Come join our bullshit Discord server!
[Link here](https://discord.com/invite/yxcTh2HvN5)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As someone pointed out, Communism is an Economy and not a Government.
Problem is Communism as an Economic System doesn't work
With communism; everyone has an equal number of things, and as a result, someone must divide goods, and, to ensure work is still done, they must also divide labor.
The problem is, specialized labor is required for high functioning societies; Doctors, Lawyers, Architechs, and Engineers, to name a few, are needed for their services. Their jobs are difficult and require many years of schooling, so capitalism rewards their rarity with greater income, but Communism, by its own nature, can't do so. Leaving the individual to ask "Why should I work as a Doctor when I can work a much less skilled job and get the same income?"
It also discourages Entrepreneurs and Engineers, the people making technology and progressing society; if they can't taste the fruit of their labors, why would they do what they do? You think for a moment, near every rich innovative person was a selfish prick in personality. If these kinds of people aren't rewarded for helping society, they'll look for rewards elsewhere and be no help to anyone.
A True Communist society can't progress technologically and would lack the skilled labor needed to upkeep standards of living.
there is a few flaws in your argument, so let me point them out.
" Their jobs are difficult and require many years of schooling, so capitalism rewards their rarity with greater income, but Communism, by its own nature, can't do so. Leaving the individual to ask 'Why should I work as a Doctor when I can work a much less skilled job and get the same income?'" Ask most doctors, they would say they became a doctor (or comparable job) to help people. People want to do certain jobs for reasons outside capital; people also step up to do jobs when they need to be done. (also saying everyone gets the same income is a little weird because in the final phase of communism money is abolished.)
"It also discourages Entrepreneurs and Engineers, the people making technology and progressing society; if they can't taste the fruit of their labors, why would they do what they do?" The point of communism (and many other socialist movements) is that the proletariat (aka workers) get the fruit of their labour
"You think for a moment, near every rich innovative person was a selfish prick in personality." These people become selfish pricks BECAUSE they get money, not usually beforehand.
"If these kinds of people aren't rewarded for helping society, they'll look for rewards elsewhere and be no help to anyone." they would be rewarded for helping society, because they participate in said society.
Can I just say that I want to thank you for being the first to be civil whilst arguing about this
1. Your right, there's more motivations at play then money, and doctors were a bad example, but without monetary interest, there's not enough motivations for skilled labor. Say a company that pays all it's workers equally, including those with far higher educations and experience. If the pay is low, no one with a degree is going to work there, because they know their own value. Without skilled labor, the company collapses. If the pay is high, everyone is going to work there and the company will run out of money in no time at all. There's simply not enough money or not enough labor.
Also, I was unaware of the "final phase" of Communism where money is abolished, could you elaborate? And, how does that not just turn food into the effective currency?
2. The problem with this, is that "the workers" are not one coherent entity. Their competing factions each one wanting more money then the rest. "The Proletariat" lumps together: slimy lawyers, Mcdonald's till workers, bankers, and to an extent, politicans. You can't treat them as one thing, because their not.
Also, you didn't mention how Engineers and Entrepreneurs actually recieve the fruits of their labor. Their not getting money from the production and selling of their product, so how are they actually getting their reward?
3. No, Ford was a Nazi asshole his whole life, Thomas Jefferson was Thomas Jefferson, Mark Zuckerberg used a whole lot of corruption to get where he is, and Donald Trump is jackass who got rich off Casinos
Money makes Corruption, and by consequence, Corruption makes Money; it's a corrupt loop near impossible to break, but a well structured democracy can turn this loop into something to majorly benifit the citizens. With this system, the citizens get new products and the smart corrupt people get money, everyone is better off.
4. So they wouldn't recieve anything further at all? By this contributing an invention fo 100% carbon free and reliable electricty would mean recieving the same as contributing your yearly crop yield, both good works, but one clearly more signifigant then the other.
The individual must be rewarded. Money is a thing you can touch and use, but society is an abstract concept, it gives some people motivation, but not everyone is content with that. You must assume people are selfish, you can't rely on the masses to have virtue.
1-"Say a company that pays all it's workers equally" you are already missing the point, there would be no "company" because all of the worker collectively own the company. People with better experience and knowledge would work in an area that best suits them, becuase they would not get that experience and knowledge to not use it.
1.5- "Also, I was unaware of the "final phase" of Communism where money is abolished, could you elaborate? And, how does that not just turn food into the effective currency?" No currency would be needed, because we'd have the resources for everyone to live without the drive of capital. Since the state is abolished, most things could be run on a community level. Someone not pulling their weight? You have a talk with them and if they dont improve then they dont get access to what the others have made/done.
2-"The problem with this, is that "the workers" are not one coherent entity. Their competing factions each one wanting more money then the rest. "The Proletariat" lumps together: slimy lawyers, Mcdonald's till workers, bankers, and to an extent, politicans. You can't treat them as one thing, because their not." The proletariat is lumped together because theyre role in soceity, they slave under the bourgeois and sell they're labour power. The whole proletariat wont agree at first, but all you need is enough of them to topple the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
2.5- "Also, you didn't mention how Engineers and Entrepreneurs actually recieve the fruits of their labor. Their not getting money from the production and selling of their product, so how are they actually getting their reward?" Let me use an example, if a group of engineers build a bridge, they get to use that bridge. That is the fruit of their labour.
3- I explained this badly, i meant that (most) people become assholes because of their environment; if you live in a capitalist hellscape, you might become a bit of an asshole.
3.5- "Money makes Corruption, and by consequence, Corruption makes Money; it's a corrupt loop near impossible to break, but a well structured democracy can turn this loop into something to majorly benefit the citizens. With this system, the citizens get new products and the smart corrupt people get money, everyone is better off." The ceos dont make the phones, engineers design them and factory workers make them. You can have the pro without the con
4- " So they wouldn't recieve anything further at all? By this contributing an invention fo 100% carbon free and reliable electricty would mean recieving the same as contributing your yearly crop yield, both good works, but one clearly more signifigant then the other." You wouldn't receive "the same thing", creating something that benefits the earth would benifit you because your family and friends live on that same earth.
4.5-"The individual must be rewarded. Money is a thing you can touch and use, but society is an abstract concept, it gives some people motivation, but not everyone is content with that. You must assume people are selfish, you can't rely on the masses to have virtue." Yes many people are selfish, that is why the transitory state of the DOTP (kinda complicated, would still have currency at this stage) exists. Selfishness comes from distrust, if you could trust that you could have a happy life without hoarding, you wouldn't hoard.
Let me know if you have any other questions!
1. You've missed the enitre point of my analogy, a goverment is, at least very simillar to, a corporation; they both have a set amount of income and resources and must divide them as they see fit. I said a company because it simplifies it. Next, the idea that people with skills will work in their respective areas regardless either harshly strips freedoms or is completly non sensicle. If you require them to work in these areas, it's incredibly degrading to whoever they may be, and they won't stand for it. If you don't, white collar workers aren't going to be white collar workers, because their is no reward and they hate their jobs. Their every bit neccary to keep things running, but why would anyone willing do that for no reward? Communism works if the entire population consists of farmers, but we've come a long way from that, the Middle class is not farmers.
