Can communism be manipulated?

[The Red Next Door]

I have a friend who admire communism, but he said it doesn't work because hungry power people want to manipulated communism for their own power hungry use. Do you agree or disagree and what ways can we make sure it will not happen?

[Dimentio]

I have a friend who admire communism, but he said it doesn't work because hungry power people want to manipulated communism for their own power hungry use. Do you agree or disagree and what ways can we make sure it will not happen?

I think the best way is to ensure that individuals in positions of responsibility shouldn't be able to form own networks which are working for their own gains at the expense of society as a whole. Thus, a division of power and an adherence to constitutional frameworks are necessary ingredients in any functional society.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I have a friend who admire communism, but he said it doesn't work because hungry power people want to manipulated communism for their own power hungry use. Do you agree or disagree and what ways can we make sure it will not happen?

Well, first of all, man isn't originally greedy nor power-hungry. We're never born this way, & there's no such thing as 'human nature'. All there really is is human conditioning. People's past, & what they learn from then is what creates who they are now. It starts with the school systems. We're never taught about how to work together as a classroom to achieve grades or goals, but rather we are taught to compete to see who can get better grades, better scholarships, better schools, etc. So there's where we start. We start with education. We start re-conditioning the minds & start teaching the communist way of life. Then, we will have a chance in implementing a true communist world without the fear of manipulation by greedy conditions of the individual.

[ZeroNowhere]

He's probably referring to the Soviet Union. So talk about that. It would probably be best for me to avoid discussing it here, as that would just open up a fairly unpleasant can of worms, because Revleft does that kind of thing. Though I suppose I'll just say that I hold to the state capitalist analysis of the USSR, more or less as put forward by Paresh Chattopadhyay in his book. I will also note that I disagree with the post above mine, but it has not much to do with the topic, so it's not worth discussing.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yeah, he is most likely talking about state capitalism and bureaucrats taking over the means of production and corruption within this apparatus.

I swear would it kill oppositionists to be a little more original?

[Uppercut]

It depends on who makes up the party and much participation there is on behalf of the masses.
If the planning commission does not adhere to the workers' soviets, councils, collectives, etc., this most likely means there is beaurocratic competition in government, which in turn breeds state capitalism.

If the people keep tabs on their government, I don't think there is too much the state could get away with. It's very hard to brainwash or backhand an educated and aware public. Maybe Americans should pay attention...

(I'm American, btw. I'm just very ashamed of my country)

[Ovi]

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself

We all know these quotes and after the failure of soviet style socialism they should be even more significant to us. We need to ensure that we all participate in the decision making process instead of leaving it to some self-appointed leaders. As a libertarian socialist it shouldn't be that hard to explain to him why centralizing all the power in the hands of a state never brought about communism.

[The Ben G]

Of course it can be manipulated. Look what happened under stalin and in China and the DPRK!

[mikelepore]

In such cases -- "my friend said communism doesn't work" -- you have to stop talking in terms of ambiguous symbols like "-ism", which mean different things to different people, with most of the prejudicial images being unspoken.

Instead, take one specific and real-life example. Let's assume that society will have something called the railroad. Assume that the railroad will have some form of board of directors to coordinate it. Some questions to be answered are: what procedure should determine who sits on the board of directors? Should they be delegates of the workers? Should they represent local neighborhoods, or perhaps national populations? Or should a group called stockholders elect the directors? Also, what should be the job description of those directors, so we can tell whether they're doing a good job at directing? Are the directors doing a good job if they are responsive to the wishes of the population generally, or if they are responsive to a group called stockholders?

Capitalism has the managers chosen by stockholders, and their one and only criterion for making decisions is to maximize profits for the stockholders by any means necessary. A system of collective ownership would make the industry a kind of public institution, operated for social use rather than for profits.

When you get specific like this, errors in your friend's objection become more apparent. For example, is your friend claiming that the traditional system of having wealthy stockholders and the profit motive is NEVER "manipulated by power hungry people", and it's ONLY the organizing of a project around a non-profit charter that leads to "manipulation by power-hungry people"? That would be quite an amazing claim!!

Tell your friend -- never mind the lazy generalization "communism doesn't work". Instead, let each person explain how they believe industry should be administered, and call upon each person to give at least one reason for that opinion. If it's anything less than that, you didn't yet begin to have a meaningful discussion.

[revolution inaction]

Of course it can be manipulated. Look what happened under stalin and in China and the DPRK!

but they have nothing to do with communist except for being run by the "communist" party.