The Last Leg of Communism
![1.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmVpva8HirhMeyADyRaHB2HMJYpv5FwFFbXDhY5skdezZG/1.png)
The left is running out of ammo when it comes to justifying, rationally, logically, the case for Communism. I have wrote dozens of articles trying to debunk Communism as simply as possible, yet none of it seems to get through to people. Maybe I wasn't very articulate in my article or I went off long tangents and my audience couldn't follow my points. In any case, I am going to give an even simpler explanation to why Communism is horrible, so that we can bury it once and for all. And this explanation will be so simple that even a 3 year old will understand it.
After all the hardships and atrocities of the past 3 centuries, and really the disdain for the rich people that has been happening for the past few centuries, Communism was really the worst possible solution for it, and actually it created exactly what people feared the most, an omnipotent State controlled by the Elite. This is exactly the opposite of what the Marxists fought against. This is the problem.
Is Equality Natural?
First off, let's see whether if equality is natural. It is not. Nature is not designed for equality, Nature is like a random number generator that poops out all sorts of creatures: tall & short, black & white, smart & dumb, good & evil, etc....
Equality is not natural, it never was, never will be. We are governed by the laws of physics, which means that matter tends to gravitate toward itself, which means that you have huge inequality in the Cosmos, just look at the galaxy, you have billion of miles of empty space and then you have a massive Star or a Planet. That is not very equally distributed isn't it?
Then how the hell can you expect "equality" on Earth, if the Cosmos is so weirdly arranged. Nature simply just does not care about equality.
Is Equality Possible?
So equality is not natural. Is it possible? Yes, it is possible to create equality despite it being unnatural. But only through force.
You have 2 logs of trees, one short one long, the only way to make them equal is to cut the long one to the size of the short one. Of course you can't do the opposite, the short one will never be long.
So the strive for equality always happens through the lowest common denominator:
- You can't make a poor person rich, but you can steal from the rich and give it to the poor, that is the basic tenet isn't it?
Force & Violence?
So if force is the only way you can create equality, or perhaps the illusion of equality, that means that some entity has to coerce people to be equal. But the entity coercing it, has to be above it, to have enough power to coerce 7 billion people to the same standards. And of course those controlling the coercion will be the new ruling class, with omnipotent power.
VOLUNTARY COMMUNISM
Ok so after the atrocities committed by the Bolsheviks, Maoists and other "red factions" in the 20th century, including the Holodomor, the TOTALITARIAN TYRANNY, the Gulags, the mass shortages and starvations, basically more then 200 million people dead and more suffering to this day.....
There is only one myth that Communism stands on: "Voluntary Communism"
Basically by 2017, I guess most leftists condemn the atrocities committed by the "red factions" mentioned above. Maybe except of these scumbags who are still making jokes about genocides.
However, they still believe that a true classless Communism can be obtained by voluntary means, basically a grassroots revolution, where people will somehow cooperate, everyone will give up their private property voluntarily and start sharing everything, and we will have a Communist utopia and peace on Earth.
This is the last leg that this myth stands on, they truly believe that we will voluntarily give up everything and start sharing everything, which never in the history of humanity or perhaps in the history of the Universe has ever happened.
It becomes more like a delusional religion at this point, but if they truly believe in it, then it's no problem, everyone is free to believe in whatever they want.
The problem is that it won't be voluntary. As explained above, equality and voluntary are the opposite of eachother.
Nobody will voluntarily give up their property, nobody, not a single human. So they will start coercing people to do it.
The current rhetoric is this "Social Democracy" concept, which is basically a precursor to Socialism. But guess what, it's a freakin Government with 80% tax rates. It's not voluntary.
- So if their method is Statist & Authoritarian, then guess what, all the atrocities that the Bolsheviks have done will happen again, because it requires extreme amount of violence to coerce people to an unnatural way of life.
- If their method is voluntary, then it will never happen because people will never settle for an unnatural way of life.
So at this point the only question remains whether they are genuine about the "voluntary" part? Are they?
Well not if they are pushing for a Social Democracy that has 80% tax rates as more of Europe does. This will end up very very badly.
