Talk:Communism/Archive3

Examples of non-shitty communism?
Could we have some examples of non-shitty communism? Are there any examples outside of democratically-elected communist governments in India? Italy, perhaps? Bongolian (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Catch 22, a bit there. If your government changes hands all the time, how can it be a nominally communist government, unless every single political faction in the country is also communist?  Socialist political leaders who get elected by legitimate popular vote tend to get deposed in coups;  there's like 2 exceptions and they're working on one of them.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I know there are plenty of non-shitty communist ideologies, but I'm still gonna need help from Oxy on this, as she is more knowledgeable on these subjects than I. 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Communism isn't shitty already. It is the name of the classless, stateless society. This and this is what the shit looks like. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, multiple, including the Korean Anarchist Association, multiple different anarchist communes, the libertarian socialist society of the Zapatistas, and Rojava. Hell, the USSR itself was actually democratic (worker councils called "soviets" ultimately called the shots, it's complicated) (although not necessarily libertarian) until Stalin came along, and Cuba is probably the only example where Marxism-Leninism actually works in practice. — Oxyaena Harass  22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I know of Communist theory this is correct. The USSR and its associated Blocs almost always billed themselves as "Socialist" and promised that "Communism would happen any day now". The confusion arises due to the leaders of the Western powers' using the "Communism" interchangeably with "Socialism", while understanding neither in a academic sense. 22:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, excatly! So why not solving that error at this page and every fix that is made is blindly reverted by a specific guy that has admiration to an italian dictator? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Will you please stop poisoning the well? That's been explained multiple times, and asserting it repeatedly does not make it so. And this level of hyperbole is really starting to annoy me. 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we please fix those politically incorrect terms? That is what many of the people want as they feel discriminated. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you don't call people what they call themselves and what the outside world also calls them, that's entering into No True Scotsman territory. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China, and Mongolian People's Party had decades to create communist states, so either textbook-communism is effectively unattainable or what they did create was it. Bongolian (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it's more complex than what you say. I don't wanna repeat myself. — Oxyaena Harass  13:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with her on this. contrary to what you say you are doing the same fallacy you charge me. You refer to marxism/leninism, which is a branch of socialism that has the goal of communism, as Communism itself. You associate the tool with the cause. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Since communism hasn't been tried out according to theory, that should have ended the debate. Since it didn't, here's some socialist societies that worked out better, even though there not communist: Catalonia (1936-1939), Zapatista controlled Chiapas (1994-now), Marinaleda and Yugoslavia (1945-1991).--Boredsocialist (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * the USSR, maoist China, and other countries all attempted communism. It definitely has been "tried out" EK (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Catalonian anarchists were anarcho-syndicalists, a variant of anarcho-communism. — Oxyaena Harass  03:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just because something says it's something doesn't mean it is that. Is North Korea democratic because its in their name? No. Were the Nazis socialist because it was in their name? No. China and the USSR didn't have a stateless or moneyless society--Boredsocialist (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

