Social Equality and Communism

[UltimateCyprien]

Is social equality realistic in a communistic regime, it seems paradoxal to me. Equality in a communistic society indicates that there is no true hierarchie, yet there is (often) a leader who controls things and has seemingly unlimited power...

Discuss.

[UltimateCyprien]

Is this the wrong website for discussing politics, why is no one responding?

[AapoJoki]

At 11/25/06 02:43 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Is social equality realistic in a communistic regime, it seems paradoxal to me. Equality in a communistic society indicates that there is no true hierarchie, yet there is (often) a leader who controls things and has seemingly unlimited power...

Yeah, that's fundamentally what went wrong with communism. The paradox is: in order to create a society without a ruling class, the communist party must become the ruling class. This isn't true communism, but it's the only thing people have tried.

True communism would have to rely entirely on voluntary participation. Everyone contributes as much as they can to the society, and the society gives them everything they need in return. However, due to our nature as humans, it may be impossible for an entire society to acquire such wide-spread universal altruism, even though that would be the benefit of every member of that society. No society (in humans at least) is intelligent enough to achieve that. (An ant colony, for example, is where such a system does work.) Because there's always someone who will try to take advantage of the system, some governing body must be created in order to uphold and control the productivity of the system. Sadly, when this happens, the idea of the entire system is destroyed, because eventually it is this body itself that becomes the massive, corrupted abuser.

[UltimateCyprien]

At 11/25/06 03:41 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 11/25/06 02:43 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Is social equality realistic in a communistic regime, it seems paradoxal to me. Equality in a communistic society indicates that there is no true hierarchie, yet there is (often) a leader who controls things and has seemingly unlimited power...

Yeah, that's fundamentally what went wrong with communism. The paradox is: in order to create a society without a ruling class, the communist party must become the ruling class. This isn't true communism, but it's the only thing people have tried.

True communism would have to rely entirely on voluntary participation. Everyone contributes as much as they can to the society, and the society gives them everything they need in return. However, due to our nature as humans, it may be impossible for an entire society to acquire such wide-spread universal altruism, even though that would be the benefit of every member of that society. No society (in humans at least) is intelligent enough to achieve that. (An ant colony, for example, is where such a system does work.) Because there's always someone who will try to take advantage of the system, some governing body must be created in order to uphold and control the productivity of the system. Sadly, when this happens, the idea of the entire system is destroyed, because eventually it is this body itself that becomes the massive, corrupted abuser.

I wonder if a certain form of communism could become integrated into a capitalistic society so that money is no longer the main priority but the inhabitants are. If a communistic system and a capitalistic one is combined, with the right theories and such, then it should be more humane and less centered on greed.

[fahrenheit]

At 11/25/06 04:04 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: with the right theories and such, then it should be more humane and less centered on greed.

Theres the problem, theoritically it could work but you would need 100% participation. And you couldnt do that without force, which is what led to a few massacres.

[Neoptolemus]

The thing is for a true communist society to exist there has to be no one in charge. At first it is wise to have a form of dictator in charge in order to weed out any problems but this person must stand down and publically state that they are now completely equal..

Technically speaking the only way to have a true communist state is to have an anarchist society.

[EZ3]

They had leaderless communism during the spanish civil war, read about it.

And I don't neccessarily think a leader implies social inequality. As long as the leader doesn't indulge in more luxury then the common people, then isn't that class equality?

[MoralLibertarian]

Who the hell wants social equality anyway?

[AapoJoki]

At 11/25/06 05:25 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Who the hell wants social equality anyway?

Those who want to live in 100% stability and security and want to ensure the survival of our species.

[Neoptolemus]

At 11/25/06 05:57 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 11/25/06 05:25 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Who the hell wants social equality anyway?

Those who want to live in 100% stability and security and want to ensure the survival of our species.

You also can't forget those who want to live in a world where "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others"

[KingCharles]

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

At 11/25/06 03:26 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Is this the wrong website for discussing politics

Fuck yea it is bitch!

[AapoJoki]

At 11/25/06 07:57 PM, KingCharles wrote: Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

I don't understand what he means with that. "Putting freedom before equality", what does that mean in practise?

