Forums / Discussion / General

Wow, how did I get so far behind in this discussion, and how did it take such bizarre turns? Let's see if I can catch up in under 5,000 characters.

Philip J. Fry wrote:
So does that mean that Linux is communist?

Well, it's not capitalistic, but it's not an either/or sort of thing. Open source software is more anarchistic than communistic, but applying these labels to software is more of a joke than anything serious.

MDFification wrote:
Actually, I find the idea that other people are entitled to the fruits of my labors simply because I am more successful disturbing.

That's not communism, that's more the idea of "redistributing wealth" under capitalism, which is counter-productive. The communist ideal is not about comparing success and leveling everyone out, it's about working for the common good rather than a boss or some stockholders.

Russian Fedora wrote:
North Korea, Laos, Cuba and China aren’t communist.

Correct, but I believe they are Communist. "Communism" is one of a handful of words in the English language that changes meaning when capitalized. (You probably knew that all lesbians are women, but did you know that there are about 45 thousand male Lesbians?) Actually, you probably should look it up, because your apparent definition of "communism" seems to go beyond "odd" into "nonsensical". For instance,

You see, communism is set in the (Possibly not so) far off future where the use of autonomous machinery for labor is easy and effective. What you’re thinking of is socialism.

WTF? What does communism have to do with robots? Wait, I can answer that: NOTHING WHATSOEVER. You trollin'?

Ric Tesla wrote:
I just want to know, in a communistic society, is religion normally oppressed or have something that is religious suppressing others who have other religious belief?

This is not a requirement of communism, but it is often the case in so-called "communist" societies. While this mainly due to Marx's dislike for religion, I think there is a logic to disallowing religion in a communist society. In a capitalist society, if I want to give money and time to my church, that's my business, but in a communist society, people who were not believers in my religion would likely see that as a waste of resources that should go to the common good, and they would have an interest at stake.

Also another thing, is in communism that no matter what job you have you get paid the same?

This is a harder question, since the meanings of many of those words have nuances that could be questioned. Ideally, a communist society would not have money, and therefore everyone gets "paid the same": nothing. However, I don't believe there has ever been an actual communistic society that met this ideal, so the answer probably depends on the ideology of party leaders. I remember in high school economics, we briefly touched on problems that the Soviets had with trying to determine wages, because if you have a society that runs on money, it's best to leave the determination of wages to market forces, but then that would be capitalism.

Russian Fedora wrote:
Money is abolished under communism and socialism.

Under communism it is ideally, not so under socialism. While communism means (in theory) that workers directly control the means of production, socialism means the government controls it. Usually in a socialist society, people are free to work wherever and however they want, but they live with a very high tax rate to support extensive government services. (Obamacare is not technically socialism because the government doesn't directly employ any health workers; this distinction is important!)

Ric Tesla's wrote:
How do they…uhhhhh…have a economy then…how do they get stuff?

RusianFedora's "socialism" answer is essentially the correct one for communism: workers don't produce goods for money, but to meet public need. His "robots" answer on the other hand is once again complete crap.

Ace Trainer♀ Twins' tl;dr post seems to be pretty spot-on in contrast.

Honestly, people; it won't hurt my feelings: I am way too opinionated sometimes?

Actually, Europe is distinctly a socialistic society, especially when you compare it to the US. They are not very liberally capitalist at all. Yes, they are rather liberal, but they are more so socialistic than capitalistic. Hence why the have free healthcare.

Communism implies a complete loss of classes. Your supposed doctors, ,professors and historians could not exist under communism. I believe you are mistaking communism with something else.

I don't want to come off too harsh, but you really need to look through some stuff about communism first. And there's nothing wrong with that, most people do not have a clear understanding of what communism really is.

Communism isnt bad, there are just allot of bad communist governments.

No, not really. You haven't acted like a complete jerk about your opinion.

WTF? What does communism have to do with robots? Wait, I can answer that: NOTHING WHATSOEVER. You trollin’?

No, I'm not. Although I might be wrong. I read somewhere that the use of machinery as a catalyst for grunt-work would be the most effective way to run a communist society (Maybe on Revleft.)

Your supposed doctors, ,professors and historians could not exist under communism.

What? Why couldn't they? Are you saying it would generate some kind of elitism between professions?

I don’t want to come off too harsh, but you really need to look through some stuff about communism first. And there’s nothing wrong with that, most people do not have a clear understanding of what communism really is.

Okay, I'll admit that I haven't actively read about communism in a while. But I do understand what the general idea of it is.

