Communism Debate

The state forcing people to work is hardly what I call ethical or practical. Since nobody could ever rise above their position nobody was willing to put in the work to anything above their pay grade. Those few "exceptional" individuals who rose above the rest didn't do by hard work and research. They did in a fake way. Take Lysenkoism [1]for example. It denied genetics which Stalin liked because that would further the communist agenda. This would lead to the death of millions because of the terrible farming techniques that came with it. [2]

Also by human nature I mean things like genetics. We can see this with the introduction of terms like Gender. Which were started by a madman who had no scientific evidence for his claims.[3] He even conducted experiments on little boys by making them go under gender reconstruction surgery. When in actuality he used this and his overarching "theory" of gender as a guise to rape little boys.[4] Today it is now treated as an science even though every scientific document about Gender cites John Money's work as evidence. Despite his work not having any evidence. If John Money had grown up in the USSR Joseph Stalin would have been promoted to top of his social science division and he would order the execution of thousands of geneticists. Same as he did for Lysenko and his crazy ideas.

Oh man, is this debate still going on? lmao

Yeah but now we can source our talking points.

Well, first of all:
Communism does not mean what you think it means:
Communism describes an stateless, classless society where the means of production belong to the working class. This is communism. Everything else: Not so much.
So, the state forcing things is not something that can happen under communism.
Under socialism, possible. But I do not support this kind of socialism. I am an anarchist.

Great. Now I can see that you didn't read my post, because I already said that Stalins Sovjet Union had literally nothing to do with socialism or communism, besides names.

Well now:
"Since nobody could ever rise above their position nobody was willing to put in the work to anything above their pay grade."

There is no money, so payment doesn't exist. People as a whole work together towards improving life and society. If the needs of people are met, they can be free and do things that they see worthwhile. As nearly everyone is working, it is not that hard to fulfill those needs. And rising above people by faking your way above people? Sounds like capitalism and privat property to me, where people can become rich and powerful simply by "owning stuff". Well, in communis, I guess people would be seen in a better light if they contributed more to society. (I don't know, I can't see into the future)

"It denied genetics which Stalin liked because that would further the communist agenda."
Stalin =/ Communism. And what exactly do you think is the communist agenda? I am a communist and my agender goes like this: Liberate working class by abolishing state and capitalism and replace them with an confederation of communes build around anarcho-communist ideals.

"Human Nature..."
Interesting thought about human nature. But I would have to ask why exactly would you definition of human nature, which I do not agree with, say humans have to live under capitalism and a state?
I define human nature as characteristics of humans that ALWAYS exist in non-mentally handicapped people (For example sociopaths being unable to feel empathy and so on)
And as such, I see human nature as partially egoistic and partially altruistic.
If you are interested in an scientific book from an anarchist that explored this a little bit more (It is mostly biology): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

Idea of communism sounds pretty peaceful. Communism basically is that everyone gives up their property to share it with everyone. To let this happen a sort of dictator is installed to led the progress. In the end everyone is supposed to be happy because everything is for everyone so everyone is equal. This is how communism is supposed to work. BUT....... it never worked out that way. Communism is beautiful when you are so poor, you have nothing to lose. But if you have property most people doesn't want to give that away. The people who didn't want to give away their property were first send to a sort of psychiatry. That mostly didn't work so than they were send to labor. In the USSR that labor was in Siberia. If you survived that you (what you probably didn't) and you still do not want to give up your property than you are killed. And that is why people like Stalin and Mao have a higher killing rate than Adolf Hitler. Another reason why communism didn't work was that the communist leaders also don't want to give up their property what includes their leadership. And they had a lot of property. Lenin for instance had 9 Rolls Royce cars. Lenin probably don't really want to share those cars. That is just why it fails. It is just not what most people really want.

