ALL governments are oligarchies, whatever they call themselves.

They aren't all equal in terms of performance, but as best I can tell they are all misleading their populations regarding how their government actually functions.

Click to expand...

You do know that business run as coops which exist in many countries and are doing very well as a business model are based on the communist principle of workers ownership of means of productioon.

The mistake here from you and many others is the assumption of the governments role in society. There is among americans the unfortunate conditioning to always view the government with a them versus us mentality. Which is distinctly not a proposition of communism which has as a basic tenet the principle that the proletariat has the right to govern. Not as is in america and many other countries an elite group of self interested politicians attempting to force their right to rule over all.

soylentgreen said:

No it was not. The ussr failed completely to enact any of the philosophy of communism. Theirs was nothing more than the use of a title empty of all substance.

Communism does not require heavy government control. That was leninism which in itself is a distortion of the communist principle of the right of the worker to control the government.

I will put to you the challenge which empirica ignored. Please name which communist doctrine that russia ever enacted.

Click to expand...

Absolutely communism requires government control because the natural instinct of humans is not to share outside their immediate tribe. True communism can't ever be enacted without force of government for that very reason.

And that tribal limitation of human nature also limits what communism can actually produce as it is incapable of coordinating large scale manufacturing because such scale manufacturing requires entire cities and regions focused on something other than farming, making commodity management a necessity.. and supply chains of that scale don't grow without central planning... which requires more government, which consolidates more power.

Communism is impossible on a scale beyond simple tribal systems.

jmotivator said:

Absolutely communism requires government control because the natural instinct of humans is not to share outside their immediate tribe. True communism can't ever be enacted without force of government for that very reason.

And that tribal limitation of human nature also limits what communism can actually produce as it is incapable of coordinating large scale manufacturing because such scale manufacturing requires entire cities and regions focused on something other than farming, making commodity management a necessity.. and supply chains of that scale don't grow without central planning... which requires more government, which consolidates more power.

Communism is impossible on a scale beyond simple tribal systems.

Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense. Trade existed from the very beginning of social interaction within and without the tribe. It is a natural part of interaction. It is in capitalist best interest to put restrictions on trade for the creation of profit through forced scarcity.

Your argument is based on the principle of a separation of government and the governed. Communism on the other hand works on the principle that the right to govern belongs to those who are governed. You have failed to understand even the most basic principle of communism.

Noted also your failure to back what you said about russia. Not surprising though.

soylentgreen said:

It should also be pointed out that america built its empire on the back of slavery. As well, it can be pointed out that there was the forced indenture of workers without any rights or being any better off than slaves in the industrial revolution of capitalist europe.

So yes, your right china only did what capitalist america and europe did.

Click to expand...

It should also be pointed out that China continues to build an empire on the back of essentially slave wages, and in some cases actual slaves.. Tell me the difference between a slave who works for nothing and is fed by the a slave master and a communist who works for practically nothing and is fed by the state?

Old joke: Do you know what the difference is between a slave and a Cuban worker? About 40¢ a day...

soylentgreen said:

Absolute nonsense. Trade existed from the very beginning of social interaction within and without the tribe. It is a natural part of interaction. It is in capitalist best interest to put restrictions on trade for the creation of profit through forced scarcity.

Your argument is based on the principle of a separation of government and the governed. Communism on the other hand works on the principle that the right to govern belongs to those who are governed. You have failed to understand even the most basic principle of communism.

Click to expand...

Well, no, barter happened in very limited regional exchanges, and the longer trade routes were most definitely NOT communist in nature, and were for the enrichment of the trade organizations and the various royalty who funded them.

And spare me the unicorn and rainbow bull**** speech about what communism is. I will speak with you about how communism works in the real world where power is a corrupting force, and the ability to organize and coordinate is inherently powerful. You can not have an organized, productive society that is also completely decentralized. It doesn't happen.

Do me a favor, walk me through the process of creating a pencil in a truly communist society...

Noted also your failure to back what you said about russia. Not surprising though.

Click to expand...

My argument is that Communism is impossible. It makes no sense for you to challenge me to come up with something Russia implemented that was communist when I've already asserted that such a thing can't happen.

In fact, your question is better leveled at you: Name any advanced country that has ever implemented any economy that could be considered communist?

soylentgreen said:

You do know that business run as coops which exist in many countries and are doing very well as a business model are based on the communist principle of workers ownership of means of productioon.

The mistake here from you and many others is the assumption of the governments role in society. There is among americans the unfortunate conditioning to always view the government with a them versus us mentality. Which is distinctly not a proposition of communism which has as a basic tenet the principle that the proletariat has the right to govern. Not as is in america and many other countries an elite group of self interested politicians attempting to force their right to rule over all.

Click to expand...

I think we're talking past each other. I have no argument with true communist principles being used in the real world, but a co-op isn't a government at all. It will be itself subject to a government.

My central point is that what we commonly call a communist government isn't based on communist principles at all, and never was. That's just marketing.