But even if there are voluntary leftist factions, how are they going to convince others to join if their promises are so unnatural? And what if they get tired of playing the peaceful game and start playing violently?
This is exactly what we are seeing in the USA where the "Anti-Fascists" are behaving exactly like the Fascists. Not a single hint towards peace and freedom.
Conclusion
So it looks to me like peace and freedom was never and will never be a goal of the left. Freedom means freedom to be left alone. If you are coercing others to pay for or participate in your shitty programs, that is not freedom.
Freedom is sovereignty, where you keep everything you earn. Communism is the opposite of freedom, you are forced to share everything.
In Communism you are a slave to a ruling class far worst than any Capitalist can be, who has near omnipotent powers now with 2017's technology, and who will control you like a pawn on a chessboard. You will have no free will, you will become just a pawn at the mercy of your Politburo.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
This is you, exactly, except on the opposite end of the spectrum. (BTW, "the left" doesn't advocate Communism, the far left does just like the far right advocates anarcho-capitalism.)
We had this discussion weeks ago, where voluntaryism only works if everyone decides not to use force against each other. Except that's exactly as likely as everyone voluntarily giving up everything and sharing everything. In fact, it's exactly the same!
Communism doesn't work for exactly the same reasons voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. Believing either does comes down to the same near-religious conviction against all evidence.
You are dishonestly conflating voluntarism with pacifism, it's not the same thing, it's not even in the same category, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
On the scale of force/violence:
So when you are talking about "CEO work camps" and how the evil capitalists will enslave us, that is nonsense. Do you realize that people should or ought to have the right to defend themselves, their family and their property against illegitimate aggressors. And we went over this, you can't own property and be owned by others. So people are either sovereign or slaves, there is no gray area.
Capitalism is the only method that gives sovereignty to people, Communism and the entire left direction, even the so called moderates that you are talking about, are the antithesis of that.
So it's pretty easy to figure out from which direction the winds of slavery is blowing....
No, I'm not. You were the one to state that no anarchic country has lasted because someone always comes in and takes over right away.
If government went away, in the US you'd have the KKK deciding it was time to commit ethnic cleansing, the Dominionists deciding it was time to set up a theocracy, and corporations with more money than some countries that could set up their own mercenary forces to control areas.
When governments collapse you don't get voluntaryism, you get warlords vying for power.
Voluntaryism then depends on all these groups deciding not to try and be the ones in control so they can have all the wealth and advantages of power. This is exactly the same as how communism would work if people didn't stack the system to have all the advantages of wealth and power.
Capitalism doesn't give sovereignty to anyone, it just gives power to those with the most money.
No I did not, I said that no pacifists society has lasted since it either got wiped out or taken over by an agressive tribe.
Yes that is true, that is why liberty has to be constructed first in the legal confines that we have today. I agree that removing the Government now would be equal to taking away the drugs from a drug addict zombie, it will cause more harm that good.
However some of the reckless spendings has to be stopped, taxes need to be lowered, and slowly but steadily liberty has to be brought back.
You get the same inside the Government. But if people had the means to defend themselves against this warlord tribalist events, then we would not be in this position in the first place.
Perhaps technology can find a way.
It does.
Farmers in the USA are trying to claim allodial title for their farmland. That is sovereignty, at least partial until of course the taxes and other nasty things go away.
That is literally the opposite of collectivized farming, where everyone is a serf of the State.
:-) :-) Love it , to disagree with you !!
Freedom is an illusion , certainly in the Capitalistic West.
We are debt slaves and in our society we don't have another choice.
Indeed there are some rare exceptions , but this is a small minority.
Freedom is diminishing exactly because of this collectivist mentality.
We are debt slaves but most of our wealth is extorted by exorbitant amounts of taxes, in Europe up to 80%, in so called "Social Democracies". Most of the public debt is funded by these taxes.
Most of the government spending in Europe goes for Social Security, which is a literal ponzi scheme, and for healthcare, which is very badly organized and wastes a lot of resources while barely helping people. In some cases you have to wait 5 months for a surgery. That is not a good way to organize it.
It is collectivism, and that mostly comes from the left these days as nationalism is not that popular anymore.
