Is communism bad?

is communism bad?
can it work?

Other urls found in this thread:

newsweek.com/chinas-young-people-are-rejecting-communist-party-propaganda-celebrity-culture-690277
youtube.com/watch?v=7nUNNSMQwTc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yes and no.

communism is the name of the problem.. the solution having yet to be elucidated. once we have a successful revolution, then what? what happens the day after? and the next? this is when the real work begins.

No and yes*

can you explain to me ?

I mean it works in star trek so...

This.

Only for the 1%.

Communism is a stupid idea that removes personal rights and gives it to the richest few. Socialism is a major step towards that and is proven to be horrible because while it works in theory, it relies entirely on the goodness and honesty of humans, but since that's basically an impossibility, it will never work out (see: all forms of socialism ever).

If you really want to grasp the idiocy of people who believe in communism that aren't the super rich, read 'none dare call it conspiracy.'

Generally no, and no. It has inborn conflict if extremely right view of society including open dictatorships. It's too authoritarian for a left ideology. Howether, commies are not alone who are awaiting for communism. Anarcocommunism (left libertarianism) makes much more sense.

It works in theory, but will never in real life. People are too easily corrupted.

> inborn conflict
I mean, it is left when it comes to economics, but far right (authoritarian) when it comes to political scale.

You can ask China when they arrive on your shores after wiping out your population with weaponized bacteria and viruses.

Lucky for them, your economic model was happy to sell them your country a billion dollars at a time, sure that they'll never call in that debt. In a poetic display of irony only the native americans, themselves originally asian, will truly appreciate, china won't call in that debt, they'll just be left holding the deed to it when you're all gone.

And the world will recognize them as the legal landowners, because you legitimately sold your country to them.

lol

bad if you're into personal rights and freedoms. good if you want to devote your life to a government ran by people who only view you as a potentially renewable resource.

As long as humans are involved it won't work. But it does work for ants, who have no government, with the exception of pic related.

the man is corrupted by the society or himself is corrupt?

Communism is for weak individuals who want to have their lives planned out by someone else, usually a committee.

It can work if enough people are desperate and uneducated.

Bingo.

There will always be people who want more than their fair share. Comfortable is not enough, they need to be above others.

Humanity sucks. Get used to it.

I don't think a man is onthologically corrupt at all, either by government, or himself. People are good.

Chinese citizens are rejecting communism tho.

meant to include this
newsweek.com/chinas-young-people-are-rejecting-communist-party-propaganda-celebrity-culture-690277

>soviet union collapses on itself
>north korea is gonna get its shit kicked in by the united states anytime now
>china has been overrun with capitalists ever since deng xiopeng introduced slight capitalism to china
>vietnam us westernizing
Take a random fucking guess.

>Communism is a stupid idea that removes personal rights and gives it to the richest few
4/8

>4/8
Ok then tell me what's wrong about that statement

>People are too easily corrupted.
Then what happens when social provision and production planning can be automated, just as it is in the garment sector today, and the ostensible rationalization for a ruling class can be dispensed with?

That's the whole purpose of a republic: to create and reproduce a permanent ruling class that exploits the remainder of the people for its own sake.

It can work, if capitalist agitators get the same genital tortures and helicopter rides that socialist agitators in Chile got. Socialism is the stready state of society and requires unending expenditures on the part of the elites to prevent it.

You're simply projecting your misdeeds onto the other party to get the spotlight off of yourself. Karl Rove would approve, which may be right or wrong depending on whether you're shilling for the ruling class or the people.
>none dare call it a conspiracy
>a book written 45 years ago
>claiming that banks and corporations are communist
literally kek

nope, get fucked tankie cunts

>That's the whole purpose of a republic: to create and reproduce a permanent ruling class that exploits the remainder of the people for its own sake.
That is more like a monarchy or oligarchy than a republic.

not bad, just of no value.
if you're a useless cunt it probably feels just fine.

...

No and yes.

Like capitalism, it works for a while, then corrupts, collapses and destroys is society, and is then reborn again. It's how every intelligent being, from a toddler to a 10,000 year civilization, learns.

China has found a working mixture of communism and capitalism, just like every other country in the world has found a working mixture of socialism and capitalism that can be maintained through cycles of growth and collapse.

Usually a major change to any new form of goverment requiring total buy-in on the public is implemented with massive displays of nationalism and militaristic threats, via totalitarianism, which kills whatever you're trying to implement though. It takes a sustained use of force to keep something implemented in that way in place, which then creates a defeatist fatalist worldview and eventually sucks the will out of the citizens.

