What do you think of Communism

[The Pure Russia]

And workers would risk theirs hands in Kazakh steel mills to make railroads for Stalin’s 5 Year Plan. Please point out a difference for me.

Much of the Stalinist era was a time of great challenges and threats, it just so happened.
The former Russian empire was a backward territory. As you know, the backwarded are beaten. Therefore, backwardness had to be overcome at any cost, the very existence of the Soviet nation was at stake.

Capital does not care about any such thing, as a rule. In the 1990s, almost no one was under threat, but there were nasty working conditions.

And all movements outside of Western socialism including communism and your precious socialism turned into cruel, genocidal dictatorship.

War is cruel. If these lands had been left alone, their development would have taken a different path, but this was impossible.
As far as genocide is concerned, it is not necessary.

Like when competing in the "Most Corrupt and dysfunctional Reich on Planet Earth Olympics"?

As if in politics there is never any reason to arrange a big or small meat grinder.

[El Lazaro]

Average pro-Russia leftist

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

“Russian authoritarian socialist.
Materialist and atheist. Not a literate and full-fledged Marxist, rather a semi-Marxist.
Pro-Soviet as hell. The truth about the Soviet Union will only allow me to improve my pro-Soviet speech skills.”

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

“Russian authoritarian socialist.
Materialist and atheist. Not a literate and full-fledged Marxist, rather a semi-Marxist.
Pro-Soviet as hell. The truth about the Soviet Union will only allow me to improve my pro-Soviet speech skills.”

Praising Fascism doesn't make you a socialist or "Soviet man"
Praising Fascism makes you part of the blackest, most barbaric reaction.

[The Pure Russia]

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

What's the problem lol? Or should I always, always speak and look at things exclusively from the standpoint of my class?

Fascism can be useful, including to hang me.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

What's the problem lol? Or should I always, always speak and look at things exclusively from the standpoint of my class?

Praising Fascism doesn't make you a socialist or "Soviet man"
Praising Fascism makes you part of the blackest, most barbaric reaction.

[The Pure Russia]

Praising Fascism doesn't make you a socialist or "Soviet man"
Praising Fascism makes you part of the deepest, most barbaric reaction.

Why is it forbidden to recognize some of the advantages of the enemy? Let's say you have a revolutionary situation. In your opinion, fascist dogs cannot be useful in this case?

[Senkaku]

or someone in his ancestry,

People in all of our ancestries have at some point worked hard to earn money; why is it that my ancestors' labor entitles me to more than the ancestral labor of some laborer in a Bangladeshi shipbreaking yard? Bengal's had a monetary economy for a lot longer than the US, and my modest pile of ancestral money only came along pretty recently. Am I really "risking capital" and "investing" if a family member gives me bonds as a Christmas present, and does that really mean I deserve more than some kid crawling through a beached freighter's ductways to rip out the wiring? Or is my entire life of relative comfort simply part of the "reward" that my ancestors who built our family's pile were entitled to, and what does that make me?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Fascism can be useful, including to hang me.

Do you want to me to take this seriously? In which case, should you live in Russia, part of the blackest reaction per J. Stalin, there is nothing we can do for you.

[The Pure Russia]

Fascism can be useful, including to hang me.

Do you want to me to take this seriously? In which case, should you live in Russia, part of the blackest reaction per J. Stalin, there is nothing we can do for you.

?

In any case, please tell me why it is impossible to recognize the good things of someone else's weapons? Do I have to say that, for example, the US Army sucks always, everywhere and in everything? No, it shouldn't.

[El Lazaro]

“Russian authoritarian socialist.
Materialist and atheist. Not a literate and full-fledged Marxist, rather a semi-Marxist.
Pro-Soviet as hell. The truth about the Soviet Union will only allow me to improve my pro-Soviet speech skills.”

Praising Fascism doesn't make you a socialist or "Soviet man"
Praising Fascism makes you part of the deepest, most barbaric reaction.

