Communism: Discussion on practicalities

[Punished UMN]

anytime anyone says "the issue with communism is", there is a 90% chance that whatever they describe will have nothing to do with communism

except the whole concept of communism is to retake the means of production from the bourgeoisie and im right. The issue is when the proletariats do gain the supposed means of production they just become the new oppressors. Think about it, do you really think the proletariats are immune to being corrupted and hording power once an elite few are in power?

When have Marxists ever denied this? "When our time comes, we will not apologize for the terror."

[Technoscience Leftwing]

I perceive this as a project for a happier society, where every citizen is guaranteed protection from poverty, homelessness and illiteracy. That is, everyone is guaranteed a free set of benefits sufficient to survive (food, clothing, living quarters, textbooks, the right to travel on public transport). As technological progress grows, automation provides an increase in the volume and variability of this free set of benefits. The same automation and robotization are pushing the living labor of workers out of production. Once given leisure time, people can choose entertainment or creativity, or a combination of creativity and entertainment. In this society, everything is decided through electronic voting. Groups of enthusiasts propose their scientific and technical projects for a vote. If people mistakenly vote for a quack stupid project and allocate resources for it, they themselves are responsible for the failure. If a smart and useful project is chosen, its success will expand the size and range of goods available free of charge, and expand the technical capabilities of society. At first, access to voting is not universal, decisions are made only by people of progressive views, but the system is aimed at ensuring that there are as many such people as possible. There are distorted versions of communism - versions of the imperial or barracks type, in which the emphasis is on manipulating people and excessive regulation of their behavior. These anti-humanist versions and interpretations are unacceptable. The challenge is not to manipulate people, but to harness nature through technology to create a safer, more fun, planet-wide society. There is no fatal inevitability that would lead to success or failure in building such a society - there is a dream about it, and there is a danger of degeneration of the government that declares this dream. Whether there will be success or degradation depends on the specific conditions: education and activity of the population, the level of technology development.

[Kubra]

anytime anyone says "the issue with communism is", there is a 90% chance that whatever they describe will have nothing to do with communism

except the whole concept of communism is to retake the means of production from the bourgeoisie and im right. The issue is when the proletariats do gain the supposed means of production they just become the new oppressors. Think about it, do you really think the proletariats are immune to being corrupted and hording power once an elite few are in power?

There is no such thing as an uncorrupt king, but better a protestant than a catholic. Dig?

[FutureAmerica]

Political power needs to be distributed to voting citizens. Any sort of state centric power turns to authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. This is the flaw of communist and fascist regimes. China is an example of a faux communist regime where it doesn't understand whether it's communist or fascist and not understand the difference. George Orwell's Animal Farm explains it perfectly.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Political power needs to be distributed to voting citizens. Any sort of state centric power turns to authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. This is the flaw of communist and fascist regimes. China is an example of a faux communist regime where it doesn't understand whether it's communist or fascist and not understand the difference. George Orwell's Animal Farm explains it perfectly.

There are plenty of libertarian communists and leftists.

[Punished UMN]

Political power needs to be distributed to voting citizens. Any sort of state centric power turns to authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. This is the flaw of communist and fascist regimes. China is an example of a faux communist regime where it doesn't understand whether it's communist or fascist and not understand the difference. George Orwell's Animal Farm explains it perfectly.

George Orwell's animal farm doesn't explain anything, much less perfectly. The process of the deformation of the workers' state was quite a bit different in the USSR and China, the Soviet Union maintained much more of its socialist characteristics than the PRC because of this, as the USSR retained a sense of proletarian Bonapartism, the Party remained, for the most part, devoted to Marxism-Leninism until the final generation of leadership and the break-up of the Communist Party among its constituent republics, along the lines of the multi-national nature of the Soviet Union. The PRC on the other hand, ceased to be made up of cadres pretty early in its history. It was still a small political entity when it seized control of China, and, in order to govern the country, allowed many non-Communists into its ranks, including many former Kuomintang members. This caused most of the party to lose its Marxist ideological roots by the time Mao had died, and the party transitioned to a party of governance. As an aside, this is why I really find the people who masturbate to the ROC hilarious. The KMT was just a failed version of the CCP whose members were mostly absorbed into the latter when it failed catastrophically due primarily to the consequences of its own actions rather than from any blow which the Communists delivered.

