What do you think of Communism

[Umeria]

You see, there are two kinds of people in the world, people who value happiness above money and are willing to sacrifice income based on that, and people who are willing to sacrifice happiness if it'll earn them money.

Good thing I'm not people, as I don't care much for either of those things...

What's funny is his implication that everyone always prioritizes happiness or money over the other. So the first kind of people wouldn't pick up a bar of gold if it made their back hurt and the second kind would literally chop off their arm for a penny.

[Betoni]

Because, get this right, you can earn more money for maintaining sewers than you can for being on UBI. You see, there are two kinds of people in the world, people who value happiness above money and are willing to sacrifice income based on that, and people who are willing to sacrifice happiness if it'll earn them money. When forced to make a choice,l between the two, some will choose happiness and others money. Sewer workers will fall into the second catagory. Even without a UBI, there are jobs which are easier and less unpleasent than sewer work, but sewer workers still forgo that to maintain sewers. That doesn't change under a UBI, which would ensure that sewer work pays significantly more than the UBI. If the UBI didn't pay significantly less than sewer work, then you're doing a UBI wrong. Seruously, ask yourself why people maintain sewers now, and the answer is that it pays more than most other jobs. (Sure, there are other jobs which pay more than sewer work, but it's really hard to get those jobs, and it takes a long time to get them). It's not that sewer workers can't get more pleasent jobs, it's that those pleasent jobs pay significantly less. A UBI does not change that

People work in the sewers now because they need to have some kind of job or they'll wind up begging in the streets. But the whole point of UBI is to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living regardless of whether they work or not. So everyone will have the option to just not work until a better job than working in a sewer comes along. And you've been going on for weeks and weeks about how unbelievably horrible this job is, so it doesn't seem like there could be any amount of money you could pay anyone to take that job when they don't need to work, not without skyrocketing the cost of sewer maintenance. How many millions a year are you anticipating needing to pay people? Multiply that by how many thousands of people needed?

And don't sit there trying to claim that sewer work is the only one of my arguments that you haven't tried to argue against. You know fully well that I've made arguements that I've tried to get you to address but you've ignored. Just because I thought that the sewer work claim was the only one stupid enough to wsrrant its own soecific mention, it doesn't mean that you're not fully aware of my other arguments. But I'm guessing that your deliverate omission of those other points is because trying to address them will make your arguements look even stupider

This is the third time I've asked you this question about UBI and the first time you've responded, so you can climb down off that high horse.

So, are you arguing now that if the basics are provided for, you know like under communism, people have no incentive to work and thus the total production will go down and vital services will stop being done?

[0cala]

Communism does stuff, i think

[Tiptoptopia]

I disagree with communism. If people use communism to mean living on a commune, that's probably OK, but the government banning trade isn't OK. Marxism is the worst. All the "woke" intersectional madness is just Marxism. Political correctness is a word first coined to discuss the Soviet Union. There's no such thing as socially-right Marxism, so you can't be a Nazbol, though at least if you self-identify as a Nazbol, I'll probably just think you're not very well-informed rather than trying to destroy civilization. Destroying civilization might be the outcome, but at least you're not trying to, and that'll make me a lot nicer to you on a personal level.

Because, get this right, you can earn more money for maintaining sewers than you can for being on UBI. You see, there are two kinds of people in the world, people who value happiness above money and are willing to sacrifice income based on that, and people who are willing to sacrifice happiness if it'll earn them money. When forced to make a choice,l between the two, some will choose happiness and others money. Sewer workers will fall into the second catagory. Even without a UBI, there are jobs which are easier and less unpleasent than sewer work, but sewer workers still forgo that to maintain sewers. That doesn't change under a UBI, which would ensure that sewer work pays significantly more than the UBI. If the UBI didn't pay significantly less than sewer work, then you're doing a UBI wrong. Seruously, ask yourself why people maintain sewers now, and the answer is that it pays more than most other jobs. (Sure, there are other jobs which pay more than sewer work, but it's really hard to get those jobs, and it takes a long time to get them). It's not that sewer workers can't get more pleasent jobs, it's that those pleasent jobs pay significantly less. A UBI does not change that

