Hey Sup Forums let's discuss communism

Hey Sup Forums let's discuss communism

What are your thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BdXIF42UC7A
youtube.com/watch?v=bZou8mgDSs8
youtube.com/watch?v=1TgdLkGwbTw
youtube.com/watch?v=munr3OhtrDI
youtube.com/watch?v=aekiMlGQDLY
youtube.com/watch?v=SlaW_xh0nP0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>great in theory
>doesn't work so well in practice

A guy im seeing is a communist, i dont know much about it. should I be worried?

>terrible in theory
>somehow doesn't work out in practice

youtube.com/watch?v=BdXIF42UC7A

Also I fucked up. Wrong link.

youtube.com/watch?v=bZou8mgDSs8

Capitalism will end by himself anyway so communism is just the following

bad at nuclear energy

...

communism = potheads

Based as fuck.

100 years ago it was new and exciting

At this point anyone who thinks any catagorical sysyem is The Solution is ignorant of philosophy, history and ethics.

Well said annon.

Disgusting cancer , fascism will win you disgusting bolshevik jew

aside from being illiberal, its kind of a fucking joke

Nice propaganda vid m8

It completely ignores human greed and hopes everybody will play along, and hopes that the government will dissolve and give equal control of the means of production to the people once it has seized complete control of the economy and the autonomy of the citizens as the means of creating the communistic utopia. I thought this kind of optimism died at the age of four

Thanks m8.

Almost all the freedoms in this film don't apply in modern america. Warrent? tell that to the swat team. Freedom of speech? not on college campuses or in the media. Capitalism as a system doesn't automatically give you freedom. Capitalism leads to monopolies, which are the same as socialism except now it's owned by the 1% instead of the state,

Socialism doesn't automatically take away your freedoms either, in fact the USSR was more equal opportunity than america ever was during the Brezhnev period. Ask anyone who lived through it.

>in fact the USSR was more equal opportunity than america ever was during the Brezhnev period
i think fucking not m8, not from what ive heard from multiple people who lived through communist states.

>he thinks he lives in capitalism
America has STATE capitalism.

Go away, edgelord.

I know several people who lived in varying places, some in Ukraine, one in Talinn in Estonia and one in Saint Petersburg - they all said that the education was the best in the world. Teachers encouraged the smartest instead of holding up the tards like here.

the Saint Petersburg guy went to a school with an olympic sized swimming pool, 3 gyms and hundreds of after school programs like archery, baseball, etc. He laughed at our school system when he visited the UK, and that's a point of pride in this country - that really tells you something.

Qualifications would give you a better house, a car and a good position - your living standard and job was based on what you studied and how good you were; like capitalism claims to do, but doesn't. Everyone got a good education, and the opportunity to succeed - if you didn't, it was on you. All the time people who were poorer got respected positions because they were smart. That's true equal oppertunity, not this classist capitalist bullshit.

Barely, with the establishment of the feds, social security, medicaire, and the government subsidies of student loans and healthcare, I consider it to be too interventionalist. Also with the 08 crashes, the federal bailouts seizing ownership of major companies and the backdoor deals made by the feds its barely recognizable as capitalism

...

youtube.com/watch?v=1TgdLkGwbTw

This capitalism is probably freer than any "true" libertarian capitalist society. Without the state, who would stop all the corportations from merging into an oligarchy? I mean, we already basically have one now, and that's WITH regulations.

I'm not arguing for absence of state.

Better dead than red

sorry m8, but this runs contrary to absolutely everything ive ever heard from those living under any kind of communist rule ever. unless your friends were of very high status within the USSR, i seriously fucking doubt any of that shit is legit.

What are you arguing for then? is state capitalism not the freest possible form of capitalism? before the consolidation got this bad, things were working well with this system.

Then you haven't asked a lot of people, or you asked people who were around only in the 80s when the economy crashed. Before then, they were very prosperous youtube.com/watch?v=munr3OhtrDI


It's a shame we have so much pro-capitalist propaganda. Truly, if you want to hear good things about capitalism you need to ask high status people also - only difference is high status in the USSR was a right you earned, not one you were born into.

Free market capitalism.

so, care to explain to me why every economist ive ever read works by or listened to, even socialist leaning ones, are wholehartedly against state planning?

...

Then by all means kill yourself.

It's impossible to implement because one of its foundational ideas is factually incorrect. You either end up collapsing or implementing some other system cloaked in Communist terminology. For the same reason, it's extremely difficult to sell to the masses, and most of the people who come to it on their own are alienated losers and unproductive eaters.

>All communism has to offer is propaganda
>Don't dare present any propaganda against it, though!

Because it was inneficient back then, and I agree - it took six months for data to reach the central planners (Gosplan) and nothing ever got where it needed to exactly. Nowadays it would probably work better since information can travel millions of times faster; Chile experimented with that concept (computerised central planning) during the 70s but there was a fascist coup before it really got off the ground.

I would personally prefer more local councils to manage planning, since centralised power always seems to corrupt, be it multinationals or politicians. This is actually what communism aims to achieve.