Also, that this is true to some extent for all governments, which are all actually oligarchies with relatively minor differences between them, regardless of what label they slap on themselves.

jmotivator said:

It should also be pointed out that China continues to build an empire on the back of essentially slave wages, and in some cases actual slaves.. Tell me the difference between a slave who works for nothing and is fed by the a slave master and a communist who works for practically nothing and is fed by the state?

Old joke: Do you know what the difference is between a slave and a Cuban worker? About 40¢ a day...

Click to expand...

Again you blame communism for what is basically a capitalist form of slavery.

Need i point out that america is also culpable for the exact same crimes you falsely accuse communism of.

Prison strike 2018: federal prisoners work factory jobs for much less than the minimum wage - Vox

Prisoners in 17 states began a three-week strike this week, with many refusing to eat or work to protest what they consider “modern-day slavery” in America’s correctional facilities.

Among other demands, prisoners want to earn more than a few dimes for each hour of work that they do, considering that their work brings in billions of dollars in revenue to state and federal prisons. Most inmates across the country do skilled and unskilled labor typically for less than a dollar per hour. (In some states, it’s entirely unpaid.) The work ranges from building office furniture to answering customer service calls to video production and farm work — sometimes without the guarantee of safe work conditions.

Click to expand...

Again you fail to understand and once again ignore my request that you actually use communist principles in your argument. Rather than just point out that countries that simply used the word communist were responsible for the same workers atrocities and exploitation as has been and is still being used in america today.

You really need to understand that the ussr or china were not and are not communist countries. They simply use the word. The best example of that is north korea which calls itself a democratic republic much as does america. Using your argument therefore means that north korea is a democratic republic and not a brutal dictatorship on the simple basis that it chooses to call itself one.

WillyPete said:

I think we're talking past each other. I have no argument with true communist principles being used in the real world, but a co-op isn't a government at all. It will be itself subject to a government.

My central point is that what we commonly call a communist government isn't based on communist principles at all, and never was. That's just marketing.

Also, that this is true to some extent for all governments, which are all actually oligarchies with relatively minor differences between them, regardless of what label they slap on themselves.

Click to expand...

That would be because many governments follow the capitalist principle of elitism. Creating a separate body of elites to rule over the masses. The communist principle is the other way around in which the proletariat itself is the only body that has the right to govern.

The difficulty with that which is one many governments exploit by denying a right to, is that the proletariat must be a well educated group to self govern. It is no mere coincidence that the american government and in other countries do a very poor job of trying to raise the education levels of the poor. Where as countries that have more progressive socialist polices also have better education facilities and a higher standard of living for all. Because the better educated population is also one that takes a more active interest and participation in politics. Which would be absolute anathema to american politicians.

soylentgreen said:

Again you blame communism for what is basically a capitalist form of slavery.

Need i point out that america is also culpable for the exact same crimes you falsely accuse communism of.

Prison strike 2018: federal prisoners work factory jobs for much less than the minimum wage - Vox

Click to expand...

My God! Those US prisoners are... living better than the average Cuban. :lol:

Again you fail to understand and once again ignore my request that you actually use communist principles in your argument. Rather than just point out that countries that simply used the word communist were responsible for the same workers atrocities and exploitation as has been and is still being used in america today.

You really need to understand that the ussr or china were not and are not communist countries. They simply use the word. The best example of that is north korea which calls itself a democratic republic much as does america. Using your argument therefore means that north korea is a democratic republic and not a brutal dictatorship on the simple basis that it chooses to call itself one.

Click to expand...

Sigh. You really need to understand that my argument is that communism is impossible and that, since it is an impossibility, I agree with you that those countries are not actually communist. They are, however, the closet thing humans can actually get to communism, and they represent the kind of government that comes out of foolish beliefs in the possibilities of a communist economy.

It's like you arguing that people can pass through walls like ghosts, me telling you it is impossible and showing you footage of people smacking into walls, and you arguing "Well... that isn't people actually walking through walls like ghosts!" ... Yeah, I know. Good catch.

jmotivator said:

Well, no, barter happened in very limited regional exchanges, and the longer trade routes were most definitely NOT communist in nature, and were for the enrichment of the trade organizations and the various royalty who funded them.

And spare me the unicorn and rainbow bull**** speech about what communism is. I will speak with you about how communism works in the real world where power is a corrupting force, and the ability to organize and coordinate is inherently powerful. You can not have an organized, productive society that is also completely decentralized. It doesn't happen.

Do me a favor, walk me through the process of creating a pencil in a truly communist society...



My argument is that Communism is impossible. It makes no sense for you to challenge me to come up with something Russia implemented that was communist when I've already asserted that such a thing can't happen.

In fact, your question is better leveled at you: Name any advanced country that has ever implemented any economy that could be considered communist?

Click to expand...

Trade itself is neither communist or capitalist in its nature. Those two terms merely relate to how the economics of trade work.

And no all you have done is disseminate right wing propaganda and lies. There is no truth to then idea that russia or china were or are communist.

Your argument is not that communism is impossible. Your argument is that if you make stuff up about communism and ignore any of the actual principles of communism then you can dream up a scenario that makes it impossible.

You have consistently ignored and failed my request that you start using some of the principles of communism in your argument rather than point to dictatorships that merely used the word communism.

