How Do You Define Morality?

[DanaC]

And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.

But that's the point: just because they explicitly decalred themselves communist states doesn't mean they were communist states: any more than Zimbabwe is a democracy. MUgabe was 'elected' in a 'democratic process'.....except that we all know the election was rigged and there's no such thing as democracy in Zimbabwe. So shal we point to it and say yes, but they say they're democratic therefore they are and as such we can see that democracy is obviously evil?

.
Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all.

Whose 'pet project' do you think they were? They were the pet project of murderous dictators and powermongers. They weren't communism.

Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.

Yes....because they weren't communists they were vicious dictators.

Nobody is saying Stalin was right. Nobody is saying that those who suffered in Russia and China and Cambodia and elsewhere deserved their fate. Of course if that had been actual communism then we could say that communism is evil. Just because someone claims their administration is communist, doesn't mean they are.

It's like someone committing a crime and loudly claiming that they heard God telling them to kill... we do not conclude from that that God did tell them to kill and is in fact a cold hearted murderer...we conclude from that that they are insane. We draw conclusions about them as they are...not as they claim to be.

we do not conclude from that that God did tell them to kill and is in fact a cold hearted murderer...we conclude from that that they are insane

I bet the Canaanites feel much better now.

[DanaC]

I am not sure I understand your point rk? Are you suggesting that we should accept that God ordered many deaths?

You are saying that god justified it makes them insane. I say you are right, in ALL cases.

[DanaC]

I see *nods*

This discussion has drifted into the pros and cons of communism :P So at the risk of continuing that drift...


One of the things to remember about Russia, is that it was a totalitarian state before the revolution and after the revolution. The Tsar of Russia was the last of the truly Absolute European monarchs. As a primarily agrarian economy, most of its inhabitants were farmers and most of those were peasants. Within living memory of those peasants their status had been changed from property to person (they were chattel, tied to the land). They were subject to the vagaries and whims of the petty lords to whom they owed their rent and allegiance and had no right of movement without permission. In many areas peasants were still expected to seek permission from their lords in order to marry or engage in ther occupation beyond their farming.

Even in the cities, where industrialisation was slowly taking hold, there were few freedoms. A vast buraecracy and judiciary oversaw an oppressive governmental machine. There was no right to free speech, no right to assembly. Any published material had to be submitted to the censor who would either approve it or deny it. Striking workers or protesters against food shortages faced mounted soldiers with bayonets, and were on several occasions massacred.

Russia was a totalitarian state prior to the revolution and it was a totalitarian state after the revolution. There are those who suggest that Russia is once again heading towards totalitarianism this time under the name of democracy.

Soviet Russia was not totalitarian because it was a communist state, it was totalitarian because it was Russia. It was totalitarian because the revolution failed to undo the totalitarian nature of the state: instead they adapted many of the systems and mechanisms of the previous state and incorporated them into their 'communist' vision.

China also was a totalitarian state prior to its revolution.

Someone has already mentioned that Revolution is not the way to achieve democracy. Communism is a form of democracy (i.e the theory is based upon widening the democratic participation to include all citizens) therefore it can only truly exist if it has been arrived at through the building of consensus. In Russia that consensus was not built. Instead a relatively small number of people (the so-called 'vanguard') attempted to force the pace of change and speed up their progression towards what they believed was an inevitabe revolution (this idea that revolution is the inevitable consequence of capitalism and industrialisation was one of the many things they got wrong).

The revolutionaries attempted to force a top-down revolution with a middle class intellectual elite at it's head. In doing so they singularly failed to create a truly communist (and therefore democratic) state. All they did was swap one brand of totalitarian oppression for another.

Because they claimed themselves a communist state does not mean that they were a communist state.

The essence of Christian faith is a belief both in God and in Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. If I said to you " I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I do not believe that Jesus was his son" you would have a strong case for telling me I am mistaken in believing myself to be a Christian.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Within living memory of those peasants their status had been changed from property to person (they were chattel, tied to the land). They were subject to the vagaries and whims of the petty lords to whom they owed their rent and allegiance and had no right of movement without permission. In many areas peasants were still expected to seek permission from their lords in order to marry or engage in ther occupation beyond their farming.


