What do you think of Communism

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

You're (as described by yourself), a white ethnonationalist who wants an ethnostate. Don't you lecture me about "the 'natural order'..." when you yourself subscribe to fringe theories. There is no "natural order". And if there is, I do not subscribe to it because humanity is entirely about rejecting the natural order, fucking it up, and then fucking it even more because humanity does whatever it wants.

If you were in this fictional "natural order" you subscribe to, you would not survive. Of course neither would I, but at least I am aware of that fact and embrace it.

You didn't really answer my question though, did you?

I don't need to answer your question. I can also apply this to you.

No self-respecting communist says "perfect communist" and again no actual communist says "That wasn't real communism" or "We haven't tried real communism yet". That's a boogeyman living rent free in your head.

That's a lie. There have been multiple cases of that in this very thread and others on NationStates, unless you'd like to be the authoritative figure on who is and isn't a communist, and brand those people "not real communists".

I explained in that very post you were responding to what "communism" and "socialism" actually meant. There's one definition of communism. There's one definition of socialism but that's often misunderstood and people (even Marxists like me!) mistake socialism for being the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. What diverges is the way that people interpret how to use the dictatorship of the proletariat to transition from a capitalist to a socialist society and economy. Thus, any communist who knows what communism is (which again is unbelievably simple and easy to research) who says "That wasn't real communism"... is either completely clueless about communism and probably advocates for social democracy unintentionally, or does not exist because again the only communist that says that is one who knows little to nothing about it.

[Betoni]

I believe that private property is a right that workers, just like everybody else, possess. Also, I believe utopia is not possible in this world. You can make the world better by making people behave better, but the world cannot be perfect because it is fundamentally impossible to get everyone to behave perfectly. One cannot even get oneself to behave perfectly, no matter how much one would like it.

Communism is the abolition of private property, and it promises utopia on this earth. It also doesn't harness an evil force (greed) for the betterment of society as in capitalism; instead it supposes to brute-force its way past this problem. People will always be greedy. From the free-rider problem, to the people responsible for distributing everything being biased towards themselves and their friends, to the possibility of another revolution from workers who want more for themselves, communism has a lot of unaddressed problems with no clear solutions (remember, communism promises a stateless society, so laws are not an option!).

Capitalism is far from perfect, though. The concerns raised by communism about the exploitation of workers are quite valid; they diagnosed a real problem, but they dreamt up a terrible anti-solution. The real solution, I think, to some of capitalism's flaws is government regulation. Terrible working conditions? Regulate it. Unfair wages? Regulate it. Attempts to suppress unions? Regulate it. The perfect solution to all of these problems is to get people to stop being stupid, to be better people. But there's no system, economic, governmental, or otherwise, that can force that.

Ok so how far can we regulate it
How many miles can we take

Well, you see, regulation of capitalism will inevitably result in a post-scarcity fantasy world where people will go to work out of sheer sense of duty and to socialize with other people, and get this, they will be much more efficient and come up with more efficient methods of production and more efficient and just ways of distributing the products of their labour, the regulators will regulate so that everyone is happy and peace reigns over this magical land of regulatorism.

[Kubra]

Well, you see, regulation of capitalism will inevitably result in a post-scarcity fantasy world where people will go to work out of sheer sense of duty and to socialize with other people, and get this, they will be much more efficient and come up with more efficient methods of production and more efficient and just ways of distributing the products of their labour, the regulators will regulate so that everyone is happy and peace reigns over this magical land of regulatorism.

damn sign me up, I'm ready to regulate

Oh shit, you know what? I missed a post of yours. Since you're around I'll give you a proper response.

Thanks, I cannot actually claim any real academic knowledge on the subject of economics so kind of winging it here. And from the little I've read on Wikipedia about all the different labour-voucher systems tried out in the past they warrant a closer look for sure. I agree in some sense that the current system does need regulation and tbh any kind of global system that deals with something as unpredictable as real life people, to say nothing of large groups of them, is a far cry from a mechanical system that you could simply just apply any maxims such as simplifying is always good. But I have a hard time squaring the circle of abolition of money and being more efficient. Without the proverbial horn of plenty that would mean overall global diminishing of return from the work put in. And guess who is going to be the most hurt from that? Well, call me cynic but I'd be placing my bet on the people who are worst off as is.

I don't think anyone can claim any formal economic education over undergrad, since if any of us did there'd be a lot more graphs and equations.
Abolition of money is a real pie-in-the-sky kind of thing, there ain't no getting past it. But, ehh, shoot for the stars and you might hit the moon, you know?
In the process of working towards the abolition of money, ideally it occurs but otherwise hopefully we get to a point where money is, you know, less bad.

