Personally I think that it is a structure that could only work fairly in 1 of 3 possible situations.
Scenario 1: As a very small structure. Something like a family unit, or possibly a very small group of close friends where everyone trusts and cares for, and loves everyone else. Everyone is on board.
Scenario 2: A post scarcity world. Something along the lines of Star Trek. Technology is very advanced. Human labor is obsolete or all but obsolete. Resources are in great abundance. People are in want or need of nothing.
Scenario 3: In a prison as a form of cruel, and unusual punishment.
1. Define communism. Everyone here has their own definition and ideas of what it is. 2. Scenarios 1-2 could be said for any type of system. Scenario 3 makes no sense.
Scenario 2 lasts until there are no mechanics to fix everything. Society collapses, or mechanics are forced to work. Scenario 3 happens next.
Wyatt Ramirez
When and only in the event when Christ is king.
Utopias grasp at the fictitious which reality ultimately rejects logistically and metaphysically, only a God or a being like one would be able to enforce such a system without it turning sour.
Joshua Adams
Max population of 500 million
Carter Cox
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of revolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism according to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable from other gommies. Da state withers away liek da people. gommies.gom/fug/ gommies.gom/starve/
----------------------------------------- Da sdages of gommunism.
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.
Jack Campbell
world domination
Parker Jones
It's actually very simple. You only need these two things: 1. A police state 2. A benevolent foreign (capitalist) country to support your broken economy with humanitarian aid
Joshua Jenkins
Name 1 benevolent country ever.
Charles Robinson
>Define communism
In the simplest terms imaginable...
Form of government. Collective ownership of everything. No private property. People work according to ability. People get paid according to need.
I agree on that. However people who do not work may just be banished, unless of course they have become ill, or elderly or wounded... Some good reason for not being able to work.
>Scenario 2 lasts until there are no mechanics to fix everything. Society collapses, or mechanics are forced to work. Scenario 3 happens next.
The machines would need to be self repairing. Of course such intelligent machines may not wish to keep humans around as they are of little value to them.
Liam Jones
find some tool to measure worth and value that is economically accurate.
Capitalism will work, just remove copyright law.
Christopher Rogers
Nothing.
Xavier Edwards
...
Landon Thomas
...
Luke Sanchez
Hippies, weed, booze, and the man to not push them down. Other than that? Perhaps humans being selfless and perfect and if that were true a platonic utopia is probably better.
Aiden Foster
Absence of human nature and unlimited resources.
Caleb Hughes
Armagedone!
Parker Flores
>collective ownership of everything So people could take legal decisions over objects you poses? do you even poses anything? what if I decide to put your dog down, since I have partial ownership? who keeps things and where? If in a community hardware, then why work if you don't need money for anything when you can benefit from other's labor >No private property Is the government included? If so, Muhammad could just walk into a missile silo or what? >people working to ability ability requires a certain amount of knowledge as well as experience to exist, without incentives people wouldn't have a reason to develop one in the first place, i.e. becoming a brain surgeon to own nothing but a scalpel, except is the communities scalpel.... >People get paid according to need What defines their needs? Also what happens in the case all people's needs are covered and there's an extra amount of payment left? who get's it? Can the government cover all of people's needs? Also if need is the only thing people need to get paid, why work?
Unless we get QT Cardie waifus i dont give a fuck.
Levi Bailey
Scenario one is essentially anarcho-syndicalism. No one seriously denies that anarcho-syndicalism works. It's essentially a hunter-gatherer tribe. That's why it's popular among various kinds of primitivists and only used by crazy cult-like groups and literal stone age peoples.
Scenario two ignores the neo-feudalistic economy of communism. Star Trek only resembles communism in that property is so abundant that there is no need to enforce property rights. Furthermore, all versions of Star Trek have real property rights (land) and personal property rights (possessions), which "true communism" does not. In a post-scarcity world, it makes no sense to take away those rights when property is so devalued that there is no reason to compete over it, much less create a state monopoly.
Scenario three is just historical fact.
Sebastian Bell
>user be more specific, and not so delusional
You know you're talking to a communist, right? He literally defined communism in the least controversial, most widely accepted generalities. He probably did a mental copy paste from the first time he ever heard communism described by anyone ever.
Jose Nguyen
Am I expecting to much reasoning from such devious sad, soy addicted, creature? I feel shame for them user, I had to try a first contact somehow
Adrian Sanchez
Spoonheads
Brandon Edwards
Pretty much, yeah. You have to understand that there are two kinds of communists, true believers and well-meaning ignorant folks. The latter believe in some deeply watered down communism and can't imagine that they support in anyway a murder factor like the USSR or Mao's PRC. They often have no idea that Castro is one of history's most prolific mass murderers.
The true believers are just like born-again Christians or cultists. Unless you have a personal relationship with them, they will only see everything you say as a challenge to the fundaments of their understanding of reality. A challenge to be defeated by parroting what they have heard. "Deprogramming" is the only thing that works other than building a real friendship and a lot of time and effort. You can't do either on an anonymous imageboard.
Charles Peterson
Kill the human spirit. Replace everyone with machines.
Andrew Lee
Political Communism cannot work outside scenario 3. Criminals have suspended individual rights anyway. Economic Communism is essentially what the family unit is. Unless the "parents" can provide for their "children" it fails. Both are time-sensitive and lead to failure.
You know the story of Peter Pan? Where forever-children(Socialists) and forever-manchildren(Communists) exist? Only works in Neverland.
>simplest terms imaginable Dictatorship
Joseph Torres
>What would it take for true communism to work? Humans would have to stop being human.
Hunter Sullivan
I see why people want Communism (sharing = good. Principle), but they forget an important factor which is that political ideologies are descriptive of a system, if the system tends to repeat the same pattern/result (mass murder in this case) is because either it needs adjustments (major ones in case of Communism), you need to start from scratch to solve it, or redefine what the ideology experimentally shows to be. The problems stars when we (humans) already named every other "adjustment" as a new political ideology, which creates division. I have not met any smart Communist with rational arguments that don't fail the Socratic method.
