The paradox of communism

[Nelson_Pike]

@elucidator

The resistance of the National Liberation Front did not begin as a Communist protest movement, but as a protest from Buddhists angered over the elite Catholic power structure of Viet Nam, which began with the French colonization of Viet Nam. The Buddhist monks setting themselves ablaze were not Communists, as should be glaringly obvious.

When the oppression became increasingly violent, the Buddhists had no weapons or organization with which to resist, the Communists had both. And so it went.

Historically inaccurate.

The NLF was open to everyone, but it was founded in 1960 under Communist initiative and Communist leadership. Also, the first Buddhist self-immolation took place in 1963, and did not precede foundation of the NLF as implied above.

[Velocity]

It’s always easier to tear down than it is to build up.

Hence, Mao Zedong the successful rebel, but failed leader.

[tomndebb]

That so many great artists and writers have been Marxists suggest that the production of culture in such a society would breed tremendous individuality and offer superior avenues for expression. Those artists and writers might have thought of communism as “an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all,” but you might want to consider it an actual instantiation of universal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, this claim is actually refuted by the claim against Capitalism:

As a matter of fact, most of the greatest art under capitalism has always come from people who are oppressed and alienated (see: the blues, jazz, rock & roll, and hip-hop). Then, thanks to capitalism, it is homogenized, marketed, and milked for all its value by the “entrepreneurs” sitting at the top of the heap, stroking their satiated flanks in admiration of themselves for getting everyone beneath them to believe that we are free.

To the extent that great artists (few of whom were actually Marxists) came out of “Marxist”* societies, they were nearly all in protest against the system.

*(I am always amused at the way in which opponents and defenders of Marxism tend to ignore the fact that no country identified as Marxist actually became socialist in the way that he predicted it would occur. How much actual Marxist thought (outside a few college course) can there be if not one nation followed his actual path to that state?)

[Kobal2]

That’s why you should be an anarchist instead. 'Cause there actually was a successful anarchist state once. In the 1920s. For about twenty minutes.

[John_Mace]

@Nelson_Pike

Historically inaccurate.

The NLF was open to everyone, but it was founded in 1960 under Communist initiative and Communist leadership. Also, the first Buddhist self-immolation took place in 1963, and did not precede foundation of the NLF as implied above.

I think you are talking about the National Front for Liberation.

[Nelson_Pike]

@John_Mace

I think you are talking about the National Front for Liberation.

I was in HS and college in the 1960s and 1970s, VN was in my face the whole time, and NLF is what sticks in my mind.

Google indicates NLF is the dominant modern choice. I expect the original was written in Vietnamese, and that the choice of translated word order is arbitrary.

[BrainGlutton]

@Kobal2

That’s why you should be an anarchist instead. 'Cause there actually was a successful anarchist state once. In the 1920s. For about twenty minutes.

And there was an anarcho-syndicalist one in the 1930s. (The Soviet-allied government ultimately squashed it.)

[BrainGlutton]

@John_Mace

I think you are talking about the National Front for Liberation.

No, not them, they’re a bunch of fucking splitters! :mad:

[eschereal]

I want to know about this centrally-planned economy. I understand that it is different from the ADMFordCitiFoxShell creature that we are familiar with, but by how much? The practical differences appear trivial to me.

[Kobal2]

@eschereal

I want to know about this centrally-planned economy. I understand that it is different from the ADMFordCitiFoxShell creature that we are familiar with, but by how much? The practical differences appear trivial to me.

In a traditional economy, Mr Fox studies the market and finds that there seems to be an untapped Serious Bullshit market. Mr Fox builds a Serious Bullshit market for himself (and his investors) and damn the consequences. Fuck all o’y’all.

In a planned economy, the Central Planning Committee reviews the market, notes what is missing (in this case, Serious Bullshit) and encourages the creation of a Serious Bullshit industry post haste through various means. Mr Fox builds a Serious Bullshit empire thanks to a generous heap of state subsidies, then complains he doesn’t get near enough money out of it because 90% of its output is requisitioned by the state for distribution.

Or something like that.

[John_Mace]

@Nelson_Pike

I was in HS and college in the 1960s and 1970s, VN was in my face the whole time, and NLF is what sticks in my mind.

Google indicates NLF is the dominant modern choice. I expect the original was written in Vietnamese, and that the choice of translated word order is arbitrary.

And you obviously never saw Life of Brian.

[halman]

@Lumpy

Here’s something I have trouble wrapping my head around: the Jekyll and Hyde nature of communist movements.

While they’re still fighting as insurgents, communists look like heroes: selfless, brave, noble, idealistic. During the Vietnam era for instance, it must have driven American advisers crazy that the Republic of South Vietnam consisted largely of utterly corrupt dictators, their cronies, and their hired thugs, while anyone with a shred of idealism joined the Vietcong. Ditto Shiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalists in China during the late '40s. But then, once the Revolution is won, they invariably turn into monsters. Doubtless the preceding is an over-simplification, but it does look that way to a first approximation. Any explanation why?

