What Is The Morality Of Communism?

I don't know much about communism. It's not taken very seriously where I live, which is just as well. Communism doesn't work. Democratic socialism might. But the political reality of the US would make that unlikely. We have to work with what we have.

But, what exactly is the moral system, or ideology I guess, that communists and communist states go by? It seems, from what I've heard, to be almost fundamentalist Christian. For example gay sex was illegal in China for years. I know they say in the USSR Lenin was a little more open-minded. He legalized things like abortion. But then when Stalin took over, things became very repressive. I think I also read somewhere that in place like Cuba they think allowing gay culture is decadent and just something they do in western democracies.

So what morality do communists go by? What are its rules? And does it even have a name?

 

Since it's usually forced on a population---I'd say none.

 

Atm nothing seems to really work,be it communisme/capitalisme/ect................Maybe democratic socialisme, but you have to start over...........

We are still along way off..........no matter what phyloshopy/theory/religion/politics........you wanna believe/follow

Imo biggest problem(worldwide) atm.........is the ineqouality, in livingstandard/water/food/roof/education/healthcare), ect...basics...worldwide/planet/humanity.

No idear how we are gonna get there.........with current status qoue.

Mzzls

 

There are as many definitions of communism as there are governments concerned about it. Most Americans are brainwashed to see communism and socialism as an evil theories. The main criticism comes from Capitalists, who fear workers having some control and enjoy the profits of their labor in the workplace. As Marx and Engles proposed it there were various stages of development which resulted in true communist governess similar to the old Dumas from Russia in the 1930s.. I have tossed out my Philosophy of western civilization textbook, so some of the following may be fuzzy.

The first stage is revolution of the working class and increasing the participation of the workers in the profits and direction of the workplace. This replaces the billionaires who own a majority of the stock and make all the decisions on the growth of the corporation. This concepts prevent Billionaires , like Donald Trump to enjoy the corporate profits, even though they have never done an honest days work in their lifetime.

The second stage is the dictatorship of the proletariat, which empowers the governing body to enforce the changes to the workplace. All of the current "Communist Governments" are still stuck at this stage.

At the end of the dictatorship, Communism will be achieved with some sort of elected body, similar to a Parliament will take over the government with the oversight and control in the hands of the electorate. The big money interests will no longer be subject to the pacts and interference of the oligarchs. The problem results with uncertainty of when the dictatorship ends and the working class is empowered to share in the economy.

 

I think its very telling that this thread has had so little response. If this was posted back in the the 70's or the 80's there would have been all kinds of responses, and arguments, and probably people arguing back and forth over dogmatic and even psuedo-intellectual points. But no, there is none of that----just crickets for the most part.

I think Marxism and Communism are largely dead, and this post demonstrates that. In the US there is certainly no significant movements, as there once were. The Republicans would have you believe otherwise, and when they use the term, Socialism, they always imply Marxism and refer to socialism as a stage of Communism. But in the end, there use of the label is nothing more than a mere demeaning and dehumanizing insult. Ask a Republican to explain Marxism, Communism or Socialism and you are very, very unlikely to get any kind of intelligent answer.

Whatever morality it has, to be fundamental to Marxism, it would have to be materialistic---i.e. that only the material world exists. This goes back to Hegel who tried to take German Idealism, (the idea that there is a nonphysical ideal behind reality, a word that comes from concept of idea, therefore is a concept intricately connected to Mind, and the idea that there is nonphysical reality, i.e. spirit) and place it into a purely materialist context. He argued that there was only a material reality, and that the Absolute, or God, exists in a material framework-----basically, through the collective actions and intentions of man. It was a complicated way of saying that only material or physical reality exists without the church and the German authorities accusing him of atheism and thereby ostracizing him. Of course Marx took it to the next level, calling religion the opiate of the masses.

The idea of Hegel is that there is a rational order to things, which can be deduced through dialectics---you know, you take a thesis, apply its antithesis and the result is the synthesis, which becomes the new thesis to create a new dialectic. Marx, who was a Left Hegelian (there were Left and Right Hegellians who argued Hegel's philosophy from different perspectives) came up with a theory he referred to as Dialectical Materialism, which argued that reality is shaped by opposing material conditions, particularly factors such as economics. It looks upon reality as continuously evolving and therefore argued that utopia could be created by harnessing the opposing sides of an economy, society, and government, and manipulating them---labor steals control of the factories from the capitalists, the government enforces Socialism, etc, until you end up with the utopian communist state.

