According to communists the problem of mega corporations is not attributable to capitalism?
We must not be talking about the same people then.
Governments owning shares in companies was not a part of my argument.
You mentioned free-market specifically which seemed central to your earlier claim rather than the general abolition of private property. You are claiming that because they are somehow not part of the free market because they are instead somehow pulling the strings by some hidden hand seems a rather disingenuous attempt to ‘catch me out’.
They control the markets the politician’s, the whole shebang. If they are using some kind of sleight of hand to make it appear they aren’t in the reigns it seems irrelevant to me. It is about the influence they have, due to their mass wealth, not some nitpicking about where the influence is distributed on the face of it.
If their means of production is taken away they lose their power in whatever sphere you wish to attribute to them.
1 Like
That’s not what I was claiming, and I think you’re being defensive for no reason.
Communism has a problem with capitalism. Capitalism is defined as “an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production (factories, mines, businesses) and their operation for profit.”
My point is that corporations are not privately owned. They are corporations, which are state-sanctioned, public enterprises. The same goes for the stock market, by the way. Anyone can become an owner by buying shares or stocks.
So really, where are these privately owned businesses whose means of production must be seized?
Or is modern communism really as banal as abolishing private property and taking it from there?
1 Like
And isn’t it disingenuous to call them public when the stock is privately owned? Rough estimates show that approximately 0.1 percent of the global population owns about half of the stock market; so I’d start there.
Also ‘abolishing private property’ is a typical reactionary characterization and grossly misleading. Any reasonable socialist of whatever stripe supports ‘personal’ property. The point is, when you accumulate so much personal property that it negatively impacts the minimal social well-being of a whole lot of other people, your claim to private ownership is no longer ‘well-founded’.
2 Likes
No, why would it be?
I was talking about communism, not socialism.
But really, this gets at my broader point I’m trying to make here: it’s completely unclear what communists are actually arguing for and against.
Capitalism can apparently mean just about anything. The abolition of private property is apparently just a “typical reactionary characterization”.
Seems we’re just playing hide and seek then. 
It might be the case that some anti-communist rhetoric is propaganda, but that’s a necessary result of the freedom to speak relatively freely, which is a condition of many non-communist governments. So while you can criticize capitalism in both capitalist and communist countries, one is not allowed to criticize communism or the communist regime in communist countries.
So as a matter of simple mathematics, there is more anti-capitalist propaganda than there is anti-communist propaganda.
This is what I think is counter to human nature. Given that we’ve seen revolts in almost every state of play similar that which you describe, i find it quite hard to think this isn’t what we should be expecting.
That said, I agree in principle - I just think you’re being a bit.. i’m not sure… hyperbolic maybe? Not sure.
First; you’re very welcome. Thanks for the OP! It’s rare to get a decent, well-thought-out display of communist thinking (although, I would say reliance on a podcast might be an issue here). Appreciate it.
No. But I’ve not read the rest of hte comment yet, so take that into account.
A. is more like "well, every single time this system has been attempted it has failed. No true scotsman is not an argument, so I can’t really move my needle based on it - even if its strictly true.
B. is exactly as I stated it:
This is a moderate claim, saying we have both self-interest and other-interest. But that this cannot sustain the types of behaviour required in a communist state (i think, is hte point there).
And there’s a much, imo, stronger C.
Theoretically, there is no possible way to rationally allocate resources when there are no market prices. Again, this was developed and explicated at great length by von Mises and Hayek. My understanding is probably cursory in the scheme of things, but hten communism isn’t a particularly complex or hard-to-grasp concept/system.
Reading hte rest now, so just keep the above in mind.
I have to say, and I am really trying not to be rude - this strikes me as sort of historically funny. The exact opposite appears to be what happens.
You don’t acknowledge that this is historically the case, in essentially 100% of cases?
I thikn you’re extrapolating a type of person across all types of people. I certainly don’t recognize this in 90% of people nad places i’ve interacted. I think what makes me think I have a slightly better view on this is that I can definitely accept that there is a class of people, often driven actively by things like advertising, who are essentially vaccuous, shallow people who pursue only material goods. I don’t think there’s anything morally wrong with that prima facie but its obviously problematic.
