# Teaching > General Teaching >  Communism/Socialism - No Excuses

## rly1987

My greatest irritation is the extreme hypocrisy in societys fussiness over perfect language, spelling, and grammar which always fails to include precision in terminology that opposes state dogma.

Do scholars ever write articles discussing North-Korean variants of democracy or democracy with North-Korean characteristics? Of course not. Its obvious to anybody that democracy is merely being abused and exploited by a regime that cares nothing about its people to maintain power.

Sinister regimes will always use something positive to mask the fact they have no intention of actually implementing such things.

Everyone can agree on that.

So why do people imply that Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot were genuinely interested in trying to implement real communism/socialism? Just like North Korea declaring itself democratic or the phoney elections held by authoritarian states, there is only the desire to pretend one is implementing socialism on the peoples behalf.

The abuse of the terms communism/socialism by the West (and the authoritarian regimes) are some of the worst forms of human mind-control. Educators who are using these terms to describe the USSR or Pol Pots Cambodia are genuinely brainwashing children, harming society, and engaging in Orwellian-style thought-control.

The first thing that pops up when I type communism into Google:

Communism is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money, and the state; as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims to establish this social order.
via en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Does that at all sound like the USSR, China, North Vietnam etc.?

But despite the extreme need for precision in language, no scholars, academics or educators bother bringing up the fact that these authoritarian regimes inherently could not be communist by definition. Its like saying authoritarian democracy or democracy with authoritarian elements.

There are no excuses for abusing terminology in this fashion. How could Hitlers Nazi Party and the USSR both be examples of socialism? Just looking at the basic definition of socialism, one can tell that neither are socialist. Every educated man and woman wants to pretend that abuse of language will lead to the destruction of society, yet none are willing to sacrifice their position within their academic circle by pointing out the simple, basic truth that these terms have been exploited by the West and the Eastern regimes to justify control.

Is everyone too lazy to put their heads together and come up with new terminology that is actually accurate? When it came to quantum mechanics, everybody was willing to get together to sort out how the entire physics community should interpret the new scientific research/data. But nobody can put their heads together to figure out that people will say whatever it takes to get themselves into power.

One could call it: Stalinism, authoritarian exploitation, intentional impoverishment, Stalinist classism, Maoist elitism, Pol Pots exploitation of socialist ideology, lying, etc.

At the end of the day, anybody who thinks the USSR was an example of communism or socialism is either:
a) not intelligent enough to be discussing the issue on an academic/political level, or
b) using their intelligence to purposefully lie to the public.
Either way, people like that should have no place in academia, education or the political arena.

----------


## kev67

I think Socialism/Communism was a dangerous idea. It was an attractive enough idea for the masses to fight and die for. Unfortunately, it also gave the opportunity for sociopaths to get to the top. Any upheaval of society gives opportunities to those with high intelligence, high risk taking personailities, and high self-regarding attitudes to get to the top. Once the regime starts to show signs of not matching the expectations, the repression starts.

----------


## The Atheist

> At the end of the day, anybody who thinks the USSR was an example of communism or socialism is either:
> a) not intelligent enough to be discussing the issue on an academic/political level, or
> b) using their intelligence to purposefully lie to the public.
> Either way, people like that should have no place in academia, education or the political arena.


Good topic. I had the exact same argument the other day when some guy referred to USSR as a "proletarian dictatorship". Nothing could be further from the truth.

----------


## 108 fountains

Yeah, there never was a Communist country; probably never could be either. While in theory I'm attracted to its main ideas, it could never work in practice because it needs to be implemented by a powerful and incorruptible state apparatus - something I believe human beings are incapable of producing. 
We've never had a pure capitalist country either, although the United States at the beginning of the 20th century was pretty close (and which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s). 
I'm of the opinion that all modern, developed countries are governed under a type of socialism; not in that there is social ownership of the means of production (which is the dictionary definition of socialism), but in that governments play a more or less active role in the economy to protect against the excesses of capitalism and implement programs that act as a safety net for the poor (or redistribute wealth, depending on one's point of view). 
The differences between the economic systems of the U.S. and the more socialist European countries (I don't mean to lump all European countries together here, since there are great variances among them), and even places like China and Vietnam, I believe are really more a matter of degree in how much of an active role the government plays. (Although I will admit that there are significantly more state-owned enterprises in places like China and Vietnam, but probably not so much as most Westerners believe).

----------


## free

Communisam is an ideal society, a dream. But it needs ideal people to make the dream comes true.

----------


## GreenDragon

An interesting observation, unfortunately this problem of inaccurate labels extends beyond these political ideas.

