Why do people still believe in Communism?
False Utilitarianism.
Compartmentalisation/cognitive dissonance/stupidity/ignorance/denial of reality/desire to “fit in”/inculcation/psychopathic tendencies. Anything I missed?
fixed.
[Y]
If by “this thread” you mean your post, I agree.
Everyone’s entitled to entertain a delusion or two… just don’t foist it on anyone.
Maybe if, you know, you actually knew what the hell Communism is than I would pick apart that post. But, of course, you’re not describing Communism.
Except that he did describe communism, which is the war of all against all.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. What communism really is is a system of mass enslavement. It forces you to work for the claims that other people hold upon you by the act of hanging a sword of guilt over your head; they use the guilt to induce you to pity them; you should support others, you should support people’s mistakes and take up the slack, you should take care of other’s needs before you take care of your own. On their own, if you replace should with it would be nice if you and allow people to voluntarily do them, then these are not bad ideas to follow; but when you hold a knife to their throat then it removes all of the good feeling of altruism from the donor, who is no longer a donor but a slave who has his labor and product forcibly extracted from him by the communist, in order to enrich the politico and redistribute it to others. Those who are successful find themselves taken advantage of more and more, while people’s needs somehow expand without limit. The end result of such a system can be nothing but total enslavement, misery, and death for all except the few at the top of the political class.
Contrast this to working for some fat, rich bastard. You might not like it, but you voluntarily choose to do it, because you get money for food, shelter, clothing, and whatever else you’d like to spend your money on. In a system free of coercion, what you receive for work you voluntarily choose to do is nothing but what you’ve earned and what you deserve, and therein lies the problem.
People who like socialism want more than what they’ve earned and deserve. They want it, and they want others to provide it. They believe the rich can afford it because they have “so much, it’s only a nick off their backs”. They have a sense of moral superiority and believe that they are entitled to what they want, simply because they feel that they need it. They feel that nobody could have produced wealth honestly, and that profits are exploitation. This goes beyond statism, although the state is a vanguard and reinforcer of such behavior. People feel they get something for nothing, and feel that the net benefit to them will be greater than the cost. People also like to feel morally righteous, and communism allows them to feel exactly so. What’s better than to act like you’re for the poor, environment, animals, workers, fair trade, anti-child labor, climate change, etc… but have it be someone else’s problem, responsibility, and to force others to produce and force others to labor so your moral righteousness can be assuaged? This is why so many people in the world still believe in communism and socialism, not necessarily as systems but also the ideas that they contain.
but there’s also another factor: if “it” will allow them to personally benefit in some way in the form of free handouts, government guarantees, and so on they don’t have a problem with it. (Of course they just think they’re getting something for free.)
Someone already beat you to your answer there Jack.
I think its the arrogant belief that their beloved “modern liberal social democratic state” (or whatever the F its called) is somehow fundamentally different from the historical examples of hard-core communism given in the opening post. They scoff and dismiss the suggestion of similarity; we’re so much more enlightened today, after all. Anyone who suggests there’s no fundamental difference in kind is patronized and admonished to stop “seeing things in such extremes.”
Back when I went to high school the debate usually went like this “Yes, but Stalin, Mao, Castro and Pol Pot murdered and jailed millions of innocent, sometimes even better Communists than themselves. How can we defend Socialism in face of this?”. The reply was invariably the same “Yes but that’s because the transition to Socialism had been incomplete because of social factors and personal interest and they didn’t have the courage to leave behind the Proletarian Dictatorship phase”. So much for using the violence argument.
Right now old school Communism and Socialism (ie toppling the current order through a proletarian revolution etc) is pretty much confined to more extremist fringes with zero chances of having their shot at power and generally ostracized even by fellow left wingers. But as Mises wisely warned us this doesn’t mean Socialism is dead and buried: they may have changed their outward appearance but what Socialists always want the same one thing: complete control of the means of production.
In the past the appeal of Socialism was more or less limited to a very simple factor: it promised the lower classes to deliver them form servitude and want and give them universal freedom and wealth. Pure utopia. Then came the Fascist phase, which is still sending ripples across the world and, allow me to say this, is still one of the staples of present day politics. In the present the appeal of the various forms of Socialism is different and much more selfish: the State/Society owes me something (be it “free” healthcare, a new pair of shoes whatever) and I am getting somebody else to pay for it. The trappings may have changed a bit but it’s still the same old class warfare preached by the followers of Marx. What is well beyond me is how Socialism can appeal to rich (and I mean seriously rich) people: to give you an example the owner of one of Italy largest publishing houses and heir to a large fortune, Gian Giacomo Feltrinelli, was killed in 1972 while he was installing a bomb to blow up a power pillion. He was part of a Communist terrorist group. What the hell was he trying to obtain? Same thing with the Gorettes today: do they understand they are cheerleading for people who wouldn’t exitate one second to take everything away from them if they had the power?
I think it is possible to read his statement: “communism is approx as productive as capitalism while putting forth less effort and not having as degrading an effect on my person”. It could also be interpreted as “what interests me is subsidized under communism and I am only concerned with what interests me” if that’s the case there really isn’t much to fire at, personal preference is impossible to argue outside of a utilitarian argument. Of course it could also be read the way you interpreted it. His statement is some what ambiguous.
Regardless, I think Jack1769 missed the point. I think the OP was refereing to communism as it has existed IE: Lennin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Stalin apologists and what have you.
Uh huh…
Listen Jackie-Boy, it is ok, I understand you want to make sure others work hard so you can have your state mandated vacation time…
Unless you are claiming you are talking about the Utopian State-less Communism, which has the practical issue of maintaining the state function without the state there to maintain it…
Either way, what you are neglecting is that without the fat bastard capitalist, you would not have a productive job, you would have a state one, and that is just as much stealing from your neighbors as the state does to support itself…
Without the capitalist who would he steal from?
That is what it boils down to, but the common retort is there is no need to steal, communism provides for all, magically…
You guys are giving his argument way too much respect. It’s simple really, in communism there are no fat people.
You know I almost think that sometimes people decide to become socialists and communists because they’ve had to deal with a really bad supervisor or just don’t like the idea that they have to work to get what they want.
Jack’s annoyance at having to work for a fat bastard doesn’t make sense to me. Have you never ever worked for or heard of owners of small businesses? I work for someone right now who puts in a hell of a lot of more hours in than I do(guy works over 80 hrs per week), and at the same time pays for my salary, the rent for the office, the salaries for the other workers he has, the parts and materials, all the license fees, the advertising, the internet/phone/fax lines, a lawyer, an accountant, AND still needs to provide for his family, as well as taxes for nearly everything. Does any socialist ever understand how hard it can be to get a business off the ground? How much work has to be put in for things to get done? This guy worked hard for years to save up money to have his own business, and he’s a “greedy fat bastard” to someone like you.
Do socialists have any respect for hard work? You are not entitled to a damn thing. You want something then work for it like everyone else is. You come off as the type that always expects there to be food but doesn’t understand that someone needs to do WORK to grow or raise that food.
Starvation has a knack for that, does it not?
The solution to diabetes…communism!
There’s nothing wrong with communes of volunteers. It can even work well in some situations, such as religious organizations. The problem is, the communists always want to force it on everyone else so it always comes to murder and theft.