Freethought & Rationalism Archive

B.S. Lewis · 07-01-2007, 02:39 PM

There are two major reasons why people dislike historical and contemporary communist regimes. These two reasons are relatively distinct, so I'm interested to see the distribution of opinions when they are offered as separate options.

By "real-world communism," I'm referring to all the usual suspects: USSR, NK, China, Cuba. There are important differences between these, but they have all been structured partly on the basis of an ideology which objects to the private property principle--if you cannot see the similarity between them, feel free to pick the "Other/don't know" option and make your point in-thread.

I've done a very similar poll before, but this one includes some crucial differences. Plus, I did that one in WE&GP, and it really belonged here in PE&ST.

Preno · 07-01-2007, 02:46 PM

You should probably clarify whether by 'real-world communism' you mean the examples of real-world communism we have seen or also any potential future examples of 'real-world communism'. If I vote for "I dislike real-world communism", does that mean that I need to be opposed to future attempts at realizing communism or only to the past attempts?

Or in other words, is the question "did I dislike real-world communism" or "do I dislike real-world communism"? The title implies one, the OP the other.

B.S. Lewis · 07-01-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preno

You should probably clarify whether by 'real-world communism' you mean the examples of real-world communism we have seen or also any potential future examples of 'real-world communism'. If I vote for "I dislike real-world communism", does that mean that I need to be opposed to future attempts at realizing communism or only to the past attempts?

Or in other words, is the question "did I dislike real-world communism" or "do I dislike real-world communism"? The title implies one, the OP the other.

Thanks. I purely mean past and present communism. As far as I'm concerned, the future is unfixed, and future communist regimes exist only in the realm of theory (hence are not "real-world").

RareBird · 07-01-2007, 02:50 PM

Communism is born of noble ideal. It falls into a gross dysfucntion as a grand authoritarian totality. It seeks to "impose" egalitarianism with hierarchical authoritarianism--it's antithesis. The basic drives to achieve some of the ideals of communism remain very much alive in the human condition however. I just tend to think that its a system that only works in smaller cooperatives in which members are emotionally and intellectually prepared to see it throug. It's over the head of gut animal survival of the fittest.

general_koffi · 07-01-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

You should probably clarify whether by 'real-world communism' you mean the examples of real-world communism we have seen or also any potential future examples of 'real-world communism'. If I vote for "I dislike real-world communism", does that mean that I need to be opposed to future attempts at realizing communism or only to the past attempts?

Or in other words, is the question "did I dislike real-world communism" or "do I dislike real-world communism"? The title implies one, the OP the other.

I can only assume that the OP refers to historical examples. Theoretical future manifestations are, after all, just that... theoretical. Not "real-world" at all.

B.S. Lewis · 07-01-2007, 03:07 PM

By the way, here is what I see as the significance of this thread. If it turns out that most objections to real-world communism are on the basis of flaws other than the ideology of collective ownership--such as perceived authoritarianism and political imprisonment/killings--then it would make sense that we in the PEST forum could move beyond the current stage of argumentationg where some people advocate socialism and others take cheap shots at them on the (often false) basis that they support bad/murderous historical regimes. We could move on to a substantive debate about how, if at all, it might be possible to implement socialism in the real world while sidestepping the problems that have plagued past communist experiments.

skepticalbip · 07-01-2007, 03:20 PM

I would think that its basic problem is that it is so completely at odds with human nature that the only way it can be imposed on a national level is directly contrary to its ideals. Common sharing and egalitarianism are an idealized Utopian dream. - Human nature is to first insure your own comfort, then the comfort of the family, then the comfort of friends and acquaintances. It is not human nature to knowingly deprive yourself and family of necessities for some presumed benefit to others that you don't know. (I think Darwin explained this fairly well)

Therefore any attempts at state imposition so far has been to the benefit of only the small cadre of ruling elite who are looking out for the welfare of themselves and family.

Negasta · 07-01-2007, 04:02 PM

Option 3

The theory behind communism is deeply flawed and the implementation of it has always resulted in authoritarianism and despotism in the nations where it has been instituted.