People work in the sewers now because they need to have some kind of job or they'll wind up begging in the streets. But the whole point of UBI is to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living regardless of whether they work or not. So everyone will have the option to just not work until a better job than working in a sewer comes along. And you've been going on for weeks and weeks about how unbelievably horrible this job is, so it doesn't seem like there could be any amount of money you could pay anyone to take that job when they don't need to work, not without skyrocketing the cost of sewer maintenance. How many millions a year are you anticipating needing to pay people? Multiply that by how many thousands of people needed?

And don't sit there trying to claim that sewer work is the only one of my arguments that you haven't tried to argue against. You know fully well that I've made arguements that I've tried to get you to address but you've ignored. Just because I thought that the sewer work claim was the only one stupid enough to wsrrant its own soecific mention, it doesn't mean that you're not fully aware of my other arguments. But I'm guessing that your deliverate omission of those other points is because trying to address them will make your arguements look even stupider

This is the third time I've asked you this question about UBI and the first time you've responded, so you can climb down off that high horse.

Maybe, if someone needs to work in the sewers, then that's actually a good job? If something needs to be done, people should feel good about doing it. I'd rather work in the sewers than do nothing with my life, even if I got paid to do nothing. At least working in the sewers would be accomplishing something.

[Ifreann]

People work in the sewers now because they need to have some kind of job or they'll wind up begging in the streets. But the whole point of UBI is to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living regardless of whether they work or not. So everyone will have the option to just not work until a better job than working in a sewer comes along. And you've been going on for weeks and weeks about how unbelievably horrible this job is, so it doesn't seem like there could be any amount of money you could pay anyone to take that job when they don't need to work, not without skyrocketing the cost of sewer maintenance. How many millions a year are you anticipating needing to pay people? Multiply that by how many thousands of people needed?


This is the third time I've asked you this question about UBI and the first time you've responded, so you can climb down off that high horse.

So, are you arguing now that if the basics are provided for, you know like under communism, people have no incentive to work and thus the total production will go down and vital services will stop being done?

In fact I have argued at some length over the last several weeks that people would work under communism, voluntarily, for various reasons. Australian rePublic has been arguing that without the incentive of a monetary reward, some jobs are so horrible that no one would ever voluntarily do them. I am currently turning that argument back against him, using the example he first brought up of sewer maintenance. According to him, this is an unbelievably disgusting job. So then it follows that if we implemented UBI, which he supports, very few people would agree to do it, because they would have the option to just not have a job at all for however long it took to find some other way to fund their vacations or sports cars or whatever other luxury they wanted above and beyond what the basic income can provide. And those few would surely demand a massive wage. People aren't going to do the worst job imaginable and only get a middle class lifestyle out of it.

---

Communism does stuff, i think

Communism fights aliens and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Betoni]

So, are you arguing now that if the basics are provided for, you know like under communism, people have no incentive to work and thus the total production will go down and vital services will stop being done?

In fact I have argued at some length over the last several weeks that people would work under communism, voluntarily, for various reasons. Australian rePublic has been arguing that without the incentive of a monetary reward, some jobs are so horrible that no one would ever voluntarily do them. I am currently turning that argument back against him, using the example he first brought up of sewer maintenance. According to him, this is an unbelievably disgusting job. So then it follows that if we implemented UBI, which he supports, very few people would agree to do it, because they would have the option to just not have a job at all for however long it took to find some other way to fund their vacations or sports cars or whatever other luxury they wanted above and beyond what the basic income can provide. And those few would surely demand a massive wage. People aren't going to do the worst job imaginable and only get a middle class lifestyle out of it.