[Draconias]

At 11/25/06 08:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 11/25/06 07:57 PM, KingCharles wrote: Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

I don't understand what he means with that. "Putting freedom before equality", what does that mean in practise?

Not creating a government like the USSR or any of the Communist governments so far which took away almost all freedom from the people to ensure that no one managed to become greater than any other, and invested that power in a ruling elite who controlled everyone's action.

Or in other words, attempt to do what America has done for the most part.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 11/25/06 08:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 11/25/06 07:57 PM, KingCharles wrote: Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

I don't understand what he means with that. "Putting freedom before equality", what does that mean in practise?

Freedom is to do whatever you want whenever you want, as long as you're not directly hurting your neighbor. Obstructing a person's right to start a business or work for a private company (communism/socialism) will ultimately end up an inherently inequal society, where the state controls the wealth and the people control nothing.

[Begoner]

At 11/25/06 07:57 PM, KingCharles wrote: Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

An economy which is controlled by all the people in a democratic environment is more free than one that is controlled in extremely large part by the rich (the richest 500 people in the world control 99% of the wealth, for example, and get to decide to how allocate resources). A communist society has a greater measure of both freedom and equality -- by all rights, Friedman should have been a communist if he believed in what he preached.

And, for the record, Stalinism is definitely not communism in any sense of the word.

[Slizor]

Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureat economist, put is this way:

"The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both."

And he's now dead, shows you what he knew.

[SomeNick]

At 11/25/06 02:43 PM, UltimateCyprien wrote: Is social equality realistic in a communistic regime, it seems paradoxal to me. Equality in a communistic society indicates that there is no true hierarchie, yet there is (often) a leader who controls things and has seemingly unlimited power...

Discuss.

Capitalism is also a big piece of shit. Huge companies take over everything and there is nothing else for anyone else.

[Begoner]

Obstructing a person's right to start a business or work for a private company (communism/socialism) will ultimately end up an inherently inequal society, where the state controls the wealth and the people control nothing.

In an ideal communist society, the state, which controls some of the wealth, is completely controlled by the people. In reality, this creates a society which is intrinsically more equal than its capitalist counterpart, where a few elites control staggeringly large portions of the wealth and have the power to dictate the country's agenda. Also, communist doesn't obstruct the person's right to start a business; however, it only gives the right to start a business to those who hold the appropriate public office. Just like in the US, some actions which don't hurt anybody are still the sole prerogative of the government. I'm not claiming that the US isn't free just because I can't send a criminal to jail or raise the minimum wage whenever I fancy; similarly, a communist society isn't not free simply because a citizen can't start a business whenever they please.

[RedSkunk]

I don't know if absolute social equality is manageable, but relative economic equality is..

But in either case, communism is an economy system, if I'm not mistaken, and I don't really think it's the place of an economic system to dictate social status. But social status comes partially as a result of the system (ie., wealth and higher social standing), so it would follow that status as a result of great wealth would be negligible in a communist system.

So what was the question? Is social equality a realistic outcome in a communist society? Well, yes, absolutely. Or at least, in comparison to liberal market societies.

[GameCrazed]

All Animals Are Equal

But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

[KingCharles]

At 11/26/06 11:45 AM, Begoner wrote:
In an ideal communist society, the state, which controls some of the wealth, is completely controlled by the people.

Idiot. That's an IDEAL communist state. In every single instance when somebody tried to create one, things turned to SHIT and a whole bunch of people died. The people left alive lived in squalor.

Lets see: Russia and the rest of the Soviet Block, Cuba, North Korea, China... Need I go on? They all suck to live in, for the most part.

i find in incredibly odd and hypocricital that although every Communist Revolution preaches "equality" and "justice," when they eventually take over, they kill everybody who opposes them. Odd no?

Don't give me your pathetic excuses about "Oh, those people didn't get the system right! If they had done it this way, instead, they would have succeeded."

WRONG.

Bottom line, the system FAILS. EVERY TIME. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. So CAN IT WITH YOUR THEORIES. Humanity doesn't work IN THEORY. It works in the REAL WORLD, not your pathetic and unoriginal imagination.