[Fishslovakia]

you're*

[Exarkyon]

It's true that those failures did not actually enact communism as it was described, though. Communism calls for the complete abolition of the state and money, and all "communist" countries so far have had both. To say they were not truly communist is completely fair.

The problems with communism lie elsewhere. Communism denies the human right to private property and is just completely impossible to implement. Any attempt at "true communism" is going to fail. We can't point at the failed attempts, look at the flaws of those, and act like those are flaws of communism itself. We have to look at the world communists want to create and show the flaws in it. We show how the system communism is supposed to run on doesn't work, even if implemented perfectly.

Private property is not a human right. The closest thing as defined by the United Nations is "property"

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

"Property" can refer to a variety of different things, not just private property. Private property by the way, is not your house or your computer or your iPhone. It's the factories, farms, businesses and enterprises that the bourgeois' run, and no, you will never be rich enough to buy or run any of them.
"Arbitrarily", by the way, has never applied to any communist regime (the Khmer Rouge was not communist, if you want to go down that road then go ahead) by definition alone. Property was not taken away (translation: nationalized and redistributed) from the Kulaks because of Stalin's personal whim- it was "taken away" because that's how socialism is intended to work: publicizing the means of production and removing it from the hands of a few private groups and individuals.
Using "Communist countries still had a state and money!" is not an argument because it misses the entire point of communism. Communism is not about abolishing the state, class system and money immediately because that is impossible. The state is not abolished, it simply fades away with time and inevitably the state is gone. This happens over a long period of time and cannot happen instantaneously. Think of like how you used to have something that you used a lot, and gradually over time you started using it less and less until eventually you just stopped using it all-together.

The abolition of money is the same thing: without currency the internal and external economies of countries collapse because a non-socialist (and non-communist) economy is built around the imaginary idea that a piece of glorified cloth-paper is worth something. Money gradually loses its purpose in the construction of socialism and communism as people are able to produce things so efficiently and easily that scarcity is rare and so trying to assign a price tag to something that one could produce so cheaply and so easily that it would make no sense using currency in the first place.

Once again there is no such thing as "perfect". No self-respecting communist says "perfect communist" and again no actual communist says "That wasn't real communism" or "We haven't tried real communism yet". That's a boogeyman living rent free in your head.

I was attempting to convince another anti-communist to give communism credit where it is do; I think the common "that wasn't real communism" defense is actually valid, and that we need to look elsewhere to debate communism.

Whether people have a right to this or that is inherently up for debate; I believe people do have not just a right to property, but also private, productive property. And workers can own productive property, too. It does sort of include my computer, because I could write a book and start selling that with it. Small businesses are not wealthy aristocrats bettering themselves at everyone's expense; they are regular people who decided they're going to better their place in society, and they are reasonably common

Thank you for improving my perspective of what is meant by being rid of the state and money. Even if one disagrees with an idea, one should know things about it.

Capitalism isn't perfect, as I have said. I think regulating inhumane practices is the key to a lot of things, but ultimately it will never create a perfect society; I don't think that is possible.

[Exarkyon]

Ok so how far can we regulate it
How many miles can we take

Well, you see, regulation of capitalism will inevitably result in a post-scarcity fantasy world where people will go to work out of sheer sense of duty and to socialize with other people, and get this, they will be much more efficient and come up with more efficient methods of production and more efficient and just ways of distributing the products of their labour, the regulators will regulate so that everyone is happy and peace reigns over this magical land of regulatorism.

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise. People will go to work for the same reasons they do now: To have money. People will invent new things for the same reason. The free market thrives by harnessing greed to make better stuff; the government makes sure that the greed stays under control and rights don't get abused. Are there flaws? Absolutely yes, but they aren't impossible to overcome.

[Kubra]

Well, you see, regulation of capitalism will inevitably result in a post-scarcity fantasy world where people will go to work out of sheer sense of duty and to socialize with other people, and get this, they will be much more efficient and come up with more efficient methods of production and more efficient and just ways of distributing the products of their labour, the regulators will regulate so that everyone is happy and peace reigns over this magical land of regulatorism.

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise.

Ok so how far can we regulate

[Exarkyon]

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise.

Ok so how far can we regulate

Is something inhumane? If yes, regulate it to protect the workers. If not, then let it go. However far that instruction takes you.

[Rakhalia]

Ok so how far can we regulate

Is something inhumane? If yes, regulate it to protect the workers. If not, then let it go. However far that instruction takes you.