---

Communism does stuff, i think

Communism fights aliens and doesn't afraid of anything.

Ah.. So UBI under capitalism is communism now? Either that or you aren't actually turning their argument on them, but making up a completely new argument and one that you don't believe is internally consistent at that.

[Ifreann]

I disagree with communism. If people use communism to mean living on a commune, that's probably OK, but the government banning trade isn't OK. Marxism is the worst. All the "woke" intersectional madness is just Marxism. Political correctness is a word first coined to discuss the Soviet Union. There's no such thing as socially-right Marxism, so you can't be a Nazbol, though at least if you self-identify as a Nazbol, I'll probably just think you're not very well-informed rather than trying to destroy civilization. Destroying civilization might be the outcome, but at least you're not trying to, and that'll make me a lot nicer to you on a personal level.

People work in the sewers now because they need to have some kind of job or they'll wind up begging in the streets. But the whole point of UBI is to provide everyone with a minimum standard of living regardless of whether they work or not. So everyone will have the option to just not work until a better job than working in a sewer comes along. And you've been going on for weeks and weeks about how unbelievably horrible this job is, so it doesn't seem like there could be any amount of money you could pay anyone to take that job when they don't need to work, not without skyrocketing the cost of sewer maintenance. How many millions a year are you anticipating needing to pay people? Multiply that by how many thousands of people needed?


This is the third time I've asked you this question about UBI and the first time you've responded, so you can climb down off that high horse.

Maybe, if someone needs to work in the sewers, then that's actually a good job? If something needs to be done, people should feel good about doing it. I'd rather work in the sewers than do nothing with my life, even if I got paid to do nothing. At least working in the sewers would be accomplishing something.

I fully agree. I believe that if money were no object, people would voluntarily do the necessary labour to keep their communities running. Someone would put their hand up and fix the sewers rather than live in a town with no functioning plumbing system. Per the above post, I'm arguing ArP's own points against him, I don't think that people will only work if they're getting paid.

[Ifreann]

In fact I have argued at some length over the last several weeks that people would work under communism, voluntarily, for various reasons. Australian rePublic has been arguing that without the incentive of a monetary reward, some jobs are so horrible that no one would ever voluntarily do them. I am currently turning that argument back against him, using the example he first brought up of sewer maintenance. According to him, this is an unbelievably disgusting job. So then it follows that if we implemented UBI, which he supports, very few people would agree to do it, because they would have the option to just not have a job at all for however long it took to find some other way to fund their vacations or sports cars or whatever other luxury they wanted above and beyond what the basic income can provide. And those few would surely demand a massive wage. People aren't going to do the worst job imaginable and only get a middle class lifestyle out of it.

---

Communism fights aliens and doesn't afraid of anything.

Ah.. So UBI under capitalism is communism now? Either that or you aren't actually turning their argument on them, but making up a completely new argument and one that you don't believe is internally consistent at that.

More specifically, I think that UBI under capitalism would have the same problem that ArP believes would be fatal to communism, i.e. the problem of getting people to do the necessary but unpleasant labour that society needs to function. I don't think that people would refuse to do these jobs without being paid for them, but he does, and further thinks that my belief is so stupid as to be "brain dead". So I am making the point that when people don't need money to live, it loses a lot of its ability to incentivise them to do work they would rather not do. When people have a roof over their head and food on the table no matter what, and when one believes that money is the only way to convince them to do things like work down in the sewers, how much money will that require? Presumably massive amounts. Which means that maintaining sewers is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. Seems like a big problem for a society this is going to continue running on money.

[Kubra]

Oh, it doesn't matter if someone outearns him, eh? It follows: it's totes ok for artists and philosophers to make the same as the guy.
You're coming around, comrade!