I am from the beautiful city Belgium , according to Trump. (stadsmanneke means little city fellow).
We have a great social security , social healthcare etc. for many years.
Everything is in hyperinflation here , especially taxes.
All those social "things" have always been here.
Government is always looking for money , 3 - 4 billions a year now for closing the gap in budgeting.
They blame unemployed and sick people for this , because this is what the displeased working man likes to hear. ( 100 millions to max a few billion € , right!)
But in 2008 , there was a devastating financial crisis.
We had a bank called Dexia , which had to be bailed-out.
Total price tag , over 1000 billion , don't have to pay all , I know.
But silenty, this is a leak , still now , from over several billions a year.
Imo this is the main reason for those exorbitant amounts of taxes.
Remarkable but collective memory only lasts for 10 years.
And it's all coming back as a boomerang , gaining momentum.
But must say , I agree with most of what you say. :-))
The whole world is a ponzi-scheme !
And I didn't even mention the other banks.
Good post.
The biggest problem with the left are their (purposely) strange word definitions. Freedom for example is not seen as to be free of something, but freedom of scarcity. That's a whole different thing and - as usually - ends up in a society that looks like a prison.
If you want to crack the left with arguments, you have to crack their wording first and make sure you and everyone else knows what they mean with what they say.
Except no, that's not true at all.
The left very much wants freedom on a social level, and that should be obvious to anyone that hasn't been brainwashed by the alt-right. That's why the left fights for gay marriage, legalized marijuana and is pro-choice in terms of abortion.
The only freedom I can see the "right" caring about is "freedom from taxes" which is really just a fancy way of saying they don't want to contribute to society. Oh, they also care about freedom of speech, but only when it's people advocating fascism and genocide.
The "alt-right" had nothing to do with that, it was more the "classic communists" of Eastern Germany who will openly admit that for them freedom means freedom from scarcity. Todays progressives are just useful idiots, not worth being discussed and let me give you the prove for that before you start whining around:
Todays progressive left supports gay rights AND the right to Islamic legal procedures in the West. That's a contradiction, especially since they apparently abandon gays in favor of Muslims (lol), at least that's the case in Germany, where the gay community starts shifting to those "alt right Nazis" of the AfD, where one of the party leaders is a lesbian.
The classic left by the way got this one right: They were and still are against Islam (just ask Enver Hoxher).
No, sorry, no one supports Islamic legal procedures in the West.
Instead, we fear Christian legal procedures.
But keep listening to those alt-right news sources! They're so accurate!
no one? Not even one leftwing politician somewhere in the West..
Question: Who is this?
Aww how cute, you're reduced to using semantics against me.
Sure, a single prominent Muslim who made a couple pro-Sharia law comments is totally the same as "the left" advocating Sharia law.
In exactly the same way you're a Nazi because Richard Spencer gives speeches about how we need to cleanse non-whites from the United States.
Her name is Chebly and she was working in Germany's foreign ministery under a social democrat minister who is now Germany's president. Currently Chebly works for the city of Berlin on I believe Integration matters. Get it? In Berlin the left made a Sharia supremacist boss of the integration department .
And then there is Frau Özguz. Ever heard of her? Also Social Democrat who is Merkels Integration boss. According to her there is no such thing as a German culture and she thinks it's Germans fault when migrants rape their women. She also has twin brothers who are known Islamists and who run the Islamist website Muslim-Markt.
Do you need more?
No, I don't need more propaganda or attempts to blow things out of proportion.
Literally the only thing holding the Right together is a manufactured hatred of liberals. So of course you have a couple cherry picked examples, but one idiot saying Sharia law is compatible with Germany's existing laws is not "Liberals supporting Sharia law."
Do you want to do a comparison of Conservatives espousing white supremacy for comparison? Because we both know that list would be much longer.
Or do you define "freedom" as "the freedom to get rid of an entire race of people?"
In fact, looking into it more it sounds like she received a lot of criticism from within her party for her remarks. It's almost like the left doesn't like the idea of Sharia law.
which is why she got sacked.. oh no, wait. She got promoted to a position with less public exposure.
here's another one: Federica Mogherini from the Italian PD (sic!) who is currently running the foreign affairs bueraucrazy in Brussels and who once actually said:
"I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture." and just in case you like "context", here's the rest of the paragraph (I added the bold stuff):
"Religion plays a role in politics – not always for good, not always for bad. Religion can be part of the process. What makes the difference is whether the process is democratic or not."