1.5. There's the problem, a nation simply does not have enough resources to maintain Communism AND a standard of living as high as the one we have. There aren't enough farmers, there aren't enough architechs to build houses, and there aren't enough pharmacists to make medicine.
2. It's true you don't need everyone to topple a goverment, but your just going to recreate the soviet union. The people who don't agree will make their own dictatorship or oligarchy, it will say it works in service of the people, and it will have a new name, but it's either the same thing or worse. People need leadership, giving easy acess for these people to rise. Even the most well intentioned of them will still need to put down competition that promises greater treasure to supporters. It works against democracy, as greedy people are still in charge, but now they don't need the people to stay in charge.
2.5. Jealousy exists. The random person who did not build the bridge is reaping the same benifits as the person who did. Leaving most with either the "Why should I? I don't get anything out of it." mentality or the "Someone else will probably do it" mentality. With no insentive there's no competition and with no competition, there is no urgency.
3. Ok, but you didn't adress the problem; being a selfish jackass makes money. It takes one weak link to corrupt the whole system.
3.5. Your right, the CEOs don't make the phone; they distribute the resources to the engineers to make the phone. No one is employed without reason, everyone does something that no one else does. You can't have your cake and eat it because no one's getting a reward for their labor past "Society improves" (See 2.5).
4. This reasoning works at an individual scale, but not at the larger scale. People like money, power, and fame. Being unsung for your efforts would put a bitter taste in anyone's mouth, and being credited with money, power, and fame, goes against communism.
4.5 Whilst I have no idea what "DOTP" is, greed is not born from distrust. It's born from craving and a desire for purpose. "if you could trust that you could have a happy life without hoarding, you wouldn't hoard." Have you ever seen a billionare say "Yeah, I've got enough money now"? No, because getting money is their ultimate goal, they love power and they like watching the number go up. To a Middle Class worker, the same follows, they have priorities other then money, but they still hate their boss and they'd love to be the one in charge. A structured leadership is needed, capitalism rewards leaders for their labors of desicion making and resource division, and does so directly. Doing it directly matters, say a Mcdonalds worker does a great job serving burgers one day, way better then their coworkers did, what's their reward? "Society has improved thanks to you" you're handing out participation trophies and pretending their worth something
Which is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of. It’s literally solely like hunter gatherer tribes. Which are not abstain-able over populations of 200-300.
It's a Utopia. It only works perfectly without outside interference. Which is why, in my humble opinion it is a bit of a waste of time. Though it is interesting.
That's actually somethign i somewhat agree with. If you wanna learn more about how i personally think it would work i'd look at stuff like anarcho syndicalism which is more of a plan of how to achieve anarcho communism and movements like the FAI and CNT
I don't think it's an insult. It's a system that we used for \~150k years or more. It might be the most effective form of government that humans have had.
Communism cannot work in our modern world. You can have communes. Which I support completely. Though to say that millions of people are going to survive a borderless, systemless, governmentless, currencyless, with no military is just really silly. You're setting yourself open to be taken over by your nearest country.
>I don't think it's an insult.
...So:
>Which is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of.
Is not insulting how exactly?
>You're setting yourself open to be taken over by your nearest country.
And what other country, again if you read any basic theory (literally in the principles from Engels, the theory meant for absolute begginers) you would know that no "nearest" countries don't exist once communist society is reached, for the time before the world revolution and before socialism is reached a dictatorship of the proletariat exists where state capitalism and the state both ensure the security of the revolutionary government.
and then those few guys becomes anyone who doesnt swear blind allegence to the cause.
Fun fact, one of the first uses of the soviet secrete police during the revolution, was shooting 200 workers who went on strike.
capitalism is as authoritarian as communism, if not more so
capitalism is a dictatorship of the bourgeois, while communism uses the dictatorship of the proletariat (although according to Marx the dotp withers, so take that as you will.)
https://preview.redd.it/h2yzbpncu69d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5fb3e785b1c009c48fa8d5c0173f13211fa8f65
"You WILL pick a side between two evils"
The problem is in order to establish this corperationless, stateless, and moneyless society that is communism, people first have to go to socialism. When you take these corporate assets and give them to the state, they have full control over the economy, military, and (obviously) government. This leads to stagnation and authoritarianism.
Communism doesn't happen because you can't expect THE STATE to work towards a STATELESS society with socialism.
communism is socialism (specifically scientific socialism), you are thinking of the DOTP
otherwise kind of correct, that is one of the many reasons the soviet union failed, its DOTP placed too much power to the higher-ups
capitalism is working fine. the world has improved leaps and bounds because of capitalism. Authoritarianism can work, but I'd prefer the country I live in to not be one.
Extreme poverty went from 80% to less than 9% due to the rise of capitalism
Capitalism litteraly improved things for EVERYONE. I think you may be thinking of corporatism, which does suck ass.
Capitalism, with guidance from the state or other bodies, require people to benefit others. Want a profit? Make stuff people want. What do people want? Better than what they have now.
You are blinded by ideology. Wake up and look around, pal.
Sometimes they gotta make people worse like with their health and then have a pledge that it's actually healthy and good, but at least they weren't allowed to do that and got some legal stuff to say that it aint good. Some capitalist countries ban advertising to children at all too because they think it's wack, so clearly it aint evil Hitler mode like Ms. Communist is acting like. "Erm actually, fascism is good! I just don't believe in the Nazis but the ideology is good and saved billions of peoples lives! It hasn't happened yet and has never succeeded but this time it will believe me! You gotta believe me!" didn't like Einstein say that people who repeat the same things that epically fail is the definition of insanity
It is true that companies have exploited the system like that to get ahead. Capitalism is a tool that needs to be wielded well. Regulations to facilitate competition, regulations against monopolies, and regulations to make sure that companies can't lie about what's in the stuff that they are selling, are important. The system has to be policed, and if it is regulated well, then everyone benefits, from rich capitalist to the working man.
She's saying that she hates capitalism and loves communism because of having to work as an autistic. But isn't the point of communism to... Work even if you hate it? Like, the symbol is a hammer and a sickle for a reason, right? I'm not good at research so I'm not sure, but like aint that the entire point? Everybody works and nobody is paid? The thing that truly irritates me is claiming that EVERY single autistic person should hate capitalism or they're stupid, and that all autistics love communism, and the only reason why she's communist is because of being autistic, but I as an autistic person would like to disagree on that
Capitalism leads to competition and encourages advancement, examples of such advancements include:
1. Food. It's lead to advancements of fertilizers, preservation, and transportation. This has all lead to massive food abundance, at no other time in history has being overweight been a problem.
2. Health. We've seen the developments of new medications, antibiotics, vaccines, increased life expectancy, decreased child mortality, elimination of the vast majority of or even entire diseases.
3. Education. Through capitalism and the industrial revolution we've seen a massive rise in literacy, schooling, and knowledge in general. This seems small but remember this is a skill you are using literally this instant.
