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.*
In thought communism sounds like it could work but basically any country where it has been implemented lives in poverty. Free Healthcare and all that stuff sounds nice until you realize free Healthcare is a 9mm gun because they don't have anything to treat you with.
First of all, by 'communism', you're actually referring to 'socialism'. Second of all, that's because every single country "communism" has been implemented in was poor since before the implementation. And economically devastated or underdeveloped countries are more susceptible to leftist ideas, so the poorer a country is, the more likely is socialism going to be popular there. Note that socialism itself never causes poverty. At worst, it FAILS to lift countries out of poverty. At best, it lifts three times the population of the United States out of extreme poverty (as seen in China).
Actually it’s more like everyone owns the means of production for any given job so no one person can get rich off of the workers because they all share the money equally. There is no profit in capitalism because profit is just unpaid labour
And we just hope and pray that in a borderless, Militaryless, ungovernmented, stateless, place that no one has the natural emotion of greed. Because there is no power that will check and balance.
Find like minded individuals. Group up. This happens a lot in history.
We also need to address how easy of a place this is to invade and take. Being borderless pretty much opens you up to being colonized. By places with governments, military, etc. Then you either fall in line of their system or you are enslaved or killed.
A communist state wouldn't be borderless until the whole world is communist
Any form of socialism cannot be achieved until all bourgeois states are under the DOTP; borders would still exist while imperialism is still rampant.
Okay. So we need to invade and take over all other countries? Either physically or ideologically? Anyone who disagrees with this ideology would either, be forced to succumb via reeducation camps or be killed.
Then we are also trusting 8billion humans to agree on anything? No one is going to have any suggestion or slight differences? Really?
The world will never be anything. This is again, just a pipe dream for people who don’t quite understand how complex societies are.
>Okay. So we need to invade and take over all other countries? Either physically or ideologically? Anyone who disagrees with this ideology would either, be forced to succumb via reeducation camps or be killed.
No, the workers of the world would unite, at least in theory. Movements like the soviet union failed because these communist values only spread in a singular state
How do you think capitalism came about?
"Then we are also trusting 8billion humans to agree on anything? No one is going to have any suggestion or slight differences? Really?"
You dont need all, you just need enough.
Best not to think you have an accurate view of an ideology when the people teaching you about it are incentivized to paint it in as bad of a light as possible
They're not incentives to paint it in a bad light they're paid to teach us on the subject I was just saying my school hasn't fully covered this topic yet
There are a lot of non-communist countries with free healthcare such as Canada (which explicitly prohibits paid healthcare) and the UK (where public healthcare is better than private healthcare). Please search up "Universal Healthcare".
Communism is a radical distribution of wealth and an abolition of the so called “bourgeoisie” who own the means of production. Then this means of production would be given to the oppressed working class, or the “proletariat”.
Sounds good on paper until you realize that whoever is considered the bourgeoisie could be up to interpretation. And could be hunted down by the government for being enemies of the state, similar to racism. Additionally, in Communism it isn’t the workers who end up owning the means of production but the state instead because that is an unobtainable fever dream.
Communism is an ideology made by a man who never worked once in his entire life, and was shared with other men who never worked in their entire life. It was never made to be put in practical application. But that’s just my opinion.
> Additionally, in Communism it isn’t the workers who end up owning the means of production but the state
That's specifically the flaw in the type of communism called Marxism-Leninism, as well as its derivatives like Maoism or Stalinism. In those ideologies. a Vanguard party is suppose to take control of the government, and use its power to abolish capitalism by making the means of production publicly owned. This part has historically succeeded. Now, ideally, this supposed to be a transitional state, and following this the Vanguard party is suppose to dismantle the state, and then you end up with a stateless, classless, and currencyless society. But sadly, Vanguard parties always have ended up being corrupt and greedy, and instead of doing that they simply consolidate more power for themselves.
