Nah communism is shit, same with trickle down economics… you can have a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism in a healthy mix of free trade economy with regulations.
Like we do in Europe, because if you do not regulate the free market it’ll stop being free in a generation. Like it’s happened in the US.
This is a sane take. This is the only form of economy that actually works well.
Is-ought fallacy? Understand me correctly, I like the EU system, but to pretend that it’s the end of history and that we’ve reached perfection in this space is wrong.
And right after opressing and killing thousands of peole, while causing some famine on top!
Yeah, capitalist Britain, France, and America were terrible in their use of famines and genocides. The problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people’s land and food.
China
Indonesia, Chile, West Germany, Congo, Iran, Bengal, Guatemala, Nicaragua…
It doesn’t matter what ideology. If the people running it are rotten, any system can be corrupted.
So then the solution is to decentralize so everyone is running it.
Communism by any other name would smell as sweet
It’s simple: teach everyone to make everything they need for themselves, so they can’t be expoited
Sure bro lemme teach my aunt to make her insulin, her own needles, her own glucose test strips and all that cheers
Maybe we should all specialize, and pay each other with our own goods, or better yet, a sort of representation of goods we all agree is valuable, so you can get one persons goods with anothers.
Like how people were gifted ability to have more knowledge at their hands than previous generations and rapid communication, and then came to the conclusion that the earth is flat, vaccines are poision, and facism is holy?
Humans are dumb fucks. They will inevitably fuck up even the most perfect utopia they arrive in short of some mass hive mind brain washing Equilibrium style. i don’t hold that high an opinion of human society.
Leave the world to the animals. Humans are a failed experiment and a virus to the world.
Something something darwin
Deeply anti-materialist take.
Can you explain how you disagree? Is it about incentives to be corrupt (or against) depending on the system?
They didn’t seem to express an argument or value judgment in their comment regardless of their actual opinion.
Don’t feed the troll.
If you believe in great man theory™ and think that all political developments happen because one person can magically steer entire countries and the world, in geo-political terms, or idealists in thinking that if you have the correct ideas, you can magically steer the entire rest of the world to whatever you think, by having the correct thoughts. Then your theories of political developments are non-materialist, like this comment is objecting to. The system sets the conditions of who is going to be empowered or rewarded for their actions and positions.
I am not that person, but I guess you wouldn’t like the ambassadors of fascism to be efficient and competent.
And it often comes into being because of a CIA financed coup
It’s like the chicken or the egg question.
When has the CIA ever financed a communist coup?
Never … the communists / socialists / democratic groups usually reacted because of a CIA financed coup
Even without interference communism can never work, it’s not how human nature works, it relys on everyone being on the same page which will never happen
It’s in our genetics to engage in a perpetual exponential quarterly growth and make our decisions based on the benefit it brings to our investors. Any caveman could tell you that smh…
If you ran humanity in thousands of simulations how often would we end up in the same capitalistic situation?
So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don’t really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.
Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?
If you’ve never studied an economics text (a real, materialist one, not fucking graphs with ad-hoc rules that never seem to apply and zero fucking statistics) then try not to speak so authoritatively on economics.
Your words make no sense to me. If you want to convey ideas use the common tongue. It feels like you have some neat ideas though.
Anthropology doesn’t support the idea that humans are incapable of being communal.
Kind of some level of any system isn’t it? In short if a system has a means to power that can tweak the rules. Inevitably will result in one group ceasing the rules, turning them to raise how much they can tweak them, and ensuring they continue to be tweaked in their favor.
Communism relies on a possibly impossible starting point. Theoretically if the starting point were reached, it seems the most sustainable. Whether it’s possible to reach that starting point is the great mystery.
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here. It’s interesting to think about how even though communism could theoretically be the best system, it could mean nothing if we don’t know how to meet the conditions to achieve it in the first place.
capitalism, of course, where utility is only allowed to exist as the unexploited byproduct of a scam, cannot fail. it can only be failed.
I don’t disagree with you, but the person you’re responding to didn’t mention capitalism?
you’re right, they could be a monarchist instead. that’s much more sensible.
What part of communism relys on everyone being on the same page?
There’s never been any real communism. If a country has money then it is inherently a capitalist society .
I read this as communism has never failed
Communist can run a society that is not yet achieved communism. Not sure if you’re being purposely dense or not.
Also, currency does not define a society as capitalist. We’ve have currency long before capitalism ever existed.
also, primitive societies tended to be pretty communist. you need to build to delusions like capitalism.
What no theory does to an mf.
I don’t think money makes a society inherently capitalist, money predates capitalism by a loooong time, but I agree that if it has money it isn’t communist. It can be on its way to communist, a transitonary state, and depending on your definition it can be socialist, but communist is explicitly a moneyless, classless, stateless society. So, yeah, if it’s got it money, it’s not communist, but saying it’s capitalist is to create a false dichotomy of there only being fully realized communism or capitalism, with nothing outside of or in-between the two.
Eta: replied to the wrong person in the thread. Whoops. Meant to reply to the original commenter on this thread.
I hope this comes across as a genuine question, despite the thread itself getting a little jacked up. Like many of us, I’d like to find better systems of governance / better solutions to the problem of needed / beneficial coordination.
How does a communist society as you’ve described defend itself against opportunistic, hierarchical forces that would subsume and control it? What is the (de-coordinated? If you’ll accept my term?) answer to such a problem, pragmatically?
Oh Lord, ask someone smarter than me! Lol. I was clarifying terms more than anything else. Communism is an end stage, an eventual goal. That’s the big sticking point between anarchists (hi!) and communists. Communists believe in capturing the state so that it can be transformed and eventually wither away to become a communist society, anarchists believe in dismantling the state and creating communism directly. There are other differences, including how we define terms such “the state,” but that’s the jist.
I guess firstly, I should probably out myself that I’m not a Marxist leninists, but more along the lines of a syndicalist or platformist. Council communist is a semi appropriate term. I also don’t believe the same system that would work in rural Tennessee would be viable for urban New York. I believe in democratic, worker control. Consensus democracy and direct democratic control. The trouble is, I, and many others, don’t believe that communism is possible in just a single area. It would be subsumed, attacked, overthrown. It, by necessity, must be either a world wide movement to achieve True Communism™, or it would need to be isolated, insular, and completely or near completely self sufficient. The latter option is, frankly, kind of shit, and in my opinion, when combined with more authoritarian means and the “capture the state” side of things, leads to dictators and shitty conditions.
The comment your replying to (or meant to) has to be being purposely dense. There is obviously a difference between being a communist, having a communist party take power, and “achieving” communism. No one with a brain would think the OOP was talking about the last use of the word in that sentence.
It’s a common “dumb guy that thinks they’re being smart” take because they haven’t actually ever read a book in their life. They just read the definition of communism once.