The only way an economic model or government model works is if its something the people overwhelmingly decide they want all at once, such as the early communists, the diggers & levelers. Of course then they pose an existential threat to a predatory model, such as the english monarchy, or the US's post-war state, which has little choice but to wage war upon them and defeat these free people.

Traditionally, it has helped to be on the side of the most vicious form of self-interested government or religion. Those are the ones that have lasted in the west. Also in the east, though with some exceptions, which are now under threat as the world is westernized.

Of course, that is the past. The future is increasingly being turned inside out by technology, bringing such fundamental changes, communism or something like it may be the only option that satisfies the people.

People aren't equal. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are faster. Humans aren't altruistic, so there goes the 'selfless' aspect communism hopes to achieve. Oh, and it's responsible for over 100 million deaths, because its inherently flawed.

Communism is pure evil, and they should be physically removed as they are a threat to private property. Look up Hans Hermann Hoppe.

Socialism is a cancer that requires the subjugation of the many in order to support the few elite. The only difference between Socialism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism ANYONE can become elite, whereas in Socialism only certain people can become elite.

It's like feminism; if you can prove your victimhood you get credit and respect. Socialism is a similar concept only economical.

That's probably why so many radfems are socialists.

...

The problem with communism is that it can be corrupted, because it puts so the power of wealth in the hands of the ruling class.

Not like capitalism.

lol

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

...

((((they))))

That's the funniest and the dumbest shit I've read. Congrats.

Would you rather have 1% of far more or 10% of almost nothing? Capitalism might have wealth inequality but socialism and communism have social inequality... and the lack of economic freedom means that the overall quality of life is far less.

Capitalism is better for the average person. Just look at Germany vs. Russia before WW1. Marx predicted communism would take hold in the industrial nations, but it was rejected. It only took hold in uneducated, agrarian Russia.

>Traditionally, it has helped to be on the side of the most vicious
traditionally it seems like the success of human civilization relies less on some perfect plan, and more of having the stance of:
>If you go start a civilization with your friends and it looks better than ours in any way, we're coming to destroy it, and will kill all of you and take your shit.

For instance, that is still the US foreign policy. No rivals will be permitted in the western hemisphere. If anyone tries, we have to destroy them.

Thus restricting the progress of the world and systems of governance to circa the late 1700s. Better like living in shacks and mud, central americans.

Then why do republics throughout history reliably declare themselves unaccountable to the people and immune to their own laws except when they wish to be?

>Socialism is a cancer that requires the subjugation of the many in order to support the few elite
Says who? Socialism doesn't need eternal growth in order to keep itself from collapsing. Capitalism, like cancer, does.
>Capitalism ANYONE can become elite
The probability varies far more widely than that child molester Horatio Alger wanted to acknowledge.
>It's like feminism; if you can prove your victimhood you get credit and respect.
That's not even socialist. Equality is socialist. Unequal treatment of particular marketing demographics is anything but socialist.
>radfems
>socialists
Most radfems tend to be neoliberal and simply want to compete with men in every sphere of life rather than cooperate.

>socialism and communism have social inequality
If you think that bourgeois identity politics isn't capitalism reimagined into a social relations context in order to keep the petit-bourgeois personally employed and exalted above the working class, you might want to take your blinders off.

that sounds like a truly hellish existence, user.

out of curiosity, where do you think socialist countries fall on the happiness index, or quality of life index?

Pure anarchism should be somewhere in the bottom center.

or wealth inequality, or poverty, or phsyical health, or quality of education, etc etc etc

lol

Thread is over.

youtube.com/watch?v=7nUNNSMQwTc

>is communism bad?
Not by default, it's merely an idea and ideas are not inherently good or bad.
>can it work?
Yes, if implemented properly and not corrupted by capitalism.

>Then why do republics throughout history reliably declare themselves unaccountable to the people and immune to their own laws except when they wish to be?
Corruption is a possibility in any form of government.

...

Anarchism it self is more or less Socialist in nature. Mutualism and Leftward.

>not corrupted by capitalism.
Also not corrupted by an authoritarian government, which would lead to a tyrannical political class ruling over common people

Thats part of why I'm an Anarcho-Communist.

I reject the Vanguard approach of ML as being inherently authoritarian.

Instead it must be power from the bottom

No, direct democracy is generally free from it since people would only be screwing over themselves by doing so.
>inb4 muh mob role
No, that's different. Mob rule is the rule of the powerful, not the enforced political equality that direct democracy delivers.

All government that is not direct democracy is necessarily authoritarian. The main difference in whether one's rulers are or are not publicly elected.

If we are about classic anarchism (Prudon), it's quite centric econimically probably. Pro-small-business, anti-monopolist, against big corporations.