Nope. Poorly, poorly misrepresenting him. In fact, I've specifically mentioned that too. I don't care if artists or philosophers outearn people with blue collar jobs. Good luck to them! Living the dream! It's only if they do it whilst being communist that's a problem. How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I think it's bad for one group of people to outearn others? IF ARTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS CAN OUTEARN BLUE COLLAR WORKERS good luck to them! It's only if they do it whilst being communist that makes them bad, well not bad so much as hypocrites. I'm not coming around, I've been in this thread long enough to see how dumb the claims of communists are

But he's not happy being a plumber under communism, despite ostensibly similar access to resources.
You see where this is going, yes?

Every time somebody here tries to defend communism, they use brain-dead logic and parade around as if they're smarter than me, and then when I point out why their ideology is brain-dead, they either totally, utterly and completely ignore me, knowing that they're unable to reply reasonably, or they repeat the mantra that I keep posting the same thing, as if what I posted was wrong, without giving me any reason as to why what I posted was wrong. (And you can tell that they're ignoring it because I have brought it to their specific attention multiple, multiple times). This is bargain-bin propaganda from a shitty ideology. I sincerely wish that all communists would read this thread and see communism for the glorified steaming pile of shit that it is. Also either failing to take into account the perspectives of people who lived under communist regimes, or saying how wrong they are, like a terrible cult. If anyone were to read the dribble posted by communists in this thread, the ideology would die the death it deserves. Gosh, I need to get everyone to read this

The most braindead of these claims is by people who appear to have never worked a day in their lives claiming that people would maintain sewers for free, but that's far from the only braindead claim

I'll have you know I put in a 12 hour shift today at the philosophy mill, and everyday you're in that place you're two days nearer death, but you go.

[Betoni]

Ah.. So UBI under capitalism is communism now? Either that or you aren't actually turning their argument on them, but making up a completely new argument and one that you don't believe is internally consistent at that.

More specifically, I think that UBI under capitalism would have the same problem that ArP believes would be fatal to communism, i.e. the problem of getting people to do the necessary but unpleasant labour that society needs to function. I don't think that people would refuse to do these jobs without being paid for them, but he does, and further thinks that my belief is so stupid as to be "brain dead". So I am making the point that when people don't need money to live, it loses a lot of its ability to incentivise them to do work they would rather not do. When people have a roof over their head and food on the table no matter what, and when one believes that money is the only way to convince them to do things like work down in the sewers, how much money will that require? Presumably massive amounts. Which means that maintaining sewers is going to cost a hell of a lot of money. Seems like a big problem for a society this is going to continue running on money.

So.. let me get this straight. You understand that capitalism + UBI is not actually communism and a worker in such a system actually has incentive to work in the form of monetary compensation, but for some reason you think that this is turning their argument against them? You do realize that their argument was exactly that the incentive to work does not exist in one example and does in the other, right? You are trying to fudge the issue by now claiming that UBI would mean that ability of monetary compensation is a lot less than without UBI, but even you know that a lot less is still more than nothing. Besides the amount of UBIs effect on this incentive would depend on the amount of basic income.

[Australian rePublic]

Oh Gosh, there's so much wrong with everything has been posted in this thread that I don't have the time to respond to it right now

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Oh Gosh, there's so much wrong with everything has been posted in this thread that I don't have the time to respond to it right now

If you don't respond to your own claims I think it should be doable.

[Free Papua Republic]

You know if communist theory is to be believed as truth, there's kinda no reason for Vietnam to scrap planned economy and reform into a mixed capitalist economy (with still plenty of market-based workers-owned enterprises). It's not like they have a problem with fearing US interference. They did anyways (and the reform happened in 1986, before Soviet collapse, so that's not the reason). And if the GDP growth projections are to be followed, Vietnam's GDP per capita is going to surpass Indonesia's, despite the former having been bombed to bits for 40 years straight.

Maybe Vietnam's leaders aren't dumb and they can see that planned economy is dumb, but idk

[Moltian]

Very bad, No good. I hate Communism and Socialism (same thing) Sharing is NOT caring

[Free Papua Republic]

I disagree with communism. If people use communism to mean living on a commune, that's probably OK, but the government banning trade isn't OK.