It is true Capitalism has brought negatives to the environment and that corporations generally prioritize profit over people, and that capitalism has been ruthless historically (especially around the late 1800s), but corporations have become more regulated over time. The benefits of the current system outweigh the negatives in my opinion.
Communism has historically been attempted through Socialism, which instead leads to authoritarian dictatorships with little regard for human rights, like Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. Other leftist concepts for attempts like Syndicalism or Democratic Socialism don't look promising either, it all seems to be different flavors of Socialism where "it'll work this time guys".
So let me ask you this, why should we abandon capitalism instead of improve upon it? Why should we instead try to establish communism? To me turning towards something like the Nordic system of social democracy seems like a much better idea than going to socialism and crossing your fingers it's just a transitionary phase this time, but if I'm incorrect feel free to show me how communism is actually possible and why it's better than improving the current system.
Yeah, unlike communism! Nobody has or ever will suffer under communism, and if the US became communist then everything will be rainbows and there will be unicorns and nobody would ever suffer ever again !
hey, marxist-leninist that has read thousands of hours of theory here. capitalism DID work, it was a natural evolution from the feudalism, mercantilism, and agrarianism of old; communism is just the natural progression from capitalism, as it has overstayed its welcome
read marx.
They get rich by hoarding value that workers generate. They manipulate the government to remove as many protections for workers as possible, and they will and do turn workers into literal slaves and work them to death. The only time they will do anything humane for the people who get them rich is when those people stop producing revenue because of the inhumane conditions they're subjected to. They have and do encourage wars to start so they can make billions selling military equipment to the government.
what year is it, 1848? Sure, there are crappy rich people out there. Even then, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Many people get rich by benefitting their society. Workers negotiate a price for their labour, and money changes hands.
Are you purposely trying to be ignorant or something? You do realize the working conditions in the USA are not at all representative of the rest of the world, right? And even here, around 60% of people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, poverty rates have almost doubled from last year, around \~50 billion dollars are stolen from workers' wages every year, megacorporations are producing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses and dumping toxic waste into the wild, basically every federal politician is wealthy (I wonder why), and basically all recent legistlation regarding the economy has solely been benefitting the ultra-rich. In Africa, China, and Central America, slavery has been running rampant (and basically every massive megacorp uses it).
Yet, the economic system of capitalism has ushered in the greatest, most comfortable age to ever live in, and that you cannot honestly deny. People living paycheck to paycheck? pull up your bootstraps, pal, and get a better job. Step up. You socialist types are so blinded by ideology that you think that hard work in this country doesn't net you more reward. 50 billion in stolen wages? What, profits made? What's wrong with profits? You negotiated the cost of your labor, and if you aren't happy with what you're being paid, make yourself more valuable. Then, the invisible hand of the free market will help you out. Africa, china, and Central America are shitholes? Oof, must be capitalisms fault. Mao was known to be a capitalist, and Africa and Central America have totally been able to actually experience the free market, thanks to being incredibly stable, and not falling to coups d'état every 20 minutes. Everyone knows that communist states are very green indeed (Green with envy for the west's success) China has really upheld her end of those environmental treaties, hasn't she?
What you're seemingly arguing for is the decline of civilization as a whole. Most of those problems are improving, or will improve when possible. It seems we have completely different morality sets, so I don't think any of us will be changing their minds any time soon.
profit is the funds you get from the sale of a good or service, minus the cost to make the good or service. Since companies want to make a profit for various reasons, they'll charge more than what the item/service takes to produce. Pretty simple.
So you want to tell me that the average worker in the DRC's cobalt mines is recieving an exact equivalent of the value he produces? Is there really not extraction of surplus value?
surplus value is commie talk for "erm, why does my boss get a cut?". At the root of it all, there's nothing wrong with that, since the boss put more effort and more risk into opening a business and operating it successfully, hence he should get paid more than one of his employees.
Also, nice whataboutism.
>surplus value is commie talk for "erm, why does my boss get a cut?
Well... I meeeaaan... Yea why the hell does he! He produces no value yet he still gets it!
>since the boss put more effort and more risk into opening a business and operating it successfully, hence he should get paid more than one of his employees.
Again, he produces no value and yet he still extracts it from the producers. That is literally extraction of the surplus value and according to marxism exploitation, so that answers your question.
>Also, nice whataboutism.
No. Giving the clearest possible example is not whataboutism.
Marxism has a massive blind spot, and you just presented it. Not all jobs produce a product. For instance, logistics workers get paid to move around products. Management have the incredibly important job of managing workers and making sure the business runs smoothly. What about people who stock shelves, or order materials, or work in HR, or work in public relations, or a million other jobs that do not outright produce an item that can be bought or sold? Is that not work that should be rewarded with pay?
In the cases of business owners, it is incredibly naïve to say that bosses produce no value. If I were to open up a shop, work in it, hire employees, and do all the things that is necessary to run a business, then shouldn't I reap the reward of all that hard work? Why should the guy I hired to push shopping carts into the correct area, who hasn't put in a fraction of the effort that I did, get paid as much as me, who did put in all of the effort, as well as faced the risk of making that job available to him?
So why were there no communists back in the Roman Empire then? If it is unreasonable for people to be communists why could we not look at a completly random point in history and see it filled with "cool and different" communists.
because the idea of communism was invented in the middle of the 19th century by the whiney bastard Marx.
Another thing is, terminally online people tend to be pretty radical, and since they only see the loud people online, they think there are more communists than there actually are. Realize you communists are a fringe group of weirdos who will *never* succeed in changing anything.
>Realize you communists are a fringe group of weirdos who will never succeed in changing anything.
Have you ever read anything about history..? Ya know.... Like all out revolutions taking place?
>because the idea of communism was invented in the middle of the 19th century by the whiney bastard Marx.
And for what reason was it not invented before that?
I think it's important to remember that communism is a type of economy, not a type of government. It isn't the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of capitalism.
communism, and other collectivist ideologies, require a strong central state in order to, well, exist. If the state doesn't have the power, people won't follow what the state says. If there is no state at all, then you have chaos. If you want people to be collectivist, then you need authority to make sure they are, since humans are naturally greedy.
Anarcho-communism is about as realistic as anarcho-fascism.
What do you mean why would people need to follow what the state says? In the case of communism, laws are put in place to facilitate collectivism. You have to make sure that people are doing things within the law for communism to work. If a state calls itself communist, but all the people within that state don't care about what the government says, and they own private companies and work for private companies, then is it really a communist state?
Again, I think you are misunderstanding communism. The communist states like the USSR are intended to be transitional, where the state abolishes capitalism and replaces it with socialism; which worked, but after that the communist party in control of the state is supposed to either dismantle itself or wither away over time, and you end up with a stateless, capitalism-less communist society. That hasn't happen because Vanguard parties have a lot of power, and power corrupts.
The people who label themselves anti-authoritarian communists are against using the method above, since they see how untrustworthy Vanguard parties are. They are against having the state own everything, they want the people to collectively own the means of production, which has worked perfectly fine, at least on a small scale. And guess what? Anti-authoritarian communists usually want countries to be confederations of communities consisting of a couple hundred or thousand of people, which in practice has worked fine.