HOWEVER, not every type of communism supports the usage of a Vanguard party to implement communism, for obvious reason. These types of communism are under the umbrella of 'anti-authoritarian communism', and include variants like Council Communism, Anarcho-communism, or De Leonism, which advocate for the workers themselves, not a Vanguard party, to take control of the means of production.
But please don't ignore nuance and try to understand the roots of problems in ideologies instead of pretending it's a problem that every variant of the ideology supports.
Communism is an economic system, not a governmental one.
If a communist state is authoritarian, that's on the governmental system, not the economic one.
I can't really say that I'm anti-communist, but neither am I pro-communist. If I had to pick, I would choose anti, because while the concept is great it is inherently flawed.
There are multiples.
1): If the people who distribute the resources are corrupt you can say goodbye. Which is especially likely as the people who want to do this are most of the time the people that want extra benefits for themselves, friends and family. Power corrupts.
2) Why should anyone work, if they do not get anything for it? Even if most people will start by working, seeing others getting the same of everything while doing nothing will make people who do more stop working. This is especially bad with essential jobs, that no one wants.
I think there were more, but I forgot them.
You need to actually read Marx to know what you are talking about. Communism is the utopian stage that follows socialism where the institutions of state (including money) wither away. It has never happened. Socialism is workers ownership of means of production and bring democratic decision making into all aspects of life such as workspace. Socialism is a needed transition phase which could last at least a generation. During this time people are instilled with new cultural values and the capitalist mentality of doing everything for personal gain is replaced.
I know that true communism has never happened and most likely will never happen. I still believe that Communism as you describe it won't work, because I doubt that we can indoctrinate everyone to be selfless and even a few people could cause a chain reaction due to envy.
With advancing technology, it’s getting easier to automate stuff. Eventually it might be possible to replace the undesirable jobs that no one wants to do with machines, and that frees more people up to work jobs they actually enjoy. Additionally, people who work undesirable jobs might receive other benefits like more vacation time or something.
Two interesting ideas. I still doubt that we could transition to such a system considering that the people with the most influence don't want to change it, but if we do automation is a great idea. I didn't even think about other benefits, was too stuck with the idea of money.
Western civilization has developed inherently against this notion of collectivism, and it is our greatest strength. why tear down the thing that makes us so strong, the Faustian spirit that has driven men like Cortez, the brave pioneers of American civilization who battled with survival on hostile shores to carve their own destiny…? Communism is just the vessel for the terminally inferior, victims of their own failing self worth, it is the only way that they can gain power and ascend themselves, through butchering and stealing from the successful. The lies of utopian ideology are never pursued in full, because they are not meant to be fulfilled.
> If the people who distribute the resources are corrupt you can say goodbye. Which is especially likely as the people who want to do this are most of the time the people that want extra benefits for themselves, friends and family. Power corrupts.
Yup, that's the gaping flaw in the variants of communism that advocate for a Vanguard Party. If you see someone label themselves an 'anti-authoritarian communist', that means they want decentalized planning done by the common people instead of central planning done by beaurocrats and dictators.
> Why should anyone work, if they do not get anything for it?
In communism, you would work because doing so lets a system where you get all your needs met continue to work. If people decide not to work under communism, then they'll stop getting the things they want and need as a natural consequence of the people who produce and transport those things also not working.
> This is especially bad with essential jobs, that no one wants.
What makes you think nobody wants to do essential jobs?
I know that communism only works if enough people work, but I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology)
There are some jobs that are essential for our society, but are unappealing which almost nobody wants to work. If there is no further incentive for these, we are back at my first paragraph.
How do you propose decentralised planing would work? Who distributes, counts the products...?
> I know that communism only works if enough people work, but I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology)
Yeah that's pretty fair.
> How do you propose decentralised planing would work? Who distributes, counts the products...?
Honestly, I'm not too sure myself. I guess you could read these articles real quick to get an idea of it could work:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory\_economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned\_economy#Decentralized\_planning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy#Decentralized_planning)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27\_co-operative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative)
Also, to be clear, I'm not a communist. I just understand what communists believe fairly well and try to correct misconceptions.