So how would a free market system, with little to no regulation prevent the largest and most successful companies form absorbing into a monopoly?

so, whats your major objections to liberal capitalism? seems to me that all the individually directed efforts in the world will never hope to equal the results of every man planning for himself according to his needs and desires within a competetive system.

Because "muh NAP". Ancaps are truly just as retarded as communists.

No

communism is for the birds

I don't have any problems with liberalism - I'm not a collectivist, I just think the rights and needs of the individual would be better seen to by an accountable and democratic economy. And this is not what the free market gives us.

Eventually, the competition ends with one or two winners, a conglomorate that's essentially the same thing as a centrally planned economy but without any of the accountability of the state. It would be better to democratically handle it under socialism, with the planning done either with computers or local councils than entrust things to a "free market" that's owned privately by a handful of people. I know that's not what happened in the USSR, but this system seems just as flawed, if not moreso.

It doesn't have to.

I will wait for non-propaganda argument for communism.

Well a monopoly defeats the purpose of the market being "free" because they prevent competition by either killing them off or taking them over. They're so large no one can truly boycott them unless you go live in the forest and hunt for your goods.

I fuckin love it

this
although we have to admit that elitism had a lot to do with it's failure.
elitist ideals will always ruin a good thing.
russia, china and napoleon's republic all had the same problem:
they replaced the ruling elitists with the common elitists, and ended up in the same fucked up mess.

until the elitists are wiped out, neither communism nor democracy will work they way they were envisioned.

>by either killing them off
If they provide inferior product/service for same price, sure.

>or taking them over.
Can't buy what's not for sale.

Communism is a matter of willingness. Willingness to resist one's own temptations and work for the good of everyone. Now in a country where about half of the population is a Republican, there is no way everyone would be willing to pursue such an ideal.

oh god ..dont get me started..i voted for a left wing goverment.as so many others here did..aaaand so far weve got nothing but a sore ass from all the fucking over that theyve done..never again,,,never ever ever
i gues everything sounds good theoreticaly but daaaaamn......

PAY DENTBS

...

>By killing them off
Problem is, when they're dead and there's no competition left, their products can be as shitty as they want. That's why everything breaks now compared to back 50 years ago and there's no magical "competition" thats better for the "free" market to enjoy.


>Or taking them over
Tell that to local businesses the world over; they force a sale eventually, either because it's one they can't refuse or starve them of business until it is.

>no one can truly boycott them unless you go live in the forest and hunt for your goods.

or you just don't buy into the hype that you "need" the shitty crap they're selling. mind that the sheep out there have been well trained to distinguish what they need from what they want. consumerism is all about want. corporatism is all about convincing the sheep that they need.

learn to distinguish between the two and you can start to undermine the corporate system.

Like all political ideologies it is best taken in small doses and paired with others. Extremism of any doctrine is the root of its failure as well as the denial of its people's freedom of expression.

>Venezuela
>Communism
Pick one

with what money you granf faggot of all that is pink and fluffy

>I just think the rights and needs of the individual would be better seen to by an accountable and democratic economy.
explain this to me. what is a democratic and accountable economy exactly?

>Eventually, the competition ends with one or two winners
even if this holds true (which im inclined to believe isnt the case without the state crippling competition in some manner, such as with patents), why not simply have a free market with anti-monopoly laws?

>with the planning done either with computers
do you have any knowledge of computer systems? the best computer systems we have are all either inferior to the capabilities of the human brain, or used merely to assist a human brain by providing it with a means of accessing and quickly processing vast amounts of data.

>I know that's not what happened in the USSR, but this system seems just as flawed, if not moreso.
so youre no collectivist, but youre fine with an inherantly collectivist system?

That works for non essentials, but look at these. You can't buy half your food without giving one of these monsters money, and within their niche - most of their competition is themselves.

All the start up business become absorbed into one of these as well - like Innocent drinks for example got bought out by coca cola. They will end up owning everything eventually.

Only the thugs, resentful, malicious and incompetent people rise to the highest positions in ussr. If by smart you mean ''I will denounce my neighbor as an enemy of the working people, because I know he has a family member in Europe, that will pass under Article 58-3 'contact with foreigner with counter-revolutionary purposes'. He will be sent to gulag, and I will take his nice apartment''. yeah that's very smart

>Lets be liberal and all encompassing

fucking niggerlover new-ager individualist pos

What are you talking about? There IS competition.
And yes everything breaks now because if you want to stay competitive you have to make devices with same specs that will, as a consequence, be just as fragile at the same price.

Everything breaks now because people don't care about robustness. Excess of wealth breeds carelessness.

>Tell that to local businesses the world over; they force a sale eventually, either because it's one they can't refuse or starve them of business until it is.

How is that a bad thing? If consumers don't support local business that means they don't want them.
Sell your islands or something to China. I dunno. Make it happen.

Nice spooky story got you there kiddo

I dont have any thoughts on communism, other that it doesnt work in todays society, and then theres this: youtube.com/watch?v=aekiMlGQDLY

Getting to the top of your class in physics, going to university and thus being qualified to work for the space program or whatever doesn't make you a thug. None of what you just described even applies to the way their system worked. If you want to see a system where being a vicious sociopath makes you a success, take a stroll down wall street.

