[jraph]

Communism refers to at least two separate things, though (in Western Europe).

- a theoretical economic model that is opposed to capitalism

- the atrocious regimes of the 20th century calling themselves communism you are referring to that have vanishingly few things to do with the first.

Vanishingly few people in Western Europe support these atrocious regimes. And therefore, communism the way you are using it. What's more, there's not much propaganda for communism here (I believe there was propaganda in the past, though). The confusion is usually here and people mostly don't see communism with a good eye because of the confusion (or because they are knowledgeable and oppose the theory - which is a better reason to be against it). Now, it's true that we have weaker feelings about it than in the US (and, I guess, the parts of the words that suffered from the atrocious regimes).

(The usual response to this is that theoretical communism invariably leads to these atrocious regimes, but I believe we don't know this - invariably, it seems they've been set up by possibly sadist assholes with huge egos and thirsts for power, we haven't tried without - as well as we don't know if it would work. I don't have any further useful point to make in this discussion so I probably won't engage in it.)

[zajio1am]

These eastern european regimes implemented alternative economic model opposed to capitalism. Even if we look away from the atrocities / human rights violations and just consider economic reality of communist countries, then the economic model of communist countries caused lower GDP growth rate, falling behind comparable western countries. E.g. in Czechia, after 40 years of communism, we ended with about half of GDP/capita than neighboring Austria, which has comparable GDP/capita before.

[jraph]

I don't think GDP growth is an end in itself. A means, at best. Well-being would be.

Though they failed in that regard too I think.

[sdfghswe]

Communism refers to at least two separate things: the theory and the reality. That's basically what you just said, right?

[jraph]

No. This is a very bad summary of what I carefully tried to make, that completely misses the point.

I'm sorry I was not clear enough, but I'm afraid I won't be able to express myself better so I'll just leave it at that.

You are free to make this point if you want, just don't make it look like it comes from me because it doesn't.

[sdfghswe]

Cool I'll make the point then.

I've learned about communism from two types of sources. Philosophy books and history books, and the takeaways are quite different.

[flir]

That is a /great/ line. Kudos if you came up with that.

I don't agree with it, but you've coined a first rate phrase there.

[jraph]

Yes, so you conclude that theoretical communism leads to these horrible regimes.

It's a reasonable hypothesis, just not the only one.

This week I only saw white people in the streets. I could conclude all people walking in my city are white. But that's false.

[sdfghswe]

Counter example please?

[jraph]

We don't have any counter example.

But I'd say we don't have any example neither: regimes from your history books weren't "communism" we find in your philosophy books. You can see it if you read both carefully enough.

(and again, I'm not stating communism can work, because we don't know that).

But even if we assume both "communisms" are the same: you are saying "Communism has failed N times, therefore it will always fail". You don't know that (though I would admit it's quite solid evidence in this case)

We don't know. And I'm not arguing for or against communism here neither.