Yes, doctors, professors, and historians are all part of the elite, learned class. In communism, there is no such thing. Take a look at the Soviet Union or China under Chairman Mao. Were there any of those people? A few maybe, and the rest were all executed for possibly being too smart to be subservient to the party. Seriously, Stalin purged over a million Communist party members in 3 years, and Mao killed hundreds of thousands of scholars.

The machine run society you are thinking of is not communism. Neither was the Soviet Union, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, etc. Those were just totalitarian dictatorships, communist only in name.

Most people have a "general idea" about what communism is. Or that's what they think. Communism has been so twisted from Marx's original, theoretical intentions that it no longer holds a place on the political spectrum.

Hey, now, I'm a moderate communitarian, and I find this thread to be offensive.

Except not really.

Ha, the last one reminds me of the RIAA poster.

Wait… Hitler isn't communist…

So, you're saying that Stalin's Russia was a good example of how people under communism can't be too smart, and then saying that Stalin's Russia is not Marxist at all?

I've given up the machine run society idea. I think it's just something I read about and thought to be an effective form of communism.

C'mon now, don't think I'd come into a communism thread without even having read anything about communism. I've read the Manifesto, and I've read some online sources about communism. I know what communism is. Also, it certainly does hold a place on the political spectrum: As the dirtiest word in a Neoconservative's vocabulary.

RussianFedora wrote:
I’ve read the Manifesto, and I’ve read some online sources about communism. I know what communism is.

Yeah, I read the Manifesto, too, and I don't recall a single mention of robots. I think despite your claim of knowing what communism is, you need to state a clear definition for us so we know what you're talking about. I won't even consider it cheating to use a dictionary.

Hmmm… I worded that wrong.

I never Stalin's USSR was marxist. It's communism in name. Same goes with your machine run society. Although it seems like a logical next step in human society, and I for one would enjoy living in it, it's not really communism.

Don't give up in it just yet. I have a feeling it would be perfect for a socialist society. And those are perfectly viable, as long as they remain democratic in nature.

@Brucker:

Brucker. I admitted that it isn't part of the ideal Marxist plan. I must've mixed it up with something someone else said. Stop torturing me about it!

@Ace Trainer:

I wasn't giving up on it as an idea, I stopped thinking of it as the pure Marxist ideal, as, apparently I picked it up somewhere else.

@RussianFedora:
Sorry if it came across as harsh. I really was curious, because even discounting the robot stuff it's not really clear what you're talking about.

What do you want me to elaborate on again?

Give your definition for the terms communism, socialism, and capitalism. I'd like us to all be on the same page.

Better yet…

com·mu·nism [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. ( in Marxist theory ) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

cap·i·tal·ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

…and so long as I'm bothering, and I briefly mentioned it…

an·ar·chism [an-er-kiz-uhm] noun
1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.
2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.
3. anarchy.

Okay, I'll start by stating where (at least according to these definitions) I personally made mistakes.

While I said that communism implies that "workers control the means of production" (not my quote, but a common phrase used to describe communism) I see that the definition here is a bit looser, implying that ownership by the state is a possibility. As for "Communism" with that capital C, I think I was on the mark. I'll also note that while the definition says nothing about the abolition of money, it's my personal understanding ideologically that this would be the ideal state of things in communism; if everyone owns everything collectively, then what purpose would money serve?

The definition of socialism doesn't say that the "government" runs industry, but that's the understanding I have been made to have whenever reading about such things in economic books or periodicals. The American Heritage Dictionary defines socialism as "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists." (my emphasis)

While I think I had the definition of capitalism right, I think it's odd that the definition here says, "especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." If there is a contrasting system in which wealth is "state-owned", which is it?

As for anarchism, one time in college, I was hanging out with a group of friends who were politically radical. I remember having an interesting conversation with one of them in which I asked him what the technical political term was for describing them as a group.

He replied, "We're anarchists."

I asked, "So what does that mean to you?"

He explained, "It means we believe that labor should be in the hands of individual laborers rather than in the control of bosses, managers, or governments."

"Wait," I raised an eyebrow at his statement, "That's communism, not anarchism, isn't it?"

"Not at all!" he insisted. "Anarchism is belief in working towards an ideal world in which there are no bosses."

"Okay, maybe," I replied, "but that sounds dysfunctional. Wouldn't the ideal world be one in which everyone is a boss: their own boss, in particular?"

It wasn't a very productive conversation in the end, but I think he did get his terminology wrong…LIKE A BOSS!

Haha in soviet russia you dont eat hamburgers hamburgers eat you

Oh, look everyone. Another masterful troll has come to "pwn" us. I can already feel the butthurt.

lol u mad bro?

[photo:275776]