The issue is that in a Communist state, those people run things. I cannot see a way around this reading, at this stage.
This is often what it’s like under capitalism. I do think, and this is absolutely in fairness to your views, that humans probably aren’t apt to exist in governed groups bigger than maybe 250,000 in a locality. In local communities (several I have been part of), even when capitalistic in the sense that resource allocation and whatnot are basically “scarcity” considerations, people come together to share the resources (and in turn, their personal benefit) and ensure those they care about are taken care of.
I cannot care about 250,000 people. I am a single human being and the capacity for this does not exist, in the sense needed here. Once groups get that big, you naturally have “others” as smaller groups within the wider group - which is why I noted that Communism cannot sustain differing views among its populace. It is an unstable basis.
I take your point that you’re only really saying that you don’t think these things are impossible. That’s fine, and even admirable in some sense because your motivations are clearly good in some significant sense but I think something like this:
Is, as the kids say, “cope”. I think it is historically undeniable that socialist/communist systems can’t contain human nature (which may include greed - and that would be an obvious obstacle) or accommodate differing views and desires within a state. You need Brave New World type stuff for that, on my view.
I think it may be worth you throwing “history of communist propaganda in Europe” into ChatGpt or something and ask it for like a 10,000 word response. It would probably enlighten you as to why many are going to see this and just turn away. It appears, on an historical reading, a little bit like you’re not quite across it.
To be clear, for my part and what I’ve seen of this forum, no one has claim this, so I’m unsure why it’s being challenged.
I would even say, as I alluded to, that for populations under about 250,000 in a locality, socialist/communist organization might be truly workable. It might even be preferable. But it would be obviously parochial and cult-like.
1 Like
My thesis would be that revolts are always related to the absence of basic needs. The subsequent order might suggest that it was really a slavery issue, but that’s just their narrative.
Are you saying that the experience of bondage is always a narrative retrofitted upon a group by the “winners” of the new regime?
One of the central points of Marx’s Capital is that profit requires increase of value. All of the participants in the market are betting on that. The statement: “Anyone can become an owner” is how the exchange is set up.
1 Like
A fair premise.
But I do not think holds up to scrutiny insofar as it is the system which creates that situation.I am unsure it is any longer a serious suggestion that it just “Wasn’t done right”. I get what’s being said there, but if every example results in the same outcome I cannot understand that as anything but a systemic expectation, even if not theoretically assured.
1 Like
Thanks. Finally someone fighting in my corner. When I make these threads the general trend is that I am the only one giving the communist perspective and I am under siege by all the usual pop anti-communist negations which is not what I have in mind when making these threads at all and feel reticent to bother in future.
Of course I expect some to be like that but it is discouraging and boring when I am the ‘only communist in the room’ every time. Every one of the threads just ends up me being called upon to answer for all the historical crimes of communism rather than a lively melting pot of views from either side, which is what I had hoped they would be but was sadly disappointed to see the unanimous, except your good self, and maybe one or two other minimal contributions from others who I forgot now due to their relative lack of input, pro capitalist bent on this forum.
1 Like
You know communism isn’t popular, right? Like it’s not the forum; there really just are almost no communists compared to non-communists in the West. Why would you expect to find many communists?
1 Like
I will try to answer this question from the point of view of a person who lived in the USSR.
I am new to this Philosophy Forum. I have looked through many topics here and decided to start with this one:
“Are most or all of the common negative statements about communism just capitalist propaganda?”
I actually lived in the socialist-communist Soviet Union for more than 70 years. I studied Marxism-Leninism at a technical university. Over time, I reconsidered many things. I was a member of the Communist Party: I joined it out of conviction and left it for the same reason. If anyone is interested, I can explain both.
I have read the original post and many comments.
Before sharing my opinion, I think there are a few points worth considering in this discussion.
There are a few difficulties in this discussion, in my view.
1. It is important to clearly distinguish between socialism and communism.
In communist theory, socialism was defined as a transitional stage from capitalism to communism. Socialism actually existed in a number of countries, so we can speak about it as a historical reality.