Marxism treats this dialectical materialism as if it is science, and therefore denies all that is irrational about mankind-----such as his soul or his own consciousness. In fact, Marx argued that a true individual does not exist unless he is truly liberated within a communist reality.

But man is highly irrational. In short, you cannot objectively force society to repress natural desires and ego, etc. and expect mankind to be fulfilled in the process knowing that one day all life would be paradisaical. To attempt to do so, as we have seen, creates slaves and people who will exploit to the fullest those slaves.

 

1. Class Struggle as Central to History

• Marxists believe history is defined by the struggle between oppressors (the bourgeoisie, or capital-owning class) and the oppressed (the proletariat, or working class).
  
  
• Communism aims to end this struggle by eliminating class distinctions entirely.
  

2. Abolition of Private Property (in the means of production)

• Communism does not mean individuals can’t own personal belongings; rather, it seeks to abolish private ownership of factories, land, and capital, transferring control to the collective (the state or the people).
  

3. From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need

• This phrase captures a core moral ideal: people should contribute to society based on their abilities and receive based on their needs, not based on how much profit they can generate.
  

4. Collective Good Over Individual Gain

• Communism prioritizes the well-being of the group over individual wealth or ambition, believing that unregulated capitalism fosters inequality, alienation, and exploitation.
  

5. International Solidarity

• True communism is internationalist—it sees all workers across nations as united in their struggle and is suspicious of nationalism, which is often seen as a tool to divide the working class.
  

6. Atheistic and Materialist Worldview

• Traditional Marxist communism is explicitly atheistic and materialist, rejecting religion as “the opium of the people”—a way to pacify the poor with promises of spiritual reward while leaving unjust systems in place.
  

7. Eventually Stateless and Classless Society

• The end goal of communism is a stateless, moneyless, and classless society, where the state "withers away" because there's no longer a need to enforce class hierarchies.
  

Key Moral Impulses Behind Communism:

• Justice for the oppressed
  
  
• Fair distribution of wealth
  
  
• Dignity and respect for labor
  
  
• Ending exploitation
  
  
• Empowerment of the collective over the few
  
  

 

If you ever lived on a commune or worked in a cooperative you have had a taste of communism on a small scale.

And that's where it works. Where a group of people get together with the same goals and everyone has an equal stake. Otherwise people will fight for power due to human greed.

In Israel you find very successful kibbutz and moshavs, which are forms of communism in a democratic, capitalist system.

Any failures are human and not necessarily the fault of communism itself. It's like religion, ironically, because you're never gonna be the perfect Christian or whatever. So nobody's gonna be the perfect communist.

 

Seems that most of the original "communist" countries have corroded into authoritarian dictatorships with one dict running the show - until the natives take out the leaders in a coup. The really paranoid dictators lock their whole country down and plan to keep it that way. aka North Korea, some of the 'stans, etc.

 

I think you have overlooked something. Theatrically the dictatorship of the proletariat (working class) is an initial stage in progressing to a Communist State, not the reverse. There are no examples of a state with the theme of communism in recent history. People who say the opposite need to do some reading not listen to Capitalist rhetoric.

 

To oversimplify, Marxism.

Further, conformity to a philosophy is productive in collectivism.

If we can refer to the luxury of sports, or shooting pool together, or throwing darts instead of a drinking binge in multiple time zones we might accomplish more come Monday morning.

Also, if our ideals are to engineer our lives to prioritize wellness and sanity we will likely be healthier or pride ourselves in academic success as opposed to less conservative aspects of life.

To summarize in economy it is easier to arrange healthcare, as we do in America with a capitalism-integrated format, by taxing and providing healthcare.

Medicare does this for seniors. Medicaid does this for low income.

Were we to tax differently, we would be able to afford universal government-subsidized healthcare.

There are ways to do this in the United States that would be relatively easy.

