Why are there so few communists?

[ericksolvi]

Let's play a logic game. Three statements only two can be true.
1. Communism is clearly superior.
2. People are rational.
3. People have free will.
If all three statements are true then most people would be communist, so only two can hold true at once. Please speculate.

This is based on a similar question. If God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, then why is there evil in the world? It forces a person who takes the question seriously to decide at least one thing is untrue, and in so doing calls the basis of Christianity into question.

[Grenzer]

This is a pretty simple thing to answer. Communism is not clearly superior. IT is superior when thought about objectively and without bias; however, a vast majority of the time this is not the case. In most places, many aspects of life install a belief that communism is a terrible thing. Government propaganda in school textbooks and organized religion are the two biggest obstacles I can think of. Oh, let's not forget culture. Those of us that live in the United States know how huge of a foundation anti-communism is for retro culture. These are bigger road blocks to thinking rationally than you might expect.

In my opinion, the best way to get people to consider socialism objectively and without bias is to first convince them that capitalism is bad. The difficulty of such varies depending on the background of the person, but let's not get too carried away in this tangent.

I can't really say comparing what you proposed to the God question is an accurate characterization. In the former, the meaning can vary based on semantics; where as in the latter, it's clear that Christianity is a paradox.

[ericksolvi]

This is a pretty simple thing to answer. Communism is not clearly superior. IT is superior when thought about objectively and without bias; however, a vast majority of the time this is not the case. In most places, many aspects of life install a belief that communism is a terrible thing. Government propaganda in school textbooks and organized religion are the two biggest obstacles I can think of. Oh, let's not forget culture. Those of us that live in the United States know how huge of a foundation anti-communism is for retro culture. These are bigger road blocks to thinking rationally than you might expect.

In my opinion, the best way to get people to consider socialism objectively and without bias is to first convince them that capitalism is bad. The difficulty of such varies depending on the background of the person, but let's not get too carried away in this tangent.

I can't really say comparing what you proposed to the God question is an accurate characterization. In the former, the meaning can vary based on semantics; where as in the latter, it's clear that Christianity is a paradox.

I think I love you. You couldn't possibly have said anything closer to my own thoughts on the matter. I feel the burden of solving this problem rests squarely in the hands of existing communists.
Here's where we may disagree. I think we need to do the same thing with communism that PR firms do with products/companies. We need to look at what turns people off, what they like, and what ways off stating things have the greatest mass appeal. To some this might seem cynical, and deceptive. However you yourself said "In my opinion, the best way to get people to consider socialism objectively and without bias is to first convince them that capitalism is bad" that's a marketing strategy.
Any attempt to change a persons mind can be viewed as manipulation.

[ericksolvi]

As to the paradox. I would have never thought of the one I used if I had never heard the Christianity paradox back in college. In that way the former is "Based" on the latter.

[hatzel]

All three of the statements, as they stand, are false. This should go some way towards answering the question.

[ericksolvi]

All three of the statements, as they stand, are false. This should go some way towards answering the question.

I don't suppose you would explain further?

[hatzel]

I don't suppose you would explain further?

Hmm...I guess I could do, yeah...

1) Cicero has approached an issue with the use of the word 'clearly,' with it not being 'clear' at all for a great many people for various reasons. I would also like to challenge the word 'superior,' which has effectively no meaning, particularly when discussing political systems. If you want to get really rich at the expense of others, communism obviously isn't the superior system. For example. And merely stating 'communism is superior,' with no other qualifier, makes it even more vague, and almost absolute; communism is superior, full-stop, better than all other socio-politico-economic systems, including those which have not yet been conceived of. This obviously cannot be claimed. 'Communism is superior to capitalism' or 'communism is superior for the working class' are more specific, but still remain entirely subjective assessments; one is not obligated to agree that communism is superior to any other system, no matter how cogent an argument one could make in favour of this position.

2) The most compelling evidence against the claim that people are rational is probably cognitive bias. It could be claimed that many of these biases show clear irrationality on our part. It may have been claimed in the Enlightenment that we are or could be rational thinkers or something like that, but we're really not. We also happen to be emotional, and this has a tendency to overpower our rationality. And we also have strange preferences and prejudices which defy reason. Hence cognitive bias.

Perhaps the most obvious cognitive biases to think of here would be status quo bias and system justification, both of which lead to an irrational aversion to change. The just-world phenomenon may also play a part.

3) I feel the free will issue has been addressed by so many people, and don't expect a conclusive answer to be agreed upon any time soon. Despite this, I don't think it's necessarily fair to claim 'people have free will' as a definitive statement, particularly without defining what we mean by free will; the role of the unconscious mind, or the subconscious in our decision-making takes a certain amount of the responsibility away from us. (One could also, by the way, argue that the aforementioned cognitive bias has a certain impact on claims of free will.) It may still be called free will because we decide it, even if we're unaware of it, but that would require defining 'free will' more precisely. However, I think that psychoanalysis, for example, has certain implications for the question of free will, in suggesting that our actions, in some respects, almost become inevitable because of our nature.