Even in the cities, where industrialisation was slowly taking hold, there were few freedoms. A vast buraecracy and judiciary oversaw an oppressive governmental machine. There was no right to free speech, no right to assembly. Any published material had to be submitted to the censor who would either approve it or deny it. Striking workers or protesters against food shortages faced mounted soldiers with bayonets, and were on several occasions massacred.

Russia was a totalitarian state prior to the revolution and it was a totalitarian state after the revolution. There are those who suggest that Russia is once again heading towards totalitarianism this time under the name of democracy.

You present a claim that Russia was, is, and will (likely) be a totalitarian state, as though there is something in her people's makeup that causes it. However, what you wrote could equally be applied to every European country at that time; in fact, Russia in the 19th century was a leader in social reform. Debtor's prison was abolished and debts forgiven. Tax arrears for the poor were cancelled. In 1857, on Alexander II's birthday, he wished to release prisoners from prison, and there were no prisoners found in the fortress of Peter and Paul.

Serfdom wasn't an integral part of Russian culture; it didn't arrive until the 17th century, most likely from contact with European countries. Serfs could own their own land and sell things from it, and keep the profit. They were tied to the land, not to the owner. This doesn't justify the practice, but it was far less oppressive in Russia than in European countries. The imposition by Peter the 'Great' of a head tax on the male population that landlords, rather than the serfs, had to pay led to the practice of obrok wherein the serf paid the landlord his portion of head tax and was free to pursue other employment elsewhere.

From the end of the 18th century onwards, a movement had grown up to free the serfs. Many nobles unilaterally freed them, and in 1858 Tsar Alexander II emancipated the rest - without a civil war, and without a revolution.

Communism in Russia was certainly totalitarian. We disagree about the nature of communism, obviously. In every large-scale experiment, it has led to dictatorship and oppression. Given the absolute power of a centralized government that owns all wealth and redistributes it at will, and plans for the entire population, oppression will happen. The arguments against absolute monarchy run the same way. In theory, with a wise, just, compassionate monarch who chooses wise advisors, it would be a great system. In practice we've seen what happens when you add human nature to the equation. So, have we never seen an example of 'true' absolute monarchy? Perhaps, but we're not all clamoring to keep trying it, sure that next time it'll work. We've seen the pitfalls and they can't be overcome. I say the same about communism.

Soviet Russia was not totalitarian because it was a communist state, it was totalitarian because it was Russia.

This is a pretty insulting statement, and not true. Is it in human nature to desire oppression and dictatorship? Does the individual long to be the pawn and slave of the government? Russia embraced monarchy, as did European countries.

Communism is a form of democracy ...

Because they claimed themselves a communist state does not mean that they were a communist state.

The essence of Christian faith is a belief both in God and in Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. If I said to you " I am a Christian, I believe in God, but I do not believe that Jesus was his son" you would have a strong case for telling me I am mistaken in believing myself to be a Christian.

You have claimed repeatedly that communism is a form of democracy. Is there a statement or set of writings that explicitly declare this? For a Christian, the Nicene Creed summarizes the basic beliefs of the faith. You would indeed be able to tell me whether I was in agreement with the Statement of Faith. But communism doesn't seem as well defined. Could it be that you are wrong in thinking it's an essentially democratic process? The workers' committees and local participation that went on in Russia were the 'theory' of communism. They did exist. But the dictators that you deplore were actually necessary to implement the centralized power that communism requires. There's no other way that a central power could own everything, take everything, distribute everything, and control everything, always on behalf of 'the people'. Do you really think that intelligent people will vote for a regime that does this to them?

[orthodoc]

I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.

I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible. We can work to address the injustices we see, and be as compassionate and helpful as we are able, but a centrally planned ideal society is not possible. Leaving freedom to the individual allows for more of both good and bad; but at least the individual retains the ability and choice to pursue the one and address the other.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.

I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible. We can work to address the injustices we see, and be as compassionate and helpful as we are able, but a centrally planned ideal society is not possible. Leaving freedom to the individual allows for more of both good and bad; but at least the individual retains the ability and choice to pursue the one and address the other.

Very well expressed.

I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.
If you invent something, it is yours.
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.
The idea of communism is stupid.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I got too caught up in addressing specific points to return to my own main point. What is unacceptable, to me, about communism and left-wing politics is the desire to control others and suppress individual freedom.
...