Loopdelooper wrote:Idea of communism sounds pretty peaceful. Communism basically is that everyone gives up their property to share it with everyone. To let this happen a sort of dictator is installed to led the progress. In the end everyone is supposed to be happy because everything is for everyone so everyone is equal. This is how communism is supposed to work. BUT....... it never worked out that way. Communism is beautiful when you are so poor, you have nothing to lose. But if you have property most people doesn't want to give that away. The people who didn't want to give away their property were first send to a sort of psychiatry. That mostly didn't work so than they were send to labor. In the USSR that labor was in Siberia. If you survived that you (what you probably didn't) and you still do not want to give up your property than you are killed. And that is why people like Stalin and Mao have a higher killing rate than Adolf Hitler. Another reason why communism didn't work was that the communist leaders also don't want to give up their property what includes their leadership. And they had a lot of property. Lenin for instance had 9 Rolls Royce cars. Lenin probably don't really want to share those cars. That is just why it fails. It is just not what most people really want.

Well just to say, a majority of the people who went to gulags, Siberia or elsewhere, survived.

Loopdelooper wrote:Idea of communism sounds pretty peaceful. Communism basically is that everyone gives up their property to share it with everyone. To let this happen a sort of dictator is installed to led the progress. In the end everyone is supposed to be happy because everything is for everyone so everyone is equal. This is how communism is supposed to work. BUT....... it never worked out that way. Communism is beautiful when you are so poor, you have nothing to lose. But if you have property most people doesn't want to give that away.

The idea of communism is not to install an dictator, that is not even the thing Marx wanted. (He called Dictatorship of Proletariat, because the proles should oppress the bourgeoisi dictatorialy to slowly abolish the differences between proletariat and bourgeoisie)
The idea of communism is that no one controls anyone. It is very close to anarchism in that it rejects most forms of authority and is atleast not keen on hierarchies.

And no, communists don't think everyone will just give up property what so ever. It is expected that capitalists will resist communism, as they can then no longer exploit the working class. (Private property is seen as inherently exploitive, and has to be abolished because of it)
It has never worked because it was never tried. What was tried was socialism, and it worked several times. (Workers owning the means of productions democraticly) Communism can not be implemented by a few. It has to be world wide. And it is certainly not something that will come now or in the near future.

Communism goes against human nature to want. It gives no insensitive to learning anything because everyone gets the same pay.

Metsarebuff1222 wrote:Communism goes against human nature to want. It gives no insensitive to learning anything because everyone gets the same pay.

ACtually one of the core principles of Communism. Each according to his ability each according to his need or something like that. Meaning those who do the most get the most and those who need the most get the most.

deleted

Define communism. There are many, MANY types of communism/socialism(Marxism,Stalinism,Trottskyism e.tc). Having a debate about communism in general is like having a debate about cereal without specifying what type of cereal you're talking about

MarioPol wrote:Define communism. There are many, MANY types of communism/socialism(Marxism,Stalinism,Trottskyism e.tc). Having a debate about communism in general is like having a debate about cereal without specifying what type of cereal you're talking about

The thing is, the answer is always, "My kind of ____." (Cereal or Communism).

EmperorTigerstar wrote:Communism isn't inherently evil, many men have merely done evil things under its banner. Communism itself is simply just a flawed ideology.

It sounds good on paper, but when power goes o some people's head they go crazy. Ex. Stalin, Mao, Lenin.

Cold War Communist wrote:

MarioPol wrote:Define communism. There are many, MANY types of communism/socialism(Marxism,Stalinism,Trottskyism e.tc). Having a debate about communism in general is like having a debate about cereal without specifying what type of cereal you're talking about

The thing is, the answer is always, "My kind of ____." (Cereal or Communism).

I meant in a more "Do you like [this specific brand of Communism/Cereal]?" sort of way. a situation similar to what you described would probably come up in this thread

Is this still going on? I predicted that it will always go on so I'm not surprised.

Surprisingly, no one has brought up the most obvious arguments against communism- that it actively smothers economic growth! Seriously, even if we lived in a utopian socialist society, less stuff would be made because there is less incentive to make it! Communism completely denies meritocracy in the economic sense. If people don't get paid more for doing better, why do better? For society? Not likely!

Better dead than Red.

Communism doesn't have to stagnate economic growth. It does because the planners fail to account for the global community and try to act exclusively within themselves, exclusively to maximize the use of their resources. More work on a social level would need to be done before one plans an economy.