Communism, however, has never existed in practice (and I personally doubt it can exist at all). So we can only talk about it as a theoretical concept, which, in my opinion, is incomplete and partly utopian.
2. About the millions killed under socialism and capitalism.
There is, in my opinion, an important difference.
Socialist systems, unlike capitalist ones, destroyed large numbers of their own citizens, often for political reasons, including communists themselves, and often not during external wars.
3. About the idea that socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship or anarchy.
All socialist countries were, to one degree or another, dictatorships. I do not know of a single one that became anarchic. This, I think, already says something about that prediction.
4. About the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Even in the USSR there was no real dictatorship of the proletariat. What existed was the dictatorship of the Communist Party and its leadership. Representative bodies — the Soviets — even in revolutionary Russia did not have real independence in making important decisions. In practice, the Bolsheviks made the key decisions. Later, when they became “Councils of People’s Deputies,” the situation did not change — they mainly approved and implemented decisions made by party structures.
To be fair, I did hear that party bodies tried to maintain a quota so that workers (and maybe peasants) would outnumber the intelligentsia. Because of this, it was not easy for educated people, especially in universities, to join the party. But in reality, this did not change the overall situation.
So, in my view, not all criticism of socialism and communism is “capitalist propaganda.” A significant part of it is based on real historical experience.
If there is interest, I can share in a follow-up comment what I see as the main mistakes in Marx’s ideas, based not only on theory, but on lived experience and history
УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ
Я новачок на цьому Філософському Форумі,
Я переглянув багато тем форуму і для початку зупинився на цій:
«Чи більшість / усі поширені негативні висловлювання на адресу комунізму є лише капіталістичною пропагандою?»
Я реально прожив у соціалістично-комуністичному Радянському Союзі понад 70 років. Теорію марксизму-ленінізму вивчав у рамках технічного ВУЗу. За цей час багато чого переосмислив. Я був членом КПРС: вступив до партії за переконанням і вийшов із неї — теж за переконанням. Якщо комусь буде цікаво, можу пояснити і те, і інше.
Прочитав основний допис і багато коментарів.
Перш ніж висловити свою думку, я вважаю, що є кілька моментів, які варто враховувати в цій дискусії.
Ряд труднощів в цій дискусії на мій погляд витікає з таких речей :
1. Треба чітко розрізняти соціалізм і комунізм.
У комуністичній теорії соціалізм визначався як перехідний етап від капіталізму до комунізму. Соціалізм реально існував у ряді держав так званого соціалістичного табору, тому про нього можна говорити як про історичну реальність.
Комунізму ж у реальному світі не було ( а на моє переконання і не може бу т и в принципі) . Тому про нього можна говорити лише як про умогляну теорію, до того ж, на мій погляд, недоопрацьовану і частково утопічну.
2. П ро мільйон вбитих соціалізмом і капіталізмом .
Є принципова різниця між жертвами капіталізму і жертвами соціалізму.
Основне зауваження в тому , що соціалі зм , н а відміну від капіталізму , знищував у величезній кількості саме своїх громадян і саме з політичних мотивів, у тому числі комуністів, причому часто не в умовах зовнішньої війни.
3. Про невідворотність сповзання соціалізму на диктатуру або анархію.
Всі країни соціалістичного табору були в тій чи іншій мірі - диктаторські. Але я не знаю жодної — анархічної , що , думаю , свідчить про помилковість такого прогнозу.
4. Були на дискусії розмови про форми диктатури пролетаріату
Н а віть в СРСР не було реальної диктатури пролетаріату . Була диктатура компартії і к омпартійної номенклатури. Пр едставницькі органи влади навіть в в революційній Р осії - Ради пролетарських , селян ських і сол д атських депутатів , вже тоді н е мали дієвої самостійності в прийнятті важливих рішень . Там все вирішували більшовіки. А коли в СРСР їх переіменували в Ради народних депутатія то і тим більше вони завжди своїми рішеннями затверджували і виконували нав ` язану їм волю партійних органів. Хоч , заради справедливості мушу сказати, Що я неодноразово чув розмови про те , що партійні органи , наче б то, слідкували за квотою , щоб процент робітників , а мабуть і селян , переважав над кількістю інтелигенції. В той час інтелігентам , особливо в вузах , через цю квоту було непросто вступити в партію , оскільки там пролетаріату було мало. Але всерівно це була формальність , з причини казаної вище.