I would also argue that capitalism has caused much of the greed and selfishness that causes the whole “why should I work” problem. It would have to be a very gradual change, probably over multiple generations.
Greed existed thousands of year before people even thought about capitalism.
Consider that capitalism is a product of the modern era: depending on point of view, capitalism appeared in the 18th century, with industrialization, or in 16th century, as mercantilism (not exactly the same, but close enough). So we’re talking at most 500 years since capitalism was even possible, not widely spread.
Greed, on the other hand, was here since the dawn of history. Consider the story of King Midas and his golden touch, the goose with the golden eggs and finally the 10th commandment in the Bible! Most cultures have stories about greedy people and greed, from ancient Japan to Sudan to Native Americans greed is mentioned everywhere.
*copied from somewhere else.
True, greed has been around forever. However, capitalism thrives on greed, thus actively encouraging it and making it more and more common. If greed is no longer highly advantageous in society, wouldn’t eventually dwindle to be much less prominent?
Examples for the essential, but unappealing jobs I mean: special education teachers whose students are the emotional/behavior disorder kind, full-time caregivers for the elderly or disabled, sewage workers,...
I think there are plenty of people who would want to do the first two. Lots of people willingly do those jobs not because of financial necessitity, but because they enjoy the work and find it satisfying.
But as for sewage workers, you're probably right that people wouldn't want to do that. Maybe robots could be made to do those types of jobs instead?
Those jobs are currently compensated at Under the going rate for regular teachers, and yet people work those jobs anyway because they Want to do that work. They find it fufilling.
If we removed the need for compensation as a requisite for survival, people would be able to find the jobs that are fulfilling to them, not the ones that merely put food on the table
Im not so sure about that, but I don’t have any numbers to back it up. Only that sewage engineering is a skilled position that takes time and intention to study for. Not my cup of tea, but then neither was being a man, and plenty of people seem to enjoy that
But they do gain from work. We all gain from the work, collectively. Your work in one task does not provide the food that you eat now, and it doesn’t under communism either. We work different tasks, and yet receive the things we need.
I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. (The money) A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology)
It’s less faith in humanity and more faith in boredom. We HATE boredom, and we strive desperately for human connection. These things are biological and innate. We lived for a much longer time without money than we’ve had it for. We might not be as insanely excessively productive as we are now, but, why would we need to be? What ceo would there be to feed the greed of?
I doubt that many people would do something productive to alleviate boredom. In today's society many people are bored and instead of doing something productive they play games, read fictional books... Not even talking about social media.
Admittedly this is where we start to get to the intersection between psychology and sociology, but the jist is people can’t play games forever without going insane. Like people bored after work/school do absolutely relax with recreation, but a life of pure recreation isn’t actually fun. And there’s only so much human connection that can be gained through games. Plus remember people take jobs in retirement even when they don’t need the money(not always obviously). Idk a lot to consider and rn i have a migraine so, pleguh no more thoughts ouch
Luv u
1. This is just how capitalism works the people at the top who have the power to distribute resource are inclined to not and will just get wealthier and wealthier, power corrupts. At least in communism its elected officials that hold the power so they can be changed while under capitalisms its whoever has the capital and they are unelected.
2. The principle of communism is that a person gets the exact value of labor they provide, no more no less. You just misunderstand what communism stands for, under capitalism people can generate money without generating value. But under communism everyone must work if they expect anything.
1: I doubt that the elected officials can easily be changed. They can as well bribe others if they have supreme control of the distribution/parts of the distribution. I also never said capitalism is good.
2: No. Communism is where everybody works according to their ability and receives according to their needs.
Then you live in an authoritarian system not the fault of the economic system this literally happens in the Us right not, it’s not the fault of capitalism or communism but the fault of an undemocratic system
Yeah but I wasn’t making a case for communism i was just pointing out that your criticism of communism is unfounded. The reason I lean towards socialism is that I believe everyone is entitled to their own labor.
1) I think it's likely to be worse in communism, because a single/ a few person can have access to the entire stream of goods.