As an admittedly somewhat silly example, a shy person's decision not to approach somebody isn't necessarily an expression of free will, rather an expression of their lack of confidence. Erich Fromm addresses this issue in 'Man for himself,' seeking a middle ground of sorts between free will and determinism, in arguing that whilst one's nature and one's subconscious desires/fears/etc. almost make one's actions inevitable, it is at the same time possible to overcome this, change one's nature; a shy person isn't condemned to shyness forever, and can develop confidence.

Now that I'm on a roll about all this, I'd might as well throw in a quote from Edward Bernay's 'Propaganda' on the subconscious...


The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. [...] In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons [...] who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.Remember, of course, that he was himself one of those "small number of persons [...] who pull the wires which control the public mind." It is more than possible for others to influence us on a subconscious level, so that our supposed free will is instead merely a realisation of the will of others.

I hope that I have explained my positions adequately :)

[citizen of industry]

Also agree that all three are not true. There are partial truths in them, but nothing definitive. This is why agitation alone will never convince anyone to be a communist. It doesn't matter how convincing your arguments are. Agitation combined with desperate economic conditions, possibly. Agitation combined with a desperate economic situation, a strong labor movement and a mass party with a more even balance of power with capital more likely.

[The Jay]

Let's play a logic game. Three statements only two can be true.
1. Communism is clearly superior.
2. People are rational.
3. People have free will.
If all three statements are true then most people would be communist, so only two can hold true at once. Please speculate.

This is based on a similar question. If God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, then why is there evil in the world? It forces a person who takes the question seriously to decide at least one thing is untrue, and in so doing calls the basis of Christianity into question.

I would add another stipulation: People take in the same information. Also, I would pick 2 as being somewhat false; certainly not always true. Take phobias for example.

[Sputnik_1]

I don't get your "logical" thinking. How did you come up with those three statements in first place? Why those three instead of hundreds of different "guesses" possible?

[Sputnik_1]

Oh and, yeah, I don't think any of these is completely true. Especially those two about people being rational and having free will- that's definitely what they are convinced of, but hardly true.

[Ocean Seal]

Let's play a game. I'll be the bourgeoisie. I control the media, your livelihood, the prison system, your "democracy", the school system and a militarized state apparatus. Let's go: If you in your budding teenage years ask your teacher about communism-- you'll hear great in theory, turns out like that dastardly USSR in practice. Did you know they killed XX million people. It was a horrible dictatorship and you should be thankful to live here. Communists take to the streets, they are brutally beaten down by the police, and the media reports that the "scoundrels" were trying to destroy private property and puts on a sob story by a small business man. Next, you wish to go vote for a communist candidate or at least get some of their ideas on a mainstream platform. Nope, the ruling class bankrolls both parties. Ahh so you wan to run for office. Well where are your millions in corporate backing? Does anyone know who you are? Maybe, they'll get to see you debating with the Democrats or Republicans. Oh wait, NBC decided you weren't important enough to feature. Did you notice any potential flaws in getting the word out?

Do you deny global warming simply because if it were true everyone would believe it?
Read up on the theory of Cultural Hegemony by Gramsci.
Also you do realize that it took 400 years for people to accept Christianity right? Does that make you believe that it was wrong too? Because if it were immediately superior to the Pagan religions of Rome, it would have been adopted instantly. And capitalism, you don't think that the minute that they had the theory out, everyone became a capitalist right?

[ericksolvi]

I started this, with a limited amount of though going into it, because someone disliked my way of thinking about gaining more support for the movement.
Basically I suggested using soft persuasive rhetoric. Emphasising easy to understand, unobjectionable (By average American standards), parts of communism, while pushing the more complex and misconception wrought elements to the backround, at least while speaking in public and talking to potential new supporters. Get them in the door with the most pleasant sounding pitch possible, then help them to learn all the ins and out of Marxist philosophy later on. Someone thought that was terrible manipulative and basically lying, and said something like "A revolution that is not 100% honest at all times is no revolution at all".
Now if the general consensus is that people are not in really rational, and don't truly have free will, then being slightly manipulative in order to get the message past their mental blocks, is in fact the right thing to do.
After all it is in the best interests of the proletariat to support communism. So if they need a little rhetorical soft shoe, to get them over the hump of their disbelief, I don't see how that could be considered wrong.

[The Jay]

I started this, with a limited amount of though going into it, because someone disliked my way of thinking about gaining more support for the movement.
Basically I suggested using soft persuasive rhetoric. Emphasising easy to understand, unobjectionable (By average American standards), parts of communism, while pushing the more complex and misconception wrought elements to the backround, at least while speaking in public and talking to potential new supporters. Get them in the door with the most pleasant sounding pitch possible, then help them to learn all the ins and out of Marxist philosophy later on. Someone thought that was terrible manipulative and basically lying, and said something like "A revolution that is not 100% honest at all times is no revolution at all".
Now if the general consensus is that people are not in really rational, and don't truly have free will, then being slightly manipulative in order to get the message past their mental blocks, is in fact the right thing to do.
After all it is in the best interests of the proletariat to support communism. So if they need a little rhetorical soft shoe, to get them over the hump of their disbelief, I don't see how that could be considered wrong.

