Why do we champion socialism/communism anyway?

[Pannerstone]

Who cares if it's idealistic or not?

the point is that it doesn't work

[Nakena]

What materialism? Marxism legit thinks it can change society in ways that simply aren't possible, so in my book it's idealistic as hell

You seriously need to read of what you're talking about, you just sound ignorant.

Nah he's on spot. Thats exactly what Marxism aims for. It has a flawed concept to begin with which only can lead to flawed outcomes.

[Rojava Free State]

you're legit telling me that an ideology that strives to create a classless and stateless society isn't idealistic? It will never happen! Never. If that isn't idealism then I don't know what is. I'M not ignorant because I can see from miles away that communism isn't based on how societies actually progress or how people behave

<------The point.














<------You.

Marxism is idealism. That is the damn point. There's no way to argue it isnt. It's based on a dreamed up future thatll never happen

[The New California Republic]

Honestly, someone questioning where the materialism is in Marxism is one of the most downright hilarious things I've heard this month. It's like someone asking where the water is in a glass full of water...

I'm not asking that because I don't know. I'm asking because it has no relevancy as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, this just keeps getting better and better. You don't see the relevancy of materialism to Marxism?

[Genivaria]

You seriously need to read of what you're talking about, you just sound ignorant.

Nah he's on spot. Thats exactly what Marxism aims for. It has a flawed concept to begin with which only can lead to flawed outcomes.

you're legit telling me that an ideology that strives to create a classless and stateless society isn't idealistic? It will never happen! Never. If that isn't idealism then I don't know what is. I'M not ignorant because I can see from miles away that communism isn't based on how societies actually progress or how people behave

You don't know what Idealism means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

You're using 'idealist' as a synonym for 'naive' when we're referring to philosophical idealism.

[Alexiandra]

I consider this praxis, since we're effectively providing a free philosophy education here.

[Torrocca]

I'm not asking that because I don't know. I'm asking because it has no relevancy as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, this just keeps getting better and better. You don't see the relevancy of materialism to Marxism?

"Hey, y'all, I don't know jack diddly shit about how vaccines work, but lemme tell you why they're terrible!"

I fucking love how this thread's just the political version of an anti-vax parent group on Facebook.

[Duvniask]

Marxism about developing a gargantuan inescapeable logic thoughtbox system pretty much like Incelism thonk it out on why they will never get laid.

Like I've brought up before, you've never done anything to justify this nonsense reasoning. As far as I know, everytime you encounter it you just engage in a knee-jerk reaction and bring up a certain set of buzzwords with zero elaboration.

[Alexiandra]

<------The point.














<------You.

Marxism is idealism. That is the damn point. There's no way to argue it isnt. It's based on a dreamed up future thatll never happen

Medieval peasant: a system where private businessmen own the means of production instead of the lords and peasant communities? Impossible. It'll never happen.

[Pannerstone]

Marxism is idealism. That is the damn point. There's no way to argue it isnt. It's based on a dreamed up future thatll never happen

Medieval peasant: a system where private businessmen own the means of production instead of the lords and peasant communities? Impossible. It'll never happen.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm not asking that because I don't know. I'm asking because it has no relevancy as far as I'm concerned.

Wow, this just keeps getting better and better. You don't see the relevancy of materialism to Marxism?

I know about materialism in marxism, okay? In case you didn't know I'm not a fucking idiot. Marxism believes in historical materialism, which is the idea that society throughout history was consumed by struggle and conflict related to who owned the means of production. Marx believed that society and its development was influenced by its economic system and the division of classes.

There, you happy or you want me to write the whole communist manifesto just to prove that I know what I'm talking about?

[Alien Overlord]

Communism has only worked under a single system in the history of our planet. Primitive Communism, where everything is shared between members of the same tribe within primitive societies, such as the Native Americans. Communism becomes nonviable in any other situation (as history has previously shown.)

[Rojava Free State]

Marxism is idealism. That is the damn point. There's no way to argue it isnt. It's based on a dreamed up future thatll never happen

Medieval peasant: a system where private businessmen own the means of production instead of the lords and peasant communities? Impossible. It'll never happen.

