[jdimov9]

You are clearly incompetent about the subject. The "ideal" of communism and the practice of communism are not two different things. Communism is practiced precisely the way it is theoretically intended to work.

Communism is a cleptocratic system of ruling and exploiting the manual labour and natural resources of any given territory inhabited by unambitious masses that largely lack individualism. The core of the system relies on individualism and personal achievement being punished and forcefully suppressed, while the masses are continuously promised vague ideals of equality and justice (much like with any other system of government - nothing innovative here. ) There is nothing acceptable about communism - not in theory, not in practice, not in ideals - nothig.

[seanmcdirmid]

Are you sure that is how Marx described communism, as a cleptocratic system of ruling and exploiting... I mean, I don't remember reading that at all, just like I don't remember Ayn Rand describing libertarianism as a return feudalism where property rights rule out over the collective of the people.

Are you sure Marx wrote that, or are you letting your own bias into your definition?

For the record, I live in a communist country and don't like how that aspect turned out at all. But I don't blame it on the communism, after all, Russia still has many problems even after they threw off communism. Selfish bad leaders will beat you up with any ideology they find convenient.

[sievebrain]

Marx did not describe communism that way, obviously, but it should be equally obvious that his terrible ideas led directly to what happened. Communism isn't some great idea that flawed humans have repeatedly screwed up - it is a flawed idea whose outcome was easily predicted even by Marx's contemporaries.

Seen with the benefit of hindsight, Mikael Bakunin's criticism is most appropriate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin#Critique_of_Ma...

They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up.

For Bakunin, the fundamental contradiction is that for the Marxists, "anarchism or freedom is the aim, while the state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved."

Marx directly argued that communism should be implemented by violent revolution that would put in place a temporary "dictatorship of the proles", which is an absurd concept containing the seeds of its destruction.

[dghf]

(This is meant as a reply to sievebrain: there appears to be some sort of thread-nesting limit.)

Bakunin did on occasion describe himself as a communist; but like Kropotkin, his communism was of the libertarian rather than authoritarian variety.

[danharaj]

You sound like an Ayn Rand soliloquy.

[jdimov9]

I've been told this a number of times. I've never read any Ayn Rand - probably should. I was, however, born and raised in communism, as were my parents, so I talk from experience.

[patrickaljord]

Not sure why you're being downvoted. I grew up in socialist Syria and that was pretty much it, my wife in Peru had a similar experience and so did my Russian friends. I think most Westerners are totally clueless when it comes to what communism really means and are quick to label you an Ayn Rand fanboy. I guess they will eventually find out if they keep voting for more socialism though.

[Koshkin]

You weren't raised "in communism". You lived in a socialist country ruled by an organization which, depending on the country, might or even might have not called itself communist party. Communism might have been the proclaimed goal of that government, but in reality that was little more than an ideological slogan.

[ae_keji]

I think authoritarian left wing communist "transition states", are what most people mean by communism now. The word has evolved and changed meaning. Also, I believe that because the two are synonymous, and there never was any "true communism" implemented according to many, expressing communism as the above isn't too factually inaccurate. If someone calls their self something, and is labeled that thing, they'll eventually be that thing. In this case, "communist" governments.

[danharaj]

And i suppose the people of "The Democratic Republic of North Korea" know a thing or two about democracy and republics.

There are plenty of communists who categorically reject state communism. They're called anarchists.

[patrickaljord]

Leftist anarchists are against private property though and against turning a profit and individualism. We all know how this ends. Also, how do you enforce the no private property rule without a state and without a private security agency?

[qntty]

Lack of private property doesn't need enforcing, it's the existence of private property that needs enforcing

[patrickaljord]

It is a natural thing to want to own the property you live on at least, even lions urinate on their turf to mark it as theirs. How would you start preventing humans from doing what every mammals has ever done ever?

[danharaj]

You realize that private property is defined and enforced by a state, right? It doesn't exist until a social structure says "This is yours and we will guarantee it with force of violence if we need to".

Also i'm sure our definitions of individualism are irreconcilably different. Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system. For me, individualism cannot be separated from collectivism.

[patrickaljord]

Why would you want to build anything if anyone can come and grab it because private property is bad? My body belongs to me and so does what I build with it unless I voluntarily give it away. I don't need a state to enforce the protection of my property, I could do it myself or pay someone (a person, a private security agency or yes, a state).

> Your individualism involves people subordinating others with violence explicit and implicit if you really think capitalism is a pro-individualism system

What is capital(ism) if not the accumulation of things to build more things. In order to build anything, you need a certain capital even in a anarchy world, it could be pieces of wood, bricks, money etc. Now who is better suited to manage this capital? Everyone? Turns out, some people suck at managing capital and some people know best how to manage it because they're the ones who managed to accumulate enough in order to build this capital in the first place. Societies where capital was managed by collectives have historically not done well.

Also, I'm not for subordinating people with violence so not sure where you got this idea. I'm ok though with using force to defend your body and the property you acquired peacefully with it (because you built it or because someone agreed to give it to you).