Yep, and Mutualism is basically that. And many of the Anarchist theorists following him were more left.

The one thing thats certain is that AnCaps are not Anarchist really at all

>No, direct democracy is generally free from it since people would only be screwing over themselves by doing so.
While maybe not vulnerable to corruption directly, it is vulnerable to tyranny by the majority. And in turn vulnerable to things like the implementation of the electoral college. Then it is no longer direct democracy as votes become weighted.

>muh human nature
This is such a bullshit argument. Plenty of things the are normal in today's society defy "human nature"
Also, hunter gatherer societies.
>muh previous failures
Have their been some failures in the past? Sure. Stalin, Mao, etc. rided on the communist ideology to grab power. But, just because you have a few mistakes in the past doesn't mean it would be impossible in the future.
>muh it's not viable in real life
Yeah, totally not a propaganda talking point spread by the bourgeoisie

...

>I reject the Vanguard approach of ML as being inherently authoritarian.
And more than a little bourgeois!

>tyranny by the majority
That was just the Founders' code for anything that dared disturb their ability to own private property regardless of its cost to the people of the nation.
>vulnerable to things like implementation of the electoral college
But how and why would it? How would that serve a self-interest of the majority, let alone a supermajority that would presumably be required to assent to such a fundamental change?

...

Fpbp

wrong thread, don't mind me

>I mean it works in star trek so...
No, that wasn't socialism. They were a cashless society and had no economy. They used a barter trade system instead.

kek

That too. It just creates a new ruling class. Thats why the Anarchists must be prepared to fight ML(M) when the time comes.

Use them in the short term, but don't let them seize power

So a Socialistic Gift Economy

Mutualism FTW

>But how and why would it? How would that serve a self-interest of the majority, let alone a supermajority that would presumably be required to assent to such a fundamental change?
Why was the EC created in the first place? People are lazy and generally don't pay that much attention to politics. It is easier to elect a representative than vote on every little thing. Mix that with capitalism and now you have reps with vested interest that lie to their constituents.

>So a Socialistic Gift Economy
Not exactly. They only traded with other governments, not within their own society.

Communism is a nonscalable system. It can work only so long as all members volunteer and are willing to abide by the rules.

The military is ethically communist, for example, in that all are expected to contribute, and will be provided for. HOWEVER, it is not economically communist as it is not self sustainable.

Communes are both ethically and economically communist, in that all contribute, and are provided for, while not strictly REQUIRING outside investment. Note, however, that this is very difficult to establish entirely as it must interact with the capitalist society surrounding it, and thus cannot import or export communistically.

Unfortunately, any higher scale of communism is impossible as people willing to manipulate the system to assert themselves as superior will always exist. This is why all forms of communism fail eventually.

The solution, then, is to take the communist ethic, of communal responsibility and communal assistance, and apply it to the capitalist system at the smallest possible levels of government, or even outside of government. The ideal society from an egalitarian standpoint would be a series of independent communes interlaced through a very soft federalized government that exists only for communal defense, foreign trade, and deconflicting trade/distrbution. This however is unlikely, so the best we can really do is work within the capitalist system to create small recruit-only towns or hamlets where everyone can work together.

Philosophically, it works well, but only with volunteers. Economicaly, it's unscalable and unstable.

Didn't work out so well for the black army. The reds won. Next time the opportunity presents itself we should not be trusting of Authoritarian ideology no matter if it is anticapitalist.

Let's smash the state brother.
No gods, no masters

Never watched Star Trek, so I don't know the exact system they used

I thought Anarchism simply meant that there's no government

Now, first off, in order to achieve "communism" you would need to first have a population live through a large amount of time under a socialist narrative. Communism can not be achieved straight off the bat, without indoctrinating with the ideology of it, several generations.

The Russians tried to launch communism straight away, but the people weren't ready for it, and higher-up failed the regime.

Let me give you an example, as a middle aged ( mid 20's ) Balkan fuck, I was pretty interested and still am rather interested in the whole ordeal surrounding communism/socialism etc.

Back during the "cold war" era, there were loads of pros, and cons to the socialist regime, for example, there were no poor people, or beggars on the streets, but no rich men either, for a very certain selected few that is. These selected few, are the archetype of people that ruined the socialist regime in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union. For example, let's say certain rich fag has a cotton factory, which was really rare at the time. Rich faggot receives 15 000 tons of cotton to process, he says he only received 12 000 and sells the other 3000 tons somewhere else, and loads of other shit like that.

Bit more complicated then that. People are free to form associations but are likewise free to abstain or move.

True. We must look to the past, as not to make the same mistakes at the Black Army, CNT/FAI and other Anarchist forces.