Centralised government is not a basic core tenet of communism That belongs to the particular beliefs of separate branches such as leninism or maoism who used it to create there own dictatorships.

jmotivator said:

My God! Those US prisoners are... living better than the average Cuban. :lol:

Click to expand...

What! really!! That is your excuse to justify slavery. How laughable are you.

Sigh. You really need to understand that my argument is that communism is impossible and that, since it is an impossibility, I agree with you that those countries are not actually communist. They are, however, the closet thing humans can actually get to communism, and they represent the kind of government that comes out of foolish beliefs in the possibilities of a communist economy.

It's like you arguing that people can pass through walls like ghosts, me telling you it is impossible and showing you footage of people smacking into walls, and you arguing "Well... that isn't people actually walking through walls like ghosts!" ... Yeah, I know. Good catch.

Click to expand...

Simply calling themselves communist does not make them any closer to communism. I have asked you repeatedly to point out which principles of communism did they follow and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

You do not have a clue what communism is. All you have is the usual right wing propagandist nonsense.

The communist economy is alive and well with every coop that exists through out the world. Your failure is to think that because a bunch of dictators called themselves communist then that must be communism. Which through pointing to north korea makes your thinking obviously foolish.

soylentgreen said:

Trade itself is neither communist or capitalist in its nature.

Click to expand...

Well, false. There is no trade in communism. In communism there is no requisite exchange of goods, a person who has produced nothing can take just as much of the community resources as those who actually produced goods.

Those two terms merely relate to how the economics of trade work.

Click to expand...

False. Communism dislocates production and consumption and allows for consumption without production, so there is no actual trade.

And no all you have done is disseminate right wing propaganda and lies.

Click to expand...

What lies would those be? I realize from your arguments that you haven't actually thought through most of what you are regurgitating, so I will try and help you strengthen your position by actually thinking it through.

There is no truth to then idea that russia or china were or are communist.

Click to expand...

Which ignores that from the beginning I have asserted that communist economies are impossible, so of course China and Russia were not communist.

Your argument is not that communism is impossible. Your argument is that if you make stuff up about communism and ignore any of the actual principles of communism then you can dream up a scenario that makes it impossible.

Click to expand...

Stating the principles of communism is not the same as proving they are practical or actually work in the real world. (Hint: They don't)

You have consistently ignored and failed my request that you start using some of the principles of communism in your argument rather than point to dictatorships that merely used the word communism.

Click to expand...

You are asking me to present examples of communism when my argument is that communism is impossible. So, I can't give you any examples of communism in practice. (Hint: the previous statement supports my argument, not yours.)

Centralised government is not a basic core tenet of communism That belongs to the particular beliefs of separate branches such as leninism or maoism who used it to create there own dictatorships.

Click to expand...

Of course it isn't. My point is that communism can only work in simple, local, tribal groups. Hunter/gatherer tribes are the closest thing to true communism.. but that kind of system does not and cannot work on the large industrial scale because large industrial economies require centralized planning. In a communist economy any such centralized planning would be handled by government... which can't perform the job because the centralization of power breaks the communist model. the only way communism works is when you have a personal vested interest in the others in your commune. That works with groups up to a hundred or so people, but gets impersonal and breaks down with groups larger than that.

soylentgreen said:

What! really!! That is your excuse to justify slavery. How laughable are you.

Click to expand...

Who justified anything? The average Cuban lives a pretty ****ty life, and they didn't even have the choice to avoid their fate by not committing a crime.

Simply calling themselves communist does not make them any closer to communism. I have asked you repeatedly to point out which principles of communism did they follow and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

Click to expand...

They didn't follow any because you stupid communist principles don't work.

You do not have a clue what communism is. All you have is the usual right wing propagandist nonsense.

Click to expand...

I have asked you to demonstrate how a true communist economy implementing communist principles can produce a pencil from raw materials. Feel free to demonstrate here or in the thread I dedicated to the question how it gets done.

Can a true communist economy produce a pencil? I posit the argument that it cannot, until you prove otherwise.

The communist economy is alive and well with every coop that exists through out the world. Your failure is to think that because a bunch of dictators called themselves communist then that must be communism. Which through pointing to north korea makes your thinking obviously foolish.

Click to expand...

LOL! As I have already argued, a small coop where you know everyone who share with is potentially functional, but no coop would be able to produce the internet you and I are communicating on... they couldn't, as I have asserted, even produce a pencil.

Can you name a coop that is completely self contained and takes nothing from it's surrounding capitalist economy? If you can't then I would even argue that your coops are not true communist coops and are instead kept on life support by their host capitalist economies.

soylentgreen said:

That would be because many governments follow the capitalist principle of elitism. Creating a separate body of elites to rule over the masses. The communist principle is the other way around in which the proletariat itself is the only body that has the right to govern.

Click to expand...

I'm saying the principle never escaped the laboratory. That's the only place it exists apart from forgotten hippy communes and possibly your co-ops.

Give me a for instance, maybe. I'm open to the idea of a government that isn't self-serving, but I'm not aware of any.

I think we'll find that your more socialist nations still cater to the wealthy donor class, they just also manage to treat the average folk better. I think the difference is in degree, not in form.