• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Stalin destroyed communism

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Marxism proposes a necessary contradiction: a conflict between social classes (aka the Haves and the Have-Nots).
But this conflict is not necessary. So he begins his reasoning with a false premise. If you start with a false premise, then you can prove anything you want.
Of course conflict is not necessary. By Hegelian understanding (and in this context, Marx was very much a Hegelian) the conflict only arises between two parties that are at an equal level; the conflict ends when one side is either destroyed, or submits.

For most of history, the Have Nots have submitted to the Haves, thus eliminating the need for conflict. According to Marx, that conflict only arises when that order becomes unstable, when the economic underpinnings destabilize the social order and move Haves and Have Nots into conflict.

For example, the Industrial Revolution subverted the economic dominance of aristocracy, and destabilized the feudal order to the point where the commoners came into conflict with the aristocracy - and through that conflict, a new political and social order arose, where Haves and Have Nots were not determined by birthright, but by the question whether they owned capital and could afford to hire others to work for them.


Do you agree with Marx that the entire history of society is the history of class struggles? Do you see history as a series of conflicts between Haves and Have-Nots?
I do not believe that it is "the entire history", of course.
People have struggled for all sorts of reasons (for a long time, Nature and the elements were at least as formidable an opponent of humanity as humanity itself), and conflicts of interests can occur regardless of social class (for example, one could argue that the majority of historical conflict has been conflict between different factions of Haves).

But I do think it was important for someone to point out that such a conflict exists and lies at the core of our society's economic makeup.

Cue 150 years of unnecessary conflict, strife, and misery. Because the theory demands that such a conflict must exist, it brings it into being wherever the idea propagates.
You seem to believe that Marx or Marxism are the originators of class struggle, when the historical record shows that Haves and Have-Nots have been in conflict long before Marx was even born.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I do not believe that it is "the entire history", of course.

Very good. It's not even that much of the history of society. TBH, it's a very small part.

You seem to believe that Marx or Marxism are the originators of class struggle

Marx believed the history of society was a history of class struggle. This point is fundamental to his theory. You don't get communism unless there is a conflict between social classes. This is why he believed communism was inevitable.

It's good that we can agree that Marx's fundamental premise of class conflict is simply not true.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
That's not what I said. I said that I do not think all conflicts in history are class conflicts.

Marx said that the entire history of society was a history of class struggle (conflict). So I don't understand you when you say, on the one hand, that, of course you don't believe that, but, on the other hand, that you don't disagree with Marx.

Marx's theory requires the existence of a class struggle.
According to Marxism, private ownership of the means of production is the cause of Class Struggle which leads to a revolt of the worker class which leads to public ownership of the means of production.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Marx said that the entire history of society was a history of class struggle (conflict). So I don't understand you when you say, on the one hand, that, of course you don't believe that, but, on the other hand, that you don't disagree with Marx.

Marx's theory requires the existence of a class struggle.
According to Marxism, private ownership of the means of production is the cause of Class Struggle which leads to a revolt of the worker class which leads to public ownership of the means of production.
I disagree with Marx over the idea that history is dominated by class struggle.

I do not disagree with Marx over the idea that class struggle is a fact, or that it is necessary to bring about a communist society, because I find his arguments a lot more plausible than your premise that modern capitalist society exists in harmony with itself.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I disagree with Marx over the idea that history is dominated by class struggle.

I do not disagree with Marx over the idea that class struggle is a fact, or that it is necessary to bring about a communist society, because I find his arguments a lot more plausible than your premise that modern capitalist society exists in harmony with itself.

I agree that a capitalist society doesn't necessarily exist in harmony with itself.
A monopoly isn't obviously against the principle of capitalism. But a persistent monopoly is a social-economic problem because it prevents social mobility from occurring.
A healthy and harmonious society prevents monopolies from dominating. However, capitalism does not advocate class warfare and communism (in it's modern form) does.
Why do you find Class Conflict to be more plausible than Class Harmony?

The concept of a necessary Class Struggle plagues Communism to this day and undermines it from within. How can Communism ever purport to elevate society as long as it advocates class warfare?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I agree that a capitalist society doesn't necessarily exist in harmony with itself.
A monopoly isn't obviously against the principle of capitalism. But a persistent monopoly is a social-economic problem because it prevents social mobility from occurring.
Competition produces its own socio-economic problem, because the drive to maximize profit will drive competing capitalists to reduce labor costs as much as is feasible, thus directly impacting the livelihood of the working class in a negative manner.

A healthy and harmonious society prevents monopolies from dominating. However, capitalism does not advocate class warfare and communism (in it's modern form) does.
Why do you find Class Conflict to be more plausible than Class Harmony?
Because class conflict does not need to be "advocated", it is a simple fact of life. Capital and labor are fundamentally at odds by virtue of the capitalist economic structure: The capitalist controls the means of production, and that control transfers to all rights to the product of such industry, whereas the working class is literally powerless to be anything but the cogwheel in capitalist production, with no rights to the fruits of their labor (because labor has no fruits), no rights to control of the means by which to produce their product (because control transfers from capital, not labor), and no rights to even control their own work (because they consigned their work to capitalist control when they agreed to a wage).

The entire economic system works by having the majority populating sell its time to capitalists so these can then use that time to churn our product for consumption which they control and distribute at their own leisure, and for their sole benefit.

