Why do SO many Americans hate communism?

[CharonY]

Actually no system tried it in its purest it is a stateless and classless society with a common and free access to means of production (only in the transition state a state party or equivalent exists). As you will notice, a strong dictatorial government runs counter to these ideals.

[padren]

Communism is inherently intrusive and micromanages people's affairs.

 

 

If there is one thing that liberals, libertarians, progressives, and conservatives can agree on in the US, it's that "we're not owned by any government" to be used as a cog in some great political apparatus. Our lives are for us to waste on our own pointless experiments of our choosing, not some bureaucrat's pipe-dream. Once a government tries to manage people's "means and abilities" they are effectively treating those people as "resources" and not as individuals.

 

 

Even when nearly every American has a different idea of what this government should be doing, it's pretty safe to say communism is antithetical to 95% of those ideas. Even "perfect idealistic communism" is antithetical.

[waitforufo]

Actually no system tried it in its purest it is a stateless and classless society with a common and free access to means of production (only in the transition state a state party or equivalent exists). As you will notice, a strong dictatorial government runs counter to these ideals.

See what I mean.

[CharonY]

Here is the thing. Communistic ideals are to human behavior and can therefore not be implemented in any practical way. The only way to realize it would probably be enforcing, which is a contradiction in itself as communism is envisioned not to have a regulatory government in its final phase.

As such it is a contradiction in itself. And waitrufo, I think I see what you mean now. Although I would argue that they even started to try before they failed.

The first step would to give up power after a revolution. That kind of never happened.

[waitforufo]

Here is the thing. Communistic ideals are to human behavior and can therefore not be implemented in any practical way. The only way to realize it would probably be enforcing, which is a contradiction in itself as communism is envisioned not to have a regulatory government in its final phase.

As such it is a contradiction in itself. And waitrufo, I think I see what you mean now. Although I would argue that they even started to try before they failed.

The first step would to give up power after a revolution. That kind of never happened.

Just a failed attempt a humor on a Friday.

[John Cuthber]

"Communism is inherently intrusive and micromanages people's affairs."

Unless you accept that people can work out for themselves what society needs and how they can help to provide that.

 

So, the statement isn't absolutely true. It's provided without any evidence...

It seems the problem is that people don't know what communism is; they fear things that get labelled as communism by those with a political agenda.

[padren]

"Communism is inherently intrusive and micromanages people's affairs."

Unless you accept that people can work out for themselves what society needs and how they can help to provide that.

 

So, the statement isn't absolutely true. It's provided without any evidence...

 

It seems the problem is that people don't know what communism is; they fear things that get labelled as communism by those with a political agenda.

What would you say is the most basic definition of Communism then?

 

Every society contains "people working out for themselves what society needs and [if they care to] how they can help to provide that." so it doesn't say anything about how people do that, or how fair, equal, and non-intrusive that society is towards it's citizens. I don't understand how any Communist society could be called such, without it making some basic assumptions about what citizens need to contribute to/get from that society. Considering that a lot of people have no interest at all in contributing to their society (if voter turnouts are any indication), it seems pretty intrusive to me.

Edited July 16, 2011 by padren

[John Cuthber]

That's the problem. Communism doesn't work with people because they are selfish.

[Incendia]

I'll give you the definition of communism - as it seems some of you don't actually know what it is:

 

Communism is socio-political system which aims to abolish wage labour and establish a stateless, classless society. It also aims for the abolishment of private property, making everything the common property of everyone.

It is also the final stage of civilisation in Marxian Philosophy.

[padren]

That's the problem. Communism doesn't work with people because they are selfish.

 

Why is it selfish to not want to directly contribute to the society in which you were born?

 

There are a lot of reasons - maybe someone would rather do without 95% of what society believes "they need" so they have the time and freedom to write a book, or otherwise pursue goals that do not fit with the priorities of the society they were born in.

 

If anything, it's selfish for the rest of that collectivist society to tell the individual "Hey, we need you to farm/build/dig/etc because you have the ability and we all are providing for your needs." when that individual likely never even opted in.

 

 

 

Overall it's not an issue of selfish/selfless but an issue of the conceptual hegemony breaking down when it actually gets to the personal level. Is it selfish to pursue art when you could be a brilliant doctor helping people? Does the individual define what "art" is to them, or do they have to reconcile their idea of art with that of the society so their artistic labors are "approved" and not just written off as avoiding real labor?

 

 

In non-communist models, it's up to the individual to decide how much work (that is of value to others) they want to do, so they can afford to live however humbly they want to live, so they can pursue their own artistic/idiosyncratic goals to their heart's content. If that art turns out to be of value to individual members that society, then they'll benefit from that appreciation. If not, (or at least if not in their lifetime, as often happens with art) then they can either continue to pursue it for their own reasons or "get a real job" to increase their quality of living.

 

I personally cannot imagine how any communist model could hope to address issues such as that without being heavily intrusive. Such a society has to micromanage how labor is valued, including artistic labors.

 

If I am wrong, and there's some clear and effective way that a communist system could do this non-intrusively, without micromanaging I'd be interesting in hearing that approach, but it seems to me that the flaw is fundamental, derived from the basic approach and goals of such a system.

[doG]

There have been no successful communist countries. Nearly all have become totalitarian in the long run. I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression. Why would anyone like that?

[John Cuthber]

"I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression."

On what basis?