It would be a mistake to think of the CCP as an ideologically extremist party, it really isn't, it's actually pretty ideologically neutral, at least as much as anything can be ideologically neutral. Concerned primarily with the day-to-day affairs of governing the largest nation on Earth, it has mostly abandoned ideological tenets to focus on metapolitical ones focused less on beliefs or goals and more on abstract material consequences for the state and its stewardship of the country. This is why the CCP is, undeniably perhaps, the most successful government on Earth when one cares primarily about statistics rather than what a materialist viewpoint must accept as merely the delusions of of pseudo-spiritualist ideological morality found in liberalism.

[Labbos]

I mean, yeah, this. Capitalism sucks and I hate it but I don't feel like communism or socialism is the answer. It may solve some issues but it'll inadvertently create more. This is an issue with almost every political system that claims to solve problems, be they revolutionary - communism, syndicalism, fascism - or reactionary - neoconservatism, traditionalism, modern nationalist populism - or something in between. I don't think there's ever been an ideology yet that's been created or even theorized that could perfectly solve the world's problems and it likely never will be.

Ah, instead of a paen to human nature we have a collapsed political imagination that apparently tried and failed to grapple with Marxism and instead retreated into the nihilistic security blanket that is the status quo.

Ah, we have a collapsed political imagination that apparently tried and failed to grapple with the well established problems with Marxist movements and instead retreated into the nihilistic security blanket that is hoping for a revolution that will deliver them a perfect world.

[Genivaria]

I have very recently come to embrace the title of Anarcho-Communist because I really don't see why we should be restricted in solving societal ills by imaginary and arbitrary things like the market and currency.
We already have several times the number of homes to feed the homeless and food to feed the hungry already, we simply don't address these problems because there's no money in it. Money and capital is holding us back.

[Kilobugya]

I have very recently come to embrace the title of Anarcho-Communist because I really don't see why we should be restricted in solving societal ills by imaginary and arbitrary things like the market and currency.
We already have several times the number of homes to feed the homeless and food to feed the hungry already, we simply don't address these problems because there's no money in it. Money and capital is holding us back.

I definitely agree with you diagnostic. Anarcho-Communism isn't the only possible answer to it, but I mostly agree with their (well, your) objectives. It's on strategy I'm not so much in agreement but well... at least we can work together

[Australian rePublic]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

Every country that has tried communism has failed miserably, and every country which was split into communist and capitalist halves had always seen the capitalist half out perform the communist half. Capitalist Germany was objectively better than communist Germany, capitalist Korea is objectively better than communist Korea, capitalist China (i.e. Taiwan) is objectively better than Communist China. And every country which tried communism was significantly improved after ditching it. For example, China was so much better under Deng Xiaoping who ditched communism than it ever had been since the time Mao implemented communism 9n the first place. This is universally true across all cultures and all societies. There's a reason why the greatest communist leaders in the world- Mao, Xi, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. are all compared to the freakin' NAZIs. Communism sucks! When will learn that communism is the problem in and of itself and stop this "not real communism" bullshit. You're deluding yourselves if you believe that none of the dozens of parties which called themselves some version of the socialist/communist party didn't try to implement actually try to implement actual socialism/communism. Seriously, you're absolutely deluding yourself if you believe that nonsense. It's absolute crap! Sure you can poimt to some timy microregion of the Middle East with a tiny population and (arguably) successful communism, or some semi-autonomus region of Mexico with (arguably) successful socialism, but that ignores the fact that the former is a tiny neiche community with a tiny neiche population and the later doesn't really have much autonomy to implement communism fully

Having said that, however, unbridled capitalism isn't good either. It creates too much of a divide between the rich and the poor. And the vast majority of capitalist countries will implement some form of socialism (e.g. universal health care) as soon as they can afford it. With notable exceptions, such as the USA, unbridled capitalism is mostly used by poor countries who can't afford better systems. They're still better off than communist countries though. Far, far better off!