I'll leave the interpretation to you. Just so much: When 51% of the population are in favor of Sharia for everyone, then there will be Sharia for everyone.
So what you're saying is you're against the freedom for people to choose what laws they live under?
I am not sure what you are tryin to say, they do want a post-scarcity world since they think that Capitalism is caused by scarcity. Of course this never happens as literally in any leftist country you can see you always have scarcity and shortages. Only Capitalism creates abundance.
But it takes a lot of balls to blame your own ideology's faults on your enemy ideology, that is the culmination of propaganda.
By the way sophistry is the art of the left, they never explain things to you directly, they always use euphemisms , redefine words and appeal to emotion rather than reason.
When they say we will have a socialist worker's utopia, what they mean is that we will all be equal slaves in a concentration camp.
Exactly what shortages do you have in your leftist country again?
When anarcho-capitalists say we will have a capitalist utopia, what they mean is we will all be slaves in some CEO's work camp.
Venezuela, Cuba, and the list goes on. All leftist countries have massively destroyed their own economy.
I said yourcountry. I know you're in one of the Scandinavian ones, and all of those are more left than the US so please tell me what shortages you are facing in your leftist country.
And the ones you named are under sanctions and trade embargoes right? But I guess you think that has no effect?
Great post. I'm Following. Please follow me...
Loads of information. Many thanks. Love it. @profitgenerator Followed
When talking to people on the left about the evils of communism, you need to use emotional language. A rational discussion has no effect on them.
They have chosen (deep down) to place feelings as more important then thinking. (of course this is pretty similar to using your left hand or your right hand)
Their thoughts go, I see a person hurting, and I want them not to suffer, so someone must come and help them. Communists say they are going to help all the people. Thus, communism is good.
Communes do work though. I guess the biggest thing is being able to leave is what makes a voluntary commune work. Communes however, usually fall apart when their leader dies or they fall on hard times.
In our future where "stuff" will be mostly free, then our world will look a lot like communism. Or maybe it will like like super-duper-capitalism. It will be hard to tell the difference.
I am just trying to connect the dots. They have been trying to distance themselves from the red's of the 20th century but I can guarantee you that any new aspirations towards Communism will end the same way.
These people have no idea of game theory and how people make choices under different circumstances. Private property is not just a fancy modern way of organizing society, it is literally a life and death question from a point of evolution. Capitalism is natural selection itself, this is how humans became what they are. If Communism had been implemented 10,000 years ago at the last Ice Age, then Humanity would have gone extinct.
After you realize that all attempts at Communism have failed miserably and have created atrocities, then you can highlight the kind of atrocities they have committed. Like having child labor camps in the Soviet Union, or the Gulags where people froze to death and had to eat dirt and feces to survive. Those kinds of things....
Communes don't work either. I have seen literal examples of this. They say that Communism works on small scale, but I disagree even with this. I have even wrote an article about this:
It has to be consistent. It either works entirely, or it doesnt work at all. There is no magic threshold number that says that from now on it doesnt work, but before it there is a utopia.
Most of the times even the minimum threshold which is 2, like a marriage, doesn't work. Only if it's voluntary and based on clear property rights, like no common householde budget, and things like that that make the marriage more voluntary and less exploitive.
There is no equality between animals, But Ranks,
We Humans Think of Equality because we possess intelligence
Very good article
Keep it up
This account is marred by the absence of a nuanced definition of 'equality'. In current political theory, the term has several meanings and no doubt some fresh one could usefully be concocted. It's a bit better on 'freedom' with 'Freedom is sovereignty, where you keep everything you earn.' Unfortunately, under present conditions in which the systemic tendency to monopolies concentrates wealth in the hands of very few, an imbalance in the distribution of power also occurs. This results in freedom being used to curtail freedom. The exclusive valuing of freedom is just as utopian as the exclusive valuing of equality.
The use of the term 'natural' doesn't explain anything either.