Common misconceptions about communism
Feb. 23rd, 2011 10:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mahnmutIn a recent discussion, someone asked why people in the US fear socialism so much. A lot could be said about the misconceptions on socialism (first of all, it's so diverse that you can't lump it into one label). So I thought of going a bit further and asking: why are people in the US so scared of communism? Well, apart from all the Soviet fear-mongering of course (don't get me wrong, the USSR was a real threat).
So I got onto this:
Why do Americans take communist countries as examples of socialism?
The top-rated response really intrigued me in its conciseness and comprehensiveness. Here's a full transcript, make whatever you want of it:
"Because Americans have no idea what Socialism is, just like they have no idea what Communism really is. They just know they've been told it's very, very bad and scary. Of course, the founders of both those philosophies would have been mortified at how much people perverted their ideas of social cooperation and justice as a means of implementing authoritarian and totalitarian control, but that isn't really the point.
It's vaguely akin to all the Christians who like to point straight to Stalin and China as examples of what happens when "atheism is in power" rather than to societies such as Japan or Denmark. They're not trying to have a reasoned political discussion. They're trying to scare other people into agreeing with them by misbranding the other side and associating it with things of vile consequence (also known as the "strawman" and "appeal to consequences" fallacies in logic).
For instance, if I wanted to engage in that sort of debate I might say the following: "Why don't Republicans talk about all the children molested behind the scenes in their campaigns? John McCain's campaign manager, Claude Bartleson, was arrested for sexually assaulting a five year old boy. A FIVE YEAR OLD. See, that's what Republicanism leads to. Child rape. You don't want a bunch of child rapists in power, do you, because that's the sort of people John McCain hires!"
While that is factually accurate, technically speaking, it's obviously not meant to begin a rational discussion. It's meant to imply John McCain, and anyone who happens to like his system of government, is a child molesting pervert in the hopes that
A) The other side will be too outraged to be able to respond rationally (in which case I can say "see, they don't have a response to that, do they!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
B) The other side will try to respond rationally and do something like explain this was an isolated incident (in which case I can say "look at how they try to excuse such filthy behavior when it's one of their own!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
C) The other side will simply admit the incident happened (in which case I can say "see, they're so guilty they can't even deny it!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
D) The other side will be so embarrassed they'll try to quietly disassociate themselves from whatever they were supporting (in which case I win by default).
and
E) Plant a seed of doubt about the nature of those on the other side of the fence from myself in the minds of the undecided, making them more likely to want to come to my side rather than be seen as taking the side of someone we find odious.
* * *
It's all manipulation and mind tricks, boys and girls. They work a'charm all the time, even if we don't know we're being played... and you have just stumbled on one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Addendum:
Perhaps no one bothers to explain just what Communism is, dude, because it would take a very long time to explain the matter thoroughly and this is a limited format.
In a nutshell, though, Communism most usually refers to a social state in which the people communally own the means of production and decide through communal means to what use said means of production and their resulting products will be put.
As proposed by Karl Marx, with whom it is often associated, it is supposed to do away with different social classes and put everyone on equal footing, thereby doing away with economically based social oppression. Of the consequences, it is usually presumed that Communism embodies the idea "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need" with everyone contributing what they can to the system, and then taking out of it what they need (which would provide the greatest total communal good).
If you want to see the type of society Marx envisioned, go watch Star Trek. The Federation of Planets runs a very Communist society (no money, people work for the satisfaction of producing worthwhile things, everyone is given their material needs and no one is put down for being disabled, and it's all very cute and neat and tidy and there's an abundance for all).
If you want to understand why Communism doesn't work, go study the history of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, Communism tends to overlook the idea of human greed in theory and is consequently very susceptible to being monopolized by it in real life, so while Star Trek is how it's supposed to work in theory, the Soviet Union is usually how it ends up working in real life.
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on human greed as a balance to the system, so it tends to work better economically because instead of getting one person or group screwing over a lot of people who think they're working for the common good, everyone knows to screw everyone else out of just enough to keep the system from going belly up."
So I got onto this:
Why do Americans take communist countries as examples of socialism?
The top-rated response really intrigued me in its conciseness and comprehensiveness. Here's a full transcript, make whatever you want of it:
"Because Americans have no idea what Socialism is, just like they have no idea what Communism really is. They just know they've been told it's very, very bad and scary. Of course, the founders of both those philosophies would have been mortified at how much people perverted their ideas of social cooperation and justice as a means of implementing authoritarian and totalitarian control, but that isn't really the point.
It's vaguely akin to all the Christians who like to point straight to Stalin and China as examples of what happens when "atheism is in power" rather than to societies such as Japan or Denmark. They're not trying to have a reasoned political discussion. They're trying to scare other people into agreeing with them by misbranding the other side and associating it with things of vile consequence (also known as the "strawman" and "appeal to consequences" fallacies in logic).
For instance, if I wanted to engage in that sort of debate I might say the following: "Why don't Republicans talk about all the children molested behind the scenes in their campaigns? John McCain's campaign manager, Claude Bartleson, was arrested for sexually assaulting a five year old boy. A FIVE YEAR OLD. See, that's what Republicanism leads to. Child rape. You don't want a bunch of child rapists in power, do you, because that's the sort of people John McCain hires!"
While that is factually accurate, technically speaking, it's obviously not meant to begin a rational discussion. It's meant to imply John McCain, and anyone who happens to like his system of government, is a child molesting pervert in the hopes that
A) The other side will be too outraged to be able to respond rationally (in which case I can say "see, they don't have a response to that, do they!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
B) The other side will try to respond rationally and do something like explain this was an isolated incident (in which case I can say "look at how they try to excuse such filthy behavior when it's one of their own!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
C) The other side will simply admit the incident happened (in which case I can say "see, they're so guilty they can't even deny it!" and make myself look better to the people who agree with me).
D) The other side will be so embarrassed they'll try to quietly disassociate themselves from whatever they were supporting (in which case I win by default).
and
E) Plant a seed of doubt about the nature of those on the other side of the fence from myself in the minds of the undecided, making them more likely to want to come to my side rather than be seen as taking the side of someone we find odious.
* * *
It's all manipulation and mind tricks, boys and girls. They work a'charm all the time, even if we don't know we're being played... and you have just stumbled on one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Addendum:
Perhaps no one bothers to explain just what Communism is, dude, because it would take a very long time to explain the matter thoroughly and this is a limited format.
In a nutshell, though, Communism most usually refers to a social state in which the people communally own the means of production and decide through communal means to what use said means of production and their resulting products will be put.
As proposed by Karl Marx, with whom it is often associated, it is supposed to do away with different social classes and put everyone on equal footing, thereby doing away with economically based social oppression. Of the consequences, it is usually presumed that Communism embodies the idea "from each according to their ability, and to each according to their need" with everyone contributing what they can to the system, and then taking out of it what they need (which would provide the greatest total communal good).
If you want to see the type of society Marx envisioned, go watch Star Trek. The Federation of Planets runs a very Communist society (no money, people work for the satisfaction of producing worthwhile things, everyone is given their material needs and no one is put down for being disabled, and it's all very cute and neat and tidy and there's an abundance for all).
If you want to understand why Communism doesn't work, go study the history of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, Communism tends to overlook the idea of human greed in theory and is consequently very susceptible to being monopolized by it in real life, so while Star Trek is how it's supposed to work in theory, the Soviet Union is usually how it ends up working in real life.
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on human greed as a balance to the system, so it tends to work better economically because instead of getting one person or group screwing over a lot of people who think they're working for the common good, everyone knows to screw everyone else out of just enough to keep the system from going belly up."