How can Communism not be Authoritarian?
I mean, it's all about being a slave to the system, just like in capitalism. Both aren't that much different from each others. 2003:C3:3741:1600:E0A1:C185:51E6:E4DF (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Define Communism please. 17:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You uh don't know jack about shit regarding communism. Only in genuine communism are we truly free from need and want, the thing is all so-called "communist" states openly admit(ted) that they were merely "transitional states" to communism, not genuine communism. They billed themselves as socialist, whether they were or not is a matter of debate, but this isn't the place for that discussion. — Oxyaena Harass  18:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So communism is like heaven but for atheists? Being free from want is contrary to human nature. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear friend, I am neither Capitalist nor Communist. I am an independent thinker 2003:C3:3741:1600:2D51:F5F8:EB4C:D4B1 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Define Communism please. Or leave the discussion. I can answer the original question, but only if the BoN defines their terms. 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"Free from want" is metaphorical, communism is essentially anything resembling a post-scarcity society plus the presence of no states and/or classes. It's not arguably achievable now, but socialism is. — Oxyaena Harass  22:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia
How is communism a bad thing again? — Oxyaena Harass  16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Serious answer: various other very real problems that the Soviet Union had. Oh man, can you imagine if the US government just grabbed random people off the street and ran them off to undisclosed locations for expressing opinions hostile to the state, though?  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't possibly imagine such a thing occurring in the US. I'm very glad it only happens in other countries and has never happened here. 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, another similarity between and : They both like to use walls to prevent freedom of movement.  17:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean Marxist-Leninists, which is the my whole gripe in the first place. — Oxyaena Harass  18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I meant Communists. 18:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your consistency with respect to refusing to understand what people mean even after they clarify is commendable. No the other word.  Contemptible.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. 19:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Communism has almost always been lost in the implementation phase. Just about everyone who tries it gets lost in the "complete power needed to restructure society" thing. 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Catalonia says hello. — Oxyaena Harass  18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I too like to defend Marxist-Leninist states for their track record of criminalising homosexuality, murdering hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of people for political reasons, forcing vagrants to work in labour camps, getting rid of those pesky kulaks and conducting ethnic cleansing on a genocidal scale, operating highly authoritarian military police states that kill anyone who disobeys state orders that often lead to people being starved or worked to death, and having no human rights and brutal prisons where the death rate was five thousand percent or more higher than the US prison system. Supporting this is why I'm an anarchist, communism is good actually. 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I too am an anarchist. 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, Raven. I never defended anything, introducing nuance into a conversation does not equal it being a defense. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So the communist state of the USSR was good? Yes? No? Anarchist  19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  04:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

, what do you mean by anarchist? Your page has Keynesian economics, not mutualism or anarcho-communism/syndicalism --Boredsocialist (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He was being sarcastic at the time. You might not want to revive this dispute.-Flandres (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. He was being sarcastic and I shouldn't have done that. --Boredsocialist (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we create a seperate page?
Most criticisms here are for Marxism-Leninism, which isn't communism but state socialism. We should move alot of our criticisms to new pages labeled things like Maoism or Marxism-Leninism and make new criticisms based on the validity of a moneyless and marketless society.--Boredsocialist (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * i am under the impression that communism is the end goal, with the various states labelled communist being works in progress, having not yet reached the theorised utopia. that said the people running these states have communism as the end goal. china has communism as it stated end goal. ergo they are communist. russia an china cast long shadows and what most people think of communism is based on russia and china. that is communism for a lot of people, like it or not.


 * i do have issue with the article though, not just the article, but its serves as a helpful illustration of whats been gnawing at me for a while.


 * i am not so much concerned with the theory and argument over what was envisaged by marx, or a critique of said theory, there are issue with all of that in the article but not the root of my complaint.


 * i am more greautly bothered the practice and how it has been represented. the potted history that we give of the rise of soviet russia, of its failings, and of the triumph of capitalism is fundementality flawed. really so massively flawed that any conclusion we draw from the history as presented here are deeply flawed.


 * ive always had issue with the way human rights abuses and and the horrific genocides are often presented. namely these things happened because of communism, and communism is bad because these things happened. its never explained by anyone how this is inherent to communism, but it is very strongly implied to be so. very often hysterically so. i am referring to on wiki debates, not respected historians and the like, i should add. whats always missing is context. what did the world look like time? what preceded such horrors? what drives people to be complicit with it? to participate?


 * ideology does not cut it for me. indeed it is rarely discussed, only to apportion blame. to point and say look what they did. look at their brutality. its such a shallow argument. its a lazy argument. its like when we paint nazis responsible for the holocaust as extraordinarily evil, when the reality is of normal everyday human beings complicit in atrocities.


 * what i feel is lacking here, is a history lesson. the world that birthed such brutalities was itself drenched in blood, and we barely even mention what is so significant, so intrinsic to the brutalities that followed.


 * lets look at russia. the tsarist empire died in midst of world war one, one the bloodiest conflicts in human history. leading directly to one the most brutal and costly civil wars. no sooner is that over but the ruined land, struggling to rebuild a vast country with regular famines, has to contend with the bloodiest conflict in human history.


