communism is for lazy slackers

Both national socialism (fascism) and international socialism (communism) are totalitarian systems of government. Totalitarian systems of government put the rights, interests, values, and economic welfare of the state above the rights, interests, values, and economic welfare of their citizens. Both the fascist and communist forms of state totalitarianism seek to exercise absolute control over each and every aspect of their citizens’ lives from cradle to grave.

Citizens exist solely to serve the state, the state does not exist solely to serve the citizens. Under such systems, citizens’ rights do not exist; only states’ rights and citizens’ responsibilities as defined by the state, exist.

Whatever the fascist or communist state permits its citizens to establish, produce, buy, or sell economically must, first and foremost, directly benefit and enrich the state. The state is the only legitimate entrepreneur permitted in a totalitarian society. All the rest work for the state.

Under fascism and communism, the police, the legislature, the judiciary, all branches of the military, all forms of culture, education, entertainment, science, social interaction, and informational media must be tightly controlled and regulated by the state. Everything within the state, nothing outside the state!

In fact, whoever dares to operate outside of this comprehensive totalitarian context will be re-educated or destroyed. And, as a matter of historical fact, under both systems MILLIONS of lives have, in fact, been destroyed

Now, please try to convince me why such oppressive systems of government should be preferred to the democratic, free enterprise system of government of the United States of America.

I voted yes based on greed and selfishness being minimised. As humans are inherently selfish to some degree, we humans would have to "grow up" for true communism to work. Raging commercialism, corporate greed plus political self serving are screwing everyone and the planet.

First of all no non totalitarian form of communism has ever been tried. The ethos of communism is the opposite of dictatorship, we are simply not grown up enough to try it. No democratic system has been tried either, if you think you live in a democracy in the USA or I do in the UK, I would simply ask do you honestly feel the "democratic" mechanisms of left right party politics truly reflect the needs, aspirations and fears of the majority. If yes then I feel happy for you.

Now, please try to convince me why such oppressive systems of government should be preferred to the democratic, free enterprise system of government of the United States of America. — charles ferraro

Get ready for some ignorant replies :P

No democratic system has been tried either — paganarcher

Yes it has, Ancient Greece was a direct democracy. (The "Ancient" is for "no more/failed state").

I should have added In modern post industrial revolution society. sorry.

Here: https://archive.org/details/limitsofpuredemo00mallrich/mode/2up

Thanks this book and others makes my point for me. Neither democracy or communism can work properly until we "grow up".

Perhaps a non-totalitarian communism has never been tried in practice because real grownups know that such a thing is really nothing more than a utopian fairy tale foisted among the gullible by ideological wolves in sheep's clothing. Isn't the true ethos of communism the purported DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat? And don't real grownups also know that dictatorships are, by their very nature, inherently totalitarian, no matter who wields them? The government where I live is based upon a democratic system of checks and balances, a constitution, a bill of rights, and a popular vote at the local, state, and federal levels. Thank you for feeling happy for me. I'm overjoyed!!!!!

Perhaps a non-totalitarian communism has never been tried in practice because real grownups know that such a thing is really nothing more than a utopian fairy tale — charles ferraro

Basically the process of instating a communist system is to work towards anarchy until the old power structure is toppled. As soon as that power vacuum emerges the new regime takes its place. It's hilarious that some people think it's possible to have a million people on a ship, and a million captains. There will ALWAYS be a top-down hierarchy in any power structure, otherwise it would be too weak to hold its position.

Well said!!!!! Hmmmmm!!!! Kinda' like what's happening today in the USA? N'est-ce Pas?

It's what happens in every political system that involves the public at all. Democracy moves towards anarchy because it's an easy sell; you're appealing to public opinion and what you're selling is power to the people.

First of all no non totalitarian form of communism has ever been tried. — paganarcher

Because it doesn't exist.