A lot of, even most, self-proclaimed leftists support plenty of right-wing ideas, figures, and rhetoric. Am I supposed to excommunicate all of them? Whether calling these people right-wing would be justified or not, it’d be like trying to pry the word “Catholic” from the RCC; it’s just plain impossible and would exclude too many people who use it to label themselves. Since your opinion on genocidal fascism seems to be the best litmus test so far, “Pro-Russia” vs. “Anti-Russia” is basically the only easy-yet-universal way to categorize the left.

[The Pure Russia]

Do I have to say that, for example, the US Army sucks always, everywhere and in everything? No, it shouldn't.

Damn, I just praised the American army. I think I'm now an Americanophile, a liberal, and probably also an agent of the US State Department or something like that

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Do you want to me to take this seriously? In which case, should you live in Russia, part of the blackest reaction per J. Stalin, there is nothing we can do for you.

?

Because I took this as suicide ideation. In which case there is nothing we can actually do for you.

[The Pure Russia]

Because I took this as suicide ideation. In which case there is nothing we can actually do for you.

This thought is not about my suicide, but about killing me. It's worth sometimes thinking about how you can be killed.

[Elwher]

or someone in his ancestry,

People in all of our ancestries have at some point worked hard to earn money; why is it that my ancestors' labor entitles me to more than the ancestral labor of some laborer in a Bangladeshi shipbreaking yard? Bengal's had a monetary economy for a lot longer than the US, and my modest pile of ancestral money only came along pretty recently. Am I really "risking capital" and "investing" if a family member gives me bonds as a Christmas present, and does that really mean I deserve more than some kid crawling through a beached freighter's ductways to rip out the wiring? Or is my entire life of relative comfort simply part of the "reward" that my ancestors who built our family's pile were entitled to, and what does that make me?

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

[El Lazaro]

People in all of our ancestries have at some point worked hard to earn money; why is it that my ancestors' labor entitles me to more than the ancestral labor of some laborer in a Bangladeshi shipbreaking yard? Bengal's had a monetary economy for a lot longer than the US, and my modest pile of ancestral money only came along pretty recently. Am I really "risking capital" and "investing" if a family member gives me bonds as a Christmas present, and does that really mean I deserve more than some kid crawling through a beached freighter's ductways to rip out the wiring? Or is my entire life of relative comfort simply part of the "reward" that my ancestors who built our family's pile were entitled to, and what does that make me?

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

Does not the federal government, which enabled this amassing of wealth with the construction of infrastructure, protection of commerce, and maintenance of public services, have the right to intercept said fruits on the way to their intended recipients?

[Kubra]

Average pro-Russia leftist

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

Yes, that's the joke.
Check the sig, man.

[Senkaku]

People in all of our ancestries have at some point worked hard to earn money; why is it that my ancestors' labor entitles me to more than the ancestral labor of some laborer in a Bangladeshi shipbreaking yard? Bengal's had a monetary economy for a lot longer than the US, and my modest pile of ancestral money only came along pretty recently. Am I really "risking capital" and "investing" if a family member gives me bonds as a Christmas present, and does that really mean I deserve more than some kid crawling through a beached freighter's ductways to rip out the wiring? Or is my entire life of relative comfort simply part of the "reward" that my ancestors who built our family's pile were entitled to, and what does that make me?

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

Two things.

Firstly, your premise here is that hard work and risk-taking are what entitle capitalists to reward, though. If I'm a capitalist who inherited my wealth, what entitles me to continue passing it on through the generations, to sustain and grow a fortune that transcends human lifespans? Doesn't this spiritually reduce the comfortable descendants of successful capitalists to mere appendages of their capital, to rewards or spoils or ornaments not much distinguishable from a yacht or a palace?

Secondly, we both know that some of our ancestors were more successful than others not simply because they worked harder, but because they were lucky-- history, social networks, and circumstance aligned to let opportunities others didn't receive fall into their lap, or to give them overwhelming advantages in violent conflict. The conquistadors of Mexico didn't acquire their wealth by plowing fields or laboring in workshops their whole lives; history just happened to develop so their society was able to equip them with more advanced weapons, and they seized what others had spent centuries building in a comparatively brief orgy of violence and proceeded to begin extracting rents.

This isn't the logic of some ruthless clear-eyed capitalist that you're espousing, it's the logic of royal dynasties extracting feudal rents.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

>Leftist
>Literally said "Fascism would be useful" in the post you quoted

I think you need to readjust your reading glasses...