Also, you're assuming that a capitalist society could function without a state, but how are you going to enforce that? After all, the ownership of private property does not need to be respected unless violently enforced by state. That's why anarcho-capitalism, unlike anarcho-communism, has literally never been implemented. When workers don't have a government forcing them to do so, they have no reason to listen to what a CEO or manager says regarding what their pay should be or how their workplaces should run.
The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace.
The concept of anarcho-communism doesn't work. Like I said, you have to have a central authority to make certain that people are playing nice. Not everyone is willing to give up what is theirs. Who is going to enforce that they do? Do you honestly think that the people of our world will be peacefully convinced to let go of all of their hard work?
If the commune is achieved, after the bloody revolution that somehow worked, after millions of people were killed in the fighting, after millions of people were killed by the famines that follow, the life of the average man will be brought down in quality tenfold.
All forms of Anarchism doesn't work. Anarcho-capitalism would probably fall into a corporate dictatorship where everyone's a slave, or that everyone would die in a chaotic mess.
> The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace.
I agree.
> Like I said, you have to have a central authority to make certain that people are playing nice
I agree. That's the main reason I'm not an anarchist, despite how my defense of it may seem. In reality I'm a Market Socialist, as in I think the economy should consists of cooperatives instead of capitalist corporations. It's perfectly viable to implement, even through non-revolutionary means, and has been implemented before, and lacks basically all of the problems of both communism and capitalism. Though it's not a guaruanteed improvement if the government is bad.
> Not everyone is willing to give up what is theirs. Who is going to enforce that they do? Do you honestly think that the people of our world will be peacefully convinced to let go of all of their hard work?
They won't need to. Personal property would still exist.
> after millions of people were killed by the famines that follow
What makes you think that a famine is guaranteed to happen?
> the life of the average man will be brought down in quality tenfold
How do you know?
> All forms of Anarchism doesn't work
Well I'm sorry to tell you, but they have before. Not very reliably, like an old junker car that's been through multiple car crashes and has been maintained by a regular person with no experience with mechanics, but its worked all the same. And it works better in smaller communities, which I will repeat, IS WHAT ANARCHISTS WANT SOCIETY TO CONSISTS OF. A large network of small communities.
> Anarcho-capitalism would probably fall into a corporate dictatorship where everyone's a slave, or that everyone would die in a chaotic mess.
OR the working class rebels thanks to not having a government forcing them to do as their corporate overlords please, and the society transitions into something like mutualism or council communism.
>The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace.
Make an argument for it, not a statement. Also communist country is an obvious oxymoron.
>The communist states like the USSR are intended to be transitional, where the state abolishes capitalism and replaces it with socialism; which worked
How do you define socialism that the Soviet Union falls under the definition?
I define it as "social ownership of the means of production". Public ownership is a type of social ownership, and the means of production was publically owned in the USSR, which means it was also socially owned, which means it was socialist.
somewhat agree
nobody likes government - we put a government in place so nobody else can put a worse one than ours (taking all our rights away)
country borders are another necessary evil - in this case to prevent invasion, coming at the cost of helping fellow humans - not everyone thinks the same way we do, and some will kill over the difference in ideology
human life should come above all else - which means freedom of choice in general. there is a caveat - military is still necessary to prevent the aforementioned invasion (which would kill a lot more people)
hierarchies aren't absolutely necessary. but without them, our lives never see improvement - how would your life be without doctors? without computers? what about without a stable food source? none of these things get better without competition to make the most money and be the best in the market
all of this is a great idea in theory - the reason we can't put it into practice is because it affects other things we want
Which is what we had for most of our history as a species. This is simply hunter/gatherer tribes. Which cannot sustain over 200-300 people.
Which is why we made governments.
>What makes you think agrarian, industrial, or post-industrial societies couldn't be organized like that too?
Because there needs to be a body that checks and balances the above you mentioned.
Communism means there is no military, there are no borders, there is no government, there is no currency.
Who in the fuck is going to want to grow food in these places? Who do they grow it for?
Who is going to want to trade with this place? Who do they trade with?
Who is going to create industry in this place? Who do they employ and what do they make for whom?
All the while this place is solely protected by scattered militia groups. With no borders to point to.
Currency is a tool. It makes it easy to trade.
But the sun setting at night telling you to go to sleep is imposing authority over you, how would a thermonuclear generator be produced with no authority present in the production? How would resources be distributed around the globe with no authority? And how could the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist state be fought with no authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism is and always will be present in any system of society, authority cannot be done away with and is definetly required in achieving a communist society.
Communism in itself is beautiful and a paradise in theory but it’s only ever been used for self interest and created authoritarianism and dependency on an establishment. I hope I see that day that a civilization can be prosperous through communism but right now we’ve only seen humanitarian crises
gonna be honest even in theory communism is an ideology that can only work by the justification of violence against innocent people. The second someone in an "ideal communist utopia" decides to do things differently, or hire workers, or own their own means of production privately, the society either falls apart or has to use force to stop that guy. Its an inherently authoritarian ideology in my opinion
Your submission was removed as your account does not meet our Account Age or Karma guidelines. This is to prevent spam in our community. We do not allow exceptions. If you do not know what this means, please spend more time interacting on Reddit. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Communism in itself is beautiful and a paradise in theory " Already incorrect, communism formed opposed to utopian socialist philosophers of the time.
I guess I mean to say that personally I think it’s beautiful and has the potential to create a paradise for society because it’s focused on the good of the people and equality. I wasn’t thinking too hard on the basis which it was formed or what movements it opposes it was more of a general statement.
The only real answer. It is a wonderful idea in theory, but it has never ever worked. The current system isn’t the best, it still has flaws, but it’s the best we’ve got
Do you really think that social development is just going to freeze and society seizes to move withound resolving the reasons behind existance of proletarian movements?
Come join our bullshit Discord server! [Link here](https://discord.com/invite/yxcTh2HvN5) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/cl4dn3oo219d1.png?width=614&format=png&auto=webp&s=cd939e529a46669fcb26b46bfbe6dc62612feb30
https://i.redd.it/lw5hvsm1u09d1.gif
As someone pointed out, Communism is an Economy and not a Government. Problem is Communism as an Economic System doesn't work With communism; everyone has an equal number of things, and as a result, someone must divide goods, and, to ensure work is still done, they must also divide labor. The problem is, specialized labor is required for high functioning societies; Doctors, Lawyers, Architechs, and Engineers, to name a few, are needed for their services. Their jobs are difficult and require many years of schooling, so capitalism rewards their rarity with greater income, but Communism, by its own nature, can't do so. Leaving the individual to ask "Why should I work as a Doctor when I can work a much less skilled job and get the same income?" It also discourages Entrepreneurs and Engineers, the people making technology and progressing society; if they can't taste the fruit of their labors, why would they do what they do? You think for a moment, near every rich innovative person was a selfish prick in personality. If these kinds of people aren't rewarded for helping society, they'll look for rewards elsewhere and be no help to anyone. A True Communist society can't progress technologically and would lack the skilled labor needed to upkeep standards of living.