I would say atleast in the short term loosely coordinate. But be careful, and be ready to move on them, just like we'll move on the state

But how does that make Anarcho Capitalism not Anarchism?

Uta great

This is solved by the workers running the cotton factory as a sydicate. No central planning, this allows for the market to still work while protecting workers rights.

You're missing out, at least with TNG. But anyway, it isn't really ever explained properly, just demonstrated. Just like warp drives.

One of the big things is freedom from oppressive hierarchies. And Capitalism it self is inherently hierarchical

I may watch it as some point in the future. But I guess its mostly speculation as to the specifics of there political and economic systems

Checked.

Because anarcho capitalism is the rich making rules by owner ship of capital. Futher left Anarchist philosophy rejects private property which exists only with largess of the state. Anarchists believe in private possession and worker direction of capital. Ergo use defines "ownership".

They are standing on point that government's monopoly on violence being replaced by private structures will form anarchy. Actually this will form (neo)feodalism.

Communism is a great concept that does not work. At the most juviniale analysis, lets us human nature. Communism/Socialism is the equality of distribution through the means of government. A government like any group entity is embodied by individuals, which are selfish at any lens of understanding.

This too

>Also not corrupted by an authoritarian government
My point exactly. If the government sticks to the communist playbook then it's actually a perfectly acceptable form of governing but humans are incredibly susceptible to bribery and corruption and that's where the system fails

Not him but thanks for that explaination.

>Why was the EC created in the first place
To ensure that the popular vote couldn't change anything without the status quo's permission. The Founders hated the idea that someone might vote them out of their aristocratic place in society.
>It is easier to elect a representative than vote on every little thing
Was easier, anyway. Today it's almost trivial to be informed, and even easier to be misled by those who pay for the mighty Wurlitzer. It seems easy to just meet every couple of weeks or so, taken from the time one ordinarily might have had allocated to work in a capitalist/republican system.
Personally, I like building a bias toward inaction into such a system. If 2/3 of the people agree on something, it's probably not a bad idea. If 4/5 of the people agree on something, it's almost certainly a good idea.

>which are selfish at any lens of understanding.
Literally nothing more than a social norm used to justify the destruction of social solidarity.

The beautiful thing is that they can be automated out of existence just like any other petit-bourg. See Paul Cockshott's work on automating central planning.

>And Capitalism it self is inherently hierarchical
How so?
What kind of rules are you talking about? What would compel one to follow said rules?

>is communism bad?
yes
>can it work?
no, you'd have to do something neither jesus nor ghandi were able to.
remove greed and evil from man.

Modern communism/socialism has never been incorperated in government successfully for any of its citizens. Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, or Venezuela. Saying that none of these were true example of communistic structures only tells others of your ignorance

>>Why was the EC created in the first place
>To ensure that the popular vote couldn't change anything without the status quo's permission. The Founders hated the idea that someone might vote them out of their aristocratic place in society.
no
the office of president was the most powerless position described in the constitution
strict interpretation means the president can only enact laws in a very literal interpretation of how congress wrote them and he could only wage war if the senate authorized it and the house hadn't ended it
it was such a nothing of a position that the drafters of the constitution saw no reason the entire population would care who is president
so the established a system where those responsible for running the governments of the united states (the state congresses and the house of representatives) had to decide who was the CEO

There is always a hierarchy of value in any society. It is biological. Having a sense of heirachry is even found in the brain of crustaceans. We have a hierarchy of value based on a utility of values.

In theory no, practically yes, its bad.

In theory yes, but humans have to become completely altruistic, but practically never, humans are animals and will never disregard their own wellbeing for the wellbeing of others.

You have the CEO, or who ever is at the top. Then the subordinate work to his employees. (Can go down how ever many levels)

>mans greed and evil
Good thing our own economic or societal model is immune to those and doesn't rely on them huh.

Fuckin useful tool kek

Can somebody explain why an human can be corrupted?

or is it that all have some "evil" inside?

Yeah, but you can quit your job if you don't like it. All authority that the CEO has over their employees is being given to them voluntarily

Because modern government is purely capitalistic structure. If it calls itself socialistic or communistic - don't believe it. It still capitalistic, and can't be anything else. It will bring you ultra-corporative government capitalism at hardest stage (covernment as huge single corporation). And it dont't know what's next. Falls back to regular capitalism, like USSR did. You really should consider abolishing the government first, BEFORE the social experiments.

Because we are incomplete. In every sense of its definition. Underdeveloped from birth, and due to this we develop a subjective sense of morality. These individual ethics are developed and formed throughout upbringing and experience. Because of this everyone is different, creating a gap between what is know as good and what is know as evil.

> government
Fix