It might displace business and trade initially though (which for healthcare probably only matters to insurance companies).

How much would we need to tax? If we taxed financial transactions and levied a modest gasoline tax, what percent and what cost per gallon would help to finance both social security solvency and universal healthcare?

Spoiler: Financial Transactions Tax and Fuel Tax

Calculating the exact tax rates needed to finance social security solvency and universal healthcare through financial transactions and gasoline taxes would require a detailed analysis of various factors, including current revenue projections, expenditure estimates, economic conditions, and policy considerations. However, I can provide a general overview of how these taxes could potentially contribute to funding these programs:

1. Financial Transactions Tax:
A financial transactions tax (FTT) is a levy imposed on the buying and selling of financial assets such as stocks, bonds, and derivatives. The tax rate for an FTT can vary depending on the scope of transactions covered and the desired revenue target. Generally, FTT rates range from a fraction of a percent to a few percentage points per transaction.

To finance social security solvency and universal healthcare through an FTT, policymakers would need to consider the volume of financial transactions, the tax rate applied, and the expected revenue generated. By estimating the total revenue needed to support these programs and dividing it by the projected transaction volume, policymakers can determine an appropriate tax rate to achieve the desired funding level.

2. Gasoline Tax:
A gasoline tax is a levy imposed on the sale of gasoline and other motor fuels. The tax rate for gasoline can be expressed in cents per gallon or as a percentage of the fuel price. Gasoline taxes are often used to fund transportation infrastructure projects, but they can also be considered as a revenue source for social security and healthcare programs.

To determine the gasoline tax rate needed to finance social security solvency and universal healthcare, policymakers would need to estimate the total revenue required, the expected gasoline consumption, and the impact of the tax on consumers and businesses. By dividing the projected revenue target by the estimated gasoline consumption, policymakers can calculate the tax rate per gallon needed to generate the necessary funds.

It is important to note that implementing new taxes, such as an FTT and a gasoline tax, involves careful consideration of their economic impact, potential implications for consumers and businesses, and the overall tax burden on the population. Policymakers would need to assess the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of these tax measures in achieving the goals of financing social security solvency and universal healthcare while balancing the interests of various stakeholders.

Ultimately, the specific tax rates and costs per gallon required to finance social security solvency and universal healthcare through financial transactions and gasoline taxes would depend on a range of factors that would need to be analyzed in detail by experts and policymakers in the field of taxation and public finance.

How much revenue would be gained by a .05% financial transactions tax that excludes anything about big purchases and focuses on the market?

AI:
To estimate the potential revenue gained by a 0.05% financial transactions tax (FTT) that excludes large purchases and focuses on market transactions, we need to consider several factors, including the volume of market transactions, the types of financial assets covered, and any exemptions or thresholds for large purchases.

Here is a general approach to calculating the revenue from a 0.05% FTT targeting market transactions:

1. Determine the Total Market Transaction Volume:
First, we need to estimate the total volume of market transactions that would be subject to the 0.05% FTT. This includes transactions involving stocks, bonds, derivatives, and other financial instruments traded on the market.

2. Apply the Tax Rate:
Calculate the tax revenue generated from each transaction by applying the 0.05% tax rate. For example, if a transaction involves $10,000, the tax amount would be $10,000 * 0.0005 = $5.

3. Exclude Large Purchases:
Exclude any transactions that are considered large purchases or fall outside the scope of the FTT. This could involve setting a threshold above which transactions are exempt from the tax or applying a different tax rate for such transactions. (EDIT: The AI has not prioritized avoiding "wealth tax" here. That is harder to get through Congress, and it would be better to ultimately focus on investment trading).

4. Estimate the Annual Revenue:
Multiply the total volume of market transactions subject to the FTT by the tax rate to estimate the annual revenue generated by the tax. This calculation provides an approximation of the revenue gained from the 0.05% FTT targeting market transactions.

It is important to note that the actual revenue generated by an FTT can vary based on factors such as market volatility, trading volumes, exemptions, enforcement mechanisms, and the overall impact on market behavior. Additionally, the implementation of an FTT may have implications for market liquidity, trading activity, and investor behavior that could influence the revenue outcomes.