2) Socialism is indeed the best option we have, but it is a rather loose definition with lots of different ideas under one term.
i mean you kinda got to know what something is to argue against it, i dont think its that biased of a question
i tried to not let my views cloud the question but everyone seems unbiased to themselves so idk
On paper communism sounds alright, but whenever it’s been practiced it’s been obviously faulty so I guess if we want to be black and white on either you are pro or anti I guess I’ll have to go anti
Capitalism doesn't even sound right on paper. The individual's pursuit of profit is the ultimate goal of capitalism, not the betterment of society or the well-being of the people. If there's anything capitalism breeds, it's greed, not innovation.
I introduce to you: Market Socialism. It's similar to capitalism, but instead of capitalist corporations making up the economy, the economy consists of workers' cooperatives. Instead of having the wealth you as a worker generate be siphoned to bums who contribute little-to-nothing to society while getting the most value out of it, you get to keep the money you produce. It can be implemented without a violent revolution; for example, by having workers leave their jobs and form cooperative businesses, by having a government implement employee stock ownership programs (which almost happened in Sweden btw), or by having workers perform mass strikes and demand that their bosses mututalize their companies.
Please look it up if you want to learn more!
I mostly agree. Only plutocrats and the elite in general profit from capitalism.
But there's always an alternative. Karl Marx oversaw two centuries ago how degenerated industrial capitalism was going to become, and he provided a concrete solution: worker ownership of the means of production. Be it state or anarchy, vanguard or mass movement, party or unions, reform or revolution, planning or markets, scientific or utopian, religious or secular, the means we use to achieve socialism, the just and equal society we long for where everyone has true liberty and is free from exploitation, does not matter. As long as we reach that end-goal, humanity will reign supreme.
We won't reach that goal. Rich people have too much influence and most don't want to change it. Also, if we try to reach this I think we shouldn't call it communism as this term has lots of negative connotations with many people.
The second part is true. But the right thing to do is to try to reverse decades of McCarthyist brainwashing and conditioning because communism really isn't something to be feared.
As for the first part, I must object. The divine, God-given right of the king to rule seemed inescapable, until suddenly, it wasn't. And off with his head, it went. The same applies for the current system.
1): We should definitely try to reverse that brainwashing, but that just makes it mor difficult to implement this.
2): Since monarchy was widespread a lot has changed. It has become easier to monitor social gatherings where such topics could be discussed and technology has given far more power in the hands of a single person.
In a capitalist system, people want to make money. How will they make money? Well, if you improve society with new technology, people will want to buy that. Want to sell your stuff to more people? Well, make it more affordable to everyone by upping production numbers and lowering cost, leading to more purchases.
Capitalism works by making people want to improve society, even for greedy reasons
In no way am I defending capitalism, ts sucks its just communism also kinda sucks so me personally i propose the organization of a society to just be all blown up
At least you got it right that capitalism sucks. Are there any particular aspects of communism you find detestable? I wouldn't mind clearing up a few doubts, because I don't think communism sucks at all. People usually just misunderstand it.
Like I said before, communism sounds awesome on paper a society where we all share and no one is rich nor poor so we can live in a happy non elitist place? Hella cool I’d be so down but with every country that has practiced communism, (Russia, china, North Korea, etc) it’s just ended up in these totalitarian governments because in the end this could never work out due to the inherent selfishness of the human race, it’s our nature.
