Talk:Communism/Archive3

This is an archive page, last updated 15 March 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <4>

, (new)(back)

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. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. @Bongolian 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)

@Boredsocialist The Catalonian anarchists were anarcho-syndicalists, a variant of anarcho-communism. — Oxyaena ^Harass 03:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@EK 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Bongolian "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

In his critique of states run under Marxist–Leninist ideology, economist Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam notes that such states compared favorably with Western states in some health indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy.[159] Philipp Ther [de] posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernization programs under communist governments.[160] Similarly, Amartya Sen's own analysis of international comparisons of life expectancy found that several Marxist–Leninist states made significant gains and commented "one thought that is bound to occur is that communism is good for poverty removal".[161] The dissolution of the Soviet Union was followed by a rapid increase in poverty,[162][163][164] crime,[165][166] corruption,[167][168] unemployment,[169] homelessness,[170][171] rates of disease[172][173][174] and income inequality,[175] along with decreases in calorie intake, life expectancy, adult literacy and income.[176]

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)

@Ikanreed 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. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Funnily enough, another similarity between Communists and Trump: They both like to use walls to prevent freedom of movement. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 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. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 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. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 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. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 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. — Z 18:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I too am an anarchist. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 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. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So the communist state of the USSR was good? Yes? No? Anarchist @Oxyaena — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 19:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

— Oxyaena ^Harass 04:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Raven, 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)

@Flandres 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)

@AMassiveGay 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)

@Flandres 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)

@Boredsocialistyou 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)