What's the problem lol? Or should I always, always speak and look at things exclusively from the standpoint of my class?

Fascism can be useful, including to hang me.

Fascism is useful at not being useful. It's a pathetic excuse for an ideological system that falls apart almost immediately.

[Kubra]

Praising Fascism doesn't make you a socialist or "Soviet man"
Praising Fascism makes you part of the deepest, most barbaric reaction.

A lot of, even most, self-proclaimed leftists support plenty of right-wing ideas, figures, and rhetoric. Am I supposed to excommunicate all of them? Whether calling these people right-wing would be justified or not, it’d be like trying to pry the word “Catholic” from the RCC; it’s just plain impossible and would exclude too many people who use it to label themselves. Since your opinion on genocidal fascism seems to be the best litmus test so far, “Pro-Russia” vs. “Anti-Russia” is basically the only easy-yet-universal way to categorize the left.

It's situational, you know?
For two examples: tukhachevsky was some sort of slavic neo-pagan, but y'know that sort of thing was kind of harmless. You keep this fella.
On the other hand, Euronymous thought outright totalitarianism was cool and black metal and shit. You toss out this fella.

[Uminaku]

What you are neglecting is how the owner got the machine and the raw materials. These were not given to him as gifts from God, neither did he just happen upon them on his daily walk. He, or someone in his ancestry, worked to get the money necessary to buy them. He could have used that money to further his own enjoyment, instead, he risked it on a business venture which may or may not succeed. By risking his capital, he created an environment where your 10 people are getting a guaranteed cash income rather than risking their assets for a potential return. He is entitled to a return on this investment both to subsidize the risks and because of the creation of a stable income for the workers.

The owner was once a worker themselves, and invested their money to create more money, but that does not make them entitled to take the money which was made by someone else and rightfully belongs to them. That business could have functioned well without the owner, for it was the workers who created the wealth and has returned the owner the money they have invested. Hence, the owner is completely unnecessary. The owner shouldn’t deserve money just because they risked their money, and that income was already created by workers. For you to invest in $100 and recieve $200 without working is stealing because where did the other $100 come from?

---

What’s your excuse for China, where the largest amount died and where socialism has been bent to half-capitalism to keep the Chinese economy afloat?
Vietnamese socialism worked fine… until it didn’t after the war when the Soviet economy crashed and then their whole society fell into ruin. Bunch of Vietnam during the war was in fact not impacted. Most napalm bombs were used for clearing forests or wiping out troop movements. Major cities weren’t severely impacted.

Communism has failed over the last 100 years, if under the guise of socialism. Why shall it work now?

China and Vietnam had to become capitalist because of the global market and authoritarianism. While they have achieved socialism within their country, the world is still very capitalist. The socialist companies which have put people over profits cannot compete with the ruthless capitalist companies who function purely for profit, and hence are forced to also adopt the same immoral practices as the capitalists. Combined with corruption and simply bad leaders especially in China, this forced them to become state capitalists. The more free and democratic socialist societes performed fine, such as Allende’s Chile and Revolutionary Catalonia, which had improvements in efficiency and GDP growth, until the capitalists blockaded and coup’ed the former and invaded the latter.

Communism has failed yes. Socialism has not. Allende’s Chile, Revolutionary Catalonia, the Paris Commune, and Gaddafi’s Libya to an extent, has succeeded in forming socialism, and worked until the capitalist intervened to destroy them. Chile was blockaded by the western capitalists, and was then overthrown by a dictator supported by the CIA. Revolutionary Catalonia was betrayed by the USSR, and then invaded by Franco’s fascists and the capitalist republicans. The Paris Commune was invaded by the French Republic. Gaddafi, despite being an authoritarian dictator, improved the lives of the Libyan people by giving them free healthcare and education, lowering unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy, and supported students and farmers, until Libya was invaded by the capitalists. Socialism works, but only if capitalism does not actively oppose and sabotage it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

People in all of our ancestries have at some point worked hard to earn money; why is it that my ancestors' labor entitles me to more than the ancestral labor of some laborer in a Bangladeshi shipbreaking yard? Bengal's had a monetary economy for a lot longer than the US, and my modest pile of ancestral money only came along pretty recently. Am I really "risking capital" and "investing" if a family member gives me bonds as a Christmas present, and does that really mean I deserve more than some kid crawling through a beached freighter's ductways to rip out the wiring? Or is my entire life of relative comfort simply part of the "reward" that my ancestors who built our family's pile were entitled to, and what does that make me?