How do we arbitrate what's inhumane? What qualifies the workers as "protected"? You could spend the rest of your life reading labour legislation and tbh the working class ain't any freer

[Supreme Algerstonia]

tbh i think the working class would rather have order over freedom, isis started because of freedom and it ended because of order

[Kubra]

Ok so how far can we regulate

Is something inhumane? If yes, regulate it to protect the workers. If not, then let it go. However far that instruction takes you.

ok so like what's inhumane
let's hash this shit out, we got regulations to make

[New-Minneapolis]

Since speaking with people from former soviet countries, my hatred of Communism has only gotten stronger. And yes, I absolutely give them more credence over western Communists.

[Betoni]

Is something inhumane? If yes, regulate it to protect the workers. If not, then let it go. However far that instruction takes you.

ok so like what's inhumane
let's hash this shit out, we got regulations to make

No, silly. You can't just start to regulate capitalism suddenly and expect everything to be perfect, literally no regulator has ever argued that, it just inevitably forms into this perfect system when you start with something like directives and standards, you know. Like we are currently doing.

Well, you see, regulation of capitalism will inevitably result in a post-scarcity fantasy world where people will go to work out of sheer sense of duty and to socialize with other people, and get this, they will be much more efficient and come up with more efficient methods of production and more efficient and just ways of distributing the products of their labour, the regulators will regulate so that everyone is happy and peace reigns over this magical land of regulatorism.

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise. People will go to work for the same reasons they do now: To have money. People will invent new things for the same reason. The free market thrives by harnessing greed to make better stuff; the government makes sure that the greed stays under control and rights don't get abused. Are there flaws? Absolutely yes, but they aren't impossible to overcome.

I know, I was making a point about Kubra wanting to have some particulars of regulating capitalism when people arguing in favour of communism regularly dodge such questions with posts like the one you quoted.

[Kubra]

ok so like what's inhumane
let's hash this shit out, we got regulations to make

No, silly. You can't just start to regulate capitalism suddenly and expect everything to be perfect, literally no regulator has ever argued that, it just inevitably forms into this perfect system when you start with something like directives and standards, you know. Like we are currently doing.

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise. People will go to work for the same reasons they do now: To have money. People will invent new things for the same reason. The free market thrives by harnessing greed to make better stuff; the government makes sure that the greed stays under control and rights don't get abused. Are there flaws? Absolutely yes, but they aren't impossible to overcome.

I know, I was making a point about Kubra wanting to have some particulars of regulating capitalism when people arguing in favour of communism regularly dodge such questions with posts like the one you quoted.

Ok but we still need more regulations, right? So which ones should we start on first?
Like yo, I got an excuse for being vague on communism, it's hard to describe the abolition of money. It's much less hard to describe moderate political and economic reforms, you feel?

[Redwood Ridge]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

[Floofybit]

All economic ideologies suck tbh

[Exarkyon]

Is something inhumane? If yes, regulate it to protect the workers. If not, then let it go. However far that instruction takes you.

How do we arbitrate what's inhumane? What qualifies the workers as "protected"? You could spend the rest of your life reading labour legislation and tbh the working class ain't any freer

It's inhumane if it violates workers' rights.

Workers have the right to a just wage, to rest, to a safe work environment, to unemployment assistance, to senior pensions, to health care, to disability insurance, to parental leave and benefits, to organize and to strike.

The last one is important, because it empowers workers to get change that isn't immediately or obviously covered by the others.

Any capitalist dystopia, and the general situation imagined by communists, is violating workers' rights in some way.

Workers are protected when their rights are not being violated and the dignity of work is respected.

And any situation where workers only have one choice to work at is a monopoly on jobs; monopolies are bad. The government should get involved there.

I don't think reading labor legislation will make people freer; writing it will.

[World peace]

bad

[Exarkyon]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

Fellow anti-communist here;

It is not interchangeable. All the dystopias have been socialism, communism has not been tried. Socialism is the USSR, etc. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with no private property.

Both have problems, but we need to look elsewhere to find them. Even in a theoretical perfect application, the right to private property is violated. In socialism, subsidiarity is violated. In communism, nothing stops more revolutions from happening, this time motivated by greed of some workers wanting to get more than others. Capitalism harnesses greed to move forward, but communism is held back by it.

[Exarkyon]

ok so like what's inhumane
let's hash this shit out, we got regulations to make

No, silly. You can't just start to regulate capitalism suddenly and expect everything to be perfect, literally no regulator has ever argued that, it just inevitably forms into this perfect system when you start with something like directives and standards, you know. Like we are currently doing.

By regulation I mean outlaw the inhumane stuff. I don't foresee a post-scarcity fantasy world following, just one that's good enough. I don't believe in utopias, capitalist, communist, or otherwise. People will go to work for the same reasons they do now: To have money. People will invent new things for the same reason. The free market thrives by harnessing greed to make better stuff; the government makes sure that the greed stays under control and rights don't get abused. Are there flaws? Absolutely yes, but they aren't impossible to overcome.