I feel like it's surprising that people don't take an engineering approach to these issues. Scaling is *insanely* hard, involving infinite complexity, amount of information, prioritization, and ever-changing data. Actually it's one of the most important, eternal "hard question" in civilizational advancements. A system that works in running a small kibbutz likely can't run international shipping lanes.

[Kubra]

You know if communist theory is to be believed as truth, there's kinda no reason for Vietnam to scrap planned economy and reform into a mixed capitalist economy (with still plenty of market-based workers-owned enterprises). It's not like they have a problem with fearing US interference. They did anyways (and the reform happened in 1986, before Soviet collapse, so that's not the reason). And if the GDP growth projections are to be followed, Vietnam's GDP per capita is going to surpass Indonesia's, despite the former having been bombed to bits for 40 years straight.

Maybe Vietnam's leaders aren't dumb and they can see that planned economy is dumb, but idk

Because the Soviets too were trying for the same types of reforms, everyone was, the Soviets simply proved incapable for various reasons.
In any case, if you're just going to reduce economic policy to ideological correctness, you know you're just going to mirror Soviet thinking, yeah?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I disagree with communism. If people use communism to mean living on a commune, that's probably OK, but the government banning trade isn't OK.

I feel like it's surprising that people don't take an engineering approach to these issues. Scaling is *insanely* hard, involving infinite complexity, amount of information, prioritization, and ever-changing data. Actually it's one of the most important, eternal "hard question" in civilizational advancements. A system that works in running a small kibbutz likely can't run international shipping lanes.

This is not an argument against communism, but against centralised systems of resource management. Which, under communism, should be rarer than under capitalism.

If we take the engineering approach: a cog does not need to know what a shaft on the other side of a chain is doing. It simply needs to react appropriately to inputs. This is an argument for a more decentralised approach than we have under capitalism.

[Duvniask]

You know if communist theory is to be believed as truth (...)

You've never read any.

That or it went in one ear and out the other.

[Apretocytes]

i dont know what communism really is and why it has a bad rep.

[Ifreann]

i dont know what communism really is and why it has a bad rep.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Primitive Communism]

i dont know what communism really is and why it has a bad rep.

Communism is an ideology which advocates a society without state, social class, money, or private property in which all goods are produced, distributed, and exchanged through common ownership in accordance to need. It is opposed largely because our societies and cultures push us toward cynical and pessimistic outlooks on life that border on misanthropic in their characterization of the human race as nothing but villainous fiends incapable of producing anything remotely better than what we have now, displaying an utter lack of vision and imagination.

Mostly delusion and ignorance, in other words. There is also an intense yet hypocritical moralist argument against Communism which is popular yet has nothing really to do with Communism as an ideology but rather is more a criticism of past or current Communist figures/movements/governments and their misdeeds/incompetence rather than a serious critique of Communist theory.

[Elwher]

i dont know what communism really is and why it has a bad rep.

Communism is an ideology which advocates a society without state, social class, money, or private property in which all goods are produced, distributed, and exchanged through common ownership in accordance to need. It is opposed largely because our societies and cultures push us toward cynical and pessimistic outlooks on life that border on misanthropic in their characterization of the human race as nothing but villainous fiends incapable of producing anything remotely better than what we have now, displaying an utter lack of vision and imagination.

Mostly delusion and ignorance, in other words. There is also an intense yet hypocritical moralist argument against Communism which is popular yet has nothing really to do with Communism as an ideology but rather is more a criticism of past or current Communist figures/movements/governments and their misdeeds/incompetence rather than a serious critique of Communist theory.

Two points, one an opinion and one from history.

The opinion, communism will not work on a large scale because it is, in my opinion, contrary to human behavior. People will give their best when they believe that doing so will benefit them more than it will benefit society in general. Again, an opinion and not a fact.