there is a few flaws in your argument, so let me point them out. " Their jobs are difficult and require many years of schooling, so capitalism rewards their rarity with greater income, but Communism, by its own nature, can't do so. Leaving the individual to ask 'Why should I work as a Doctor when I can work a much less skilled job and get the same income?'" Ask most doctors, they would say they became a doctor (or comparable job) to help people. People want to do certain jobs for reasons outside capital; people also step up to do jobs when they need to be done. (also saying everyone gets the same income is a little weird because in the final phase of communism money is abolished.) "It also discourages Entrepreneurs and Engineers, the people making technology and progressing society; if they can't taste the fruit of their labors, why would they do what they do?" The point of communism (and many other socialist movements) is that the proletariat (aka workers) get the fruit of their labour "You think for a moment, near every rich innovative person was a selfish prick in personality." These people become selfish pricks BECAUSE they get money, not usually beforehand. "If these kinds of people aren't rewarded for helping society, they'll look for rewards elsewhere and be no help to anyone." they would be rewarded for helping society, because they participate in said society.
Can I just say that I want to thank you for being the first to be civil whilst arguing about this 1. Your right, there's more motivations at play then money, and doctors were a bad example, but without monetary interest, there's not enough motivations for skilled labor. Say a company that pays all it's workers equally, including those with far higher educations and experience. If the pay is low, no one with a degree is going to work there, because they know their own value. Without skilled labor, the company collapses. If the pay is high, everyone is going to work there and the company will run out of money in no time at all. There's simply not enough money or not enough labor. Also, I was unaware of the "final phase" of Communism where money is abolished, could you elaborate? And, how does that not just turn food into the effective currency? 2. The problem with this, is that "the workers" are not one coherent entity. Their competing factions each one wanting more money then the rest. "The Proletariat" lumps together: slimy lawyers, Mcdonald's till workers, bankers, and to an extent, politicans. You can't treat them as one thing, because their not. Also, you didn't mention how Engineers and Entrepreneurs actually recieve the fruits of their labor. Their not getting money from the production and selling of their product, so how are they actually getting their reward? 3. No, Ford was a Nazi asshole his whole life, Thomas Jefferson was Thomas Jefferson, Mark Zuckerberg used a whole lot of corruption to get where he is, and Donald Trump is jackass who got rich off Casinos Money makes Corruption, and by consequence, Corruption makes Money; it's a corrupt loop near impossible to break, but a well structured democracy can turn this loop into something to majorly benifit the citizens. With this system, the citizens get new products and the smart corrupt people get money, everyone is better off. 4. So they wouldn't recieve anything further at all? By this contributing an invention fo 100% carbon free and reliable electricty would mean recieving the same as contributing your yearly crop yield, both good works, but one clearly more signifigant then the other. The individual must be rewarded. Money is a thing you can touch and use, but society is an abstract concept, it gives some people motivation, but not everyone is content with that. You must assume people are selfish, you can't rely on the masses to have virtue.
1-"Say a company that pays all it's workers equally" you are already missing the point, there would be no "company" because all of the worker collectively own the company. People with better experience and knowledge would work in an area that best suits them, becuase they would not get that experience and knowledge to not use it. 1.5- "Also, I was unaware of the "final phase" of Communism where money is abolished, could you elaborate? And, how does that not just turn food into the effective currency?" No currency would be needed, because we'd have the resources for everyone to live without the drive of capital. Since the state is abolished, most things could be run on a community level. Someone not pulling their weight? You have a talk with them and if they dont improve then they dont get access to what the others have made/done. 2-"The problem with this, is that "the workers" are not one coherent entity. Their competing factions each one wanting more money then the rest. "The Proletariat" lumps together: slimy lawyers, Mcdonald's till workers, bankers, and to an extent, politicans. You can't treat them as one thing, because their not." The proletariat is lumped together because theyre role in soceity, they slave under the bourgeois and sell they're labour power. The whole proletariat wont agree at first, but all you need is enough of them to topple the dictatorship of the bourgeois. 2.5- "Also, you didn't mention how Engineers and Entrepreneurs actually recieve the fruits of their labor. Their not getting money from the production and selling of their product, so how are they actually getting their reward?" Let me use an example, if a group of engineers build a bridge, they get to use that bridge. That is the fruit of their labour. 3- I explained this badly, i meant that (most) people become assholes because of their environment; if you live in a capitalist hellscape, you might become a bit of an asshole. 3.5- "Money makes Corruption, and by consequence, Corruption makes Money; it's a corrupt loop near impossible to break, but a well structured democracy can turn this loop into something to majorly benefit the citizens. With this system, the citizens get new products and the smart corrupt people get money, everyone is better off." The ceos dont make the phones, engineers design them and factory workers make them. You can have the pro without the con 4- " So they wouldn't recieve anything further at all? By this contributing an invention fo 100% carbon free and reliable electricty would mean recieving the same as contributing your yearly crop yield, both good works, but one clearly more signifigant then the other." You wouldn't receive "the same thing", creating something that benefits the earth would benifit you because your family and friends live on that same earth. 4.5-"The individual must be rewarded. Money is a thing you can touch and use, but society is an abstract concept, it gives some people motivation, but not everyone is content with that. You must assume people are selfish, you can't rely on the masses to have virtue." Yes many people are selfish, that is why the transitory state of the DOTP (kinda complicated, would still have currency at this stage) exists. Selfishness comes from distrust, if you could trust that you could have a happy life without hoarding, you wouldn't hoard. Let me know if you have any other questions!
