Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[JimC]

Someone has to decide what to produce, how much, where, when, how, why, and who does the work.

If individuals won't be permitted to decide that, then who does? How?

In counties like the US, as a contrast, we have the obscenely wealthy 1% largely making those decisions, in such a way to consolidate and increase their own wealth...

[Forty Two]

Every person who operates a business makes that decision. Every person who chooses to become an artist instead of a factory worker, or a ditch digger instead of a computer programmer, makes that decision.

Communism's solution to the problem you allege exists is to take eliminate every individual's option in determining what, if anything, to produce and when, where, why and how, and replace it with someone else's decision, and at the same time to impose a "liability" to work (in accordance with other people's common plan).

The basic premise of Marx's communism was that the proletariat are in a state of misery anyway, so whatever you say about communism already exists for the proletariat - they are oppressed, just by different people - at least with Communism, they would try to have the "community as a whole" make decisions such that at least some of the proletariat would get something. In modern capitalist countries, however, there is no massive proletariat that lives in the state of misery. The capitalist countries have enacted social safety nets, and also the market economies offer most people a standard of living that is very good.

That's exactly why socialism today is not being advanced among labor - the workers don't want to "unite" and adopt communism -- socialism and communism are mainly advanced among the elite and the intellectuals.

[JimC]

I'm not saying that the Soviet model rigid state control was a good thing.

I am saying that to have rose-colored glasses about the effects of poorly regulated, short-sighted and greedy capitalism is not a useful position.

[laklak]

The consumer decides. You can be the richest motherfucker in the world, and try to force your inefficient, bug-ridden, piece of shit computer operating system on the whole world and nobody will buy it.

Oh, wait....

[pErvinalia]

[Cunt]

The consumer decides. You can be the richest motherfucker in the world, and try to force your inefficient, bug-ridden, piece of shit computer operating system on the whole world and nobody will buy it.

Oh, wait....

I'm thinking of buying a modern laptop. Is there one available with a physical cover for the webcam? My friends sometimes tease me about my tinfoil and tape home-rig...

[rainbow]

But George Orwell said that what really happened was "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Indeed. The revolution merely changes the ruling class.
Power did not go into the hands of the oppressed, but to the new elite. That is not Communism.

How can power ever be in the hands of someone who is oppressed?

Please do not exhibit your stupidity. They'd no longer be oppressed if the power relations were changed in their favour.
I'm afraid that "Marxism for Dummies" that you quickly read hoping for a quote, didn't actually teach you anything.

Also, under Communism, how is it decided what factories to build, what goods to produce, what quantities, how they are to be delivered, how they are distributed, how to more equally distribute the population from cities to countryside, the structure of the industrial armies, and the seizure of the assets of emigrants and rebels, and how is it decided what peoples' needs are and what their abilities are?

Workers committees. A free vote and free association.
Are you opposed to that?

If so, why?

[Hermit]

I'm thinking of buying a modern laptop. Is there one available with a physical cover for the webcam? My friends sometimes tease me about my tinfoil and tape home-rig...

Search Ebay or Amazon for "Webcam Slider Camera Cover". They sell for a dollar or less each, delivery inclusive.

Then your friends can tease you about your high-tech rig and your tinfoil hat mentality.

[Scot Dutchy]

Workers committees. A free vote and free association.
Are you opposed to that?

Of course he is opposed to that. Totally alien concepts in American society. Workers having a say in running their company A free vote Free association. The 1% would get a heart attack. (Well a good plan then).

[rainbow]

I'm not saying that the Soviet model rigid state control was a good thing.

It was a misguided means to achieve an ideological end.

[Scot Dutchy]

I'm not saying that the Soviet model rigid state control was a good thing.

It was a misguided means to achieve an ideological end.

They could not accept certain positives from capitalism. But communism is about total control as is extreme capitalism. The only thing that really is different; who benefits.
The good mix is somewhere in between on the centre left side.

[rainbow]

I'm not saying that the Soviet model rigid state control was a good thing.

