The notion that we'd be able to design a society from the ground up in the manner dictated by Communism is fundamentally science fiction as well. This isn't unique to Communism, overall I think the degree a society can be controlled by anyone in power is significantly overstated. It's quite a parallel to the project of terraforming Mars. Nobody is doubting we might affect a change with policy or violence, but what's missing a degree of control in the magnitude and direction of that change.
Communism seems bad because Western countries still have a good quality of life for a large percentage of the population. The moment this stops being the case, people in the West will be clamoring for communism. This is just a matter of time and perspective.
Well by Marx' predictions, this should already have happened. It throws a real spanner in the works for the theory that the evolution of a society is quite so inevitable and predictable.
But this comes back to my point. This is essentially putting faith in Asimov-style psychohistory.
We can design it. That is what Congress should be doing by passing laws.
We have a system that is kind of working. Laws and regulations are ways to tweak the system, tune it for better performance.
So, lets say we notice that huge wealth inequality is having a negative impact, then we can tax the wealth, and yes, 'distribute' it, like to build roads. That does NOT mean suddenly we are communist.
People stuck in the Capitalist's/Communism argument, if they think it is binary, then really don't understand either one.
> We can design it. That is what Congress should be doing by passing laws.
They sure are passing laws, yet there has been repeated failures at affecting the desired change despite near unilateral agreement among the lawmakers about the direction of the desired change. This includes the war on drugs, the prohibition, and so on.
I'm not disputing these laws have some effect, I'm disputing the ability to envision an outcome, and pass a law such that it has the desired effect.
Capitalism is bad; Communism… how do we describe excruciatingly bad?
We’ve tried it, it’s never worked, and because it relies on a fundamental denial of basic human freedoms, it will literally never work. The only question is how much misery it causes in the latest attempt.
Nope, it’s not. It has a very capitalist society in terms of structure, regulation, safety nets, etc. On paper, sure, land is a 70-year lease, but China appears to just want to renew them.
This is also because China already tried pure communism. There were no corporations, all industries were state owned. This lasted about a decade and was a bloodbath with famines, and almost all intellectuals or people with degrees were executed for promoting inequality by their existence (not kidding - actual history (“Stinking Old Ninth”) - go look it up at your library). Be careful what you wish for when putting communism and inequality in the same sentence.
Do not assume China is the only guilty party. The USSR, as just one example, imprisoned 3,000 biologists for being on the wrong side of an evolution debate for being against Lamarckism. This culminated with banning study of neurophysiology, cell biology, and other fields. (The “Lysenkoism” purges - showing that, ironically, communist countries are among the most dangerous places to be a scientist.)
All anyone who espouses communism can ever seem to reliably produce is a never-ending dictatorship of the proletariat (which always seems to be run by people who strangely look like the bourgeoisie) and I don't think that should count for much, if anything. It's not just a dead end, it's a well documented dead end with body counts totaling in the millions.
The notion that we'd be able to design a society from the ground up in the manner dictated by Communism is fundamentally science fiction as well. This isn't unique to Communism, overall I think the degree a society can be controlled by anyone in power is significantly overstated. It's quite a parallel to the project of terraforming Mars. Nobody is doubting we might affect a change with policy or violence, but what's missing a degree of control in the magnitude and direction of that change.
Communism seems bad because Western countries still have a good quality of life for a large percentage of the population. The moment this stops being the case, people in the West will be clamoring for communism. This is just a matter of time and perspective.
Well by Marx' predictions, this should already have happened. It throws a real spanner in the works for the theory that the evolution of a society is quite so inevitable and predictable.
But this comes back to my point. This is essentially putting faith in Asimov-style psychohistory.
2 replies →
The children yearn for the state-owned mines
5 replies →
We can design it. That is what Congress should be doing by passing laws.
We have a system that is kind of working. Laws and regulations are ways to tweak the system, tune it for better performance.
So, lets say we notice that huge wealth inequality is having a negative impact, then we can tax the wealth, and yes, 'distribute' it, like to build roads. That does NOT mean suddenly we are communist.
People stuck in the Capitalist's/Communism argument, if they think it is binary, then really don't understand either one.
> We can design it. That is what Congress should be doing by passing laws.
They sure are passing laws, yet there has been repeated failures at affecting the desired change despite near unilateral agreement among the lawmakers about the direction of the desired change. This includes the war on drugs, the prohibition, and so on.
I'm not disputing these laws have some effect, I'm disputing the ability to envision an outcome, and pass a law such that it has the desired effect.
2 replies →
Capitalism is bad; Communism… how do we describe excruciatingly bad?
We’ve tried it, it’s never worked, and because it relies on a fundamental denial of basic human freedoms, it will literally never work. The only question is how much misery it causes in the latest attempt.
Seems to be working reasonably well for China. Or maybe that’s not considered “real” communism.
Nope, it’s not. It has a very capitalist society in terms of structure, regulation, safety nets, etc. On paper, sure, land is a 70-year lease, but China appears to just want to renew them.
This is also because China already tried pure communism. There were no corporations, all industries were state owned. This lasted about a decade and was a bloodbath with famines, and almost all intellectuals or people with degrees were executed for promoting inequality by their existence (not kidding - actual history (“Stinking Old Ninth”) - go look it up at your library). Be careful what you wish for when putting communism and inequality in the same sentence.
Do not assume China is the only guilty party. The USSR, as just one example, imprisoned 3,000 biologists for being on the wrong side of an evolution debate for being against Lamarckism. This culminated with banning study of neurophysiology, cell biology, and other fields. (The “Lysenkoism” purges - showing that, ironically, communist countries are among the most dangerous places to be a scientist.)
All anyone who espouses communism can ever seem to reliably produce is a never-ending dictatorship of the proletariat (which always seems to be run by people who strangely look like the bourgeoisie) and I don't think that should count for much, if anything. It's not just a dead end, it's a well documented dead end with body counts totaling in the millions.
If by "reasonably well" you mean 12-year-old kids working on slave labor assembly lines, I suppose.
Calling a country that has 100 billionaires in congress, communist, is an interesting take for sure.
It isn't "real" communism. It's a semi-socialist dictatorship, just like the USSR was. It just has more elements of capitalism.
China is authoritarian-capitalist lol
1 reply →
Nature is capitalistic. Big fish eat little fish.
A communist system would have to be a layer over a capitalist one. It would be maintained by a foundation of billionaire dictators.
But, assuming a system controlled by billionaire dictators, we probably don't need any "ism". Just dictate. Ideally to everybody's benefit.