The best system is kind of balance between communism. This is why I support social democracy.

Incidently, countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and much of western and eastern Europe are all some form of social democracy and they're all amongst the best ranking countries in the world when it comes to healthcare, crime, economy, social mobility, etc. don't fuck with what works best for most people, twerk it sure, but don't fuck with it

[Kubra]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

Every country that has tried communism has failed miserably, and every country which was split into communist and capitalist halves had always seen the capitalist half out perform the communist half. Capitalist Germany was objectively better than communist Germany, capitalist Korea is objectively better than communist Korea, capitalist China (i.e. Taiwan) is objectively better than Communist China. And every country which tried communism was significantly improved after ditching it. For example, China was so much better under Deng Xiaoping who ditched communism than it ever had been since the time Mao implemented communism 9n the first place. This is universally true across all cultures and all societies. There's a reason why the greatest communist leaders in the world- Mao, Xi, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. are all compared to the freakin' NAZIs. Communism sucks! When will learn that communism is the problem in and of itself and stop this "not real communism" bullshit. You're deluding yourselves if you believe that none of the dozens of parties which called themselves some version of the socialist/communist party didn't try to implement actually try to implement actual socialism/communism. Seriously, you're absolutely deluding yourself if you believe that nonsense. It's absolute crap! Sure you can poimt to some timy microregion of the Middle East with a tiny population and (arguably) successful communism, or some semi-autonomus region of Mexico with (arguably) successful socialism, but that ignores the fact that the former is a tiny neiche community with a tiny neiche population and the later doesn't really have much autonomy to implement communism fully

Having said that, however, unbridled capitalism isn't good either. It creates too much of a divide between the rich and the poor. And the vast majority of capitalist countries will implement some form of socialism (e.g. universal health care) as soon as they can afford it. With notable exceptions, such as the USA, unbridled capitalism is mostly used by poor countries who can't afford better systems. They're still better off than communist countries though. Far, far better off!

The best system is kind of balance between communism. This is why I support social democracy.

Incidently, countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and much of western and eastern Europe are all some form of social democracy and they're all amongst the best ranking countries in the world when it comes to healthcare, crime, economy, social mobility, etc. don't fuck with what works best for most people, twerk it sure, but don't fuck with it

Quick question: have you ever actually saw anyone say "not real communism"?

[Ifreann]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

[Page]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

Well, more than a billion people have died over the centuries from capitalism, so apparently casualties aren't a factor in assessing the virtue of economic systems.

Also maybe give the commies a little credit for the lives they saved like the tens of millions of people Hitler would have exterminated if not for the USSR.

[Genivaria]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

Well, more than a billion people have died over the centuries from capitalism, so apparently casualties aren't a factor in assessing the virtue of economic systems.

Also maybe give the commies a little credit for the lives they saved like the tens of millions of people Hitler would have exterminated if not for the USSR.

No Page you're not allowed to hold Capitalism to any standard, it is sacred.

[Cekoviu]

you've pointed out, correctly, that communism is unattainable. however, totalitarian socialism is not a bad end goal and is significantly better than the totalitarian capitalism we currently experience in much of the world.

[Page]

you've pointed out, correctly, that communism is unattainable. however, totalitarian socialism is not a bad end goal and is significantly better than the totalitarian capitalism we currently experience in much of the world.

How about no totalitarianism? Even if people's needs are met, an unfree life is not worth living.

[Fauzjhia]

Communism is by far one of the worst system ever of government ever devised, how many more millions need to die before we learn that?

Every country that has tried communism has failed miserably, and every country which was split into communist and capitalist halves had always seen the capitalist half out perform the communist half. Capitalist Germany was objectively better than communist Germany, capitalist Korea is objectively better than communist Korea, capitalist China (i.e. Taiwan) is objectively better than Communist China. And every country which tried communism was significantly improved after ditching it. For example, China was so much better under Deng Xiaoping who ditched communism than it ever had been since the time Mao implemented communism 9n the first place. This is universally true across all cultures and all societies. There's a reason why the greatest communist leaders in the world- Mao, Xi, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. are all compared to the freakin' NAZIs. Communism sucks! When will learn that communism is the problem in and of itself and stop this "not real communism" bullshit. You're deluding yourselves if you believe that none of the dozens of parties which called themselves some version of the socialist/communist party didn't try to implement actually try to implement actual socialism/communism. Seriously, you're absolutely deluding yourself if you believe that nonsense. It's absolute crap! Sure you can poimt to some timy microregion of the Middle East with a tiny population and (arguably) successful communism, or some semi-autonomus region of Mexico with (arguably) successful socialism, but that ignores the fact that the former is a tiny neiche community with a tiny neiche population and the later doesn't really have much autonomy to implement communism fully

