This was at question in another thread but wasn't getting answered.

Just what is communism?

I'd like an answer to that question as well.

Good question. Karl Marx should know, and he's even a member of this forum.

"Collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by the state."

"Collectivists believe that governments have powers that are greater than those of their citizens, and that the source of those powers is not the individuals within society, but society itself, the group to which individuals belong."

"Collectivism is based on the belief that the group is more important than the individual."

"The collectivist declares that individuals are not personally responsible for charity, for raising their own children, providing for aging parents, or even providing for themselves. These are group obligations of the state."

"Collectivists do not trust freedom. They are afraid of freedom. They are convinced that freedom may be all right in small matters such as what color socks you want to wear, but when it come to the important issues such as the money supply, banking practices, investments, insurance programs, health care, education, and so on, freedom will not work. These things, they say, simply must be controlled by the government. Otherwise there would be chaos."

"Collectivists say, “We must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are too dumb to do it on their own. We, on the other hand, have been to school. We’ve read books. We are informed. We are smarter than those people out there. If we leave it to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us, the enlightened ones. We shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.”

"One of the quickest ways to spot a collectivist is to see how he reacts to public problems. No matter what bothers him in his daily routine – whether it’s littering the highway, smoking in public, dressing indecently, bigotry, sending out junk mail – you name it, his immediate response is “There ought to be a law!” And, of course, the professionals in government who make a living from coercion are more than happy to cooperate."

"A good example of this collectivist mindset is the use of government to perform acts of charity. Most people believe that we all have a responsibility to help others in need if we can, but what about those who disagree, those who couldn’t care less about the needs of others? Should they be allowed to be selfish while we are so generous? The collectivist sees people like that as justification for the use of coercion, because the cause is so worthy."

"Collectivists would have you believe that individualism is merely another word for selfishness, because individualists oppose welfare and other forms of coercive redistribution of wealth, but just the opposite is true."

"One of the most popular slogans of Marxism is: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” That’s the cornerstone of theoretical socialism, and it is a very appealing concept. A person hearing that slogan for the first time might say: “What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that the essence of charity and compassion toward those in need? What could possibly be wrong with giving according to your ability to others according to their need?” And the answer is, nothing is wrong with it – as far as it goes, but it is an incomplete concept. The unanswered question is how is this to be accomplished? Shall it be in freedom or through coercion?"

"The fifth concept that divides collectivism from individualism has to do with the way people are treated under the law. Individualists believe that no two people are exactly alike, and each one is superior or inferior to others in many ways but, under law, they should all be treated equally. Collectivists believe that the law should treat people unequally in order to bring about desirable changes in society. They view the world as tragically imperfect. They see poverty and suffering and injustice and they conclude that something must be done to alter the forces that have produced these effects. They think of themselves as social engineers who have the wisdom to restructure society to a more humane and logical order. To do this, they must intervene in the affairs of men at all levels and redirect their activities according to a master plan. That means they must redistribute wealth and use the police power of the state to enforce prescribed behavior."

"When all of these factors are considered together, we come to the sixth ideological division between collectivism and individualism. Collectivists believe that the proper role of government should be positive, that the state should take the initiative in all aspects of the affairs of men, that it should be aggressive, lead, and provide. It should be the great organizer of society."

http://www.freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf

Extremely pejorative.

I actually wish LordFu wouldn't have posted that because now, if one of our resident commies actually does come post in the thread, it will be to call Fu a bunch of names rather than answer the challenge posed in the OP. Not that I expect they'll show up to support their views anyway.

If this is really what communists stand for I would be against it as I value my individualism greatly. My ability to be different, to be unlike anyone else is very important to me. I doubt if I would be able to fit into a collective whole.

True, but do you care to refute any of his assertions?

I held off posting anything for exactly that reason, but as none of our local "communists" were taking the opportunity, I made an attempt at provoking further discussion. You're probably right about the name-calling.

Individualism is incompatible with any form of collectivism, not exclusively communism. They are diametrical.

