Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Gregory, your information is wrong.

1. When global trends are considered, China is not on the decline. Communist China - lead by the Chinese Communist Party - is the second most powerful nation in the world, arguably already the most powerful, with American soft power diminishing since GWB's disastrous tenure. In that sense, Communism would seem far from dead.

1a. On the other hand, it could be said that communism was stillborn. It has never been implemented. In Communism, the leaders aren't supposed to be worshipped or considered superior. They should not have a single cent more than the peasant. If the peasants live in huts, then so should the leaders. However, the leaders have palaces. So-called communism - now lead by Supreme Leader Xi and Tsar Putin - has always been is just a monarchy with a rationale to keep people quiet.

2. Claims about women taking over and men being subjugated are absurd and off-topic. There's a lot of angst in the media about young men, as though they are being railroaded by young women. This is not true.

The actual situation is that the old are crushing the hopes of young. It is mostly the older men who are firmly holding the reigns of power. (Is Kamala Harris still alive? Her ghost can be heard echoing in White House halls after dark).

Both young men and young women are having their hopes crushed by Boomers and Gen X. It's true that young women are doing better than young men, but they are also struggling, increasingly pushed into prostitution to pay student loans and other debts. And none of them can afford a house.

Media barons like Murdoch have been most responsible for the policies that have destroyed the hopes of young people, and they have been successful in deflecting the blame for young men's troubles on to women. Divide and rule.

What went wrong with Communism? It never got started. Like libertarianism, it's theoretical but will never be properly implemented because humans don't operate by theory. They want a balance of security and freedom, not absolutes. As for the optimal balance, that depends on place and time - environment and culture - and these things are dynamic. Thus, any ideology "set in stone" will cause more harm than good, hence the increasing toxicity of religions around the world. Societies need to be flexible and adaptive in rapidly changing global circumstances, and ideology just acts as a millstone.

[Robert66]

On this question of mixing socialism with capitalism (or vice versa): it seems to be an idea becoming almost old-fashioned sounding, but such a mixture used to be normal - income taxes were higher, and universal, free health care and education were provided. Indeed it appears from today's perspective that governments were actually generous to the people they served! Governments today (I am thinking here especially of the current Australian government) appear to serve only the interests of a select few. Capitalism has been perverted by the greed, and by the expert lobbying, of the few, at great cost to the many.

I've always felt that "socialism" is a more moderate version of "communism", so (given the title of this topic), I'll refer to the latter.

I think the most fundamental division in politics, between the left wing and the right, is the balance and dynamic tension between the individual and the community. At the extremes, we see American Capitalism on the Right, and (North Korean?) Communism on the Left. Both are extreme, and neither represents a sensible compromise because of this. Both are also perverted, in practice, as you say. Men of power use any and all political means to achieve their own ends: the acquisition of personal wealth and power. Putin and Trump probably are excellent examples of such men.

But human failings do not reflect directly onto political theory, which (I think) is what this topic is attempting to investigate. The political systems that seem to have worked the best, in practice, are the ones that sit somewhere in the middle, as far away from the extremes as they can get. For myself, I favour a socialist system, but with important provisos.

If an individual ever comes into conflict with the community, the latter will win, due to force of numbers if nothing else. Such conflicts will occur, and probably can't be avoided. But they can be minimised, if we make the effort. And the important constraint that a socialist government must adopt is never to enforce community aims onto individuals if it can be avoided; to keep such enforced constraints to a minimum. The moral reason for this is that the community always wins, so it must use that superiority with scrupulous fairness, if the system is to work well for all.

Without this constraint, a left-oriented system will tend toward authoritarianism, human beings being what they are. And with this authoritarianism comes corruption and failure. Right wing systems are subject to the same need to avoid the extremes, but for different reasons reflecting their different political priorities.

So when you say that a mixture of capitalism and communism was at some time the norm, I wonder if you just refer to middle-ground political systems of the (moderate) Left and the (moderate) Right, both of whom will necessarily reflect aspects of the other?

I just want to repeat a key sentence you wrote: 'The political systems that seem to have worked the best, in practice, are the ones that sit somewhere in the middle, as far away from the extremes as they can get.' And by proxy the leaders of such centrist systems seek to shepherd their flock to middle ground. But what if you subscribed to an older, more brutal world view, one in which nations felt justified and able to take other nations? Shepherding your flock to middle ground might not be best practice.

[Pattern-chaser]

I just want to repeat a key sentence you wrote: 'The political systems that seem to have worked the best, in practice, are the ones that sit somewhere in the middle, as far away from the extremes as they can get.' And by proxy the leaders of such centrist systems seek to shepherd their flock to middle ground. But what if you subscribed to an older, more brutal world view, one in which nations felt justified and able to take other nations? Shepherding your flock to middle ground might not be best practice.

I don't think a non-extreme ideology would require a country to lie down and accept invasion or oppression! But a non-extreme approach would probably mean that the moderate nation would not be an aggressor, even though it would surely defend itself in the event of attack?

[Robert66]

I just want to repeat a key sentence you wrote: 'The political systems that seem to have worked the best, in practice, are the ones that sit somewhere in the middle, as far away from the extremes as they can get.' And by proxy the leaders of such centrist systems seek to shepherd their flock to middle ground. But what if you subscribed to an older, more brutal world view, one in which nations felt justified and able to take other nations? Shepherding your flock to middle ground might not be best practice.

