What's Wrong With Communism?
- Thread starter GoldenCondor
- Start date
Hitler was a facist. Arguably, there is no difference between facism and socialism. The word facism has been demonized. It is merely a political/economic term. They are both leftist ideologies that tend to fail to actually improve the human condition.
I will give you this: he was also a nationalist, which, can be attributed to right wing ideologies as well as left. NAZI meant National Socialist.
I will give you this: he was also a nationalist, which, can be attributed to right wing ideologies as well as left. NAZI meant National Socialist.
I hate that people reject something that would be great because "people are bad". If we just use that to excuse everything, we'll never get anywhere. If we don't trust other people, if we don't try (and I don't consider the countries that have tried communism so far to have actually made a decent attempt with any hope of success based on their starting point), we'll never get anything, we'll never improve. As long as we live in a society that promotes selfishness, those are the traits that we'll learn to possess, that's what we'll evolve into. Sure, it might not work, especially not at first, sacrifices would have to be made, but in the end, it would be worth it, wether or not we succeded, because at least we'd be trying to improve, not only ourselves, our own situation, but the very foundation of our society.
And individualism has nothing to do with communism. In a capitalistic system we have just as little individuality (or just as much, depending on who's arguing). Everyone would be worth just as much, yes, but we have enough resources to provide everyone with choices. In a capitalistic system many people lack a lot of freedom, it's just not the law, or the state prohibiting things, it's our economic situation. Even if the lord we have to serve, that keeps us from doing things is money, it's still just as inhibiting as anything else, even if it's just immaterial things, instead of people. Communism is about removing that dependency.
We have enough resources on this planet to make every persons life good, to provide choice in furniture, food, travel, whatever. We wouldn't have to conform and make everything identical just because we converted to communism. It would mean more freedom, not less, because we wouldn't have to worry about money, and making ends meet.
The ideal communist society would have everyone equal, in oppurtunity as well as resources, quite unlike a capitalist society where you need to be born to the right family to have any oppurtunities, where you have to aspire to be better than everyone else, where to goal is not to have a good life, but to have a better life than everyone else, not to have a fast car, but a faster car than other people, not a lot of money, but more money than other people, etc. With everyone aiming only for what's best for themselves, we waste a lot of potential, and by working together instead, for the betterment of all, we'd improve the standard for everyone, and bring it up well above the current average, the average achieved when everyone tries to get what's best for them.
Arguably, facism can be seen as left-wing. It's usually considered extreme right-wing though, and while there are some similiarities to socialism, there are a lot of key differences in their core tenets making them as different as a diamond and a plastic container, both of which consist of carbon.
The word facism may have been demonized, but the ideology itself lends itself especially well to it, seeing as some of it's core tenets are to put the state, the country, and the leader well before the people, dictatorship, and alienating people from each other. That it's closely tied with eugenics, personal sacrifice and anti-intellectualism doesn't make it much nicer. Seriously, it promotes war for the sake of war, for crying out loud, how much demonizing do you have to do?
In contrast, socialism puts people first, equal rights, and education, and healthcare for everyone. It's like the difference in killing a hen for food, and killing it for being hen. Sure, the hen dies in both cases, so the act is sort of similar...
And individualism has nothing to do with communism. In a capitalistic system we have just as little individuality (or just as much, depending on who's arguing). Everyone would be worth just as much, yes, but we have enough resources to provide everyone with choices. In a capitalistic system many people lack a lot of freedom, it's just not the law, or the state prohibiting things, it's our economic situation. Even if the lord we have to serve, that keeps us from doing things is money, it's still just as inhibiting as anything else, even if it's just immaterial things, instead of people. Communism is about removing that dependency.
We have enough resources on this planet to make every persons life good, to provide choice in furniture, food, travel, whatever. We wouldn't have to conform and make everything identical just because we converted to communism. It would mean more freedom, not less, because we wouldn't have to worry about money, and making ends meet.
The ideal communist society would have everyone equal, in oppurtunity as well as resources, quite unlike a capitalist society where you need to be born to the right family to have any oppurtunities, where you have to aspire to be better than everyone else, where to goal is not to have a good life, but to have a better life than everyone else, not to have a fast car, but a faster car than other people, not a lot of money, but more money than other people, etc. With everyone aiming only for what's best for themselves, we waste a lot of potential, and by working together instead, for the betterment of all, we'd improve the standard for everyone, and bring it up well above the current average, the average achieved when everyone tries to get what's best for them.
Arguably, Hitler was a great guy only out to get as many Jews as possible into heaven as quickly as possible. Everything can be argued for, and against, some things are better to argue for, some things are worse.Gorfias said:
Arguably, facism can be seen as left-wing. It's usually considered extreme right-wing though, and while there are some similiarities to socialism, there are a lot of key differences in their core tenets making them as different as a diamond and a plastic container, both of which consist of carbon.
The word facism may have been demonized, but the ideology itself lends itself especially well to it, seeing as some of it's core tenets are to put the state, the country, and the leader well before the people, dictatorship, and alienating people from each other. That it's closely tied with eugenics, personal sacrifice and anti-intellectualism doesn't make it much nicer. Seriously, it promotes war for the sake of war, for crying out loud, how much demonizing do you have to do?
In contrast, socialism puts people first, equal rights, and education, and healthcare for everyone. It's like the difference in killing a hen for food, and killing it for being hen. Sure, the hen dies in both cases, so the act is sort of similar...
Alert - thread lich!Gorfias said:
Fascism is a combination of left and right.