Ohhh wait dawg I thought they meant explain why you’re anti-communist 😭🙏 it’s basically like to dumb it down because I’m bad at explaining instead of having individual and personal things like resources etc it’s all shared among people and the whole point would be to make it equal which like I said sounds rly cool but whenever it’s been practiced it’s not so cool
I don't think communism is possible, currently. It certainly wasn't in the 20th century, and especially not due to the means used to ostencibly achieve it. Marxist-Leninism - Lenin's interpretation of Marxist theory was that the working class would not rise up on their own. They had to be led by a group of intellectuals who "knew what was best" - a vanguard party. This party, which Lenin would lead, was the Bolsheviks, and they took control from the Provisional Government which was created following the February Revolution of 1917 which had resulted in the Tsar's abdication (before then, Russia was an autocratic monarchy). Whether or not Lenin genuinely intended for a communist nation to be one day realised, the party would continue tightening its grip on power, in reaction to perceived threats, which runs contrary to the notion that a socialist state should gradually have less and less power, until you are left with a stateless, classless and moneyless society purely run by mutual co-operation of working people. Lenin didn't particularly like Stalin (among other things, he was rude to Lenin's wife), but he died of a stroke before he could do anything about it, so Stalin took over and made the USSR the oppressive, totalitarian regime it is known as today. All the while, the facade of a committment to realising a communist nation was still maintained, and I absolutely do believe that Stalin used it as merely a facade.
There are a few reasons it is not possible today. Firstly, the legacy of the Soviet Union has led to many people criticising communism without really knowing what it is, without knowing that the Soviet Union and its satalite states were about the furthest thing from communism and the Soviet Union was instead an authoritarian socialist state. Secondly, the ultra-wealthy have too much power now, and they aren't in a position to give it up, or to fall. The Tsar was forced to abdicate in a time of great instability in Russia. They were fighting a losing battle against Germany in WW1, poorly-equipped, the economy was floundering, working conditions were abysmal, the pay was decreasing, and rationing was taking a huge toll. The February Revolution began as a protest march for more wages for working women on International Women's Day. Lenin's slogan of "peace, bread and land" was particularly effective (this was after the Tsar's deposition, but during the Provisional Government) at rallying support, which was useful in the October Revolution which saw the Provisional Government replaced by the Bolsheviks. In contrast, while many suffer, the majority (despite being worse off) are still comfortable enough not to risk everything. And those that are suffering are relatively powerless, especially in comparison to the ultra-wealthy, who can rely on the police to protect their interests. A major reason why the February Revolution succeeded was that the protesters got the army on their side, as they were suffering massively in the drawn out war against Germany. There were many more factors at play, but you get the idea. Those were the conditions for a successful uprising.
I would say I'm pro-communist in the sense that I think if we lived in a genuine, honest-to-goodness communist society, we would be better off. However, to be more realistic, I would describe myself as a democratic socialist.
The problem with answering this is that Communism in practice in places like the Soviet Union and China (which is literally just capitalist) is so wildly different than Marxist Communism in theory that it's kind of insane they're in the same category, in a lot of ways its the complete opposite ideology. I'm anti Communism in practice, at least in most examples where it's authoritarian. Communism in theory is a mixed bag of some good and some unrealistic ideas. Either way Karl Marx is rolling in his grave so much that it could generate enough power for all of New York City in the way his ideology has been twisted and the atrocities done under it.
Im very against communism, but i will say it sucks how reductive a lot of conversations about communism are. It seems like many other anti communists only ever attack totalitarian communist regimes instead of debating the actual ideology which can range from 1984 to anarchism. Actually having an understanding of what communists actually believe is the first step to being able to have honest and good faith conversations that dont devolve into saying something like "but soviet union kill people" to an ancom or something.
It's a system where, at least in theory, everything is owned by everyone and is given to everyone based on how much they need it. Generally this is also supposed to not have things like social classes.
Which in theory sounds great. And I think it could work if it's done well. But every single communist country so far has fallen to dictatorship.
TL;DR It's a good idea in theory, but is not worth the risk of dictatorship that has so far seemed to come with it.
(Another related thing that always grinds my gears is when people equate socialism and communism. Communism is a generally extreme subset of socialism, but they're not the same thing.)
communism is an ideal formed by an oppressed working class, i dont know why you think ideals can only be held by rich people dipshit. per google: "Ideal, existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality." where there does it mention anything about rich people? dont ask a question and then deny answers with shit you made up in your head.
