Communism and Socialism megathread

[Unitaristic Regions]

"Socialism sounds nice in theory, but Human Nature..."



I hate that comment

Socialism Capitalism is impossible unless you want to extort everyone.

Socialism is based on a lack of barring access to the means of production. Capitalism is based on barring said access and thus, by concept, has some arbitrarily exploit others because they were born into wealth. Socialism is actually more free than capitalism, since capitalism bars me from property. Socialism gives freedom to all.

[Alsheb]

Socialism is impossible unless you want to extort everyone.

Capitalism is a few people extorting everyone else, to the extent that the worlds 85 richest have the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. At least even in the failed Socialist states the money was spread evenly.

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

[Jinwoy]

Stalin may have quite literally been insane. He didn't contribute much to the revolution, except the creation of a famine because he broke the delicate peace between slow industry formation under Lenin's NEP and just march forward with massive internal industrialisation projects and collectivisation, which the Soviet peasantry was ill equipped for - new farming technology that isn't wood, plus the inexperience on how to use this technology, led to poor harvests throughout the Soviet Union and hit the Ukrainian SSR particularly hard.
Moving on, Stalin was a poorly committed socialist; recriminalising Homosexuality in order to gain more popularity with the Church? How is that in any way Socialist? That seems like the anti-thesis to Socialism right there.

Lenin didn't want Stalin in power with good reason - all Stalin cared about was expanding his empire under the façade of socialism; an ideology that has the working people's support.
Everyone who dared stand up against him was immediately destroyed and any trace of their existence erased from record, creating a generation of subverts and yes-men who ended up training the next generation of Soviet Leaders, unfortunately.
Remember, Gorbachev was the only leader born after the Revolution. He was a full product of Stalin's purges, and the yes-men that followed.

Except for your statement about homosexuality, none of what you say makes any sense. The USSR actually made huge progress in all terms eocnomical and humanitarian under Stalin's rule, wether it was life expectancy, healthcare, women's rights, education, wages, access to culture or simple economic growth. Under Stalin, the USSR grew from a still backward agrarian state to a grand industrial powerhouse, modernised and with a much higher standard of living than ever before.

Also, the idea that "everyone who stood against him was destroyed" is total nonsense. There was also no "generation of yes-men" after Stalin. Ever heard of Krushchev? Not exactly a yes man of Stalin, since he effectively destroyed pretty much everything Stalin had built up before him.

Economic? Why are we measuring in terms of petty GDP in Socialism?
Many millions of people died under the intensive construction yard the Soviet Union was under Stalin - of course all those things would rise, since they had nowhere else to go but up. They had to rise because the Soviet Union also had nowhere to go but up - Lenin's NEP proved this, corrected the course of the Marxist society that they needed a capitalist base before implementing socialism, even if it was just a state-capitalist base.

Everyone was destroyed. The purges quelled any inner socialist dissent from Stalin's only one true vision of a socialist society TM.
The generation of yes-men who followed weren't yes-men to stalin, but they were yes-men in general who lacked serious conviction and will to do anything.
Oppressive Soviet Rule completely took away the will power, conviction, character and strength in leadership positions. This especially true in the later half of the Soviet period and culminated in the weak leadership of Gorbachev, the incompetencies of the Central Planning Committee and widespread choking and corrupt bureaucracy in the entire Politburo - if not, it was probably systematic in the entire Soviet Government by the time of collapse.

[Grand Calvert]

Capitalism is a few people extorting everyone else, to the extent that the worlds 85 richest have the same amount of wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. At least even in the failed Socialist states the money was spread evenly.

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

[Unitaristic Regions]

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

Nonono! We don't want money, we want means of production...

[Grand Calvert]

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

Nonono! We don't want money, we want means of production...

Means of production work better when govt. just allows people to work it out amongst themselves.

[Shigiel]

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

Yeah, no. No one wants to do that.

[Shigiel]

Nonono! We don't want money, we want means of production...

Means of production work better when govt. just allows people to work it out amongst themselves.

Good thing socialism's stateless then.

[Grand Calvert]

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

Yeah, no. No one wants to do that.

That doesn't mean we should just extort other people's money instead.

[Terricon]

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

There's an issue with that: those with money aren't going to give it up. Communists aren't looking for people to donate a few bucks, we call for the redistribution of money, land, and resources. Once that economic equality is achieved, the will of the Christian Jesus would be fulfilled.

[Bratislavskaya]

Funny that someone who claims to follow Christ (Calvert being a Baptist) indeed supports a system in which 80 people have as much as 3.5 billion others and soon we'll be in a world where the wealthiest 1% literally have more money amongst themselves than the other 99% of the world combined.

The Pharisees, Romans and Jewish establishment that Jesus had to struggle against had nothing on the current system in terms of blatant injustice.

Jesus wants people to WILLINGLY give to the poor. He doesn't says that we should pass laws to take someone else's money and give it to someone, that's not true giving.

"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
Matthew 6:24
Capitalism is serving money. You can't be capitalist and Christian.

[Jinwoy]

Means of production work better when govt. just allows people to work it out amongst themselves.

Good thing socialism's stateless then.

Communism*
Socialist is only state.

[Bratislavskaya]

Yeah, no. No one wants to do that.

That doesn't mean we should just extort other people's money instead.

Which is the entire economic basis of capitalism (extortion I mean).

[Unitaristic Regions]

Good thing socialism's stateless then.

Communism*
Socialist is only state.