 * lets look at china. after years of exploitation by colonial powers, and of factional disputes amongst warlords, a brutal civil war erupts, only interrupted by a brutal invasion, leaving millions dead and the country ruined.


 * lets look at north korea. theres a reason why nrth korea hate america. formed after the us arbitrarily split korea in to to fuck over the russians, it sowed the seeds for a war where the us carpet bombed, and fire bombed the entirety of north so no building was left standing and was left a desert, its people reduced to living in mud huts and dug outs for survival. 12% percent of the population killed, some 10 million people. 635000 tons of bombs were dropped - only 500000 tons were dropped in the pacific theatre during all of ww2.


 * lets look at cambodia. a civil war and the us makes cambodia one of the most heavily bombed places on earth, second only to laos.


 * can you see my point? these are regimes that were born out of the most extreme brutalities. we barely mention any of it. we cannot begin to talk deviations from 'what marx intended' while glossing over the realities that communist regimes arose from and found themselves in. not just communists either - these conflicts have been the defining feature of the 20th century an the world we live in today.


 * this leads to the failure of communism and the triumph of capitalism - of the soviets meeting its match in the us, and ulitmately losing out is not an accurate narrative either. this was not a race of equals starting at the same time, with the capitalist west pulling ahead. tsarist russia was a backward backwater, not starting to industrialise till a little before ww1. the capitalist west had decades of a head start. the us was untouched by war, but russia faced 2 world wars and a civil war and it still went toe to toe with the us during the cold war, only faltering towards the end. the us had all the advantages, especially after ww2, in which russian industrial power was key to victory over the nazis, moving whole factories thousands of miles to evade the german, while the us was not even bombed on the mainland. communism wasnt a failure, it was an industrial triumph for russia. look at where china was and to what it is now after all that it has endured. quibble over the terms, of what is and is not communism, but if you are seeing failure here, then you are not looking.


 * you do not have to like communism or deny any crimes done in its name. but to discuss what it means in reality, we should at the very least be honest about it. i have not yet conidered how this might be incorperated into our article AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, colloquially that's how a lot of people see communism. But it's still this interpretation that's scholarly, and we're meant to educate people, not assure what they think they know. Still, they shouldn't have done things like lock up political dissidents,start gulags and so on. Being bombed by the US and being stuck in a backwater doesn't justify things that they did. China killed millions it didn't like, then converted to a neoliberal hellhole. Rojava, Catalonia and Zapatistas went through the same problems and came out with little to no atrocities. What I was saying is we should change criticisms from criticisms of Marxism-Leninism and how it inherently leads to authoritarianism with it's hierarchy, and instead change it to criticisms of how a decentrally planned system based on a lack f money would work in a nation and it's idealism. --Boredsocialist (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest separate sections of critique, both on this page. One takes down the eastern bloc, the other looks at "communism the idea."-Flandres (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was proposing. One article to look at the horrors of Marxism-Leninism, and one to question the econmic validity of a marketless, moneyless society on a large scale without having economic downturn.--Boredsocialist (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * you misunderstand my point. i do not say the brutality preceding the creation of any of these states justifies the horrors that follow. i am saying that the extreme brutality together with the realpolitik necessary to even get started explains the dehumanisation and paranoia that allows people to do horrific things better than broad ideological points. rojava, catalonia, zapatistas - did not remotely go through the same things, with no where near the scale of devastation, while still maintaining some continuity to what preceded them. compare to the old order being completely annihilated, with no organisation or structure surviving in to the new regimes of soviet russia or china. the extreme nature of the crisis at the birth of these communism nations must impact the course of regimes all the way down the line. we barely give them a nod.
 * there is no one size fits all. in practice success or failure depends on all manner of thing, from scale, to the manner in which power was gained, fundamentally altering the course a regime takes, altering perspectives of what we see communism to be. i see little value in looking at communism the 'idea' removed from practice when any implementation necessitates choices meaning the idea will always be a fantasy.
 * looking at what has been attempted, what the similarities are, the differences, what constitutes success or failure. you need a critique of russia and china. you need a critique for smaller scale efforts. see what factors must remain to be even called communism AMassiveGay (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the level of deep intellectual analysis expected from an imbecilic shithub of centrists who ironically congregate under the banner of "rationality"
"Some suggest that Marxism is by itself just a relatively harmless pile of bullshit, especially as concerns economics, but it can easily be hijacked by a dictatorial methodology like Leninism, so that when its economic methods do not work, anyone who tries to point out that the Emperor has no clothes on can be conveniently silenced."

