MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
The problem with that is that they're directly contradicting themselves. The actual metaphor is a "Scotsman" from the other side of the planet that's never actually heard of Scotland.
- 2
The Best Form of Government Thread - Communism Discussions
- Thread starter ZyyzYzzy
- Start date
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
lol
I'd love to hear what you think it is. Let's hear it. Without referencing any particular country or person describe the political theory of communism.
- 2
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
We keep having communist revolution after communist revolution attempt to create a communist state. They keep failing over and over again.
What seems more probable: That they all just really weren't communists. Or that maybe its impossible to create a successful communist state?
Given that there are all kinds of purported benefits to a communist state, if it was possible, it seems strange that its been so difficult to enact in practice even with all the attempts.
What seems more probable: That they all just really weren't communists. Or that maybe its impossible to create a successful communist state?
Given that there are all kinds of purported benefits to a communist state, if it was possible, it seems strange that its been so difficult to enact in practice even with all the attempts.
- 2
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
The problem with that is that every ideology which includes more than one person, and probably most if not all that only include one person, will always, by necessity, include some inherent contradiction.
Does the fact that there are many contradictory beliefs in Christianity that Christians both singularly and plural can hold simultaneously mean that these people are not Christians?
Catholics believe that the Eucharist literally becomes the blood and flesh of Christ upon consumption. But there are passages in the Bible which can be interpreted such that this belief is sinful, according to the logic of the Bible.
Evangelical Protestants believe that idea to be heresy for this very reason, and find Catholics to be internally inconsistent and therefore doomed to damnation for eternity as a result.
Yet there are passages of the Bible which can be interpreted such that not believing the Eucharist literally becoming flesh and blood of Christ upon consumption is also sinful.
And Catholics, as a result, believe Evangelical Protestants are internally inconsistent and possibly doomed to damnation for eternity as a result.
From either point of view, the other side holds a position which is contradicted by their interpretations of the guiding theological texts they ascribe to, and thus they conclude that the other side is "Not a true Christian".
But to someone like me, a die hard anti-theist, its just all Abrahamism.
Do you see what I'm saying, Mik?
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
If it's impossible to have a successful one, it's not for intrinsic failures, it's for their inability to defend themselves (generally from the sort people you think are communists but actually aren't): Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If it were possible...
There are benefits and there are drawbacks. External hostility from capitalist (state-capitalist and the normal type) is a major drawback. That's a problem of political pollution, not the intrinsic failure of no longer enforcing capital relations.
- 2
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
This inherent contradiction is at the very core of the entire reason to pursue socialism over capitalism in the first place. You can make all the false equivalences to minor matters of dogma in Christianity you want but they're hollow. This is more fundamental than that. It just is. Not only is it, but AGAIN you can look at the historical difference and see the difference in the way things play out under the different modes of thought.
As I said before: your criticisms don't apply to every socialist society so either it's wrong to lay them at the feet of "socialism" as a blanket statement that includes every ridiculous right-wing state-capitalist dungeon you can imagine because that set includes counter-examples OR it's the case that socialism cannot reasonably include dogmas which preserve hidden class distinctions. You pick.
- 2
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
MikhailBakunin
Golden Knight of the Realm
- 121
- 62
Whatever you do, don't engage. You wouldn't want to embarrass yourself.
- 2
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,377
What about an inherent contradiction in the core of Christian theology, such as the day and time of Jesus' actual crucifixtion?
It isn't a false equivalence because I'm not saying they're exactly the same, I'm saying here is a model by which two groups of people who hold closely associated, but mutually contradictory points of view, can lead them to justify for themselves, internally, intellectually the claim "They aren't really like me".
What about the schism between Shi'a and Sunni Islam? Is that not a foundational divide that leads to mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent positions, since the justification for the divide comes from varied interpretations of the Quran and Hadith?
Its special pleading to claim that in this one case, very particularly dear and special to you, that its different because:
Well, I made it very clear I wasn't referring to all socialist societies with this critique, though, but only communist ones. Communism being a subset of Socialism wherein the means of production and distribution of resources are, at least in principle, owned by users. But that was midway through last page so you probably forgot. Let me quote it here for reference
So your first choice doesn't hold. Now for the second choice, that socialism cannot include dogmas which preserve hidden class distinctions. I mean this is again is just the no true scotsman. Democratic socialism includes class distinctions both hidden and out in the open. Thats one sub set of socialism that most definitely includes that.
So I dunno man.
I still think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
It isn't a false equivalence because I'm not saying they're exactly the same, I'm saying here is a model by which two groups of people who hold closely associated, but mutually contradictory points of view, can lead them to justify for themselves, internally, intellectually the claim "They aren't really like me".
What about the schism between Shi'a and Sunni Islam? Is that not a foundational divide that leads to mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent positions, since the justification for the divide comes from varied interpretations of the Quran and Hadith?
Its special pleading to claim that in this one case, very particularly dear and special to you, that its different because:
Well, I made it very clear I wasn't referring to all socialist societies with this critique, though, but only communist ones. Communism being a subset of Socialism wherein the means of production and distribution of resources are, at least in principle, owned by users. But that was midway through last page so you probably forgot. Let me quote it here for reference
So your first choice doesn't hold. Now for the second choice, that socialism cannot include dogmas which preserve hidden class distinctions. I mean this is again is just the no true scotsman. Democratic socialism includes class distinctions both hidden and out in the open. Thats one sub set of socialism that most definitely includes that.
So I dunno man.
I still think you're barking up the wrong tree here.
- 1
Frenzied Wombat
Potato del Grande
- 14,730
- 31,802
No, the major "drawback" and primary reason why communism fails is basic human nature. People intrinsically don't want to be equal, they want to excel and be better than the "other". Also, power and money *always* corrupts, which is why every communist leader that is eating with the plebes during the revolution eventually ends up corrupted and building himself a gold plated swimming pool while his former comrades starve.
- 3
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Okay let's use your 1 example of a "communist" society. It can't provide protection from internal or external threats to those that compose it. Hint: this is one of the fundamental benefits and reasons societies exist. It is shit
- 2
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
These guys that you linked...
Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the link that you gave (so I don't think its unfair to be picky here) describes it as a society based around stateless anarchism. Seems the libertarians would want to claim that as a "success" for their arguments.
Regardless, it existed from 1918 to 1921. A 3 year success doesn't mean very much, as almost any form of government could last for 3 years.
Is there some other example, or was the 3 year "success" of a group that is described as a stateless anarchistic society the best example of a successful communist state you can find?
Free Territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From the link that you gave (so I don't think its unfair to be picky here) describes it as a society based around stateless anarchism. Seems the libertarians would want to claim that as a "success" for their arguments.
Regardless, it existed from 1918 to 1921. A 3 year success doesn't mean very much, as almost any form of government could last for 3 years.
Is there some other example, or was the 3 year "success" of a group that is described as a stateless anarchistic society the best example of a successful communist state you can find?
- 2