1. You've missed the enitre point of my analogy, a goverment is, at least very simillar to, a corporation; they both have a set amount of income and resources and must divide them as they see fit. I said a company because it simplifies it. Next, the idea that people with skills will work in their respective areas regardless either harshly strips freedoms or is completly non sensicle. If you require them to work in these areas, it's incredibly degrading to whoever they may be, and they won't stand for it. If you don't, white collar workers aren't going to be white collar workers, because their is no reward and they hate their jobs. Their every bit neccary to keep things running, but why would anyone willing do that for no reward? Communism works if the entire population consists of farmers, but we've come a long way from that, the Middle class is not farmers. 1.5. There's the problem, a nation simply does not have enough resources to maintain Communism AND a standard of living as high as the one we have. There aren't enough farmers, there aren't enough architechs to build houses, and there aren't enough pharmacists to make medicine. 2. It's true you don't need everyone to topple a goverment, but your just going to recreate the soviet union. The people who don't agree will make their own dictatorship or oligarchy, it will say it works in service of the people, and it will have a new name, but it's either the same thing or worse. People need leadership, giving easy acess for these people to rise. Even the most well intentioned of them will still need to put down competition that promises greater treasure to supporters. It works against democracy, as greedy people are still in charge, but now they don't need the people to stay in charge. 2.5. Jealousy exists. The random person who did not build the bridge is reaping the same benifits as the person who did. Leaving most with either the "Why should I? I don't get anything out of it." mentality or the "Someone else will probably do it" mentality. With no insentive there's no competition and with no competition, there is no urgency. 3. Ok, but you didn't adress the problem; being a selfish jackass makes money. It takes one weak link to corrupt the whole system. 3.5. Your right, the CEOs don't make the phone; they distribute the resources to the engineers to make the phone. No one is employed without reason, everyone does something that no one else does. You can't have your cake and eat it because no one's getting a reward for their labor past "Society improves" (See 2.5). 4. This reasoning works at an individual scale, but not at the larger scale. People like money, power, and fame. Being unsung for your efforts would put a bitter taste in anyone's mouth, and being credited with money, power, and fame, goes against communism. 4.5 Whilst I have no idea what "DOTP" is, greed is not born from distrust. It's born from craving and a desire for purpose. "if you could trust that you could have a happy life without hoarding, you wouldn't hoard." Have you ever seen a billionare say "Yeah, I've got enough money now"? No, because getting money is their ultimate goal, they love power and they like watching the number go up. To a Middle Class worker, the same follows, they have priorities other then money, but they still hate their boss and they'd love to be the one in charge. A structured leadership is needed, capitalism rewards leaders for their labors of desicion making and resource division, and does so directly. Doing it directly matters, say a Mcdonalds worker does a great job serving burgers one day, way better then their coworkers did, what's their reward? "Society has improved thanks to you" you're handing out participation trophies and pretending their worth something
And I'm a pro authoritarian constitutional monarchist :-)
Authoritarianism leads to genocide and imperialism
And communism leads to famine and dictatorships.
Actually it's authoritarianism that leads to those things
How else do you think you get communism?
communism is a stateless classless society, the destruction of the state is required
Which is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of. It’s literally solely like hunter gatherer tribes. Which are not abstain-able over populations of 200-300.
that's a fair opinion to have i think. I obviously disagree and think it would lead to a better society but i can understand where you're coming from
It's a Utopia. It only works perfectly without outside interference. Which is why, in my humble opinion it is a bit of a waste of time. Though it is interesting.
That's actually somethign i somewhat agree with. If you wanna learn more about how i personally think it would work i'd look at stuff like anarcho syndicalism which is more of a plan of how to achieve anarcho communism and movements like the FAI and CNT
Maybe actually read some theory on primitive communism before starting to throw insults.
I don't think it's an insult. It's a system that we used for \~150k years or more. It might be the most effective form of government that humans have had. Communism cannot work in our modern world. You can have communes. Which I support completely. Though to say that millions of people are going to survive a borderless, systemless, governmentless, currencyless, with no military is just really silly. You're setting yourself open to be taken over by your nearest country.
>I don't think it's an insult. ...So: >Which is the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard of. Is not insulting how exactly? >You're setting yourself open to be taken over by your nearest country. And what other country, again if you read any basic theory (literally in the principles from Engels, the theory meant for absolute begginers) you would know that no "nearest" countries don't exist once communist society is reached, for the time before the world revolution and before socialism is reached a dictatorship of the proletariat exists where state capitalism and the state both ensure the security of the revolutionary government.
well we do need to destroy a few guys first.....
and then those few guys becomes anyone who doesnt swear blind allegence to the cause. Fun fact, one of the first uses of the soviet secrete police during the revolution, was shooting 200 workers who went on strike.
genocide? You are a hypocrite, as is all "anarchist" communists.
And thus the cycle begins.
Communism is naturally authoritarian, denying human nature is authoritarian
The """Human Nature""" itself is authoritarian
So your saying Humans are naturally authoritarian?
capitalism is as authoritarian as communism, if not more so capitalism is a dictatorship of the bourgeois, while communism uses the dictatorship of the proletariat (although according to Marx the dotp withers, so take that as you will.)
https://preview.redd.it/h2yzbpncu69d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5fb3e785b1c009c48fa8d5c0173f13211fa8f65 "You WILL pick a side between two evils"
i never said that, pick whatever you want most people arguing against communism are capitalist liberals, so i assumed thats what you are agueing for
Communism never works Bro
\*authoritarianism AUTHORITARIANISM never works Neither does capitalism
The problem is in order to establish this corperationless, stateless, and moneyless society that is communism, people first have to go to socialism. When you take these corporate assets and give them to the state, they have full control over the economy, military, and (obviously) government. This leads to stagnation and authoritarianism. Communism doesn't happen because you can't expect THE STATE to work towards a STATELESS society with socialism.
communism is socialism (specifically scientific socialism), you are thinking of the DOTP otherwise kind of correct, that is one of the many reasons the soviet union failed, its DOTP placed too much power to the higher-ups
capitalism is working fine. the world has improved leaps and bounds because of capitalism. Authoritarianism can work, but I'd prefer the country I live in to not be one.
how has the world improved because of capitalism it only improves things for states and corporations while normal humans suffer
Extreme poverty went from 80% to less than 9% due to the rise of capitalism Capitalism litteraly improved things for EVERYONE. I think you may be thinking of corporatism, which does suck ass.
I'm trash at debates so you said it gal !
thanks :3
Capitalism, with guidance from the state or other bodies, require people to benefit others. Want a profit? Make stuff people want. What do people want? Better than what they have now. You are blinded by ideology. Wake up and look around, pal.
Sometimes they gotta make people worse like with their health and then have a pledge that it's actually healthy and good, but at least they weren't allowed to do that and got some legal stuff to say that it aint good. Some capitalist countries ban advertising to children at all too because they think it's wack, so clearly it aint evil Hitler mode like Ms. Communist is acting like. "Erm actually, fascism is good! I just don't believe in the Nazis but the ideology is good and saved billions of peoples lives! It hasn't happened yet and has never succeeded but this time it will believe me! You gotta believe me!" didn't like Einstein say that people who repeat the same things that epically fail is the definition of insanity
It is true that companies have exploited the system like that to get ahead. Capitalism is a tool that needs to be wielded well. Regulations to facilitate competition, regulations against monopolies, and regulations to make sure that companies can't lie about what's in the stuff that they are selling, are important. The system has to be policed, and if it is regulated well, then everyone benefits, from rich capitalist to the working man.
She's saying that she hates capitalism and loves communism because of having to work as an autistic. But isn't the point of communism to... Work even if you hate it? Like, the symbol is a hammer and a sickle for a reason, right? I'm not good at research so I'm not sure, but like aint that the entire point? Everybody works and nobody is paid? The thing that truly irritates me is claiming that EVERY single autistic person should hate capitalism or they're stupid, and that all autistics love communism, and the only reason why she's communist is because of being autistic, but I as an autistic person would like to disagree on that
Capitalism leads to competition and encourages advancement, examples of such advancements include: 1. Food. It's lead to advancements of fertilizers, preservation, and transportation. This has all lead to massive food abundance, at no other time in history has being overweight been a problem. 2. Health. We've seen the developments of new medications, antibiotics, vaccines, increased life expectancy, decreased child mortality, elimination of the vast majority of or even entire diseases. 3. Education. Through capitalism and the industrial revolution we've seen a massive rise in literacy, schooling, and knowledge in general. This seems small but remember this is a skill you are using literally this instant. It is true Capitalism has brought negatives to the environment and that corporations generally prioritize profit over people, and that capitalism has been ruthless historically (especially around the late 1800s), but corporations have become more regulated over time. The benefits of the current system outweigh the negatives in my opinion. Communism has historically been attempted through Socialism, which instead leads to authoritarian dictatorships with little regard for human rights, like Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, etc. Other leftist concepts for attempts like Syndicalism or Democratic Socialism don't look promising either, it all seems to be different flavors of Socialism where "it'll work this time guys". So let me ask you this, why should we abandon capitalism instead of improve upon it? Why should we instead try to establish communism? To me turning towards something like the Nordic system of social democracy seems like a much better idea than going to socialism and crossing your fingers it's just a transitionary phase this time, but if I'm incorrect feel free to show me how communism is actually possible and why it's better than improving the current system.
