The Soviet Union was NOT communist. It was a totalitarian state that said it practiced communism while basically practicing state capitalism.

The best example of what communism is meant to be would what Venezuela is striving for by switching from Social Democracy to Democratic Socialism but it is still far from the communist idea.

Yes, but there is a main focus on capitalism and democracy. They may go over what they are but they don't actually dwell into the theories or how it works. No free thinking is involved.

This is such an old and nonsensical argument. If true, it means that communism can never be put into practice and is simply a theory to waste the time of social philosophers.

Again, if the 'communist idea' hasn't ever been properly done, could it be that the idea you refer to isn't possible, due to human nature if nothing else? I can imagine utopian societies that would never work because of human nature. Or could it be that communism has indeed been 'done' and we've seen the result in practical terms?


I disagree with your comment about no free thinking being involved. My (four) kids have had an enormous amount of opportunity and time to discuss and argue in class, and many teachers and students are very pro-socialist. The theories may not be developed at an advanced level (although they will be in whatever colleges the kids attend) but they are well covered. And I think it appropriate that capitalism and democracy are given time; our society and economy are based on them, after all. It's not indoctrination to teach the basis of our system. But the kids definitely do get to discuss and think for themselves. I haven't encountered a whole lot of conservative, capitalist teachers in the dozen places we've lived. Socialist thought is well presented.

My point was that, without an understanding of 'good' or 'best' as an objective thing to which we can compare other things, we can't talk about good or bad or choosing sides or common sense. We wouldn't have a concept of 'good', just of what we feel like doing at the moment. In order to choose what you think of as arbitrary, personal morals, you have to use concepts of good and bad that come from an objective definition of them. If everything was really arbitrary then morality, which addresses what we ought to do rather than what we like, wouldn't be a meaningful construct and we wouldn't be having a discussion about it.

How so? As I understand it, the Soviet Union never achieved communism as expressed in Dana's definition of morality, although that was its original aim. The early intentions of the mensheviks, and then Lenin and the bolsheviks was to work towards a withering away of the state, and then it all went awry in the hands of subsequent politicians/power-mongers.

In my view communism has never been successfully tried, probably because of the flaw in human nature which Wolf has cited, and to which you also refer. Doesn't mean to say that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" is not a nice ideal to strive to attain.
"If each man gives up a thread, you'll get a new shirt for someone who hasn't one".

Or, it could mean that Stalin wasn't shooting for a communist state...


If the idea of communism can work, it will not work in or even close to the first try. You can not expect a theory that needs a different personal philosophy to succeed in the first try, and communism isn't the only leftist socio-economic theory, there are many different variations. To say they will all fail because a variation that wasn't even close to it did is pretty flawed logic.

Personally, I do not think true communist like state can exist from a revolution since the way of living is directly contradicting the nature of how we were raised. A version of social democracy is needed to make a smooth conversion and that might not even be enough. To be successful in a leftist economy, you need to be raised in a leftist philosophy or it will fail.

What do you consider socialist? My teachers would have been on the same page as the democrats, which isn't really socialism. And just because there is discussion, it doesn't mean they are thinking about it. Most arguments in high school about politics are regurgitated opinions with little meaning to them.

Everyone raised in the same society will share the same moral base. If you take away that base, then your argument is fine but that is unrealistic because every society has a moral base that is roughly the same and you will not have an ethical system if you are not raised in a society. I made the assumption that everyone still had that basic moral base given by our society, then we do have a place to start when it comes to morals. If you use this moral base, not to hurt other people, 90% of moral decisions can be made that way.

Good point, eh? How long did simple democracy take? The magna carta is heralded as the first democratic contract (even if it was mostly lords getting more power for themselves), but what about the greek cities? How about Rome's attempts? It's been several hundred years by some guages, a couple thousand by others, and I would still argue that we haven't gotten simple democracy right. So the 2 or 3 major countries that tried communism didn't last really means nothing about it's 'plausibility.'

Ask a nobleman a few hundred years ago if the populace was up to ruling themselves, I bet he would have said something like "Oh, they can't be trusted to rule them selves, they can't ignore their simple nature." Socialism is just one more step in human evolution, if you ask me.

Also, ask yourself how much of the distaste you have for communism comes from it being the west's 'enemy' for so long...

Approximately 160,000,000 people were murdered by Communist governments in the 20th century.

That's a lot of distaste. And a lot of people to overlook in a thread about the definition of morality.

Communism? American Indians.

I would contend that they were not communist governments. There are plenty of pseudo-democracies in this world. I would suggest that thus far, we have only really had pseudo-communism.

How many did the pseudo-democracies kill?

Wanna go back through all time? Didn't a government calling itself democratic kill, um, Jesus? You can't say that because pseudo-communist countries killed more people, it's somehow more evil. It's not about the system of government they're mimicing, it's about how heinous the bastards in charge are.

...also, the pseudo-communist countries, two of them had quite a hell of a lot of people to work with, so it's a little easier to kill that many.

...also, this is all assuming that communism isn't democratic. In it's inteded form, it's pretty damned democratic.

It's about how much power the heinous bastards are allotted, and how they can maintain it.

It's about what is fair to human beings and what rights are maintained by the people.

You want to make some sort of Democratic government that is capable of central planning and total redistribution of wealth AND where the power remains in the hands of the people?

Well good luck with that.

Say again? Do we have the same understanding of the meaning of the word 'evil'? Evidently not. And enough already with the 'pseudo-communism' labels. Soviet Russia, China, and Cambodia all explicitly declared themselves communist. Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot would all laugh at you for declaring them pseudo-communists ... and then kill you.

Of course, it's the easy but intellectually dishonest thing to say, once your pet project has failed miserably, that it wasn't an example of your pet project at all. How many millions more have to be slaughtered in additional 'tries' to get it right? No more of my family, thanks. Try it on yourself.

Sure, what's a few million here or there if you've got extra? Say again???

Nothing democratic about it. Or maybe the Nazis were the real communists. They were the National Socialist Party, after all.

I would say, quite simply, that might makes right.

If he does not give it, do you take it from him?