Тому, на мій погляд, далеко не вся критика соціалізму і комунізму є «капіталістичною пропагандою». Значна її частина базується на реальному історичному досвіді.
Якщо буде інтерес, у наступному коментарі я коротко викладу свій погляд на погляди Маркса , які мені здаються помилковими , виходячи не з теорії, а з прожитого мого досвіду і досвіду історії.
3 Likes
Thanks for your detailed response and giving your unique perspective. No I would not want you to criticise Marx. I would not believe it! I only want to hear the good about him. I would however still be interested in learning more about communism but it sounds your view is going to be the same cynicism as westerners. I will hold to my ‘utopian’ ideas of it if that is the case. 
I still believe it is possible, just humans haven’t tried hard enough. You mention the difference in the ‘kill count’ between capitalist and communist systems is that communists killed their own, as if that is somehow worse and capitalists get a pass for killing outsiders? Seems a strange logic.
I would say both are just as bad as one another and the communists, or socialists, as you made the distinction, only did to their own simply because by its nature they are going to be insular aren’t they and so must use the stock they have. Capitalism is about spreading its talons and putting every new horizons under its heel - from domestic serfs to foreign ones but the socialists would sacrifice their people in the name of the greater good?
1 Like
Thank you for your response. I’m working on my reply, but it’s still rough and a bit too long for now. That’s because I want it to be as comprehensive as possible. I assure you it won’t be cynical. I sincerely want to share my thoughts with you.
I think I’ve understood you correctly: that you believe in communism and would like to see it become a reality?
Please, if you don’t mind, could you tell me why you want communism? You’ve never actually mentioned it before. I think I sense and guess why, but it would be better if you said it yourself.
I’m asking this without any ulterior motive, but solely so that I can give you a more focused and complete answer to your questions.
You are right in thinking that what is typically referred to as communism on the internet is a grossly distorted caricturization of communism in order to mock it. Much of it is literally cringewothy.
It’s important to note that typically those who do this also fail to understand the foundational shortcomings of capitalism. Capitalism appeals to the self centered.
1 Like
When conceptualizing communism, we inevitably force it into certain boundaries. Here I’ll turn to Adorno, a point Jamal often makes.
I’d like to add another layer to your research. Speaking of Stalin’s distortions of communism (his photo in his youth is on my avatar), it’s easy to forget about the “Russian people” (in the broad sense of the word) and their preconditions. My point is this: a pure nation (from a vacuum) wasn’t taken and then subjected to communism. In the USSR, communism developed within a people with its own pre-ordained nature. To better understand this pre-ordained nature, I recommend reading the book “Russia 1839” by the French traveler (at least briefly). From this, it’s difficult to judge what communism in its pure form is. Moreover, I’m certain that communism imposed on, for example, US society would have resulted in a completely different communism.
I’d also like to add:
There are some modern “expert experts” (expertise gurus) who claim: “Is your state in decline? Okay, then just embrace liberalism and you’ll be fine.”
Thankfully, these guys are now fading into oblivion. It’s not only, or even primarily, ideology that determines the existence or “success” of a state. Because even liberalism always varies depending on the region/resources/population/strength of the state.
Furthermore, in support of my theses, I’ll note the following. Today, many expert gurus have suddenly started talking about the decline of liberalism. But this, again, is an oversimplification and a stretching of the concept. This approach completely ignores the other circumstances listed above, just as it fails to take into account the fact that the very foundation of society that allowed liberalism to flourish at a certain historical juncture has been lost. So, discussions about the “loyalty of ideologies” seem to me too narrow without taking into account many circumstances that are often overlooked.
1 Like
I think this is bordering on the “toxic empathy” which will inevitably destroy a stable society. That said, I can’t see the West doing this any time soon so I’m not worried about it’s outcomes.