It was a misguided means to achieve an ideological end.

They could not accept certain positives from capitalism. But communism is about total control as is extreme capitalism. The only thing that really is different; who benefits.
The good mix is somewhere in between on the centre left side.

Let me give you the example of our village mud-pit.

It belongs to everyone and every person can go and fetch as much as they like. So Lizzie the potter goes down and fetches clay to make her beautiful pots which she sells to the other villagers. Anyone else can also make pots, but if they are not as good, then they get fewer chicken per pot. Lizzie does well enough, and when she doesn't need to she sits by the river and relaxes drinking beer. Peter cannot make pots, but he mixes the clay with cow dung and makes bricks. He works really hard and makes just enough to buy food for his family. Anyone can grow chickens, if they don't like making pots or bricks.

Now this is a Free-Market System, but is neither Capitalist nor Communist.
No-one is allowed to own the means of production, the mud pit.
In Capitalism, someone would own the pit and all the chickens, and force people to work or starve. Under Centralised Control, the pit is administered by an official who forces people to work, or starve.
What is the difference?

[Scot Dutchy]

Under socialism the mud pit would owned by everyone in the village. There would be an elected committee in charge to oversee its use making sure that no one person exploits it.

[Forty Two]

But George Orwell said that what really happened was "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Indeed. The revolution merely changes the ruling class.
Power did not go into the hands of the oppressed, but to the new elite. That is not Communism.

How can power ever be in the hands of someone who is oppressed?

Please do not exhibit your stupidity. They'd no longer be oppressed if the power relations were changed in their favour.
I'm afraid that "Marxism for Dummies" that you quickly read hoping for a quote, didn't actually teach you anything.

Once another group has the power relations changed in their favor, they become the "new elite." Get it?

Also, under Communism, how is it decided what factories to build, what goods to produce, what quantities, how they are to be delivered, how they are distributed, how to more equally distribute the population from cities to countryside, the structure of the industrial armies, and the seizure of the assets of emigrants and rebels, and how is it decided what peoples' needs are and what their abilities are?

Workers committees. A free vote and free association.
Are you opposed to that?

If so, why?

Oh, yes, absolutely. Why? Isn't it self evident?

But, let's do it this way. How would that work in actual practice. I.e. - take the auto industry. Worker committees would decide how many cars the nation needs, and of what types? Then how many factories are needed to build them, where the factories would be located, and all the design and build decisions from concept through the factory floor? How would they make that determination?

Many reasons exist for opposing such a scheme - one is that Elon Musk wouldn't have been free to simply have a vision and decide to pursue it, and create Tesla. Someone would have had to convince a "workers committee" that something new was needed.

Do we need SpaceX? Better ask the workers committee, take a vote on it of committee members.

How about just let people be free, and do what they want within safety, labor and other regulations? If someone wants to build a better lemonade stand, or sell socks, why is i the business of the National Workers' Committee? We'll need to ask permission? Oh, I can make a better drink to beat Snapple at the convenience store. Oh, no! Workers Committee says enough resources are already assigned to beverage production. Your resources are needed in cardboard box production.

Any thinking person should be opposed to a system that would require permission of a Workers Committee to open a business producing goods and services. It's the same reason we shouldn't need permission of the government to do so, and we generally don't need such permission. Even in areas where there are licensure requirements, the government isn't determining who produces what, where and when.

Why in the world would you be in favor of something like that?

[Rum]

There is a story about some government guys from Moscow coming to the UK after their proto-communist system collapsed in order to find out how 'free markets' work.

On one tour they were taken around some bakery stores and factories. One of them, an old commissar or some such asked 'but how many bakeries to you know how to build'?

Market economies thrive on competition, but if it is totally cutthroat and it takes a devil take the hindmost attitude then you end up with the harshest of systems. Much of Europe takes a more regulated approach, where nobody says how many bakeries there should be, but the biggest bakery can't buy out the rest and form a monopoly.