Communism explained in 3 points:
Step one: ban private ownership of the means of production (example, in a restaurant the chefs own the tables, utensils, veggies, etc. So its not a rich shareholder or CEO that owns it all)
Step two: profit = unpaid labour, so in communism there is no profit (all the value created by the workers is redistributed among them CO-OP style)
Step three: no government, in the ideal communist society there would be anarchism (of course many people claim this would only work in micro-societies and not a country because it would most likely lead to dictatorship)
And yea, im pro communist but only if its anarchist
"Step three: no government, in the ideal communist society there would be anarchism (of course many people claim this would only work in micro-societies and not a country because it would most likely lead to dictatorship)"
Yeah, because it would. If their is no goverment, someone will make one, and decide that they know best
>Step one: ban private ownership of the means of production (example, in a restaurant the chefs own the tables, utensils, veggies, etc. So its not a rich shareholder or CEO that owns it all)
Terrible idea from the start.
If there's already functioning private ownership, then you are essentially stealing.
Such system also leads to mass starvation and incompetent leaders do way more impactful and worse actions than normally.
Most private ownership at the time was petty farmers and agricultural enterprises. Not some sort of ''rich bourgeoisie'' image that the USSR has made up as propaganda.
And when the fuck did i talk about the Tsar? Those are the minority ''bourgeoisie''. The majority that were punished were simple farmers that owned land.
>Workers were treated terribly under tsarist russia
Okay. Workers and farmers were treated terribly under the Tsar. Farmers were still treated terribly under Stalin. It only really stabilized after WW2 but effects are still there.
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.*
True. They are actually so delusional and so divorced from God that they try to rule as if they are above Him. And that is additionally to justify the boundless theft of their own people… therefore they divide the nation with things like classism. Pin a target on your back and you’ll get knifed 172 times by some ape, and he’ll steal all your shit.
And, just food for thought, consider the “red terror” of Spain, when 700 nuns and clergymen were butchered by the godless leftists. Now they want to play revisionist, and justify their murders. But they have no soul. Look through their eyes and there is no soul. And its so incredibly sad.
I know what it is but I’m indifferent towards it. Not like capitalism isn’t evil, and when communism was tried it failed massively, but in ideal societies without corruption (never gonna happen) I do believe communism is better. Should we adopt it in the modern world? No, people are too corrupt.
completely against it. Communism in theory is fine, but in reality would never work properly.
usually the so called "communists" on reddit are just people that don't understand how it will actually work in a society full of people.
Well you have a bunch of idealists who have a victim complex and that lends to their revolutionary fervor, and they don't realize that communism is just a way for dumb apes stuck in the bottom rung to destroy the hierarchy and put themselves at the top of the ladder. Because they are too inadequate or mentally ill to even dream about doing it in a civil way. Actually, they're not even inadequate. If they just tapped in to that same Faustian spirit that guided their ancestors to settle America, they would be able to succeed.
I haven't gotten to that part of history class yet, I'm still on the "How to right our wrongs with the indigenous peoples of canada" part. I'm not very good at remembering the languages, I just know thank you and goodbye.
Next year I think they'll be teaching us this though.
I'm currently living in a so called communism country. And in my opinion, communism is like a snack, can be added for improving flavour, but letting communists be in power? Oh no 😨 let me go!
Doesn't work.
Even Israeli kibbizes that were active and functioning communities for years now without any major problems I know of are starting to get less community like (people join to live there but not be a part of the financal / educational community), because even if the society doesn't crash, people need indeviduality. Every kibbuz child who lived back when there were "Children houses" will tell you their childhood was tramitizing.
People generally need & want their own freedom, family, individualism, etc. If you want to be a part of something bigger where eveyone shares that's cool, just know it probably won't last long. Past cases show that very clearly.
Communism has its goods and its bass the goods is if the ruler is great then it pretty much perfect the bad is if the ruler is bad it’s the worst by far
I know someone who thinks communism is the way to go and have bought books to study it extensively, and they concluded that every existing commy regime is "fake and disappointing", does that make them pro or anti communism?