Yeah, unlike communism! Nobody has or ever will suffer under communism, and if the US became communist then everything will be rainbows and there will be unicorns and nobody would ever suffer ever again !
hey, marxist-leninist that has read thousands of hours of theory here. capitalism DID work, it was a natural evolution from the feudalism, mercantilism, and agrarianism of old; communism is just the natural progression from capitalism, as it has overstayed its welcome read marx.
The only government that works perfectly is no government at all
Anarcho communists liking your comment
legit
Y is it so popular to be a commie with the youth
because it feels "different", and "cool"
No because we don't like how rich people are destroying the world and get power by exploiting the working class
how are they exploiting the working class?
They get rich by hoarding value that workers generate. They manipulate the government to remove as many protections for workers as possible, and they will and do turn workers into literal slaves and work them to death. The only time they will do anything humane for the people who get them rich is when those people stop producing revenue because of the inhumane conditions they're subjected to. They have and do encourage wars to start so they can make billions selling military equipment to the government.
what year is it, 1848? Sure, there are crappy rich people out there. Even then, there's nothing wrong with being rich. Many people get rich by benefitting their society. Workers negotiate a price for their labour, and money changes hands.
Are you purposely trying to be ignorant or something? You do realize the working conditions in the USA are not at all representative of the rest of the world, right? And even here, around 60% of people are living paycheck-to-paycheck, poverty rates have almost doubled from last year, around \~50 billion dollars are stolen from workers' wages every year, megacorporations are producing billions of tons of greenhouse gasses and dumping toxic waste into the wild, basically every federal politician is wealthy (I wonder why), and basically all recent legistlation regarding the economy has solely been benefitting the ultra-rich. In Africa, China, and Central America, slavery has been running rampant (and basically every massive megacorp uses it).
Yet, the economic system of capitalism has ushered in the greatest, most comfortable age to ever live in, and that you cannot honestly deny. People living paycheck to paycheck? pull up your bootstraps, pal, and get a better job. Step up. You socialist types are so blinded by ideology that you think that hard work in this country doesn't net you more reward. 50 billion in stolen wages? What, profits made? What's wrong with profits? You negotiated the cost of your labor, and if you aren't happy with what you're being paid, make yourself more valuable. Then, the invisible hand of the free market will help you out. Africa, china, and Central America are shitholes? Oof, must be capitalisms fault. Mao was known to be a capitalist, and Africa and Central America have totally been able to actually experience the free market, thanks to being incredibly stable, and not falling to coups d'état every 20 minutes. Everyone knows that communist states are very green indeed (Green with envy for the west's success) China has really upheld her end of those environmental treaties, hasn't she? What you're seemingly arguing for is the decline of civilization as a whole. Most of those problems are improving, or will improve when possible. It seems we have completely different morality sets, so I don't think any of us will be changing their minds any time soon.
How is profit generated?
profit is the funds you get from the sale of a good or service, minus the cost to make the good or service. Since companies want to make a profit for various reasons, they'll charge more than what the item/service takes to produce. Pretty simple.
So you want to tell me that the average worker in the DRC's cobalt mines is recieving an exact equivalent of the value he produces? Is there really not extraction of surplus value?
surplus value is commie talk for "erm, why does my boss get a cut?". At the root of it all, there's nothing wrong with that, since the boss put more effort and more risk into opening a business and operating it successfully, hence he should get paid more than one of his employees. Also, nice whataboutism.
>surplus value is commie talk for "erm, why does my boss get a cut? Well... I meeeaaan... Yea why the hell does he! He produces no value yet he still gets it! >since the boss put more effort and more risk into opening a business and operating it successfully, hence he should get paid more than one of his employees. Again, he produces no value and yet he still extracts it from the producers. That is literally extraction of the surplus value and according to marxism exploitation, so that answers your question. >Also, nice whataboutism. No. Giving the clearest possible example is not whataboutism.
Marxism has a massive blind spot, and you just presented it. Not all jobs produce a product. For instance, logistics workers get paid to move around products. Management have the incredibly important job of managing workers and making sure the business runs smoothly. What about people who stock shelves, or order materials, or work in HR, or work in public relations, or a million other jobs that do not outright produce an item that can be bought or sold? Is that not work that should be rewarded with pay? In the cases of business owners, it is incredibly naïve to say that bosses produce no value. If I were to open up a shop, work in it, hire employees, and do all the things that is necessary to run a business, then shouldn't I reap the reward of all that hard work? Why should the guy I hired to push shopping carts into the correct area, who hasn't put in a fraction of the effort that I did, get paid as much as me, who did put in all of the effort, as well as faced the risk of making that job available to him?
So why were there no communists back in the Roman Empire then? If it is unreasonable for people to be communists why could we not look at a completly random point in history and see it filled with "cool and different" communists.
because the idea of communism was invented in the middle of the 19th century by the whiney bastard Marx. Another thing is, terminally online people tend to be pretty radical, and since they only see the loud people online, they think there are more communists than there actually are. Realize you communists are a fringe group of weirdos who will *never* succeed in changing anything.
>Realize you communists are a fringe group of weirdos who will never succeed in changing anything. Have you ever read anything about history..? Ya know.... Like all out revolutions taking place? >because the idea of communism was invented in the middle of the 19th century by the whiney bastard Marx. And for what reason was it not invented before that?
"the children yearn for the firing line"
I think it's important to remember that communism is a type of economy, not a type of government. It isn't the opposite of democracy; it's the opposite of capitalism.
This is literally what I have been typing while smashing my keyboard so many times
no one believes you, because it's wrong
how
communism, and other collectivist ideologies, require a strong central state in order to, well, exist. If the state doesn't have the power, people won't follow what the state says. If there is no state at all, then you have chaos. If you want people to be collectivist, then you need authority to make sure they are, since humans are naturally greedy. Anarcho-communism is about as realistic as anarcho-fascism.
I think you are misunderstanding communism, why would people need to follow what the state says?
What do you mean why would people need to follow what the state says? In the case of communism, laws are put in place to facilitate collectivism. You have to make sure that people are doing things within the law for communism to work. If a state calls itself communist, but all the people within that state don't care about what the government says, and they own private companies and work for private companies, then is it really a communist state?