[Begoner]

Idiot. That's an IDEAL communist state. In every single instance when somebody tried to create one, things turned to SHIT and a whole bunch of people died. The people left alive lived in squalor.

To prove how communism failed, you're citing examples of non-communist states. How does that prove your point? There are numerous examples of the failures of capitalism -- look at how many African and Asian countries have a large percentage of their population living in squalor. Does that disprove capitalism? Certainly not. There are various economic systems which can be broadly encompassed by terms such as "capitalist" or "communist." A "communist" state of my liking has not yet come to pass; you cannot show its presumed failures by referencing Stalinist states; it makes no sense whatsoever. Similarly, I cannot claim that capitalism is flawed by pointing out some extremely poor capitalist states; what really needs to be examined and scrutinized is the basis of the ideology.

[KingCharles]

At 11/26/06 06:00 PM, Begoner wrote:

To prove how communism failed, you're citing examples of non-communist states....

Wow, you must have a degree in Bullshit. All the countries cited had explicitly communist revolutions, depite the end result. The point is, they TRIED to attain your ideal communistic state, and they all failed.

You have a logical fallacy: because the nations failed, you assume they did it wrong. You never stop to wonder if the system itself is poorly designed, and they were destined to fail in the first place.

Why don't you give me a detailed explanation of how your ideal society would work? Then I can tell you that you're an idiot in more specific terms.

[Begoner]

Wow, you must have a degree in Bullshit. All the countries cited had explicitly communist revolutions, depite the end result.

No, they had revolutions which the power structure deemed "communist." However, by strictly looking at the definition of communism, such a label would be found inappropriate. Unless everyone had equal power and wealth, it was not communism. The powerful always manipulate the poor and working class -- in this case, the leaders of the Comintern tricked the revolutionaries into thinking that they were fighting for a worker's utopia when, in fact, they were doing no such thing. They were simply replacing one set of corrupt rulers with another. A real communist state never transpired because those in power are unwilling to be deprived of it.

[KingCharles]

At 11/26/06 06:45 PM, Begoner wrote:
A real communist state never transpired because those in power are unwilling to be deprived of it.

If that is so, one never will.

Have you read 1984? There is one part in that book that is supposed to be an excerpt from another book. It gives a very insightful explanation on how such "proletarian revolutions" really work:

There are three classes: The Upper, the Middle, and the Lower. The bottom two classes both wish to be at the top, and the top wishes to stay where it is. A revolution is when the Middle class tricks the Lower class into helping them overthrow the Upper class, making the Middle the new Upper, and the Upper the new Middle. Meanwhile, the Lower is thrust back to where it was before: the bottom.

The moral is that society will never EVER be inherently equal.

[JakeHero]

At 11/26/06 06:00 PM, Begoner wrote: There are numerous examples of the failures of capitalism -- look at how many African and Asian countries have a large percentage of their population living in squalor.

You're fucking kidding me? I don't of any African states that are capitalist and the only two asians countries that haven't had a communist revolution are Taiwan and Thailand. The rest are socialist shitholes or communist as they claim themselves.

[Begoner]

You're fucking kidding me?

Currently, many African countries have reverted to socialism because of the capitalist exploitation of their economies.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep99/warc apaf.html

[JakeHero]

At 11/26/06 07:18 PM, Begoner wrote: Currently, many African countries have reverted to socialism because of the capitalist exploitation of their economies.

Yeah, genocide, more poverty and increasing starvation is a fine step-up from exploitation.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/sep99/warc apaf.html

Whether you realize it or not, the title of this website kinda hinders in credibility it may have.

[KingCharles]

At 11/26/06 07:18 PM, Begoner wrote:
Currently, many African countries have reverted to socialism because of the capitalist exploitation of their economies.

I hate to break it to you, but 98% of Africa is a shithole, "capitalist" or not. The only decent place in the whole continent is South Africa.

BTW, that website is biased from the start. Come on, "socialism" is in the title, for fuck's sake! Of COURSE it's going to be critical of capitalism.