/puts on Ayn Rand hat

What exactly is wrong with selfishness so long as it doesn't involve getting in the way of others promoting their self interests?

What is meant by "just the opposite is true?"

"Just the opposite is true", is his lead-in to the next sentence, which I cut for brevity.

The follow-up is, "Individualists advocate true charity, which is the voluntary giving of their own money, while collectivists advocate the coercive giving of other people’s money; which, of course, is why it is so popular."

Nothing, other than being in possession of a poor personality trait, but, that's only my personal opinion of selfishness. I wouldn't be in favor of forcing you to be not selfish. In fact, forcing you to give against your wishes couldn't, on it's own, make you less selfish, anyway.

Nice hat, btw.

I think, according to Ayn Rand, contributing to a charity that you believe will further your own interests and in the end make you happy, is considered selfish.

Communism is a label. I would not personally ascribe to any of the statements listed there, but then I don't really consider myself to be a communist either. I chose not to speak up precisely because I don't consider myself to be a communist.
Well, that's true insofar as it goes. Pure collectivism is diametrical to pure individualism. But you could certainly have some kind of mixture of the two.

I think that definition of collectivist is more polarizing than it needs to be.

Your list of 'collectivists do this/that' might be true for pure collectivism, but its use seems to be used falsely as arguments against the non-pure version. Surely you believe in some collectivism, things like infrastructure, rule of law?
Also, some of them put words in other peoples mouth.
By whom are rights granted in any case? Does the universe itself somehow contain rights then? No, humans have themselves decided that other people have rights in some cases. That leftists think people have the right to food, education, healthcare or pensions, does not mean that it is suddenly 'granted by state'.
The more real difference is that these rights are demanding, rather then passive, like the right not being stolen from. (Although, perhaps all rights are demanding; it costs police to prevent crime like stealing.)
Or that the group must take care people get those rights i talked about.
Collectivism does move around resources; and into more charitable hands. I guess it is stealing, haha. (Ye, sure there was more charity in early 20th certury, because they were afraid of the working class..)
I wish that people would just be charitable enough to do this automatically, but they are not. A lot of resources are in bastards(Who are at an advantage in earning money.) and corporations. Corporations couldnt even be charitable if they wanted; the shareholders would mind.
The people doing the lower-educated work shouldnt have to work so the rich can have their, million dollar pissing contests.
Wtf is this about? We are afraid of the freedom of the rich to slave away workers. Workers who have to work for a living; who are hence not free. Lack of freedom is a fact of life in any case, some collectivism actually increases freedom.
...That is why we are for accessible education.
There ought to be a law to prevent people from doing that!

It's pretty simple is it not.
Communism is when you are born into a job class and you cant advance in it. You take on what your father did and you have no say to it. Everyone works, which is why communist governments are so strong like china. They have low cost labor and can mass produce anything and everything because of it lol

Yeah, I can see how giving is self-gratifying, and you could extrapolate that to mean selfish. In some cases, it is certainly true, but I do also believe that there is such a thing as selfless giving.
He wasn't attacking communism, specifically, but all forms of collectivism, including whatever brand of theoretical socialism you prescribe to this week.
No, you really can't. Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism by Ludwig von Mises
Polarizing, perhaps, but factually correct, none the less.

State monopoly on infrastructure, law, and other areas of common public interest may be expedient, but it's certainly not the only possible way to achieve desirable results and certainly not the most efficient.
They're his words, so I'll refer back to his writing for the full explanation. I pointed it out earlier, but I'll point it out again. I shortened many of those points, so they are out of context to varying degrees.

"1. THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The first of these has to do with the nature of human rights. Collectivists and individualists both agree that human rights are important, but they differ over how important compared to other values and especially over the origin of those rights.

Rights are not tangible entities that can be viewed or measured. They are abstract concepts held in the human mind. They are whatever men agree they are at a given time and place. Their nature has changed with the evolution of civilization. Today, they vary widely from culture to culture. One culture may accept that rights are granted by rulers who derive authority from God. Another culture may claim that rights are granted by God directly to the people. In other cultures, rights are perceived as a claim to the material possessions of others. People living in tribal or military dictatorships don’t spend much time even thinking about rights because they have no expectation of ever having them. Some primitive cultures don’t even have a word for rights.