How this sort of idiocy stands on the main article can only be explained by the fact that this wiki only serves to provide a self-congratulatory circle-jerk cesspool of centrist liberals. At least link to some tree-hugging, corporate idiot academic's highly opinionated blog or something to preserve some semblance to a credible source.
 * If you check the page itself, you'll find that this is a criticism leveled against communism by people. The wiki takes no such stance. That said, from what little conversation I've had with friends who know a few things about economics, communist economics tend to never really work out. 22:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol bitch got mad. 22:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, bitch made a funny. I wish I could give you some credit for trying to justify your stupidity with all the intellectual weaseling you could muster, and I certainly can't be blamed for not giving you an opportunity to do so, resulting in this piss poor effort. Alas, the truth remains that some "people" whose dick you suck on the side is not a valid source. Either get off your lazy liberal ass and find a source to justify the peasant rhetoric in that quote or I'll take that as your admission that you're a clueless hack. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 154.13.1.65 / talk
 * Accusations of conflicts of interest, without evidence, are conjecture. 22:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia lists quite a few references at a first glance. Again, I'll admit to not knowing a whole ton about economics, but it's fairly well referenced and John Maynard Keynes (who from what little I do know wasn't too bad of an economist) specifically dismissed it as irrelevant bullshit. 22:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

So...are you suggesting we change it?-Flandres (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I suggest that you remove the section or at least try to provide a non-biased, rationally argued and well cited criticisms from people. I'm not arguing agaist the "here are some criticisms of communism by some people" part, it's the thoroughly dismissive attitude towards any semblance of balance and rationality part which I think should be addressed.
 * So, may I have a yardstick for what you consider a reliable source which can be used for a hypothetical redone criticisms section?-Flandres (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try and find any source first, dimwit, before we discuss whether it's reliable or the metrics of your hypothetical yardstick. Are you actually this obtuse, I get the idiot moose is a failure of a low-iq wanna-be troll, but I at least expected someone to understand the concept of "here some people are saying this about x and oh btw, if you're interested in the validity of this claim, check out these citations". After all, this is supposed to be a wiki, a rational one. LMFAO!!! &mdash; Unsigned, by: 154.13.1.39 / talk