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

And who or what defines the parameters of succes?

[Primitive Communism]

First, there is a misunderstanding on "Primitive Communism": it does not specifically refer to the Hunter-Gatherers but to any pre-industrial society which exhibited traits or philosophies which could be seen as holding 'Communistic' values. Many societies have practiced aspects of Communism for centuries and many of values of Communist ideology have been promoted by philosophers and religious preachers since Ancient Greece and possibly even earlier. "Primitive Communism", it should be note, does not make the claim that any historical society ever actually practiced Communism in totality as it has since been defined by Industrial Era thinkers but rather that they exhibited traits which would come to be associated with Communist theory. The Iroquois - whose flag I use - for example were not a Communist society at all yet much of their social, political, and economic practices were 'Communistic' in the sense that they meshed with the ideals of Communism. Hence they are often cited as an example of "Primitive Communism" without necessarily fitting the criteria of a Communist society.

What makes values "communistic?" Do you mean "communitarian?" As in, valuing the group above the individual? Because I can agree that communitarian values have been present throughout human history. But communitarian values are both not necessarily communistic, nor necessarily good. If you mean to idealize concepts such as altruism, helping others, and the good of the community as "communistic," then I cannot agree. Selflessness is not necessarily "communistic," and to claim that ancient tribal societies caring for the ill who were unable to hunt or gather for their food is "communistic" echoes of "socialism? in mah cuntrey?" that gets thrown out whenever universal healthcare is discussed in America.

Second, the Hunter-Gatherer societies represented the majority of human societies from the Dawn of Man up until European colonization of the Americas, Africa and the Pacific violently exterminated most of them. There are still Hunter-Gatherer societies to this day - mostly uncontacted tribes in the Amazon though the Sentinelese also come to mind. As such it is logically impossible for every Hunter-Gatherer society to practice the exact same social organization. Some of them almost certainly arranged themselves into what might be considered "Communist" social orders while others very explicitly rejected them and did something else entirely. There is no substance to any claim that goes along the lines of "The Hunter-Gatherers were/did X until the Agricultural Revolution" or any such modification of that phrase and ideally those who accept the concept of "Primitive Communism" should not make such a bold and factually incorrect claim like claiming that the Hunter-Gatherers practiced Communism because most of the human beings that have been alive for the history (recorded or otherwise) of our species have lived in Hunter-Gatherer societies and it is statistically impossible that all or even most were practicing a form of early Communism.

I understand, so those who try to apply primitive communism to the entirety of pre "civilized" humanity are mistaken and misusing the term.

Thirdly, it should not be argued to presuppose human nature is altruistic but that Communist theories are nothing new and are innately human in origin. There are many false claims about Communist ideology which suggests it is "unnatural", "against human nature", or that it reduces people to "machines". Primitive Communism is a theory is important because it necessarily highlights that human beings in societies all throughout history have found appeal in certain Communist values and have often practiced them, from Greek philosophers to Christian monks. This is not to suggest that humans are altruistic by nature, which is as inherently false as the claim that humans are selfish/greedy by nature. Humans and their values are subject to the social, political and economic conditions they are raised in. We are all products of our upbringing and this fundamentally affects our worldview, often in different ways. The man raised as a slave from birth is just as likely to fear his master and obey for the sake of survival as he is to hate his master and fight for his freedom. Neither servility nor rebellion is the natural 'default' of humanity and the same goes for every other aspect of human nature, including greed/charity and selfishness/selflessness.

So fundamentally here, primitive communism is used to show that communism is within human nature to an extent and isn't some unnatural ideology. Okay, I can understand that. I disagree with that ideal since human "nature" is fluid and has changed since we have industrialized, we have different priorities. In a hunter gatherer society, with unreliable Income, values and natural "instinct" might be totally different from modern humans in modern society with industrialization, mass production, specialization, etc. But I understand the point it is trying to make, which i don't necessarily disagree with. I don't think communism is against human nature, although I disagree for other reasons.

