Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

whydoievenreply t1_jdbwvlw wrote

Reply to comment by jordanmc3 in As Cuba election day nears, some voters ask, 'why bother?' by Newgripper1221

The main problem is that people like you are unaware of anarchism. You have fallen for the Bolsheviks' propaganda that what they were doing is communism.

We can have a discussion on the merits of these systems but it seems most reactionary are wilfully locked in "they said they are socialist/communist therefore they are" as if the only requirement for these systems is that you self identify as such and never mind about changing anything.

Another deeply stupid idea that is widely accepted by these people which I am sure is profoundly insincere, is the idea that government ownership of companies results in socialism/communism and ownership of companies by private individuals is capitalism.

This gross oversimplification misses the point that if the material conditions of the workers remain the same, you just changed one capitalist boss for another. If tomorrow the company I work for is sold or taken over by the government, nothing really would change for me.

If we can have those two points clear, then we can have an honest discussion about socialism/communism. Or we can just throw feces at each other in typical Reddit fashion.

−4

jordanmc3 t1_jddu9r9 wrote

That just sounds like an overwrought way of saying “real communism has never been tried.”

5

whydoievenreply t1_jddy5bk wrote

Some people can only argue this subject by falling prey to the two points I made.

Which is pointless, time consuming, annoying, when they don't listen. Kind of what you are doing right now.

0

jordanmc3 t1_jdeednf wrote

I generally get what you're saying; that when the government seizes the means of production and runs it for the benefit of themselves and their cronies, that's really no different than capitalists owning the means of production, and that isn't how communism is supposed to work. In its true manifestation it would be largely stateless. So you're saying that I'm arguing in bad faith when I attribute the conditions of Cuba or say the former USSR to communism.

However I think its equally bad faith to always resort to that argument any time the outcome of an example of communism is examined. If it was possible to implement an ideologically pure version of communism successfully, someone, somewhere, would have have done it in the past 175 years.

2

whydoievenreply t1_jdemk7b wrote

Now this is something I can work with.

Thanks for letting me know your thought process.

The reason why you can't examine an example of communism is because it was conceived as an utopian ideal society, therefore there could never be any examples of it in reality.

I think we are both in agreement that communism cannot be implemented. I also think we are in agreement that government tyranny is a bad thing. Putting those two things together, we can conclude that a government trying to achieve communism can only lead to disaster and that has more to do with the inherent tyranny of the government than with the idea itself.

However, there is one point I would like to raise. Socialism, unlike communism, can actually be implemented. A society based on cooperation instead of competition. Catalonia was an example of a successful yet short lived socialist society. I would argue that anthropologically speaking that has been the norm throughout history. The system brought about by capitalism is what is unnatural. Where workers are alienated from themselves and their work.

0

professordantae t1_jdfin45 wrote

Didn’t Catalonia last for like 4 months under that economic system? I’m skeptical because I’ve never seen an example of a strictly socialist economy working. Mixed economies, sure, but not full blown socialist.

1

whydoievenreply t1_jdge4kx wrote

It lasted 3 years. There are plenty of accounts of the situation there if you are interested in the history.

1

professordantae t1_jdge7yq wrote

I’ll read up on it. I’m a political scientist but will admit have not studied that specific period extensively.

1

HistoricalInstance t1_jdurnyr wrote

Anarcho-syndicalism and communism are different things, though both equally nonsensical.

1

whydoievenreply t1_jdv6cjm wrote

I never said they were the same thing. I highly doubt you have any reasonable argument for why anarcho syndicalism is nonsensical.

1

HistoricalInstance t1_jdvaol9 wrote

It’s the same argument you see people make for anarcho-capitalism. Same issues, only that socialists are afraid of admitting that anarchy in general simply doesn’t work (on a scale that would represent modern countries).

First off, how do you prevent people from returning to a capitalist society, forming their own states or even ensure the core idea of equal distribution? What do you do when some start working more, produce desirable items and thus accumulate more wealth than others? As soon as you start using force to prevent these things, you’ve created a state and are back to square one.

Anarchy is only feasible amongst likeminded people, but the broader society is anything but likeminded. So the solution to this issue usually is “educating” the people (which doesn’t work, as Atatürk’s failed attempt of educating his country in liberal democracy demonstrated) or killing them (which I unironically saw being suggested here on Reddit), since that’s somehow “the lesser evil”?!

1

whydoievenreply t1_jdx0mje wrote

>First off, how do you prevent people from returning to a capitalist society, forming their own states or even ensure the core idea of equal distribution?

By virtue of people having better lives. They won't want to go back to wage slavery.

>What do you do when some start working more, produce desirable items and thus accumulate more wealth than others?

Nothing. You are free to accumulate as much wealth as you want.

If these answers were not the ones you've expected, may I suggest for your own personal edification and intellectual nourishment to go and read as much as possible with regards to anarcho syndicalism.

You seem to be operating under a series of misconceptions.

1

[deleted] t1_jdc2xy0 wrote

[deleted]

−1

whydoievenreply t1_jdci425 wrote

I see you have chosen the throwing feces route.

All of your questions have reasonable answers, but to be honest your comment comes across as unhinged and confrontational. That puts me off from continuing to respond to you.

−4