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

[Pannerstone]

Communism has only worked under a single system in the history of our planet. Primitive Communism, where everything is shared between members of the same tribe within primitive societies, such as the Native Americans. Communism becomes nonviable in any other situation (as history has previously shown.)

more or less this

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

You seriously need to read of what you're talking about, you just sound ignorant.

you're legit telling me that an ideology that strives to create a classless and stateless society isn't idealistic? It will never happen! Never. If that isn't idealism then I don't know what is. I'M not ignorant because I can see from miles away that communism isn't based on how societies actually progress or how people behave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism
Perhaps you should read this article before repeating a PRATT (Point Rebutted a Thousand Times). And idealism is not what you think it is, per below:

"In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial. Epistemologically, idealism manifests as a skepticism about the possibility of knowing any mind-independent thing. In contrast to materialism, idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence. Consciousness creates and determines the material and not vice versa. Idealism believes consciousness and mind to be the origin of the material world and aims to explain the existing world according to these principles.[1]

Idealism theories are mainly divided into two groups. Subjective idealism takes as its starting point the given fact of human consciousness seeing the existing world as a combination of sensation. Objective idealism posits the existence of an objective consciousness which exists before and, in some sense, independently of human ones. In a sociological sense, idealism emphasizes how human ideas—especially beliefs and values—shape society.[2] As an ontological doctrine, idealism goes further, asserting that all entities are composed of mind or spirit.[3] Idealism thus rejects those physicalist and dualist theories that fail to ascribe priority to the mind.

The earliest extant arguments that the world of experience is grounded in the mental derive from India and Greece. The Hindu idealists in India and the Greek neoplatonists gave panentheistic arguments for an all-pervading consciousness as the ground or true nature of reality.[4] In contrast, the Yogācāra school, which arose within Mahayana Buddhism in India in the 4th century CE,[5] based its "mind-only" idealism to a greater extent on phenomenological analyses of personal experience. This turn toward the subjective anticipated empiricists such as George Berkeley, who revived idealism in 18th-century Europe by employing skeptical arguments against materialism. Beginning with Immanuel Kant, German idealists such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, and Arthur Schopenhauer dominated 19th-century philosophy. This tradition, which emphasized the mental or "ideal" character of all phenomena, gave birth to idealistic and subjectivist schools ranging from British idealism to phenomenalism to existentialism.

Idealism as a philosophy came under heavy attack in the West at the turn of the 20th century. The most influential critics of both epistemological and ontological idealism were G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell,[6] but its critics also included the new realists. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the attacks by Moore and Russell were so influential that even more than 100 years later "any acknowledgment of idealistic tendencies is viewed in the English-speaking world with reservation". However, many aspects and paradigms of idealism did still have a large influence on subsequent philosophy.[7]"
And idealists such as Kant were one of the most outspoken critics of materialism:

"In the Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant argued against materialism in defending his transcendental idealism (as well as offering arguments against subjective idealism and mind–body dualism).[47][48] However, Kant with his refutation of idealism, argues that change and time require an enduring substrate.[49][50] Postmodern/poststructuralist thinkers also express a skepticism about any all-encompassing metaphysical scheme. Philosopher Mary Midgley argues that materialism is a self-refuting idea, at least in its eliminative materialist form.[51][52][53][54][55]

Idealisms
Arguments for idealism, such as those of Hegel and Berkeley, often take the form of an argument against materialism; indeed, the idealism of Berkeley was called immaterialism. Now, matter can be argued to be redundant, as in bundle theory, and mind-independent properties can, in turn, be reduced to subjective percepts. Berkeley presents an example of the latter by pointing out that it is impossible to gather direct evidence of matter, as there is no direct experience of matter; all that is experienced is perception, whether internal or external. As such, the existence of matter can only be assumed from the apparent (perceived) stability of perceptions; it finds absolutely no evidence in direct experience.