Even if class harmony was a worthy goal, you would have to address this massive power imbalance between capital and labor. Why would capitalists give up that power imbalance? Why would they forgo profits for the sake of workers? Why would they advocate for labor rights or social welfare measures that limit their own control? What interests do the workers have in their continued powerlessness in the face of capital, in foregoing all rights to control production or product?

You are welcome to make your argument why you think we should live in class harmony, or why you think class harmony can be achieved without conflict, but you would have to address the elephant in the room, i.e. the capitalist economic system, and why you think it can be worked into a compromise that benefits both parties to the extent that they would both want to change the current system for the better.

The concept of a necessary Class Struggle plagues Communism to this day and undermines it from within. How can Communism ever purport to elevate society as long as it advocates class warfare?
Because beneficial change will not come from people who benefit from the current system. It will only come from people who are dissatisfied with the way things are currently working.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
Competition produces its own socio-economic problem, because the drive to maximize profit will drive competing capitalists to reduce labor costs as much as is feasible, thus directly impacting the livelihood of the working class in a negative manner.

Except that that doesn't necessarily happen. In a capitalist society people can go work for someone else who will pay them what they are actually worth. So the problem isn't private ownership, the problem is monopoly.

Because class conflict does not need to be "advocated", it is a simple fact of life. Capital and labor are fundamentally at odds by virtue of the capitalist economic structure: The capitalist controls the means of production, and that control transfers to all rights to the product of such industry, whereas the working class is literally powerless to be anything but the cogwheel in capitalist production, with no rights to the fruits of their labor (because labor has no fruits), no rights to control of the means by which to produce their product (because control transfers from capital, not labor), and no rights to even control their own work (because they consigned their work to capitalist control when they agreed to a wage).

This might actually blow your mind, but... some people actually want to be workers and not owners of the means of production. They are happy being paid fairly for their work and not having to manage the complexities of business. These people don't exist in conflict with the owners of production unless the owners of production actually betray their social obligation to society. And many owners of the means of production are happy to fulfill their obligation to society and, in fact, derive great happiness from doing so.

The entire economic system works by having the majority populating sell its time to capitalists so these can then use that time to churn our product for consumption which they control and distribute at their own leisure, and for their sole benefit.

Even if class harmony was a worthy goal, you would have to address this massive power imbalance between capital and labor. Why would capitalists give up that power imbalance? Why would they forgo profits for the sake of workers? Why would they advocate for labor rights or social welfare measures that limit their own control? What interests do the workers have in their continued powerlessness in the face of capital, in foregoing all rights to control production or product?

In a healthy society, owners of production that betray their obligation to society are punished for doing so. And a society with social mobility allows anyone with the drive to succeed to acquire and manage the means of production - and that means continued, persistent ownership of the means of production is not guaranteed. So there are powerful forces at work that have to be disturbed for an unfair situations to develop. And capitalism, unlike communism has a clear method for rewarding people based on merit. People who contribute more to society earn more. People who contribute less to society earn less. Communism has to contend with the lack of a clear mechanism for rewarding merit. This is a major hurdle for communism that must be addressed in order for communism to achieve it's goal. Because if profit is not fairly distributed (distributed according to the contributions made by people to society), than society becomes corrupt. That's a big elephant.

Because beneficial change will not come from people who benefit from the current system. It will only come from people who are dissatisfied with the way things are currently working.

Except that beneficial change often does (and perhaps must) come from people who benefit from a system. They do more to benefit society because of the power of reciprocity. Philanthropy often occurs because people who benefit want other people to share in that benefit. So the statement that beneficial change only comes from the dissatisfied does not mean that change can only come from the oppressed. In fact, the oppressed often lack the means to end their own oppression (they are actually powerless to do anything about it) and so must rely on people who aren't oppressed to make changes in the system.

Contrast that to the mentality of people who strongly believe in a divisive conflict between two groups of people:
Those Who Have vs Those Who Have-Not
When people with that strong belief gain power, they tend to operate in a manner that places themselves personally in the group of Those Who Have even if it means others get left in the group of Those Who Have-Not.
It follows from the foundational belief that if you Have something, you must be in conflict with those that Have-Not (and vice versa).

So it's very difficult for communism to effect beneficial change to society. That's why a key goal of communist revolution is to take control of the government. Because only people in a position of power have the means by which to compel society to become communist.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
With Stalin's rule and his successors, the U.S.S.R. the SOCIALIST USSR, have destroyed communism.

Also, communism was created under the shadow of capitalism.

Lenin would be proud. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I don't like how communism is defined. But all things are corrupted, communism is corrupted too.

Is there hope for a HEALTHY communism??? That has nothing to do with USSR and Stalin???:confused:o_O:eek:
I agree. I personally dislike Marxism. It's a failed theory from what we've seen so far, at least Marxism-Leninism. We need to look beyond it.
 
Last edited:

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Yes, and Mao also, especially. And a number of further huge wrongdoers, such as the
Khmer Rouge (Khmer Rouge - Wikipedia).

But, there is one who has all the good things in Communism in His teachings, teachings respected around the world, that endure -- Jesus, the Christ. His is the way to achieve that true sharing and care for one another in full reality.
Beautifully put. :thumbsup:
 
Top