The ethos of communism is the opposite of dictatorship, we are simply not grown up enough to try it. — paganarcher

Never heard of the proletarian dictatorship? You don't have to be a Friedrich Hayek to understand that the dictatorship of the proletariat will destroy personal freedom as completely as does an autocracy. Add to the ideology a "class enemy" and class struggle, and you surely will have a dictatorship.

Besides, why consider something to work when we aren't "grown up enough" for it to work?

Communist ideology stresses how crucial it is to bring about "classless societies." Instead, at most, it seems to have repeatedly established "societies that have no class."

Communist ideology stresses how crucial it is to bring about "classless societies." — charles ferraro

Yes, by the extermination of unwanted classes.

Tell Chinese Virologist Li-Meng Yan how wonderful and desirable the communist state is!!!!!

The contemporary version of the method for bringing about a Communist revolution in the USA is in line with the thinking of Antonio Gramsci and the Cultural Marxists, not with the thinking of Lenin (instigating violent economic revolution).

Today, the preferred method among Cultural Marxists is to bring about a Communist revolution through the infiltration and the subversion of the traditional, prevailing cultural values that support and help define our educational system at all levels, our economic system, our historical memory and identity, our military, our kinds of entertainment, our types of news media, our Judeo-Christian religious values, our public taste and moral standards, our Constitutional rights, our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and the separation of powers.

I think it’s more in line with a sort of Blanquism: In effect, revolution for the sake of revolution, without any care for what society may look like after. It resembles the paradigm of the typical revolutionary activism, but adorned with a new vocabulary and made public with increasingly diminished returns.

Today, the preferred method among Cultural Marxists is to bring about a Communist revolution through the infiltration and the subversion of the traditional, prevailing cultural values that support and help define our educational system at all levels, our economic system, our historical memory and identity, our military, our kinds of entertainment, our types of news media, our Judeo-Christian religious values, our public taste and moral standards, our Constitutional rights, our executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, and the separation of powers. — charles ferraro

That's a lot of infiltration and subversion.

But first, who are the cultural marxists?

What defines the difference from a cultural marxist and let's say a social democrat (or in the American style, democratic socialist)? In history and still there's quite a divide between social democrats and the marxists.

Or do you think that it's only cultural marxists that change our prevailing cultural values? Could those cultural values change not instigated by some specific people, but change as the environment, the economy and our society changes around us?

Over 100 million murdered by communism in the 20th century is enough evidence that communism doesn't work.
Furthermore, the idea that they were not really communism is very arrogant. A person making this statement means that Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao didn't know what they were doing but he/she knows. Just preposterous.

It certainly is! But that's what I see when I look around. A rose by any other name! I perceive no clear divide ideologically, just shades of difference, or degrees of extremism. They all seek to demolish and replace the best (certainly not the most perfect) system of governance yet devised by humanity with what? More centralized, more totalitarian versions of governance based upon political correctness, cancel culture, group think, and even mindless violence?

As it was intended by the Founding Fathers and as it is structured still to this day, our system of governance does allow for significant change to occur through new legislation, through the courts, and through the vote!

Any form of dictatorship is NOT communism. Single party dictatorships are NOT communism even if the west likes to call it that. Historical fact its never been tried. Simple.

single party dictatorships the west calls communism and the dictatorships call communism because it adds legitimacy are not anything like communism as written by the people who expounded the theory. Thats the problem its only a theory.

To answer the proposition at the beginning of this thread. We dont know! simple.

A rose by any other name! I perceive no clear divide ideologically, just shades of difference, or degrees of extremism. They all seek to demolish and replace the best (certainly not the most perfect) system of governance yet devised by humanity with what? More centralized, more totalitarian versions of governance based upon political correctness, cancel culture, group think, and even mindless violence? — charles ferraro

I think that you shouldn't the same mistake that leftist people do when talking about the right. Not everybody on the right is marching with tiki-torches fearing the jews will replace them, and so aren't the people on the left a homogenous mob.

