Thread: Re-writing Communism

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How can you refute Marxism? It's a social concept, it either works well or works crummy depending on a zillion circumstances. It's not a mathematical equation or a scientific hypothesis. Also Marxism and communism aren't interchangeable.

I believe that certain basic needs should be satisfied by the state and that private industry should be regulated to protect the consumer (or the industry). The state should be the most powerful entity within a country because it is the only entity that every citizen has control over. I also believe that pooling together resources will ultimately attain greater achievements than competition (although at a slower rate). Lastly I wish for every person to have the same opportunities in life regardless of the socio-economic condition they were brought up in.

Yes, I can refute Marxism but I'm certainly not the first people to do so. The first person was Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk in Karl Marx and the Close of His System which was written back in the 1890's. Marxism isn't a social concept though. To denote that it is social is to miss the point of the economic base/superstructure. It is first and foremost an ideology which believe that certain dialectical laws bring about certain conditions of humanity. It explains the events of the past and projects the events of the future through these dialectical laws. How it "works" or "doesn't work" isn't the point. According to Marx it will be, not that it should be. But all this is irrelevant because you aren't a communist, you are actually a fascist. Before you get all in a tizzy, I'm not saying this as an insult but in the course of you saying what you believe you are expounding upon fascist doctrines. I will show you.

"I believe that certain basic needs should be satisfied by the state and that private industry should be regulated to protect the consumer (or the industry)."
Firstly, public goods being satisfied by the state creates a dependence upon the state. Citizenry then see said dependence and look toward the state as a paternal figure breeding a sense of nationalism. Also intervention into the market in order to "protect the consumer" breeds the same dependence and paternal outlook.

"The state should be the most powerful entity within a country because it is the only entity that every citizen has control over."

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

"I also believe that pooling together resources will ultimately attain greater achievements than competition (although at a slower rate)"\

So you preach corporatism and cartelization. Corporatism being the unity between government and corporate power in order to achieve efficiency in the market and to prevent "cut throat competition" which detracts from productivity. Again I turn to Mussolini:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."


"Lastly I wish for every person to have the same opportunities in life regardless of the socio-economic condition they were brought up in. "
This last piece is just wishy-washy emotional egalitarianism that is impossible to apply to the real world. Though you can say that you perceive individuals as so similar they will experience the same lifestyles and therefore only the aggregation of the citizenry matter because they are all having the same "opportunities" and all experiencing the same experiences therefore leading to the point that greatest of a people is measured by how well the aggregate is able to experience the same things.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But all this is irrelevant because you aren't a communist, you are actually a fascist. Before you get all in a tizzy, I'm not saying this as an insult but in the course of you saying what you believe you are expounding upon fascist doctrines. I will show you.

I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist. Let me clarify...

I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful. Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)

Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support. For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.

Firstly, public goods being satisfied by the state creates a dependence upon the state. Citizenry then see said dependence and look toward the state as a paternal figure breeding a sense of nationalism. Also intervention into the market in order to "protect the consumer" breeds the same dependence and paternal outlook.

Only when the state portrays itself as such. I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." - Benito Mussolini

I said most powerful, not exclusive... This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.

So you preach corporatism and cartelization. Corporatism being the unity between government and corporate power in order to achieve efficiency in the market and to prevent "cut throat competition" which detracts from productivity. Again I turn to Mussolini:

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

I made no such claim. I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know. Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.

This last piece is just wishy-washy emotional egalitarianism that is impossible to apply to the real world. Though you can say that you perceive individuals as so similar they will experience the same lifestyles and therefore only the aggregation of the citizenry matter because they are all having the same "opportunities" and all experiencing the same experiences therefore leading to the point that greatest of a people is measured by how well the aggregate is able to experience the same things.

And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist... What is emotional about it? It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised. This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I may not be a Marxist, but I am most definitely communist, and certainly not fascist. Let me clarify...