For a more precise estimate of the revenue gained by a 0.05% FTT targeting market transactions excluding large purchases, detailed data on market activity, transaction volumes, and the specific design of the tax would be needed. Financial experts, economists, and policymakers would conduct a thorough analysis to assess the potential revenue impact and implications of implementing such a tax measure.

 

Agree. There are things that can remain private and the discussion here may focus heavily on the idea of entirely replacing something that people are having fun with and people depend on.

There isn't a real reason to replace everything, but I think we see instances where for example the living wage pays me.

I have an operating budget and my healthcare premium is 35%. A subsidy of 10% would make that 25% after taxes.

It's encouraging to see the topic!

 

These apply to problems I have always had with Marxism, and which I implied in my previous post---the thinking that everything boils down to a scientific formula of dialectic materialism, and that in a purely materialist world, all we have to do is objectively shape humans into a conformist collective and thereby fabricate a collective mentality, and everyone will be happy.

This is really no different in its application than Trump telling America that girls don't need 30 dolls they can do with 2 and boys don't need 50 colored pencils, they can have 5. He is right that if we force everyone to extreme austerity, then the trade deficits will go away, because the real problem is that Americans are able to, and actually do, buy far more goods than the most countries can buy from us. The ecomomic problem is, that is not a bad thing. The philosophical problem is that if a girl gets enjoyment from collecting dolls or a boy gets enjoyment from creating art with multiple colors, why shouldn't they do that?

It is easy to argue that abolition of private property means privately owned factories, and means of production, but once we go down that path, then you have tools, which are part of the means of production, then there are commodities, or the products of that production. Why should the product be privately owned if it was produced by communally owned means of production, especially since we are trying to provide based on each according to need. So certainly food and necessities should be communally owned, but aren't things of enjoyment---the tools, products, and collections of hobbies, for example, or toys and other things used for entertainment, also a commodity that is produced, and likewise something that is needed, to provide some kind of diversion from the toil of life? So are these things right to have privately owned and therefore privated away, and hoarded away from the community?

Consider the Bauhaus movement of architecture, which really boiled down to these square dwellings with flat roofs and minimalist architecture. It was dreamed up by Marxists, and they saw it as a way of forcing conformity with everyone having the same mundane square of property to make as their home. These Marxist artists envisioned a world where everyone lived in exactly the same kind of place and had the same kind of things. They therefore got upset when people started to decorate their own homes based on their own unique style and tastes. And these people committed the worst indignities---they painted their individual residences with their own ideas of colors!

Once you go down these rabbit holes of objectivism, believing that we can shape humans for some kind of greater good, we fall into these traps of oppression. And when put into practice, such issues as private property, or the expression of individuality shift from romanticist ideals to the mechanics of enslavement.

Conformity to a philosophy is a great (though cult-like) way of creating harmony. And it makes so much sense to not get drunk on a work night and therefore show up for work the next day, bright eyed and bushy tailed. These are rational things to do, just like limiting a little girl to only 2 dolls for the greater good. But humans are not rational, and they are not driven by rational things, nor does rationality govern our level of satisfaction, or ability to perform at peak levels.

 

right. and this:

a) assumes or
b) demands

"obedience".

Example 1: A requirement to do something with no incentive.

One could argue (for example) the incentive is "free healthcare", but how does my mind or the mind of anyone understand the reward? How frequently?

And with conditioning (in a vacuum, without distractions) and without other alternatives, that might be adequate incentive.

If there are more rewarding alternatives it is not as practical.

 

Yes! If the intent is to condition to accept less when previously there was more, it is either punitive (and thus with 8th amendment implications in the US which says "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted") which makes sense in the context of obedience, is universally applied such that austerity has universal rationale and is acceptable, or relates to an existing premise, such that "we want to augment the moral equation of the population by making internet with or without adult at the service provider."

Yeah.

 

This is Marxist, and you're correct. I don't think anything should be banned or abolished and that would be unusual.

One example is the pharmaceutical industry. It is privatized and the prices can be steep. The government could buy in bulk and provide medicines for less. They could start providing government provided medicines. It wouldn't have to preclude the private pharmaceutical industry.