Because of the great diversity in the concept of human rights, they cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. However, that does not mean they cannot be defined to our satisfaction. We do not have to insist that those in other cultures agree with us; but, if we wish to live in a culture to our liking, one in which we have the optimum amount of personal freedom, then we must be serious about a preferred definition of human rights. If we have no concept of what rights should be, then it is likely we will live under a definition not to our liking.

The first thing to understand as we work toward a useful definition of rights is that their source determines their nature. This will be covered in greater detail further along, but the concept needs to be stated here. If we can agree on the source of rights, then we will have little difficulty agreeing on their nature. For example, if a security guard is hired by a gated community to protect the property of its residents, the nature of the guard’s activity must be limited to the activities that the residents themselves are entitled to perform. That means the guard may patrol the community and, if necessary, physically deter burglaries and crimes of aggressive violence. But the guard is not authorized to compel the residents to send their children to bed by 10 PM or donate to the Red Cross. Why not? Because the residents are the source of the authority; the nature of the authority cannot include any act that is denied to the source; and the residents have no right to compel their neighbors in these matters.

RIGHTS ARE BORN ON THE BATTLEFIELD

In societies that have been sheltered for many generations from war and revolution, it is easy to forget that rights are derived from military power. That is their ultimate source. Initially, rights must be earned on the battlefield. They may be handed to the next generation as a gift, but they always are purchased on the battlefield. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is a classic example. The men who drafted that document were able to do so only because they represented the colonists who defeated the armies of Great Britain. Had they lost the War of Independence, they would have had no opportunity to write a Bill of Rights or anything else except letters of farewell before their execution.

Unfortunately, Mao Zedong was right when he said that political power grows from the barrel of a gun. He could just as well have said rights. A man may declare that he has a right to do such and such derived from law or from a constitution or even from God; but, in the presence of an enemy or a criminal or a tyrant with a gun to his head, he has no power to exercise his proclaimed right. Rights are always based on power. If we lose our ability or willingness to physically defend our rights, we will lose them.

Now we come to the chasm between collectivists and individualists. If rights are earned on the battlefield, we may assume they belong to the winners, but who are they? Do governments win wars or do the people? If governments win wars and people merely serve them as in medieval times, then governments hold the rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to the people. On the other hand, if people win wars and governments merely serve them in this matter, then the people hold rights and are entitled to grant or deny them to governments. If our task is to define rights as we think they should be in a free society, we must choose between these two concepts. Individualists choose the concept that rights come from the people and governments are the servants. Collectivists choose the concept that rights come from governments and people are the servants. Individualists are nervous about that assumption because, if the state has the power to grant rights, it also has the power to take them away, and that concept is incompatible with personal liberty. The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men….

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them. By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.

I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.

Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes."


While you can find examples of that type of behavior in the Robber-Barons, who were not individualists by any stretch, or capitalists, for that matter, but the statement does not hold true as a broad generalization.

Corporations are legal entities that don't fit into the model of capitalism. They are socialism in action. Public owned and basically unaccountable.
You're forgeting an important fact. You choose where you work, when you work, how you work, etc.

Collectivists want you to believe that people have no choice in how they live. That is patently false. If a person is free to choose, and they choose poorly, it is their personal responsibility. Insulating people from the consequences of their own actions is not the proper role of government, and only serves to encourage irresponsible behavior, in general.
As long as it produces good drones for the state, right?
THE UNDERGROUND HISTORY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION - by John Taylor Gatto

The concept that people have no choice in how they live is patently false. I agree.

However, the concept that every person can choose to live however they want is also patently false. People have an amount of choice, but it isn't total. If you think it is, then you are seriously deluded.

You can choose to live however you want, but making a choice doesn't instantly achieve your goal. There are prerequisites to any human endevour.

I agree