There has never been a true communist state to act as an example of what it might become.

 

"Hey, we need you to farm/build/dig/etc because you have the ability and we all are providing for your needs."

If they are providing for all his needs then that includes time for him to pursue his artistic endeavours.

[padren]

"I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression."

On what basis?

There has never been a true communist state to act as an example of what it might become.

 

"Hey, we need you to farm/build/dig/etc because you have the ability and we all are providing for your needs."

If they are providing for all his needs then that includes time for him to pursue his artistic endeavours.

 

According to who, and accountable to who?

 

Different people have different demands on them from their artistic endeavors. Some people can barely find time to eat when they are creative. Which artists like that should be encouraged to continue with their art, and which ones should be told to "face reality" and give up on their no-talent asses?

 

The only system I am aware of that can cope with that situation (without micromanaging or being intrusive) is the free market via supply and demand. It may not be perfect, it may need regulating, but ultimately either people decide with their own resources what to support (capitalism) or some imposing system tries to identify successful artists and reward them out of the resources of the collective.

 

Outside of capitalism, how do "they" support all of his needs, let alone identify what his needs are?

[JohnB]

That's the problem. Communism doesn't work with people because they are selfish.

 

Then communism doesn't work, does it? You've essentially said that communism as a human political construct doesn't work with humans. Therefore it is pointless and wishful thinking at best.

Edited July 17, 2011 by JohnB

[Incendia]

There have been no successful communist countries. Nearly all have become totalitarian in the long run. I would theorize that in most cases communism leads to oppression. Why would anyone like that?

 

There have been no communist countries.

The oppression is due to bad leader - not communism.

I find your logic flawed, sir.

 

Your logic applied to chocolate:

Eating chocolate can lead to one being overweight and possibly even getting diabetes. Therefore why would anyone like chocolate?

Edited July 17, 2011 by Incendia

[doG]

There have been no communist countries.

The oppression is due to bad leader - not communism.

I find your logic flawed, sir.

 

Your logic applied to chocolate:

Eating chocolate can lead to one being overweight and possibly even getting diabetes. Therefore why would anyone like chocolate?

 

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/tp/communistcountries.htm

[John Cuthber]

Then communism doesn't work, does it? You've essentially said that communism as a human political construct doesn't work with humans. Therefore it is pointless and wishful thinking at best.

Yes.

It will never work.

[Incendia]

http://geography.abo...stcountries.htm

 

None of those countries abolished wage labour, private property, the state and class based society.

The abolishment of wage labour, private property, the state and class based society are the requirements for establishing a communist nation.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Incendia

[padren]

None of those countries abolished wage labour, private property, the state and class based society.

The abolishment of wage labour, private property, the state and class based society are the requirements for establishing a communist nation.

Honestly though, to say that communism "hasn't been tried properly" because no one has done it right is a lot like saying "The theory that you can fly by throwing yourself at the ground and missing is still viable, it's just that all the popular failed attempts resulted from people not really trying to miss the ground, and since that is integral to the theory we can say the theory hasn't been properly tested yet."

 

Barring some huge trans-humanesque technology advancement, I think communism will always fail when attempted. The issue isn't authoritarian people mucking it up - it's that when a society has life and death pressures to get things done, only authoritarian pressures tend to net results under the model. Having any centralized metric for labor (a requirement, for abolishing wage labor) requires a social consensus on those metrics - and since we all know any reasonably large group is not going to agree completely it necessitates an authoritarian enforcement of those metrics.

 

 

I understand that people like Stalin and Mao have gone a long way in "poisoning the well" but the theory itself has fundamental weaknesses, and unless those are addressed I don't think it can really be considered viable even in pure theory.

[doG]

None of those countries abolished wage labour, private property, the state and class based society.

The abolishment of wage labour, private property, the state and class based society are the requirements for establishing a communist nation.

According to who? you? Even the CIA World Factbook lists these countries as communist states. The claims that there have been no communist countries just don't hold up.

[Incendia]

They all wanted to be communist - none of them actually tried it though...they all tried socialism...specifically state socialism.

 

They were not actually communist. None of those countries successfully achieved it.

 

PS. Communist State? That's an oxymoron. Communism wishes to abolish the state.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Incendia

[John Cuthber]

" Even the CIA World Factbook lists these countries as communist states."

The CIA may have a vested interest in doing so.

According to WIKI "The National Security Act of 1947 established the CIA, affording it "no police or law enforcement functions, either at home or abroad". One year later, this mandate was expanded to include[clarification needed] "sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures...subversion [and] assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation movements, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world""

 

Now, you can't support anti-communism if there is no communism and if they stop doing it, someone will cut their budget.

So, can you trust them to honestly report whether or not there are communist states?

 

Now, can you tell me the states that have abolished private property? A few religious communes might manage it but that's about as close as you will get.

[doG]

Why can't anyone with claims that there have been no communist states provide even one link to support their assertions? I tell you why, because they're wrong and they can'y support their claims with any authoritative references.

[Incendia]

We are not wrong. Want to know why we have no sources? ...because no one ever writes about how those countries did not achieve communism.

None of those countries has fulfilled the definition of communism!

Edited July 18, 2011 by Incendia

[zapatos]

Interesting pedantic discussion, but I don't believe Americans hate a government concept that has never been tried or achieved. I think the OP is referring to the form of government most Americans think of as communism as practiced in countries such as China and the Soviet Union.