One issue I find with this argument is the same as I mentioned above...what do you mean by "communistic" ideals? Communitarianism, which is not communism, has been around for a long time and can be justified as maybe being within "human nature." But communism, which advocates for a stateless industrialized society in which economic decisions are made on large scales...I don't see how parts of that can be found in history, unless you are referring to the aspects of communitarianism within communism. In which case the entire argument of Primitive Communism, to me, would then boil down to "humans being nice to each other in the past foreshadows communism," which seems silly to me, because again, altruism is not necessarily "communistic." You could argue that humans have been generous and shown well-being of the group as their priority in the past before, even use that to show that communism isn't some rebellion against human nature. But you couldn't call it primitive communism.

Lastly, your post is worded vaguely so I'm not sure if you were intending to or not but it comes across as if you believe Primitive Communism is a "return to X period" ideology (like the Anarcho-Primitivism you mention) which is not correct. "Primitive Communism" is a method of studying human history and the myriad of societies present therein, particularly their approach to Communistic practices and values. The argument that we should return to a "better time" is fundamentally traditionalist in origin and therefor reactionary; no serious Communist who knows what they're talking about is going to advocate for primitivism. Primitivists are explicitly Right-wing.

I do not believe in that, I didn't mean to come off as vague. But primitivism can be left wing, as in those groups that advocate for deindustrialization for the environment and a turn to agrarian socialism.

By "Communistic" (not "communitarian"; that's something else entirely) I am referring to traits of a Communist society: lack of state, class, hierarchy, currency, and property. Societies that exhibit a lack of most (but not necessarily all) of these concepts with an explicit culture built around social unity, collective ownership, mutual contribution or egalitarianism are what one can refer to as "Primitive Communism".

[Elwher]

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

Does not the federal government, which enabled this amassing of wealth with the construction of infrastructure, protection of commerce, and maintenance of public services, have the right to intercept said fruits on the way to their intended recipients?

No. They taxed the income when it was created, to tax it again when it is given to one's heirs is double taxation.

[El Lazaro]

Does not the federal government, which enabled this amassing of wealth with the construction of infrastructure, protection of commerce, and maintenance of public services, have the right to intercept said fruits on the way to their intended recipients?

No. They taxed the income when it was created, to tax it again when it is given to one's heirs is double taxation.

And taxing the wealthy more is wrong because…

[Elwher]

That is true, but some were more successful than others. My ancestry left me in a comfortable lower middle-class existence, others left them in an upper-class one, and others in a lower-class one. Do not those who succeed have a right to pass on the fruits of that success to their children?

Two things.

Firstly, your premise here is that hard work and risk-taking are what entitle capitalists to reward, though. If I'm a capitalist who inherited my wealth, what entitles me to continue passing it on through the generations, to sustain and grow a fortune that transcends human lifespans? Doesn't this spiritually reduce the comfortable descendants of successful capitalists to mere appendages of their capital, to rewards or spoils or ornaments not much distinguishable from a yacht or a palace?

Yes, it may. But that is up to the individual receiving the inheritances. There are many examples of heirs squandering their wealth and losing it all, just as there are many examples of heirs working hard to increase what they inherit.

Secondly, we both know that some of our ancestors were more successful than others not simply because they worked harder, but because they were lucky-- history, social networks, and circumstance aligned to let opportunities others didn't receive fall into their lap, or to give them overwhelming advantages in violent conflict. The conquistadors of Mexico didn't acquire their wealth by plowing fields or laboring in workshops their whole lives; history just happened to develop so their society was able to equip them with more advanced weapons, and they seized what others had spent centuries building in a comparatively brief orgy of violence and proceeded to begin extracting rents.

This isn't the logic of some ruthless clear-eyed capitalist that you're espousing, it's the logic of royal dynasties extracting feudal rents.

I was referring to the situation in the US, not somewhere like Mexico in the 16th century. Very few American wealthy got that way by military force; but by being ruthless clear-eyed capitalists.