Perhaps the communists have risen from a population that has been so oppressed that the society is barely functional, so that finding enlightened people to administer the wishes of the leadership is impossible.

What is chilling about communism is that certain aspects of it reflect the essential gathering together and sharing that has made human existence possible. Community is the root of human experience, what has allowed for knowledge to be passed down, experience shared, people remembered. Alone, we are nothing, for all of what we have learned, all of what we have accomplished, will be lost after we are gone. As part of a community, there is a chance that my contributions will survive, what I have accomplished will be built upon.

Communism is community taken to extreme. Socialism is society taken to an extreme. Both have essential elements, which the lack of is destroying American society, I believe.

[msmith537]

@Indistinguishable

Property is force. To recognize X as Y’s property is to recognize a social commitment to use force to ensure that no one can interact with X against the wishes of Y.

For example, the fact that Y owns a particular piece of land means that if I wish to go step on that piece of land and do so, and Y wishes for me not to go step on that piece of land and finds out, then Y can call the police and have them violently expel me from the land. Straight-up physical force will be applied to me on Y’s command against my personal wishes.

Now, you may say this is legitimate action, and therefore not “force”. But then you would be playing word games, trying to summon the moral intuitions associated with ordinary language “force” (as in violent physical force) and redirect it by sleight-of-hand to an ideological account of “force” (e.g., “Whatever libertarians don’t like!”).

I feel like you are the one playing word games and semantic sleight of hand. 99% of the time, “property” is simply a common agreement of ownership and rights. i.e. in our society, we individuals have the right to own property and that others don’t have the right to damage, trespass or otherwise use that property without the stated agreement of the owner.

To put it another way, if it was just about force, New York would need a lot more than %0.6 of it’s population dedicated to law enforcement (50,000 cops in a city of 8.4 million people).
I would say the paradox of communism is the same paradox of all forms of government. It’s that people need to be governed because they are lazy, greedy idiots. The problem is that only other people are available to govern them.

[eschereal]

@msmith537

I would say the paradox of communism is the same paradox of all forms of government. It’s that people need to be governed because they are lazy, greedy idiots. The problem is that only other people are available to govern them.

There is another system …

[Kobal2]

@msmith537

I feel like you are the one playing word games and semantic sleight of hand. 99% of the time, “property” is simply a common agreement of ownership and rights.

… backed by force. The most simple example of which is : if I nonchalantly sidle up to you to take your wallet and you kick me in the 'nads, society says you’re all right. Or you could call the police to kick me in the 'nads on your behalf.

To put it another way, if it was just about force, New York would need a lot more than %0.6 of it’s population dedicated to law enforcement (50,000 cops in a city of 8.4 million people).

Terry Pratchett (PBUH) had a lovely explanation for this. He reasoned that a concerted effort by the citizens of any given block could reduce its police force to a greasy smear on the pavement - and, indeed, in some “bad” neighbourhoods, the police walk on eggshells. The way society/the police avoid this is by putting a little policeman inside everyone’s head, from a very young age, whose job it is to warn you that if you do that (or any crime) you’re going to Get In Trouble.

Which is bullshit, really, when it comes down to it. The reality of things is that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads, you could literally get away with murder (in some jurisdictions in the US, the coin even has one and a half heads, i.e. solved murders represent 35% of reported murders. And that’s only the bodies that are found in the first place !)
But, you know, you could get in really serious trouble if you killed someone, dude :p.

[GIGObuster]

@John_Mace

I think you are talking about the National Front for Liberation.

Heh, I thought you guys were going to talk about the communistic nature of the NFL, as in the football one. (And I’m only half kidding)

In the NFL, "communism" is more about competition

The NFL embraces certain aspects of communism in the name of competition. If, as we explained last night, the Cowboys were forced to (or, as owner Jerry Jones may say, allowed to) cut their own TV deals without sharing the money equally with all other teams, Jones could dominate the league. Without a salary cap, he could spend that money on any player he wanted to sign. Without a draft, he could lure Cam Newton and Patrick Peterson and A.J. Green and Marcel Dareus and Von Miller to Dallas.

The league would suffer for it, badly, with a handful of Harlem Globetrotters playing a field of Washington Generals. And so the league decided long ago that its growth would be tied to a flattening of the talent pool, via teams having relatively equal resources. By creating an environment in which franchises have an equal chance to thrive, interest remains high in every city, especially during an offseason premised on convincing fans of each team that from 0-0 a Super Bowl title can emerge.

[eschereal]

On the other hand, the Green Bay Packers are grandfathered in: NFL by-laws prohibit non-private (community) ownership of teams. Presumably, they want the flexibility of being able to pressure an owner into relocating a team (e.g., the Lions) to a different market if revenue performance is unsatisfactory to the league.