>communism
its ded jim

It's a bad thing because when ALL the competition is gone, they can do whatever they want, and no one can stop them. It's all privately run by a handful of people - is this not the same as socialism? except instead of a democracy in charge, it's the shareholders. They aren't accountable, why cant you see this is a problem?

You can't get rid of the elitists...
When ever you consolidate power, whoever holds that power becomes the new elitist.

The more power you give the state the worse off the citizens have it.

Also, shoddy goods don't account for why this is acceptable youtube.com/watch?v=SlaW_xh0nP0

Monopolies are hardly ever the result of a highly superior product/service, and the exceptions rarely last more than a decade. Government intervention is, in most cases, the catalyst to monopolization.

Commies, fuck commies!!!

>ALL the competition is gone
Here we go again. They can only get rid of competition if competition is worse than they are and has no local support.

What was the price? What's it's power requirement?

Sound logic.

It's the only hope for our civilization. It's the next stage in the development of our society. Remaining capitalist means stagnation and death.

One in which those managing it are elected and can be impeached by the public, and have to be transparent about their policies and decisions - just like shareholders can hold their CEOs to account for their descisions and "force retirement" if they don't like the direction a company is taking.

Because the state relies on the economy, and so they often make decisions in favour of business to appease them. So just as we're seeing here, the interest of the state is the interest of businesses, because politicians need them more.

The stock market is just as complex and handled by AI as a central planning system would need to be - if you can make multi-million dollar business deals through computerised predictions, you could handle shipments and trade routes and factory production and so on.

Socialism is not inherently collectivist - As I said earlier in the USSR their education favoured individuals who were particularly skilled. We don't believe democracy is collectivist, because it values the rights of the individual - a socialised economy won't change that if it's prioritised in the same way.

>until the elitists are wiped out, neither communism nor democracy will work they way they were envisioned.

Which is literally what the communists say, dummy. Americans really need to learn about socialism before parroting what the ruling class tells them to say about it.

1) Yes.
2) You should really read into this subject more. Not communism specifically, just politics in general. I feel our representative democracy would be much healthier if its foundation of voters were more informed.

Based on what, exactly?

Fiction.

Wal Mart sells products cheaply right now, so everyone shops at wal mart - the local businesses can't compete and close. When they're all gone, why does Wal Mart need to sell its products at a higher quality or cheaper price?

So it makes shitty goods, or sells them at a premium, and then a competitor opens and they're in some way superior, but because Wal Mart is making a profit equivilent to it's own small nation they offer them X amount of money, buy out the store and carry on. This is the problem.

Yes, it's worked swimmingly for all other States looking to take that next step.

Buy fucking real food then...
Stop buying packaged food.
Get fresh produce and meat thats local.

I have no thoughts, the party decides.

Why is it a problem?

This

Most regulations are typically to server the interest of the large corporations and help keep the small, local ones from being able to compete or even being able to start up.

He just stated the problem.

>When they're all gone, why does Wal Mart need to sell its products at a higher quality or cheaper price?

I paid my debt to your mother. I was raping her until she got pregnant to you.

...

Capitalism has served its purpose of creating an industrial society capable of automating labor and using information technology to control distribution networks. And it has shown that we cannot trust a small group of people to control society as a ruling class through the over-concentration of economic power that capitalism inevitably produces. Our current capitalism-driven and capitalist-controlled policies are leading us directly towards ecological and social collapse, and the ruling class is not willing to do anything about it because - as always - they care only about maintaining their power and nothing about what is good for humanity and our future.

Socialism is economic democracy. It is about emancipating the people from the economic ruling class by taking away the base of their power - their ownership of the means of production. Only then can we start to organize our society in a sane manner and plan for the future instead of wallowing in an orgy of exploitative overconsumption presided over by sociopaths until all the resources of this planet are gone.

Capitalism is a death sentence for our civilization. Socialism is the only way forward.

...

>When they're all gone, why does Wal Mart need to sell its products at a higher quality or cheaper price?
It doesn't need to. If you don't like the price or quality, don't buy it.

Are you really this terrible at English or merely pretending?

This - without competition, you're left with one massive place to buy goods, all owned by the same people, and you don't have a say in any of it. The free market loses it's freedom. Though that's fine right? freedom is slavery. Wal-Soc.

Fascism gets the results that communism wishes it could.

>Socialism is economic democracy.
This could also accurately be said about the unrestricted free market. Maybe part of the reason both systems are so retarded is that the demos is retarded.

But it's food, you have to buy food, and there's only one place to buy food at that point. And as well as food, all the other essentials too.

What's going to stop fresh produce and meat from being monopolised as well? where I live, farmers markets are slowly dying out because they can't compete with these superstores.

>and you don't have a say in any of it.
Yes. Consumers are just zombies after all.

>But it's food, you have to buy food
If you're still not buying it directly from the guy who produces it, sure.

glad to see more level headed classical liberals out there Sup Forumsrother