I would love to live in pure communism and go around advocating for common ownership and a stateless society, but I recognize that this is currently not feasible or useful. Knowing this, unless I am talking highly hypothetically, I will advocate for the next best thing, which is what most people would call socialism or socialist policies (state services, state intervention in the economy, etc.)

Although fascism does share some elements with socialism, there are many ideals of fascism I do not support. For instance, its authoritarian nature, its militarism and its idolatry of the state and its leaders.

So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative? Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it.

Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Only when the state portrays itself as such. I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all, but as a process that I and all other citizens participate in.

Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I said most powerful, not exclusive... This is so that the citizens of a country remain more powerful than any private entity.

You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I made no such claim. I could have been talking about state-run enterprises for all you know. Corporatism without authoritarianism is also not fascism.

That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

And you dismiss the most telltale piece of evidence that I am a communist... What is emotional about it? It makes perfect social and economic sense for a person to be able to achieve their full potential in their life regardless of where they were born or raised. This is very easy to achieve, simply provide the essentials of life (housing, sustenance, education, healthcare, etc.) so that every person has the same opportunities (not "is the same" as some anti-communist propaganda would have you believe) and is free to pursue more important things.

And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So you don't like authoritarian measures but you want state intervention into the economic livelihood of individuals? I'm guessing state services will be provided by taxation, how is that not authoritative? Your idolatry is implicit in your writings. You perceive the state as the ultimate decision maker, the one that should have all the power in a society. You might as well be burning incense for it.

I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word. I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.

Socialism isn't a separate entity from communism. Socialism is the overarching theme in communism. Communism is just sub-philosophy of socialism just like fascism and aristocratic conservatism.

Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism. Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.

Well that is incoherent if you pair that comment with your earlier premise that the state should be the ultimate power in a given area.

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple. I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.

You are presenting the state as if all are in agreement with it when really it is mob rule writ large. That is unless you are propounding representative democracy instead of direct democracy in which case you are just promoting an oligarchy of elites in which cause it has a tendency to become exclusive.

Most people in a given area will have similar needs. If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities. Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions. A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country. A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not. It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations. In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.

That's because corporatism without authoritarianism can't exist. The natural competition of a market rebukes such a notion and naturally leads to a dissolution of voluntary cartels / labor pools. Why do you think the corporate interests of the United States needed to go to the government at the end of the 19th century? Because they sought monopolies which, barring the improper definition of them today, were seen as writs of exclusive production given by the government in a certain market sector.

Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist. In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.

And I'm a unicorn. Just because you say you are something doesn't infer that you actually are it especially when you have an improper conception of what you say you are. Geography by its very nature dismisses your premise that all individuals at all times can have the same opportunities for what if I live in a desert and you in rain forest? What if I live in the tundra and you in the temperate? And how you do finance such provisions (food, housing, education, healthcare)? Voluntary contributions or taxation? It cannot be voluntary because everyone would give disproportionate amounts leading to the selective nature of distribution of charity. It could be taxes but again you run into the problem of differing tax brackets and the only "cure" is one in which the government takes all the funds of everyone then distributes to them what THEY deem necessary thereby making it authoritative and no longer what you supposedly advocate. Really the only way to allow people to carry out their goals, to realize their true potential is libertarianism.

Actually I'd call you an anarchist. How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare? The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet. How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich? How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education? Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal... Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase. You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government. I don't have this belief. Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'm sure you can spot the difference between heavily taxed, peaceful countries like Canada or Denmark, and authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy. By your definition, every country on Earth is authoritarian as every country levies taxes, but know that this is not the popular use of the word. I'm also sure you can spot the difference between the state providing essential services to its citizens and demanding worship with military parades or purposefully spreading disinformation in state media.

Both governments are authoritative. It's not a matter of principle but a matter of degrees.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Socialism is very much a middle ground between communism, capitalism and the "third way" of fascism. Prominent communists like Marx considered it a stepping stone towards communism.