Having said that, however, unbridled capitalism isn't good either. It creates too much of a divide between the rich and the poor. And the vast majority of capitalist countries will implement some form of socialism (e.g. universal health care) as soon as they can afford it. With notable exceptions, such as the USA, unbridled capitalism is mostly used by poor countries who can't afford better systems. They're still better off than communist countries though. Far, far better off!

The best system is kind of balance between communism. This is why I support social democracy.

Incidently, countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and much of western and eastern Europe are all some form of social democracy and they're all amongst the best ranking countries in the world when it comes to healthcare, crime, economy, social mobility, etc. don't fuck with what works best for most people, twerk it sure, but don't fuck with it

There are many communists philosophies in the world. What dominated in the east-world is Platonician communism, where a group of person pretend to be the (illuminati who get the guide the general morons) (allegory the cavern..) This type of Communism reject democracy, as they believe the people are too stupid to make correct choices

China is not non-Communist, still define communist itself, and our business tend to appreciate it, because of its cheap labor force, total absence of any trade union, and other lack of implementation,
North Korea is not communist for 3 seconds, its a country rules by a cult.
Those country claims to be in a transition phase to real communism, but they began that (transition years ago, and are still in it, proof that the Phase is permanent, not temporary, and that the country will never reach communism. ) the workers exploited by private business, now they are exploited by the state, BIG transformation, while they should own the means of production, not be exploited.

Although I would not reach Scorth Earth of of Trotsky, the whole idea of revolution for the shake of revolution is non-realist, but already at the time, Trotsky saw the communist regime where not going to reach ideal world, as they tend to create a new social classes that replace the old one, he called that, crystallization of the socialist bureaucracy, and though the only way to avoid, would be to organize more revolutions. Trotskism is revolution after revolution, and it never end at all.

I think democracy is much more realist then revolution. A good democratic system should in the center of any communist system.

[Cekoviu]

you've pointed out, correctly, that communism is unattainable. however, totalitarian socialism is not a bad end goal and is significantly better than the totalitarian capitalism we currently experience in much of the world.

How about no totalitarianism? Even if people's needs are met, an unfree life is not worth living.

a safe life is better than a free life

[Kubra]

What even is meant by totalitarianism here

[Duvniask]

you've pointed out, correctly, that communism is unattainable. however, totalitarian socialism is not a bad end goal and is significantly better than the totalitarian capitalism we currently experience in much of the world.

Jessie, what the fuck are you talking about

[Cekoviu]

What even is meant by totalitarianism here

extreme authoritarianism — restriction of speech, police rule, mass surveillance, etc.

[Kubra]

What even is meant by totalitarianism here

extreme authoritarianism — restriction of speech, police rule, mass surveillance, etc.

Could you be a bit more specific on the form it ought to take

[Fauzjhia]

What even is meant by totalitarianism here

extreme authoritarianism — restriction of speech, police rule, mass surveillance, etc.

I see no future in that type of regime.
you should read the Prince. the advice are better and did not really grew old.

the last thing a leader must do, is be hated by his people.

[Just-An-Illusion]

What even is meant by totalitarianism here

extreme authoritarianism — restriction of speech, police rule, mass surveillance, etc.

So basically you want us to become like North Korea....?

Yeah no that's a bad idea in general.

[Kowani]

extreme authoritarianism — restriction of speech, police rule, mass surveillance, etc.

I see no future in that type of regime.
you should read the Prince. the advice are better and did not really grew old.

the last thing a leader must do, is be hated by his people.

people know the prince was probably meant as satire, right?