If matter and energy are seen as necessary to explain the physical world, but incapable of explaining mind, dualism results. Emergence, holism and process philosophy seek to ameliorate the perceived shortcomings of traditional (especially mechanistic) materialism without abandoning materialism entirely."

[Alexiandra]

Medieval peasant: a system where private businessmen own the means of production instead of the lords and peasant communities? Impossible. It'll never happen.

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

[Duvniask]

Medieval peasant: a system where private businessmen own the means of production instead of the lords and peasant communities? Impossible. It'll never happen.

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

I already made a thread about this recently; this argument is unsound. You are making this assertion of an almost law-like form without bothering to understand (and explain) the actual reasons (causal mechanisms) behind failure. If these are the result of unique historical and material conditions, then failure is not inevitable and is instead the product of circumstance.

[Pannerstone]

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

How do you address class divide based on religion, race, culture, etc etc?

For instance, Muslims in the middle east who believe in patriarchy? how would adress them?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

The fact that a hundred fifty years after the ideology was created it has failed to be implemented anywhere once kinda speaks as to its uselessness in the real world tbh

[Rojava Free State]

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

you're arguing over your definition of idealism when the point I was originally trying to make is that communism doesn't work. By idealism I mean the following, okay? It means communism is wishful thinking based on a false hope in human behavior, and won't actually succeed. When communism finally works, you can come gloat at me. I'm not about to play around with this definition of idealism because that wasn't even the main point to begin with.

[The New California Republic]

Wow, this just keeps getting better and better. You don't see the relevancy of materialism to Marxism?

I know about materialism in marxism, okay? In case you didn't know I'm not a fucking idiot. Marxism believes in historical materialism, which is the idea that society throughout history was consumed by struggle and conflict related to who owned the means of production. Marx believed that society and its development was influenced by its economic system and the division of classes.

There, you happy or you want me to write the whole communist manifesto just to prove that I know what I'm talking about?

Then stop acting repeatedly like materialism has no relevance to Marxism for fuck's sake.

[Rojava Free State]

Name me a communist society that worked

Oh wait, you cant, cause they always fail. That's the difference

I already made a thread about this recently; this argument is unsound. You are making this assertion of an almost law-like form without bothering to understand (and explain) the actual reasons (causal mechanisms) behind failure. If these are the result of unique historical and material conditions, then failure is not inevitable and is instead the product of circumstance.

Communism failed because not every one wants to participate in spreading the wealth. You can't have a stateless society of millions where everyone shares. People are gonna want to be better than others in some way. That's why communism always goes authoritarian

[Genivaria]

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

The fact that a hundred fifty years after the ideology was created it has failed to be implemented anywhere once kinda speaks as to its uselessness in the real world tbh

Indeed self-perpetuation is a key requirement of an ideology.
Where does that leave fascism?

[Alexiandra]

Lol I like how as soon as I debunk one criticism you just switch to another without any acknowledgement. First you say it's idealist and I debunk that, now you're saying it 'doesn't work'. There has never been a communist society. Believe it or not, supplanting an entire global socioeconomic system and mode of production takes some time.

The fact that a hundred fifty years after the ideology was created it has failed to be implemented anywhere once kinda speaks as to its uselessness in the real world tbh

Capitalism took hundreds of years to emerge from feudalism - almost 1000 years, in fact. I suspect the transition to communism will be quicker, but why do we apply a double standard? Why should communism emerge any more quickly than capitalism did?

[Rojava Free State]

I know about materialism in marxism, okay? In case you didn't know I'm not a fucking idiot. Marxism believes in historical materialism, which is the idea that society throughout history was consumed by struggle and conflict related to who owned the means of production. Marx believed that society and its development was influenced by its economic system and the division of classes.

There, you happy or you want me to write the whole communist manifesto just to prove that I know what I'm talking about?

Then stop acting repeatedly like materialism has no relevance to Marxism for fuck's sake.

It has no relevancy to the argument. The argument is that communism doesn't work. When you find a communist country that succeeded in not falling apart/turning full on pol pot mode, let us all know