Not really since both communism and fascism is a subset philosophy of socialism. Fascism is the socialism of the right, and communism the socialism of the left.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I don't see how it's incoherent at all. The state is composed of all its citizens; no private entity should be above the influence of the state, simple. I didn't say we should call the state "Fatherland" or hang pictures of our leaders in classrooms or anything else like what you seem to be expecting.

You don't see the incoherence in thinking that the state should be superior over all private individuals but then say:
"I don't see the state as an authority that is above us all"

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Most people in a given area will have similar needs. If the area is so large that the people are constantly polarized on key issues (which is often the case when you have more than one "culture") then divide up the area into workable political entities. Direct democracy is impractical when we start talking about populations in the millions. A lot of people are idiots anyways and honestly shouldn't have anything to do with the day-to-day affairs of running a country. A transparent, representative democracy is a workable solution because the people don't have to worry about handling day-to-day affairs, they just have to come to an agreement as to if the politician is doing a good job or not. It is also not an oligarchy because politicians can be removed from power if they are not meeting the people's expectations. In this day and age with the ease of accessing and sharing information, average citizens are able to participate in political affairs much more easily rendering the system less exclusive.

So people shouldn't be involved in day-to-day affairs but again you think the state is something we participate in. Can you see the contradiction in this? You want to establish an oligarchical government in which certain people can dictate the day-to-day operations of other individuals? What happened to the egalitarianism? Oh wait they can just vote people out of power? Wonder, if you are the majority. Democracy just gives way to plutocrats who will give government favors to those who get them into office.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Again, your loose definition of authoritarianism leads every socialist to appear fascist. In any case I was mostly referring to state-run enterprises.

Because all fascists are socialists. Is the state going to have a monopoly on the providing of the list you stated before? The food, shelter, healthcare, water list.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Actually I'd call you an anarchist. How does geography affect the distribution of education or healthcare? The point is to have all the essentials taken care of so that a person doesn't have to slave their life away just getting by, this way they can concentrate on their interests and meaningful employment that is in line with their abilities, not their parents' wallet. How is libertarianism going to shorten the divide between poor and rich? How likely is a kid from the ghetto going to get post-secondary education? Or will he most likely be an unskilled labourer or a criminal... Right now geography and other factors that are out of our control have too much influence on our lives.

Now this is round 4 (?) for me in this thread... so I'll just cut right to the chase. You believe against any sort of imposition on a person, which precludes the existence of a government. I don't have this belief. Humans are social animals and for a society to function it is sometimes necessary to impose small sacrifices on individuals for the good of all.

Are all teachers in all the United States on the same level of expertise? Are all state education programs run the same way? Do all states have the same exact pollution problems? How does one better the living standards of a people? Through increase purchasing dollar of the monetary unit ( the increase in buying power of money ) and the increase in productive power of capital causing an increase in supply which leads to lowering prices. These two tenets go hand in hand. Discontinue government interference between two consenting parties ( minimum wage laws, child labor laws, EPA regulations, OSHA regulations ) and cut inflation allowing people to save thereby increasing long-term investment which will allow for research/construction of capital efficiency. You are also stuck in this notion that everyone has to go to college when many jobs actually train their employees what to do at their job. Now there are some technical professions that demand higher education but not everyone takes on these professions. Also realize that college is so expensive these days because of government granted loans. Schools can keep upping the cost of tuition because students can just get more loans to pay for it. There is really no point in getting thousands of dollars in debt unless you cannot go without the recognition of a degree or the technical knowledge of higher education.

Yes humans are social animals but just because we are social doesn't infer the right of ANY individual to make choices concerning what they sacrifice for them. If you want to consent to such a lifestyle that is your choice and people should be good enough to respect it. In reality there is no "good for all." It's a common mistake for those that preach utilitarianism. You cannot quantify how much better off people supposedly are because of some proposition and qualitative difference is subjective to the individual at hand. Really, the term the "good for all" is just a justification for the few to hoodwink the many.