Historically, two sub-points. First, communism has always been achieved through bloodshed and suffering on a national level. It seems to be doable on a local level but is not scalable to a national or worldwide level. Second, it has not been correlated with technological advancements. All the major inventions and discoveries have come from capitalistic societies. Communistic ones are reasonably effective at producing from existing technology, but seem less capable of advancements. I suspect that is due to my first point about people doing their best when they themselves benefit.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Communism is an ideology which advocates a society without state, social class, money, or private property in which all goods are produced, distributed, and exchanged through common ownership in accordance to need. It is opposed largely because our societies and cultures push us toward cynical and pessimistic outlooks on life that border on misanthropic in their characterization of the human race as nothing but villainous fiends incapable of producing anything remotely better than what we have now, displaying an utter lack of vision and imagination.

Mostly delusion and ignorance, in other words. There is also an intense yet hypocritical moralist argument against Communism which is popular yet has nothing really to do with Communism as an ideology but rather is more a criticism of past or current Communist figures/movements/governments and their misdeeds/incompetence rather than a serious critique of Communist theory.

Two points, one an opinion and one from history.

The opinion, communism will not work on a large scale because it is, in my opinion, contrary to human behavior. People will give their best when they believe that doing so will benefit them more than it will benefit society in general. Again, an opinion and not a fact.

Historically, two sub-points. First, communism has always been achieved through bloodshed and suffering on a national level. It seems to be doable on a local level but is not scalable to a national or worldwide level. Second, it has not been correlated with technological advancements. All the major inventions and discoveries have come from capitalistic societies. Communistic ones are reasonably effective at producing from existing technology, but seem less capable of advancements. I suspect that is due to my first point about people doing their best when they themselves benefit.

Okay, so...

1. Your 'opinion' on human nature needs to be substantiated with facts. Your 'opinion' on human nature does not change human nature. In any case, the human nature argument is flawed, because we don't even know if there is such a thing as 'human nature', and if it exists, what its properties are. Under capitalism, people tend to work for themselves and limit altruism, but that is mostly because as a system, capitalism punishes altruism. So if you are basing your views of human nature on human behaviour under capitalism, then your understanding of human nature is severely limited.

2. No systemic changes against the wishes of the ruling class have ever been achieved without some sort of struggle, not because an ideology is inherently violent, but because status quo opposition is extremely fierce. The same goes for capitalism, by the way, which also has been introduced through bloodshed worldwide; the revolutions to bring it about in Europe, followed by the imperialism and exploitation in other areas of the world, and continued through continual misery of the working class to boot. Capitalism operates through scarcity of products, including food, shelter and medicine. That is an extremely and inherently violent system.

3. Finally, your point on technology is entirely a-historical. "All the major inventions and discoveries have come from capitalistic societies" is a laughable statement. Have you ever heard of the space race?

Sure, capitalistic societies have been the predominent form of organisation for the past hundred years, and this coincided with a boom in technology. But this boom does not exist in a vacuum. If we take the example of computers, the basic technology behind them was created through public funding during and after world war 2, both in Britain and in the USSR. Then in the west, the technology was privatised, but to call computers, or rockets, or aircraft, 'capitalist innovations' is missing the large part that public investment played in their development.

[Point Blob]

What's funny is his implication that everyone always prioritizes happiness or money over the other. So the first kind of people wouldn't pick up a bar of gold if it made their back hurt and the second kind would literally chop off their arm for a penny.

Pain avoidance =/= happiness.

[Umeria]

What's funny is his implication that everyone always prioritizes happiness or money over the other. So the first kind of people wouldn't pick up a bar of gold if it made their back hurt and the second kind would literally chop off their arm for a penny.

Pain avoidance =/= happiness.

Ok theyd sit in a room watching paint dry for 4 hours for a penny, doesn't really make a difference