The means of production can be private, and the price can be negotiated to help provide a better opportunity to patients.

 

If I'm growing up in a collectivist dynasty in a socialist economy, it actually helps me to understand our culture that our houses are 1) provided and 2) the same as each other's. That is part of how I internalize our country and how I appreciate rather than 'dislike' or 'resent' our conformist (nonfascist) identity and our collectivist mentality/society. It makes my personality intertwine with what has been provided by our country by our leaders or whichever.

The Marxist concept isn't wrong. That does help me understand. And if it also creates prosperity, it likely also has my support.

 

Yes. One of the problems likely to encounter is when there are alternates to our culture that look either fun or more efficient or intelligent or more productive or sometimes more emotionally fluent or emotionally or socially apt.

If it isn't allowed here or is discouraged, what happens? What if myself and lots of my peers or young people start to acclimate to some new thing that doesn't pair well with our cultural identity?

Some of the mistakes of the past were to repress these ideas or worse.

Well, otherwise it erodes their culture, right? Yes. But then there is a dilemma of obedience for the sake of obedience with no incentive otherwise.

For some, this has meant augmenting a reflexive position against 1) democracy, or 2) America and the West.

It's damaging culture without regard. What else can we do?

Forbid it, yes. But my teenager still wants to try everything he or she has seen from America and the West.

There are countries that demonize both America and 'the West' for these reasons.

 

The challenge with conformity is rationale. It is lofty and grandiose to stand at the podium of the world and explain. At the same time, it is perplexing to the world's people. The best way forward?

 

I have a quick partial answer first, and then a longer, 'my opinion' answer.

You talked about private ownership of pharmaceutical companies---Democratic Socialism certainly has benefits that are promising in terms of bettering society for all its members---especially when compared to the late stage capitalism we are seeing today.

Then there are the Marxists who watched the rise of Nationalism/Fascism in Germany and the failings of Marxism in the 20th Century and formed the Frankfurt School---such as Herbert Marcuse.

And then there is the argument put forth by Jean-Francois Revel in his book, Without Marx or Jesus, The New American Revolution has begun. He of course was writing about the American New Left of the 60's and 70's and the Hippie Movement. The New American Revolution did not really pan out as Revel hoped, but then, if we consider the Hippies as Nietzsche's Ubermensch (superman), which I argue they were the closest of anything we have seen, then we have to point out that at the end of Niestzsche's, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the hero realizes that it is not his job to change anyone, that each must change on their own, and so he takes off, and that is really what happened to many of the hippies, and the hippie movement itself.

(Now some might say, as an old hippie I'm just glorifying them, but...)

The problem with the hippies and changing the world is, first of all, the communes and the new attempts at relationships and soical structures were all brand new experiments. So no one truly knew what they were doing and what the impact would be, any more than all the previous similar experiments through history. The other problem is that it represented a radical individualism, which was its key and therefore not wrong, but it meant a radical level of decentralization, and there was no single manifesto, philosophy or even a philosopher to create an all-encompassing ideology. We can list hippie philosophers and poets and spokesmen/women, etc., but none of them represented what we could write down as a single manifesto.

Another important thing which has to be considered in all of this is a fundamental mistake that Marx made--he incorrectly saw the market as a product of Capitalism. But the modern market is actually a product of industrialization, which is ironic, because the shift of most nations into a Marxist style government was actually just a mechanical means of industrialization---moving from an authoritarian agrarian nation into an authoritarian industrialized one, the only other thing they achieved through this was shaking off the shackles of colonialism (and unfortunately replacing them with the shackles of Iron-curtain colonialism). But the market, and commodification is an inescapable reality of industrial-age and information-age society. Communism does not do away with this or the alienation it creates, it simply changes the controlling market force or player from the capitalist to the State.

But if someone were to put all this together, the work of the Frankfurt School, the successes of Democratic-Socialism, the Hippies, etc, they would very likely be closer to an improvement over anything Marx presented as well as late-stage Capitalism.

That is my short answer. Next I will post a long answer on my opinion.

 

Its been years since I talked about this, so hopefully I can remember the points I made in years past.