Infighting ahoy!

Socialism is an economic system that exists in communism as well: communism is a form of society.

[Grand Calvert]

That doesn't mean we should just extort other people's money instead.

Which is the entire economic basis of capitalism (extortion I mean).

No, it lets people start their own businesses and have more control over the economy. In capitalism, there's much less taxation. Thus, less extortion (because that's essentially what taxation is).

[Unitaristic Regions]

Which is the entire economic basis of capitalism (extortion I mean).

No, it lets people start their own businesses and have more control over the economy. In capitalism, there's much less taxation. Thus, less extortion (because that's essentially what taxation is).

...

I think you don't know what you're talking about, tbh. Capitalism is based on no one controlling the economy but the market in an 'ideal' situation. Socialism is very often based on controlling the direction of the economy, whether centrally planned or in a democratic way.

[Bratislavskaya]

Which is the entire economic basis of capitalism (extortion I mean).

No, it lets people start their own businesses and have more control over the economy. In capitalism, there's much less taxation. Thus, less extortion (because that's essentially what taxation is).

Not paying people for the full value of their labour, and massively inflating the price of products is extortion. Not only that, but Socialist Albania eliminated direct taxation completely in the 60s or 70s.

[Jinwoy]

No, it lets people start their own businesses and have more control over the economy. In capitalism, there's much less taxation. Thus, less extortion (because that's essentially what taxation is).

...

I think you don't know what you're talking about, tbh. Capitalism is based on no one controlling the economy but the market in an 'ideal' situation. Socialism is very often based on controlling the direction of the economy, whether centrally planned or in a democratic way.

This.
And the fact that Free-Market capitalism is based almost entirely on the existence of random number generators makes for some really wacky situations!

[Grand Calvert]

No, it lets people start their own businesses and have more control over the economy. In capitalism, there's much less taxation. Thus, less extortion (because that's essentially what taxation is).

...

I think you don't know what you're talking about, tbh. Capitalism is based on no one controlling the economy but the market in an 'ideal' situation. Socialism is very often based on controlling the direction of the economy, whether centrally planned or in a democratic way.

Controlling the economy costs money, and they've gotta get money from somewhere. And it's not from selling girl scout cookies. It's taxes.

[Bratislavskaya]

...

I think you don't know what you're talking about, tbh. Capitalism is based on no one controlling the economy but the market in an 'ideal' situation. Socialism is very often based on controlling the direction of the economy, whether centrally planned or in a democratic way.

Controlling the economy costs money, and they've gotta get money from somewhere. And it's not from selling girl scout cookies. It's taxes.

Or perhaps from the economy you're controlling? Not like it's making money or anything...

[Unitaristic Regions]

...

I think you don't know what you're talking about, tbh. Capitalism is based on no one controlling the economy but the market in an 'ideal' situation. Socialism is very often based on controlling the direction of the economy, whether centrally planned or in a democratic way.

Controlling the economy costs money, and they've gotta get money from somewhere. And it's not from selling girl scout cookies. It's taxes.

No. You're just grasping at straws here. Planning only needs people willing to plan, and people willing to follow up on those plans to gather resources used in the next plans. It's easily on an all-voluntary basis.

[Berkhamsted]

#eventuallyyourunoutofotherpeoplesmoney
it's other people's money because the government is only earning money by collecting it from citizens. If i, a hard worker earn the same amount as a slouch, why should I work? Why take from people who do work and give to those who dont?

Society is organised along the lines of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their work' in the transitionary period. As Lenin said, 'he who does not work, neither shall he eat'. Once communism is achieved and their is an abundance of resources in society, this principle becomes redundant.
I have no idea where you got the impression socialism meant taking from those who work and giving it those who don't. I think you must have confused socialism with capitalism.

[Grand Calvert]

Controlling the economy costs money, and they've gotta get money from somewhere. And it's not from selling girl scout cookies. It's taxes.

No. You're just grasping at straws here. Planning only needs people willing to plan, and people willing to follow up on those plans to gather resources used in the next plans. It's easily on an all-voluntary basis.

Well what do you do when no one volunteers?

[Unitaristic Regions]

#eventuallyyourunoutofotherpeoplesmoney
it's other people's money because the government is only earning money by collecting it from citizens. If i, a hard worker earn the same amount as a slouch, why should I work? Why take from people who do work and give to those who dont?

Society is organised along the lines of 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their work' in the transitionary period. As Lenin said, 'he who does not work, neither shall he eat'. Once communism is achieved and their is an abundance of resources in society, this principle becomes redundant.
I have no idea where you got the impression socialism meant taking from those who work and giving it those who don't. I think you must have confused socialism with capitalism.

But no one earns anything under communism, that's what's the beauty of it. The capitalist ideology of 'reward' is destroyed in favor of sharing prosperity with everyone and overcoming petty greed for a much wider, and nicer greed!

[Unitaristic Regions]

No. You're just grasping at straws here. Planning only needs people willing to plan, and people willing to follow up on those plans to gather resources used in the next plans. It's easily on an all-voluntary basis.

Well what do you do when no one volunteers?

Then I assume no one is socialist and we still live in a capitalist society that everyone loves . Each according to his ability, each according to his need is kinda the socialist maxim. If people stop volunteering, that means they've lost faith in socialism, that it doesn't work anymore and might have to be reverted back into capitalism to avoid authoritarianism (Marxist-Leninists/Stalinists would disagree there)