All communication is manipulative, so don't feel bad. What you're describing is propaganda and I think that it's a necessary step in mobilizing the people. Keep up what you're doing, it's the right thing.

[ericksolvi]

And yes I admit I was being manipulative by posing the question the way I did without letting on about my real motivations. Sometimes one must be less than 100% honest to get at the truth beneath.
I even played along with what I assumed would be the knee jerk response, because I've noticed a tendency among some on this site to be contrary for it's own sake, and I wanted to invoke contrary responses to my own premise.
Now it's not in my own best interests to be revealing all this, because it may offend some. I'm only ever deceptive for what I consider good reasons, and getting past peoples mental defenses is a good reason to me. We may only ever really see a thing by looking upon it unmasked, when you're to direct with people they may inadvertantlly mask their true selves.

[The Jay]

And yes I admit I was being manipulative by posing the question the way I did without letting on about my real motivations. Sometimes one must be less than 100% honest to get at the truth beneath.
I even played along with what I assumed would be the knee jerk response, because I've noticed a tendency among some on this site to be contrary for it's own sake, and I wanted to invoke contrary responses to my own premise.
Now it's not in my own best interests to be revealing all this, because it may offend some. I'm only ever deceptive for what I consider good reasons, and getting past peoples mental defenses is a good reason to me. We may only ever really see a thing by looking upon it unmasked, when you're to direct with people they may inadvertantlly mask their true selves.

What's that saying? Artists use lies to tell the truth. As long as it's for the right reason, I agree that lies can have much value.

[CAleftist]

"The ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of its ruling class."

[citizen of industry]

I started this, with a limited amount of though going into it, because someone disliked my way of thinking about gaining more support for the movement.
Basically I suggested using soft persuasive rhetoric. Emphasising easy to understand, unobjectionable (By average American standards), parts of communism, while pushing the more complex and misconception wrought elements to the backround, at least while speaking in public and talking to potential new supporters. Get them in the door with the most pleasant sounding pitch possible, then help them to learn all the ins and out of Marxist philosophy later on. Someone thought that was terrible manipulative and basically lying, and said something like "A revolution that is not 100% honest at all times is no revolution at all".
Now if the general consensus is that people are not in really rational, and don't truly have free will, then being slightly manipulative in order to get the message past their mental blocks, is in fact the right thing to do.
After all it is in the best interests of the proletariat to support communism. So if they need a little rhetorical soft shoe, to get them over the hump of their disbelief, I don't see how that could be considered wrong.

That's what the newspapers and leaflets we put out do, right? Emphasize the things that effect people's lives directly, critical of capitalism, etc. Propaganda and slogans. It's not like we approach people and start our pitch by saying, "What do you think of Marxism? Let me tell you about a little thing called the labor theory of value, get your pen out cause your going to have to take some notes on valorization of capital, alienation, mode of production in ancient and modern societies, etc."

[ericksolvi]

That's what the newspapers and leaflets we put out do, right? Emphasize the things that effect people's lives directly, critical of capitalism, etc. Propaganda and slogans. It's not like we approach people and start our pitch by saying, "What do you think of Marxism? Let me tell you about a little thing called the labor theory of value, get your pen out cause your going to have to take some notes on valorization of capital, alienation, mode of production in ancient and modern societies, etc."

Yes it is.
One persons stubborn moralizing annoyed me so much I created a whole thread to disprove his assumption. I wanted to make sure that his attitude was not representative of the sites general attitude.
I'm glad to see that there is a general willingness to approach the proletariat softly, as opposed to bashing them over the head with ideas that at first glance (in part because of societal programming) seem extreme/radical.

[Yuppie Grinder]

1 and 3

[Adorno4498]

1) It's all about bias. What is it superior too? Who is it superior too? Why so?
2) If all people are rational, why do people still fetishise/dogmatise things? How do you explain the fact that no one will ever truly be able to put themselves in someone else's shoes? Resistance to change? Again, it's all about bias.
3) Free will requires the ability to reason, and if not all people are rational, can all people have free will? People may have choices, but they can't choose them if they are cut off or they don't know what they are.

[blah]

All three statements may not be true.

[ColonelCossack]

A century of intense bourgeois propaganda.

[Rafiq]

A century of intense bourgeois propaganda.

No. The communist movement was strong and populous in the 20th century, regardless of bourgeois propaganda.

Neo Liberalism is the reason there are so few communists, as the proletariat took massive blow 1980s-1990s. And the economic destruction also gave birth to the intullectual dumbing down of the masses.

[Meridian]

Well in the US, and Europe to some degree, many turned hippy and pacifist during the 70s. Some just turned hippy and retained their ideology. Looking at it from hindsight-glasses it seems radicalism got assimilated into mainstream culture to some degree, having its rough edges shaved off in the process. Maybe some will disagree.

I have absolutely no idea why this is in the Philosophy section though. Attempting to turn to philosophy to understand this could be a sign by itself of why there are so few communists, perhaps.