For instance, the way fascists directed industry via government is somewhat socialist, however, it's also deeply unsocialist on two levels. It firmly left ownership - and thus control of wealth and power - in the hands of the existing middle and upper classes. Secondly, a state-run industry system could only be considered in the control of workers if workers control the government, which didn't occur in the dictatorship of fascism.
Fascists were against class-conflict, and sought to force the various classes to work in harmony. This is again not socialist, as socialists were committed to abolishing or reducing the gap between classes.
Fascists were intensely nationalistic and thus basically racist. This is an anathemata to socialist doctrine, which ultimately believes in egalitarianism.
And so on.
Fascism was an explicit rejection of both capitalism and socialism. What it attempted to do was merge both to appeal to all - offering the workers some of the progress they wanted hence some quasi-socialist measures, whilst essentially maintaining the privileges and advantages of the existing rich and influential.
As for "National Socialist", this is a misnomer. The party was not started by Hitler, it was initially a left-leaning group with a different name. As it initially appealed to the workers and poor war veterans, when he took over and renamed it, "Socialist" was maintained in the name and left-leaning policies were dominant. However, this was before the days of fascism. It was later that Hitler learned about fascism from Mussolini in Italy, and he abandoned the party's early socialist agenda.
True. That said, I would like to argue there is something really wrong with the theory of communism: How can it still be a good idea on paper, if every time humans have tried it, the result has been a turd. Like any other theory, it can be proven wrong. And I'd say the littel social experiment between 1922 and 1991 in Russia is a test big enough to stump it.MaxTheReaper said:
Agema: I liked your reply. It was well thought out and gave me some insights that I think will be helpful in other debates.
Here is another view:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eTve6XEUbYIC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=hayek+no+difference+between+facism+and+socialism&source=bl&ots=zNPOUDJLbm&sig=OI_PRu0DP3ZLJSYft6Du5HKeapU&hl=en&ei=5Q64SvuhHsjclAePwcnQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
From Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".
Here is another view:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eTve6XEUbYIC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=hayek+no+difference+between+facism+and+socialism&source=bl&ots=zNPOUDJLbm&sig=OI_PRu0DP3ZLJSYft6Du5HKeapU&hl=en&ei=5Q64SvuhHsjclAePwcnQDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
From Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".
arguably fascism and democracy are the same thing, they both are systems of government.Gorfias said:
Hayek is free to have his opinion that fascists were socialists - however, many philosophers, political scientists and economists disagree strongly. With such a lack of consensus, there is no safe way to argue one way or the other. Except, perhaps, the obvious middle way that it truly belongs to both or neither the left or right.Gorfias said:
It's worth pointing out that the only parties that struggled to preserve democracy by opposing Hitler's power grab in the early 30s were the left-wing ones, the SPD and the Communists (although the Communists had been forcibly ejected from parliament by then). The entire right and centre-right of German politics at the time ultimately backed Hitler.
* * *
"Left" and "right" wings are variable terms, and hence lack a lot of accuracy. The terms originally refer back to the French Revolution, where the "right wing" represented the status quo, monarchy and aristocracy, and the "left wing" the progessives and radicals. Later on, right wing became associated with capitalism and nationalism, and left wing with socialism.
Neither "right" nor "left" meaningfully discusses totalitarian government. Vast numbers of brutal, repressive dictators (Franco, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee etc.) have been undeniably right wing, and you couldn't say they were interested in leaving people alone. Equally, the left has had plenty of totalitarian states (USSR, China, Cambodia). Many left wing organisations have defended people's freedoms and democracy, as have many right wing ones. Similarly, in terms of international interference, both right and left have at times and in varying ways left their neighbours alone, been actively isolationist, started wars or aggressively meddled in other nations' affairs. There is nothing to choose.
Then also consider social freedoms. If you look back historically, the parties that have tended to oppose discrimination and and egalitarianism have often been left wing. It was generally left or left-leaning parties that enfranchised women, legalised homosexuality, fought against discrimination of racial minorities, etc. Time after time it has generally been the right wing, or large sections of the right wing, that have fought hard to maintain a socially unjust status quo - arguably as is the case in the US currently.
When you say the right wing wants to be left alone, and the left wing wants to control, you would need to view "control" purely in economic terms - yes, the left wants more of an individual's money for the society as a whole. The left wing views empowerment of the individual in ways other than financial.
Age, very well written and thoughtful response. You have made me think more clearly about a couple of things, mostly, that left and right are very large, vague terms.
I am sure you know, in the US, until Hitler attacked the USSR, American Communists backed him. I guess I am easily baited by 50 years of people reflexively referring to the Nazis as right wing, and even blaming Christianity for the holocaust (I think that started to end by the 1990s, with the rise of alternate media). Hitler had openly stated his end goal was to end Christian concepts of right and wrong, and the annihilation of the Jews was a step towards that end. He was NOT a Christian.
I'll have to look up this "Syngman Rhee" guy, but, those you reference on the "right", I doubt, caused anywhere in the same universe the amount of death, tyranny and destruction monsters of the totalitarian left have caused.
I am sure you know, in the US, until Hitler attacked the USSR, American Communists backed him. I guess I am easily baited by 50 years of people reflexively referring to the Nazis as right wing, and even blaming Christianity for the holocaust (I think that started to end by the 1990s, with the rise of alternate media). Hitler had openly stated his end goal was to end Christian concepts of right and wrong, and the annihilation of the Jews was a step towards that end. He was NOT a Christian.
I'll have to look up this "Syngman Rhee" guy, but, those you reference on the "right", I doubt, caused anywhere in the same universe the amount of death, tyranny and destruction monsters of the totalitarian left have caused.