B.S. Lewis · 07-01-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I would think that its basic problem is that it is so completely at odds with human nature that the only way it can be imposed on a national level is directly contrary to its ideals. Common sharing and egalitarianism are an idealized Utopian dream. - Human nature is to first insure your own comfort, then the comfort of the family, then the comfort of friends and acquaintances. It is not human nature to knowingly deprive yourself and family of necessities for some presumed benefit to others that you don't know. (I think Darwin explained this fairly well)

Therefore any attempts at state imposition so far has been to the benefit of only the small cadre of ruling elite who are looking out for the welfare of themselves and family.

Hopefully you picked Option 1 or Option 3 then.

Bonniedundee · 07-01-2007, 06:32 PM

B.S. Lewis your poll is wrong, there is no such thing as "real-world" communism if you mean the USSR etc.

They were not communist and did not claim to be, they only claimed to be working towards it.

They are called communist only in western slang.

07-01-2007, 02:39 PM	#1
B.S. Lewis Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: California Posts: 3,825	(Why) do you dislike communism? There are two major reasons why people dislike historical and contemporary communist regimes. These two reasons are relatively distinct, so I'm interested to see the distribution of opinions when they are offered as separate options. By "real-world communism," I'm referring to all the usual suspects: USSR, NK, China, Cuba. There are important differences between these, but they have all been structured partly on the basis of an ideology which objects to the private property principle--if you cannot see the similarity between them, feel free to pick the "Other/don't know" option and make your point in-thread. I've done a very similar poll before, but this one includes some crucial differences. Plus, I did that one in WE&GP, and it really belonged here in PE&ST.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2007, 02:46 PM	#2
Preno Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Prague, Czech Rep. Posts: 5,130	You should probably clarify whether by 'real-world communism' you mean the examples of real-world communism we have seen or also any potential future examples of 'real-world communism'. If I vote for "I dislike real-world communism", does that mean that I need to be opposed to future attempts at realizing communism or only to the past attempts? Or in other words, is the question "did I dislike real-world communism" or "do I dislike real-world communism"? The title implies one, the OP the other.

07-01-2007, 02:50 PM	#4
RareBird Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Virginia Beach Posts: 4,607	Communism is born of noble ideal. It falls into a gross dysfucntion as a grand authoritarian totality. It seeks to "impose" egalitarianism with hierarchical authoritarianism--it's antithesis. The basic drives to achieve some of the ideals of communism remain very much alive in the human condition however. I just tend to think that its a system that only works in smaller cooperatives in which members are emotionally and intellectually prepared to see it throug. It's over the head of gut animal survival of the fittest.

07-01-2007, 03:07 PM	#6
B.S. Lewis Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: California Posts: 3,825	By the way, here is what I see as the significance of this thread. If it turns out that most objections to real-world communism are on the basis of flaws other than the ideology of collective ownership--such as perceived authoritarianism and political imprisonment/killings--then it would make sense that we in the PEST forum could move beyond the current stage of argumentationg where some people advocate socialism and others take cheap shots at them on the (often false) basis that they support bad/murderous historical regimes. We could move on to a substantive debate about how, if at all, it might be possible to implement socialism in the real world while sidestepping the problems that have plagued past communist experiments.

07-01-2007, 03:20 PM	#7
skepticalbip Contributor Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Searching for reality on the long and winding road Posts: 12,976	I would think that its basic problem is that it is so completely at odds with human nature that the only way it can be imposed on a national level is directly contrary to its ideals. Common sharing and egalitarianism are an idealized Utopian dream. - Human nature is to first insure your own comfort, then the comfort of the family, then the comfort of friends and acquaintances. It is not human nature to knowingly deprive yourself and family of necessities for some presumed benefit to others that you don't know. (I think Darwin explained this fairly well) Therefore any attempts at state imposition so far has been to the benefit of only the small cadre of ruling elite who are looking out for the welfare of themselves and family.

07-01-2007, 04:02 PM	#8
Negasta Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,589	Option 3 The theory behind communism is deeply flawed and the implementation of it has always resulted in authoritarianism and despotism in the nations where it has been instituted.

07-01-2007, 06:32 PM	#10
Bonniedundee Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 6,205	B.S. Lewis your poll is wrong, there is no such thing as "real-world" communism if you mean the USSR etc. They were not communist and did not claim to be, they only claimed to be working towards it. They are called communist only in western slang.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.