Funny, I see conservatives as the repressive ones. Sure, there have been authoritarian regimes, both on the left and the right. But I don't think you can call Sweden, about as close to a socialist state as you can get, repressive. Northern Europe is described as wefare-states, and they are not repressive at all. Conservatives, on the other hand, want to tell:

a woman what she can do with her own body
what gender you can marry
who you can have sex with
when you can pull the plug on your wife who is in a consistent vegative state
you that you have to continue to live when you don't want to
you that you are not allowed to buy sex toys
you that you can't get high
you that you can legally discriminate against people
you that you have to pray in school (to their god)

Those are a lot of individual freedoms that they want to supress.

[Undertoad]

Well now I have to use the ridiculous, horrible, and totally unfair phrase "people like you". I apologize in advance.


Dana. This whole notion of "but they weren't Communist" would hold a lot more water with me if people like you had said it just once before 1989.

All during the preceding 7 decades, people like you were holding up the U.S.S.R. as a model for a fine, functioning Communist society.

People like you went there, were taken on official government tours and came back raving about how much better their Communist system was. They have a great educational system! They have zero unemployment! There is no homelessness! The people seem happier there!

Only after glasnost and the opening of the society did it come out... that Stalin had effectively murdered and starved and purged so many people, that nobody could tell whether it was 20 million or 30 million. It was the only way he could keep his country, it turned out. The shit had been hitting the fan all along.

Meanwhile China was figuring it out. Maybe it was the experience of having capitalist Hong Kong boom right before their eyes. The Communists implemented free market systems and wham, they started booming. The Indians denationalized their farm system and suddenly they had enough food. South Korea outgrew North Korea by double every year. Until it was way too obvious... Communism always was an abject failure resulting in the deaths of millions. And it still is. You can't provide us with a single example of its overall success. Where it is implemented, people usually end up dying.

Meanwhile one of the biggest problems in free market nations is obesity amongst the poor. I repeat, the poor are obese. If Marx had foreseen that, which of course he totally didn't, he would have thrown away his writer's quill and taken up accounting.

The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.

But I knew, in 1989, that people like you would start to say that this wasn't Communism. It was too much for the minds of people like you to face the total and obvious evidence. Nobody ever says "well that's it, I was wrong all along." There had to be another explanation. Up until 1989, those countries said they were Communist, you said they were Communist, we said they were Communist, everybody said they were Communist. The tag was proudly waved around and understood. So what the hell changed?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.

How about a woman who marries a guy, has two kids with him, and leaves him because he beat her repeatedly. The argument for capitalism is always to point out the lazy people who would take advantage of the system. If the least able, or laziest people are provide a mere subsistence lifestyle, who would choose to live like that voluntarily?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

If you invent something, it is yours.

Not in corporate America. Most companies force you to sign away the rights to anything you invent, while you are employed by that company. They own your invention.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.

Steal? Socialists don't steal. It's like living in a family. If your mother sat on her ass, and there's a storm, would she have to steal your wood, or would you offer it to her? Show some love.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The idea of communism is stupid.

The "idea" is not stupid, IMHO. The execution has been poor. I'm not one of those people who have to "have it all". There's a point where a comfortable life is enough - there no need for private jets and islands. After a comfortable lifestyle, I would forfeit my excess wealth to those who were truly in need.

rk, you, more than anyone, should feel that we are all one. Those in need suffering is the same as you suffering.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I don't think there is a perfect political system or society. Human nature is too corruptible.

That and people have a different idea of what is a theoretical perfect political system as shown here with libertarianism and social libertarianism.

Originally Posted by UT

The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.

The free market beat a heavily influenced state capitalist system, not a communist system. And communist system won't win a GDP contest with a free market system anyways, it focuses in other issues in the socio-economic spectrum that free market lacks.

That doesn't determine that the free market will win every time with economy either. I know a lot of people here don't like Venezuela, but their welfare state (social democracy) worked very well to keep their oil money in Venezuela so private enterprise could flourish. They might be moving towards democratic socialism if a change in the constitution get passed and that will be interesting to see what happens.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I think it is just silly to state that if you have two workers and one works harder and smarter than the other that you should not reward the worker that does better than the slacker.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

How about a woman who marries a guy, has two kids with him, and leaves him because he beat her repeatedly. The argument for capitalism is always to point out the lazy people who would take advantage of the system. If the least able, or laziest people are provide a mere subsistence lifestyle, who would choose to live like that voluntarily?

Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If you invent something, it is yours.

Not in corporate America. Most companies force you to sign away the rights to anything you invent, while you are employed by that company. They own your invention.

Only if you chose to sign the agreement in the first place for that job.
I have been working on an invention now. Some of it are registered now. Once it is done all of it will be mine. Why would I give it to anyone else?
I am the only person who invented it.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage
If I spend all week chopping wood and my neighbor sits on his ass and their is a storm he does not get to steal my wood.

Steal? Socialists don't steal. It's like living in a family. If your mother sat on her ass, and there's a storm, would she have to steal your wood, or would you offer it to her? Show some love.

If I give that is one thing. If someone takes without your permission it is stealing.

The "idea" is not stupid, IMHO. The execution has been poor. I'm not one of those people who have to "have it all". There's a point where a comfortable life is enough - there no need for private jets and islands. After a comfortable lifestyle, I would forfeit my excess wealth to those who were truly in need.

rk, you, more than anyone, should feel that we are all one. Those in need suffering is the same as you suffering.

You really don't know the difference between can't and won't?

There's a point where a comfortable life is enough

I am not ok saying that to someone else.
If they generate the income I am not ok stealing it. I am not ok dictating to others what is their level of "enough". My ego/hubris is not that large/complete.
To say "you only get what you need, fuck-off". This is why communist nations have to be prisons.
It is great that you would give what you don't need to others. I have always given a great deal of my time and much more percentage than the average of my income to charity. What I will never do is tell others that they HAVE to do it.
I believe in a flat-tax and some governmental regulation for those who CANNOT do for themselves.
For those who will not... nothing.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

People like you went there, were taken on official government tours and came back raving about how much better their Communist system was. They have a great educational system! They have zero unemployment! There is no homelessness! The people seem happier there!

Only after glasnost and the opening of the society did it come out... that Stalin had effectively murdered and starved and purged so many people, that nobody could tell whether it was 20 million or 30 million. It was the only way he could keep his country, it turned out. The shit had been hitting the fan all along.

So what the hell changed?

You answered your own question, what changed was our knowledge of what the system was like. They took communist foreigners on official government tours, through pretend neighborhoods and parts of moscow that were constructed and occupied by, effectively, actors. I've got Polaroids of them at my parents' house.

The borders of Russia were incredibly tight and hid their dirty laundry for decades. 'People like that' didn't know what it was really like before they started saying it wasn't communism. The kremlin simply tricked the rest of the world into thinking they were something else.

I was young, but when I lived in Berlin, my pops would bring some Russian military members around (he worked with the whole nuclear drawdown) and these people were amazed that we had more than one kind of coffee in the states. They were like kids in a candy shop. That, I think, was the first time it occured to many people that maybe it wasn't so great over there, because it was the first time anyone got a real look inside the borders.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The game is over, and free markets won. It was a blowout.

Depends on what you mean by 'won.' We made the most money, drive the most cars, and have the most guns. If that's the important thing than fuck yeah we won. But if you're more worried about the increasing wealth gap, if you're worried about the urban decay in a lot of major cities, if you're worried about consolidation of media, etc. I would say we defeated the enemy, but maybe we didn't 'win.'

Final point: Communism and socialism aren't going to happen by revolution and they're certainly not going to happen in a barely industrialized nation like early 20th century Russia (Which, I think, was Dana's point, not some ridiculous idea that the Russian people can't live free... that's something someone would use as an excuse to... maybe leave Iraq?). I think it's going to happen in a slow slide. In fact, the western world has been getting more and more welfare-ish and socialized this entire century. It's just that the US is a little further behind. I think it boils down to a 'me and mine' centered opinion that the states glorifies versus the 'everyone' mentality that is necessary for socialism.

And stop saying 'it's just human nature.' It's also just human nature to kill your opponents and take whatever woman you find most suitable. We've got strong evolutionary drives, but we can ignore/overpower them with enough practice. (and hey! in evolution, if we do that long enough, it won't be our nature any longer!) Saying 'oh, well, it's a nice idea but it's just not in keeping with our bad sides.' is maintaining the status quo. If we're not trying to build a better mousetrap every time, and trying to flaunt our good sides, why bother?