Let's go back to the dawn of the Modern Age which began with Descartes finding the one truth he could not deny after going through an exercise of skepticism, in which he denied everything which he could not prove beyond any shadow of a doubt---'I think therefore I am.' For example, even mathematical formulas, such as 2+2=4 could actually be false if, say, an evil god were tricking him to think that objects outside of him were real, when they weren't and therefore, 2 apples plus 2 apples may appear to make 4 apples, when in fact there were no real apples to begin with, or that he was tricked with appearances such that the result was actually 5 apples----whatever, you get the picture. The only thing he could not deny was that I think, therefore I am. Everything around him may be illusion, even his own body, but the he, as mind, thinks, therefore, in some manner, he exists. This was his 1st Principle.

As a truth, that is incredibly subjective, because while I think, I cannot experience someone else thinking. I cannot even know if someone else thinks, all I can know is that I think. But Descartes took this purely subjective proof and used it to affirm the objective reality around him. Thus the modern age began with a subjective proof of a single mind, and then established its' subjective perspective of objective reality as the dominant foundation of the modern age and modern philosophy. In other words, it established objectivism as the dominant perspective, but without the caveat that we each perceive it subjectively---that part of it was quickly swept under the rug.

This enabled great things, such as the rise of Empricism which eventually led to all the science and technology that we enjoy and benefit from today. But it also, inescapably, led down a path of materialism (or the idea that only the material world exists). Because the only world we can view objectively is the physical world, even if we can only view this world through our own mind, which by definition, is a nonphysical thing.

Now at the time, stating this outright would be blasphemous and probably result in one's death, because doing so would be to affirm atheism, and Descartes, after all, used his 1st Principle to actually objectively prove God and that God is good. But for a good century or two, philosophers would pussyfoot around the logical implication of objectivism that in a purely objective reality, a nonphysical God should not exist. Let me point out here that this post is not about religion, or whether or not there is a god. Rather the problem of the Modern World is more of one that minimizes subjectivism and denies mind.

There was a struggle to come to terms with this materialist perspective. Descarte's philosophy led to a philosophical crisis where one philosopher gave proof that only the material world exists, while another said only mind exists, and because neither point could be refuted, philosophy could not move forward, until Kant came along and said, the nonphysical world and the physical world both exist, but we can only experience the world as we perceive it, and our perception is only of physical reality. So we cannot prove or even experience nonphysical reality, even if it is through our own nonphysical mind. This enabled science to be split between the physical sciences of objective reality such as physics, chemistry and others, and sciences of the mind, such as religion, philosophy, and metaphysics. This freed what we today understand as science from the fetters of religion, and certified the dominance of objectivism.

Some time later, Hegel came along and said, well actually it is all physical. Even what we think is nonphysical, is really only manifested in the physical world. As I said earlier, Marx was a Hegellian philosopher, and Hegel's philosophy basically set Western culture on a purely materialist path. Yes, there were still churches and fortune tellers and ghost stories, and talk of ESP and do forth----but it was all grounded in a world that accepted the objective reality of a material world as an end all be all.

Now I have already talked quite a bit about how humans aren't rational beings and obviously objectivism is a mindset that favors rationalism. So let's just end this part by saying that the Modern World is overly objectivistic, which creates a serious problem when we try to find a solution to societal problems and especially when we attempt to incorporate what we believe to be science into this solution. But this factor will continue to play a role in the rest of the discussion.

Next I want to point out that Marxism was heavily influenced by the Romanticism of the 17th century that gave rise to the idea of a noble savage. Philosophers objectively looked at tribal societies and recognized how they cared for each other and how ego did not seem to play the negativie role which we found in Western society and that members seemed to put the well being of the group over that of their own. They saw this as a throwback to the Golden Age and thought that it was the ideal way to live. In fact it seemed utopian to them.

Because they viewed this in an objective manner, they were doing what objectivism does----they were objectifying these tribal communities, and the indigenous people within them, in other words, these people and communities were simply mere objects of study to them. And just like Descartes as a thinking being, taking that subjective view as an objective observation, they placed their own values upon these objects---the communities and their indigenous inhabitants.

I will continue in the next post.