----------


## Carousel

No political system from Communism to Fascism and all the stops in between has ever been devised that can overcome the inherent greed in all of us.

----------


## Clopin

Communism should be slandered.

----------


## Michael T

Not sure what you mean *Kev67*, because if Capitalism isn't the most perfect system ever for allowing _"sociopaths, those with high intelligence, high risk taking personalities, and high self-regarding attitudes"_ to get to the top, then I'll eat my hat!

----------


## kev67

> Not sure what you mean *Kev67*, because if Capitalism isn't the most perfect system ever for allowing _sociopaths, those with high intelligence, high risk taking personalities, and high self-regarding attitudes_ to get to the top, then I'll eat my hat!


I was thinking of the likes of Stalin and Chairman Mao.These people rode the revolutionary idealism of the young and poor, then imposed totalitarianism when their grandiose social experiments started failing. You can't mobilise the masses by preaching unequal distributions of wealth. The sociopaths you are talking about gravitate to high finance in Capitalist countries.

----------


## Michael T

Then surely it's not Socialism/Communism that are the dangerous ideas, rather those that would usurp, or corrupt those systems for their own ends. I would suggest that Socialism and Communism are no more open to corruption than any other system, including Capitalism. It would be an injustice to suggest otherwise I think.

----------


## Carousel

Fine ideals fit comfortably with most of us until they become at odds with the business in hand. 
Equality is a praiseworthy aim but what kind of equality do we desire. You have a beaten up pickup truck while a guy two blocks away has a new Ferrari. Remove his Ferrari and give him a beaten up pickup truck and you are both equal in that context but that’s not the equality that appeals to us is it , we want a Ferrari.

----------


## Ecurb

> Fine ideals fit comfortably with most of us until they become at odds with the business in hand. 
> Equality is a praiseworthy aim but what kind of equality do we desire. You have a beaten up pickup truck while a guy two blocks away has a new Ferrari. Remove his Ferrari and give him a beaten up pickup truck and you are both equal in that context but that’s not the equality that appeals to us is it , we want a Ferrari.


Speak for yourself. I don't want a Ferrari. (I don't want a beat up pickup, either.)

The problem with Communism is not "to each according to his needs". It's "from each according to his abilities". Who wants to work up to the limit of his abilities? That sounds like slavery. 

As far as whether (per Michael T) Capitalism is the "perfect system... for allowing sociopaths, those with high intelligence, high risk taking personalities, and high self-regarding attitudes to get to the top", that all depends on what "the top" is. Is "the top" Ferrari possession? Was Francis of Assisi a "bottom dweller" -- or one of the "top" Medieval Saints? In activities in which performance is measured accurately (sports, for example) communism and capitalism appear to have been fairly equal in encouraging "top" performances.

----------


## Carousel

Have you ever read Das Kapital,? Its got SFA to do with reaching the top.
_Francis of Assisi a "bottom dweller" -- or one of the "top" Medieval Saints?_ 
You mean saints have a pecking order? 
_. Is "the top" Ferrari possession?_ Well its at least a useful benchmark to distance you from the peasants

----------


## Emil Miller

> Have you ever read Das Kapital,? Its got SFA to do with reaching the top.
> _Francis of Assisi a "bottom dweller" -- or one of the "top" Medieval Saints?_ 
> You mean saints have a pecking order? 
> _. Is "the top" Ferrari possession?_ Well it’s at least a useful benchmark to distance you from the peasants


This discussion reminds me of an old joke as to what's wrong with communism.

Communist: ' Comes the revolution and we will all be driving a Rolls Royce .'

Non communist: 'But I don't want to drive a Rolls Royce.'

Communist: 'Comes the revolution you will do as you're told.'

----------


## Pompey Bum

> This discussion reminds me of an old joke as to what's wrong with communism.
> 
> Communist: ' Comes the revolution and we will all be driving a Rolls Royce .'
> 
> Non communist: 'But I don't want to drive a Rolls Royce.'
> 
> Communist: 'Comes the revolution you will do as you're told.'


Heh heh. 

This thread reminds me of the old Cold War joke: With Capitalism, man exploits man; but with Communism, it's the other way around.

----------


## Clopin

> Not sure what you mean *Kev67*, because if Capitalism isn't the most perfect system ever for allowing _"sociopaths, those with high intelligence, high risk taking personalities, and high self-regarding attitudes"_ to get to the top, then I'll eat my hat!


Yeh capitalism is so terrible... we've only seen living standards improve for the general population and working classes at an unprecedented rate, never equalled in all of human history.

----------