I don't think a non-extreme ideology would require a country to lie down and accept invasion or oppression! But a non-extreme approach would probably mean that the moderate nation would not be an aggressor, even though it would surely defend itself in the event of attack?

What you have written is no doubt true. I was merely wishing to highlight the importance of the phrase 'worked the best'. Extreme political systems have worked extremely well. I mean it doesn't get much more extreme than invading and colonising other nations to build an empire. It doesn't get more extreme than enslaving dark-skinned people, trading them like cattle, and shipping them round the globe. It doesn't get more extreme than "discovering" a "new" land, and dismissing the humans there as fauna! Britain has done these extreme things, and they worked!

[Good_Egg]

You may or may not consider such actions "extreme", but do they necessarily reflect an extreme political system ?

To my way of thinking, a "political system" is the internal workings of a polity (a tribe, a state, a community with some level of government).

There has never been a single polity which encompasses all humans on earth. Every polity has to deal with outsiders. And whilst those dealings are determined by the operation of the political system, they are not the political system.

[Pattern-chaser]

Extreme political systems have worked extremely well. I mean it doesn't get much more extreme than invading and colonising other nations to build an empire. [...] Britain has done these extreme things, and they worked!

But have they (worked well)? For the victors, probably so. For the victims, probably not. Empire is theft, nothing more. And if this is what you call "working well" then empire (imperialism) is clearly a successful and desirable ideology. But not everyone looks at things this way...

[Robert66]

This is absurd. Of course British imperialism has worked well. Why add the words 'and desirable'? British imperialism wasn't aiming to make all men equal. Basketball teams don't go on court aiming for an 88-88 draw. Achieving aims is a good definition of 'working well'.

[Robert66]

You may or may not consider such actions "extreme", but do they necessarily reflect an extreme political system ?

To my way of thinking, a "political system" is the internal workings of a polity (a tribe, a state, a community with some level of government).

There has never been a single polity which encompasses all humans on earth. Every polity has to deal with outsiders. And whilst those dealings are determined by the operation of the political system, they are not the political system.

Of course empire-building is extreme. And of course it reflects an extreme political system. You say 'every polity has to deal with outsiders' and that is true. Co-operating with outsiders, forming mutually beneficial alliances, trading - these are examples of reasonable actions. Invasion of other sovereign nations, enslavement of people, denial of their humanity and rights - that is extreme.

[popeye1945]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialize, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

Yes, communism is not the answer and neither is capitalism. startling how simple the answer is, a blend. Look at it today, they have both failed. The American empire is being put in its place, and most of the communist world is free enterprise and are communists in degree. Certainly, even today communism is more humane and is shooting for a bipolar world, and encouraging the victims of colonization to shed their parasites, a new day has dawned. The old colonial world of Europe and America just don't want to let go. I think the blend is the new hope of the future, and with this the third world will finally have its palace at the table.

[Sy Borg]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialize, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

Yes, communism is not the answer and neither is capitalism. startling how simple the answer is, a blend. Look at it today, they have both failed. The American empire is being put in its place, and most of the communist world is free enterprise and are communists in degree. Certainly, even today communism is more humane and is shooting for a bipolar world, and encouraging the victims of colonization to shed their parasites, a new day has dawned. The old colonial world of Europe and America just don't want to let go. I think the blend is the new hope of the future, and with this the third world will finally have its palace at the table.

I would say both systems have been enormous successes on most levels (although each has been an environmental failure). History tells us that societal systems do not last indefinitely. Note that democracy and communism have evolved considerably over the last century. The world changes and sometimes systems break down and are replaced by more contemporary systems that better take into account the latest milieu.

[Pattern-chaser]

What went wrong with communism that was supposed to distribute luxuries equally?

Sounds like a cue for a new topic.

It does indeed, and here it is.



The topic is all in the title. What went wrong with communism? My answer is that nothing went wrong with communism. The fault, if there is any fault, is in humanity. Yes, we are social animals, and we live, group, and act together in social groups of all sizes, from families to nations. But we also want stuff for ourselves, maybe stuff that others don't or can't have. The streak of greediness in us is as strong as the urge to socialize, and that is what went wrong with communism: human greed.

Morally, communism is far superior to Capitalism, but communism asks us to behave atypically, while Capitalism panders to our greed and baser nature, and so is more successful.

That's my take; what's yours? What went wrong with communism?

Yes, communism is not the answer and neither is capitalism. startling how simple the answer is, a blend. Look at it today, they have both failed. The American empire is being put in its place, and most of the communist world is free enterprise and are communists in degree. Certainly, even today communism is more humane and is shooting for a bipolar world, and encouraging the victims of colonization to shed their parasites, a new day has dawned. The old colonial world of Europe and America just don't want to let go. I think the blend is the new hope of the future, and with this the third world will finally have its palace at the table.

I would say both systems have been enormous successes on most levels (although each has been an environmental failure). History tells us that societal systems do not last indefinitely. Note that democracy and communism have evolved considerably over the last century. The world changes and sometimes systems break down and are replaced by more contemporary systems that better take into account the latest milieu.

Point of Information (nothing more than that): The contrast here is between Capitalism and Communism, I think. Either or both of them can be democratic, even though they are not always so.

[Sy Borg]

Yeah, that was a mistyping.