I know, I was making a point about Kubra wanting to have some particulars of regulating capitalism when people arguing in favour of communism regularly dodge such questions with posts like the one you quoted.

I see. Yeah, they do.

[Exarkyon]

No, silly. You can't just start to regulate capitalism suddenly and expect everything to be perfect, literally no regulator has ever argued that, it just inevitably forms into this perfect system when you start with something like directives and standards, you know. Like we are currently doing.



I know, I was making a point about Kubra wanting to have some particulars of regulating capitalism when people arguing in favour of communism regularly dodge such questions with posts like the one you quoted.

Ok but we still need more regulations, right? So which ones should we start on first?
Like yo, I got an excuse for being vague on communism, it's hard to describe the abolition of money. It's much less hard to describe moderate political and economic reforms, you feel?

First and foremost protect unions. Companies should not be able to stop workers from unionizing, in theory or in practice. Close any loopholes that appear. Unions empower workers to protect themselves faster and more specifically than the government can.

Child labor needs to go; that's been done, but it's worth revisiting to make sure loopholes don't pop up anytime soon.

A minimum wage (that you can live on) needs to be instituted and updated with inflation. Close any loopholes companies find to squeeze money out of their workers.

Laws need to make sure working conditions are safe; specific cases can be outlawed and an investigation can be mandated maybe if you get a suspicious amount of injuries. I'm not a legislator, nor an expert, but you get the general idea.

Income tax should be favored over basically every other type of tax because it puts the greatest burden on those who can carry it (i.e. rich people). Sales tax and others distribute it equally, even on those who cannot carry it well (i.e. poor people and workers).

Make anti-corruption legislation so that politicians actually implement these and aren't in the pockets of the companies they're supposed to regulate. Maybe don't have big companies fund political campaigns.

There are lots of minute details that could be fairer; people smarter than me would look at these cases and decide what to legislate, if at all. For example, workers need to notify their employers if they want to quit but employers need not provide such a warning before firing them. I don't know enough details about this to have an opinion, but maybe something could change here.

[Redwood Ridge]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

Fellow anti-communist here;

It is not interchangeable. All the dystopias have been socialism, communism has not been tried. Socialism is the USSR, etc. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with no private property.

Both have problems, but we need to look elsewhere to find them. Even in a theoretical perfect application, the right to private property is violated. In socialism, subsidiarity is violated. In communism, nothing stops more revolutions from happening, this time motivated by greed of some workers wanting to get more than others. Capitalism harnesses greed to move forward, but communism is held back by it.

I disagree with the notion that they're not interchangeable, and the logic is simple. Yes, they're by definition two different ideas. But they share a critical overlap: they both fail. Marxist thought has never succeeded in dismantling capitalism, at least not without underdelivering on the benefits its proponents supposedly derive from it. Because it undelivers, and it does an amazing job at that, everything ends up way worse (except for maybe the party oligarchs) than that which was experienced under the system it's replaced.

[Exarkyon]

Fellow anti-communist here;

It is not interchangeable. All the dystopias have been socialism, communism has not been tried. Socialism is the USSR, etc. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society with no private property.

Both have problems, but we need to look elsewhere to find them. Even in a theoretical perfect application, the right to private property is violated. In socialism, subsidiarity is violated. In communism, nothing stops more revolutions from happening, this time motivated by greed of some workers wanting to get more than others. Capitalism harnesses greed to move forward, but communism is held back by it.

I disagree with the notion that they're not interchangeable, and the logic is simple. Yes, they're by definition two different ideas. But they share a critical overlap: they both fail. Marxist thought has never succeeded in dismantling capitalism, at least not without underdelivering on the benefits its proponents supposedly derive from it.

Yeah, they both fail, but they are different and non-interchangeable ideas, and one really hasn't been tried. Will it fail if it is? Absolutely, because even if it somehow gets set up, it will fall apart due to the currents of human greed that capitalism harnesses but communism tries to swim against.

[Kubra]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

man why does liberalism get a million Mulligans but communism gets a handful of tries

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

It is said that Communism (interchangeable with Socialism) has "never been truly tried". Not because that statement is true, because it's always real Socialism, but because it fails to produce the outcomes ideologues expect from it. They disown it all in some delusional spell, gaslighting themselves into thinking that if they try it again in another country, this time they will succeed and create the workers' utopia.

man why does liberalism get a million Mulligans but communism gets a handful of tries

Well, to these people, Liberalism has a much higher "success rate" than Communism.