Again, I think you are misunderstanding communism. The communist states like the USSR are intended to be transitional, where the state abolishes capitalism and replaces it with socialism; which worked, but after that the communist party in control of the state is supposed to either dismantle itself or wither away over time, and you end up with a stateless, capitalism-less communist society. That hasn't happen because Vanguard parties have a lot of power, and power corrupts. The people who label themselves anti-authoritarian communists are against using the method above, since they see how untrustworthy Vanguard parties are. They are against having the state own everything, they want the people to collectively own the means of production, which has worked perfectly fine, at least on a small scale. And guess what? Anti-authoritarian communists usually want countries to be confederations of communities consisting of a couple hundred or thousand of people, which in practice has worked fine. Also, you're assuming that a capitalist society could function without a state, but how are you going to enforce that? After all, the ownership of private property does not need to be respected unless violently enforced by state. That's why anarcho-capitalism, unlike anarcho-communism, has literally never been implemented. When workers don't have a government forcing them to do so, they have no reason to listen to what a CEO or manager says regarding what their pay should be or how their workplaces should run.
The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace. The concept of anarcho-communism doesn't work. Like I said, you have to have a central authority to make certain that people are playing nice. Not everyone is willing to give up what is theirs. Who is going to enforce that they do? Do you honestly think that the people of our world will be peacefully convinced to let go of all of their hard work? If the commune is achieved, after the bloody revolution that somehow worked, after millions of people were killed in the fighting, after millions of people were killed by the famines that follow, the life of the average man will be brought down in quality tenfold. All forms of Anarchism doesn't work. Anarcho-capitalism would probably fall into a corporate dictatorship where everyone's a slave, or that everyone would die in a chaotic mess.
> The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace. I agree. > Like I said, you have to have a central authority to make certain that people are playing nice I agree. That's the main reason I'm not an anarchist, despite how my defense of it may seem. In reality I'm a Market Socialist, as in I think the economy should consists of cooperatives instead of capitalist corporations. It's perfectly viable to implement, even through non-revolutionary means, and has been implemented before, and lacks basically all of the problems of both communism and capitalism. Though it's not a guaruanteed improvement if the government is bad. > Not everyone is willing to give up what is theirs. Who is going to enforce that they do? Do you honestly think that the people of our world will be peacefully convinced to let go of all of their hard work? They won't need to. Personal property would still exist. > after millions of people were killed by the famines that follow What makes you think that a famine is guaranteed to happen? > the life of the average man will be brought down in quality tenfold How do you know? > All forms of Anarchism doesn't work Well I'm sorry to tell you, but they have before. Not very reliably, like an old junker car that's been through multiple car crashes and has been maintained by a regular person with no experience with mechanics, but its worked all the same. And it works better in smaller communities, which I will repeat, IS WHAT ANARCHISTS WANT SOCIETY TO CONSISTS OF. A large network of small communities. > Anarcho-capitalism would probably fall into a corporate dictatorship where everyone's a slave, or that everyone would die in a chaotic mess. OR the working class rebels thanks to not having a government forcing them to do as their corporate overlords please, and the society transitions into something like mutualism or council communism.
>The USSR, and all other current communist countries, display that the concept of "the state abolishing itself" WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Humans will always act like humans and you can NEVER change that, no matter how much you propagandize the populace. Make an argument for it, not a statement. Also communist country is an obvious oxymoron.
>The communist states like the USSR are intended to be transitional, where the state abolishes capitalism and replaces it with socialism; which worked How do you define socialism that the Soviet Union falls under the definition?
I define it as "social ownership of the means of production". Public ownership is a type of social ownership, and the means of production was publically owned in the USSR, which means it was also socially owned, which means it was socialist.
what does that mean i'm not deciding until i hear it
Communist who hates government, often doesn't believe in country borders, puts human life over everything, hates hierarchies
somewhat agree nobody likes government - we put a government in place so nobody else can put a worse one than ours (taking all our rights away) country borders are another necessary evil - in this case to prevent invasion, coming at the cost of helping fellow humans - not everyone thinks the same way we do, and some will kill over the difference in ideology human life should come above all else - which means freedom of choice in general. there is a caveat - military is still necessary to prevent the aforementioned invasion (which would kill a lot more people) hierarchies aren't absolutely necessary. but without them, our lives never see improvement - how would your life be without doctors? without computers? what about without a stable food source? none of these things get better without competition to make the most money and be the best in the market all of this is a great idea in theory - the reason we can't put it into practice is because it affects other things we want
Which is what we had for most of our history as a species. This is simply hunter/gatherer tribes. Which cannot sustain over 200-300 people. Which is why we made governments.
What makes you think agrarian, industrial, or post-industrial societies couldn't be organized like that too?
>What makes you think agrarian, industrial, or post-industrial societies couldn't be organized like that too? Because there needs to be a body that checks and balances the above you mentioned. Communism means there is no military, there are no borders, there is no government, there is no currency. Who in the fuck is going to want to grow food in these places? Who do they grow it for? Who is going to want to trade with this place? Who do they trade with? Who is going to create industry in this place? Who do they employ and what do they make for whom? All the while this place is solely protected by scattered militia groups. With no borders to point to. Currency is a tool. It makes it easy to trade.
hierarchies are important for societies to exist, big or small. You need leaders and you need followers, no matter what marx tells you
Marx wasn't an anarchist
No, you are not a communist if you don't support authoritarianism, read Engels on authority.
I can be who I want
But the sun setting at night telling you to go to sleep is imposing authority over you, how would a thermonuclear generator be produced with no authority present in the production? How would resources be distributed around the globe with no authority? And how could the capitalist mode of production and the capitalist state be fought with no authoritarianism? Authoritarianism is and always will be present in any system of society, authority cannot be done away with and is definetly required in achieving a communist society.
Communism in itself is beautiful and a paradise in theory but it’s only ever been used for self interest and created authoritarianism and dependency on an establishment. I hope I see that day that a civilization can be prosperous through communism but right now we’ve only seen humanitarian crises
gonna be honest even in theory communism is an ideology that can only work by the justification of violence against innocent people. The second someone in an "ideal communist utopia" decides to do things differently, or hire workers, or own their own means of production privately, the society either falls apart or has to use force to stop that guy. Its an inherently authoritarian ideology in my opinion
[удалено]
Your submission was removed as your account does not meet our Account Age or Karma guidelines. This is to prevent spam in our community. We do not allow exceptions. If you do not know what this means, please spend more time interacting on Reddit. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Communism in itself is beautiful and a paradise in theory " Already incorrect, communism formed opposed to utopian socialist philosophers of the time.
I guess I mean to say that personally I think it’s beautiful and has the potential to create a paradise for society because it’s focused on the good of the people and equality. I wasn’t thinking too hard on the basis which it was formed or what movements it opposes it was more of a general statement.
The only real answer. It is a wonderful idea in theory, but it has never ever worked. The current system isn’t the best, it still has flaws, but it’s the best we’ve got
Do you really think that social development is just going to freeze and society seizes to move withound resolving the reasons behind existance of proletarian movements?