I have to disagree with you, because I do see a clear ideological divide with someone supporting social democracy and someone supporting marxism or anarchy. The social democrat like wouldn't be for abolishing capitalism and replacing it with central planning, he or she likely will want to "curb the excesses" of capitalism, focus on income distribution and implement social welfare programs. That's not demolishing the system of your governance. The marxist genuinely wants to replace the capitalist system and likely is very hostile towards the social democrat. The anarchist on the other hand, hates both of them and wants to get rid of the existing society itself altogether.

As it was intended by the Founding Fathers and as it is structured still to this day, our system of governance does allow for significant change to occur through new legislation, through the courts, and through the vote! — charles ferraro

And do notice that many leftists do think so too and want to further their agenda exactly through the democratic process. And have no trouble with the values that the US was based on (the constitution and so on).

Any form of dictatorship is NOT communism. — paganarcher

That's not what is said.

What I said is that communism historically has lead to dictatorship and that this has happened is evident from the ideology itself. Not that there aren't other ways to get a dictatorship (which there are many). The simple fact is that once you start to demolish the institution of private property, you will get a backlash and you have to resort to violence. Marxism, that is believing that Marx was correct on the way how capitalism is overthrown and we get to communism, will basically create that dictatorship: you have a class enemy, you start with that juxtaposition, you have a proletariat that has to form a dictatorship and Marx doesn't believe that the transformation will be peaceful.

Actually, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels adopted the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" (originally coined by Weydemeyer) to explain their vision of government in a socialistic society supposedly evolving towards communism.
This murderous system has been tried extensively during the 20th century and is still being tried in North Korea and China. Even now, China has over 1 million Muslims in concentration camps. All in the name of Marxism.
Marxism is a flawed philosophy and a catastrophic failure. In praxis, It replaces established elites by a new one - the communist party: Intellectual bureaucrats that claim "true marxism" was never implemented, but it will work this time... as soon as they murder all that oppose their new interpretation of communism.

One could argue that Socialism and Democracy are inherently antithetic concepts.

Socialism is nothing more than a provisional form of totalitarian International Socialism/Communism or, for that matter, a provisional form of totalitarian National Socialism/Fascism.

Both ideologies seek to gradually infiltrate and weaken non-totalitarian democracies by using the latter's very own democratic institutions against them.

The Marxist views the Socialist as being a much too TIMID ideological brother, but an ideological brother nonetheless, and views the Fascist as distorting and betraying the Communist ideology by being a much too Nationalist and Racist Socialist, but a Socialist, nonetheless.

One could argue that Socialism and Democracy are inherently antithetic concepts.

Socialism is nothing more than a provisional form of totalitarian International Socialism/Communism or, for that matter, a provisional form of totalitarian National Socialism/Fascism. — charles ferraro

No. It simply isn't.

That isn't what the left in it's entirety is. You have to look at if from a wider more thruthful perspective.



You are totally forgetting how a crucial and long standing role social democrats have had in capitalist Western Europe. The United Kingdom has had eight labour administrations with labour prime ministers and democracy has survived in the UK. France has had three socialist Presidents: Auriol, Miterrand and Hollande. Germany has had eight chancellors from the social democrats last being Helmut Schimdt and Gerhard Schröder (and typically erraneously though Angela Merkel is from the CDU). Sweden has had nearly all of the 20th Century the Social Democrats as the largest party with even getting twice (1940 and 1970) and absolute majority in the elections. Still, Sweden, the UK, Germany and France and other West European countries have remained capitalist and have not gone the way of Venezuela.

And during the 20th Century Marxist Leninists opposed Social Democrats and vice versa, which can be seen from this German election poster from the 1930's, where both communists and nazis are depicted (rather correctly, actually) as the enemies of democracy:



Hence if you argue that socialist (meaning social democrats) are nothing more that a provisional form of totalitarians, you might in the same way bunch every conservative and right wing person to be a nazi. And from there it's meaningless to continue forward any discussion.