The Thread of Democrats

[Forty Two]

You'll have to define what you think Soviet style is. However, communism posits a dystopian monstrosity, in my view, as it is inherently oppressive and subjugates the individual to the collective in every respect. It cannot free anyone. It is worse than dystopian, because it claims to be utopian - when if one takes its aspects literally, it enslaves the populace to the State. Marx understood this -- he just viewed his world as a few rich aristocrats and bourgeoisie lackeys controlling the 99% of the population who were proletariat (and who were living in a state of abject misery - with nothing - including no freedom or liberty). His scheme didn't promise prosperity - his scheme promised a new master, and non-starvation. It doesn't work in the capitalist west, because the "proletariat" here has a good standard of living. That's why socialism is alive and well among the intelligentsia here, not the working class.

[pErvinalia]

You'll have to define what you think Soviet style is.

What do you think it is? A behemoth state authoritarianism.

[Forty Two]

You'll have to define what you think it is. I'm not the one referring to it. You are.

[pErvinalia]

I just did. This is going to be another one of these "debates", isn't it?

[Forty Two]

Oh, I forgot, you have difficulty thinking and setting out a coherent thought. So, you think that a "behemoth authoritarianism" is a definition.

Duh....doh'kay! What's the definition of Soviet style authoritarianism. (n. behemoth state authoritarianism authoritarianism - you know! It's the authoritarianism that is big and statey).

Smart man, pErvin. Smart man.

[pErvinalia]

It sums up Soviet style communism perfectly for the purposes of the argument I was making. Aside from a tiny minority no socialist/communist supports that sort of political/economic arrangement. Do you think they do?

[rainbow]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

Communism is inherently authoritarian.

You have quotes to back that up?

Of course not!

[JimC]

Actually, I suspect that it at the very least has a strong vulnerability to being hijacked by authoritarians...

[rainbow]

Again, that's why we have to define terms. If your definition of communism includes the notion that individuals will have the right to choose their career paths, start new businesses like dental businesses if they want to, even if the State doesn't want them to, and even if it goes against the community plan for the means of production of dental services, then your kinder, gentler communism would be something to discuss. But it is not Communism in the classic sense, in the textbook sense - in the sense of any definition in common usage.

Marx’s Communism as Associations of Free Individuals
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mejb.2 ... 6-0108.xml

Marx defined communism as the transition from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom” and argued for the expansion of free-time, shortening of labor-time and the development of productive forces as its prerequisites. 5 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party

What you fail to grasp is the difference between the transition to Communism, which was authoritarian
...and the ideal of Communism which was not.

Why do you battle so with this simple distinction?

[rainbow]

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," Selected Writings II (Moscow, 1951), p. 21

[Hermit]

Actually, I suspect that it at the very least has a strong vulnerability to being hijacked by authoritarians...

It is actually inevitable. Every communist revolution is countered by reactionaries. Both the Russian and the Chinese revolutions are textbook examples. In both cases the reactionaries come to within an inch of beating the revolutionaries. In those circumstances the revolutionary leaders cannot afford from the bottom up decision making.

Imagine a cavalry division needing to attack a series of cannon emplacements.

General to his Colonels: "We need to attack the cannon positions before the enemy reinforcements arrive" Colonels: "We'll check with our Captains. Be right back."
Colonels to their Captains: "We need to attack the cannon positions before the enemy reinforcements arrive" Colonels: "We'll check with our Lieutenants. Be right back."
Captains to their Lieutenants: "We need to attack the cannon positions before the enemy reinforcements arrive" Lieutenants: "We'll check with our Sergeants. Be right back."
Lieutenants to their Sergeants: "We need to attack the cannon positions before the enemy reinforcements arrive" Sergeants: "We'll check with our Corporals. Be right back."
Sergeants to their Corporals: "We need to attack the cannon positions before the enemy reinforcements arrive" Corporals: "We'll check with our Privates. Be right back."
Privates: "We'll have to discuss the pros and cons. Be right back after the vote."

Eventually, the Colonels report back to the General. Turns out 27% of the rank and file want to go home because the wheat harvest is due starting Monday, 17% prefer to negotiate a withdrawal of the cannons with the enemy, 12% are too hungover to bear the noise of combat, 16% have conscientious objections to killing humans, 24% are in favour of an immediate attack, but from the west, not a frontal one and 6% have voiced no opinion.

Bottom-up decision-making is not suitable for dealing with critically dangerous situations. Trouble is once people have been granted top-down decision making powers, they will not relinquish them voluntarily. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was a real person, but the story of Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus is a myth.

[Hermit]

"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Program," Selected Writings II (Moscow, 1951), p. 21

Yeah, I told him about that before. There is such a thing as selective memory. And selective forgetting.

[Forty Two]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

Communism is inherently authoritarian.

You have quotes to back that up?

Of course not!

Already provided.

[Forty Two]

Again, that's why we have to define terms. If your definition of communism includes the notion that individuals will have the right to choose their career paths, start new businesses like dental businesses if they want to, even if the State doesn't want them to, and even if it goes against the community plan for the means of production of dental services, then your kinder, gentler communism would be something to discuss. But it is not Communism in the classic sense, in the textbook sense - in the sense of any definition in common usage.

Marx’s Communism as Associations of Free Individuals
https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mejb.2 ... 6-0108.xml

Marx defined communism as the transition from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom” and argued for the expansion of free-time, shortening of labor-time and the development of productive forces as its prerequisites. 5 Karl Marx, Frederick Engels: Manifesto of the Communist Party

What you fail to grasp is the difference between the transition to Communism, which was authoritarian
...and the ideal of Communism which was not.

Why do you battle so with this simple distinction?

Do one thing for me - above in the thread there is a link to the text of the Communist Manifesto. Since you are all about "quotes," would you please quote the Communist Manifesto where it says something that means the same thing as "Marx defined communism as the transition from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom” and argued for the expansion of free-time, shortening of labor-time and the development of productive forces as its prerequisites" -- the citation above is to the Communist Manifesto, which I first read when I was 13 years old, and I have read many times since. I put it to you that it does not define communism as the transition from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom, and he does not state in there that there should be an expansion of free time, shortening of labor time adn develpment of productive forces as its prerequisites.

What does it say - if you want more quotes -- "...the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." And, "And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying." -- i.e. Marx wants to abolition free trade and free selling and buying, because that's part of bourgeois society, not proletariat society.

Marx states - "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property....In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend." The proles, he says, don't have anything anyway, so do away with all private property.

"Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." -- well, yeah.... in a free society, people are free to be in families. Marx thinks the family is based on capital and property, so "The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."

[rainbow]

Most socialists/communists don't advocate Soviet style authoritarianism. I say most, as I do know some Stalinists exists. You might like to make the point that all efforts at communism wind up as a Stalinesque-like hell hole, but that's different from claiming that current commies actively advocate for that.

Communism is inherently authoritarian.

You have quotes to back that up?

Of course not!

Already provided.

Nope question dodged. Please be honest.