 * Moron BoN is just butthurt we said mean things about their pet ideology. Notice it didn’t even bother to explain what it’s problem with the passage. It just wants to vent. 22:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey "il duce moronini", you must be the thickest imbecile this side of the interwebs. I've explained my grievance explicitly and on more than one occasion: that you lack the necessary citation for the claim that "some people say x". If you make a claim, make sure you're able to cite it, even if it's a fluff piece you find on some random blog. For someone who likes to pretend you get under other people's skin with such insightful observations such as "lulz CoMmuhs ur butHurT", your continuous barrage of responses suggest a high level of dysfunctional projection. You even responded to your own comment out of rage. Perhaps you should learn when to shut up, it's for your own good not that you can tell it anyways.
 * Gotta love commies. They get just as blustery and butthurt as the Trumpies do. 22:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Well, I knew that...but it was nice to give them a chance! So, you know, they can't whine about it later.-Flandres (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Commies are at least more entertaining than trumpites when it comes to the brainworms that both suffer from. Trumpites just go "MAGA TRUMP", Commies at least try to do some amount of PIDOOMA. 23:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to remind you that every full-on Communist country had a terrible and tumultuous economy that either forced it into capitalism or encouraged its collapse, not to mention its absolute dictatorship... IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to be that guy, but most of you are kind of circle jerking. All of you except Sirius really. 23:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition of communism is ownership of the means of production at the hands of the proletariat. Any form of dictatorship, bureaucratic oligarchy, quasi-religious cultist state is therefore disqualified. It's akin to changing the definition of charity just because a lot of modern charities are run as for-profit corporations.
 * So what about my response. You asked for sources, I provided some. Or are insults all you have? 23:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here we go again with the "communism has never happened anywhere" argument. Also, didn't Marx & Co. make a big deal of the whole "dictatorship of the proletariat" thing, that justified a dictatorship as long as it in some vague way represented the people? IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been awhile since I read Communist theory, but if I remember correctly a "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't mean a literal dictatorship, but instead a political hegemoney which caters exclusively or predominantly to the interests of the proletariat, rather than those of the Bourgeoisie. 00:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it’s not REAL communism. 00:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, at the end of the day, the quality of the counter arguments from anti-communist bigots are reduced to snarky sarcasm and an appeal to emotion by an idiot who thinks repetition of an argument is a measure of it's inaccuracy. An idiot who only read a quote from Marx on some online forum and thinks he knows all about it. Rationalwiki, edited by morons who belong in the dunning kruger hall of fame. BTW, yes, the dictatorship refers to the state instrument used to progress the interests of the working class against the capitalist class. If you consider using state apparatus for benefiting a class dictatorial, you must consider all capitalist nations as dictatorships because all of them use the state apparatus to protect and advance the interests of private property.
 * I feel like you shouldn't read Foucault or Hegel. Both use specialized jargon to try to communicate somewhat complex ideas. Also Hegel's work is obtuse as all fuck. 00:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you pinging me about this? I haven’t expressed a desire to read either. 01:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You replied to me with a dumb response. Marx makes some effort to communicate his ideas with laymen. So if you're having trouble understanding that when I explain certain concepts (I read through those books, and godsdamnit I will fight you if you try hash out "true communism" with me) in the context they appear in his works then heavier philosophy might be bad for you. 01:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t even replying to you, I said that to the BoN. And now you’re calling me a dumbass? Fuck you. 01:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "And now you’re calling me a dumbass?" I did not in fact call you a dumbass. I said that your response was dumb. These are not the same thing. In the context of the conversation, yes, your response was dumb. Don't like it? Neither do I! 02:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can all clearly see that you've never expressed any desire to read, period, so spare us the redundant chatter. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 154.13.1.39 / talk


 * Out of respect for, I'll try to better articulate what I was saying. From an (admittedly light) reading of Marx, and a knowledge of Lenin, Communism argues that after a revolution, the people will organize communes to continue the revolution and prevent the bourgeois and others from repressing the workers. This state apparatus, depending on where you read about it, is either permanent or until the capitalist oppressors give up/are eliminated. However, because all previous capitalistic state power was already destroyed in the previous uprising, the current committee possesses absolute governmental power, and is usually headed by the popular leaders of the revolution. This gives leaders with near-cults of personality exceedingly large power, which in short order ends with the destruction of democracy and the repression of regular people, dissenters who are accused of being "bourgeois sympathizers." To summarize, it's my understanding that practically, a "dictatorship of the proletariat" ends with a true dictatorship. IveBeenFrank (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Better. Though in a slight defense of Marx some of the more authoritarian ideas came from Lenin. To revoke that defense, Marx is supposed to have endorsed Lenin's revolution. (He died before Stalin took power and the whole project went from authoritarian leaning to full on dictatorship.) However, your criticism depends on which version of Communism you're using. And yes, there are multiple versions, many hostile to the others. 01:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Bunch of liberal circle jerking from idiots with no depth of understanding about the topics they mock. Typical RationalWiki. — <font color="Purple">Oxyaena <font color="Red">Harass  19:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the complete ignorance of my comments, I would assume that OP just has insults to hurl instead of a response to what I said. Most unfortunate. 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)