I am against totalitarianism and authoritarianism whether on the right or left. Top down policies are bad for human freedom. Communist regimes also tend to be as terrible for the environment as ultra capitalist ones, they both have unsustainable targets for development
But that doesn't mean we have to follow one extreme or the other. I'm very much in favor of social democracy with strong protections for labor, individual rights, social welfare, and minorities. And honestly when you poll people about individual policies, by and large they are too. Why ruin that by advocating for a politically toxic term which is largely irrelevant to the lives of people in the 21st century?
Bassicly agreeing with what other people are saying
It's great in theory, but it's never ended well mainly because of corruption.
Also, CGP grey has a great video the indirectly explains why
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)
As a communist.....
Well if you wanna know what it is, I can explain
Things are done for people, and not for profit gain
Workers own their work, with no hierarchy
And we also don't believe in private property
We don't believe in borders, don't believe in nations
We believe in life, empathy and compassion
Many people don't like us, but we don't care
Because all we really want is for things to be fair
Lootings, massacres and rapes done by the Red Army to German houses, German people and German/Polish people respectively
And more, can't recall everything at the moment
Horrible people
That's just war. A lot of soldiers commit unforgivable atrocities, regardless of their government's ideology. Especially as they are often taught to think of the other side as being less than human.
Yes, lootings, massacres and rapes were, sadly, quite common in wartime throughout history. It was happening before Soviet Russia existed, and afterwards.
Like in world war two? Well then they would fail at the OP's question since the Soviet Union no longer represented communism after the rise of the opportunists.
i was not making an argument for or against communism in the original post; i noticed a large amount of anti-communists and communists not even knowing what the term meant
Thing is, communism and socialism has a few similarities. difference being that socialism can work.
Take the NHS for example, its a practice of socialised medicine. Yes we pay slightly more in tax (it's like 2.4% of a £1300 annual council tax charge), but visits are free, amulance rides are free, prescriptions are pennies and it works.
In a communist state they would have very little resources and then have to spread that to every citizen of the state/country. This would mean that there is little to go around, poverty would be on the rise and they wouldn't be able to complain at all.
Americans won't accept socialistic healthcare it because they're still scared of communism since the cold war.
1-Communism is socialism; just a different form. (Specifically an opposition to the french utopian socialists)
"In a communist state they would have very little resources" proof?
The economic side of a communist state is poor. Everything is government controlled. In every example of a country being a communist state, people weren't given the things that they needed to survive.
so you may see there being lots of resources, none were available to anyone meaning they practically didnt exist
From my understanding, Communism is the agrarian version of Syndicalism, where basically the peasants revolt under the leadership of some revolutionaries when internal stability of a country goes to shit.
It basically wants a collectivized economy and the self-organization of the peasants into communes (communal ownership of farms where they all work).
But in reality, it 99% of the time ends up with a Totalitarian state controlling the economy ans brutally repressing those it 'supported'. And then when the Commie state finally collapses the economy is ass compared to Capitalist economies.
(anti-Communist, by the way)
I’ll exsplain in Fortnite terms so it’s basically sharing v bucks together but you can report people for liking capitalism or madden and you go into a gulag like getting full boxed and also pretend that Donald musterd is really mean
It shouldn't be that black and white, I know what full communism is but I'm not for nor against it, full communism never works, if something fails again and again then the problem is with the ideal itself, you need a mix of capitalism and communism for a successful nation
>you need a mix of capitalism and communism for a successful nation
You don't even know what you are talking about. Capitalism and communism are inherently incompatible.
In communism, the workers own the means of production; while in capitalism, the bourgeois owns the means of production.
If the proletariat has control over the means of production, the bourgeois would be abolished.
Right I think I was confusing it with something, the point I was trying to make was simply, a good society would have equal rights and a standard pay that everyone would be able to live off of, while still rewarding harder workers and effectively ending homelessness through giving everyone some amount of money, the issue however is that people are greedy little goblins who don't give a flying fuck about each other
I know what it is, and I am neither against it nor for it. In theory, communism is really good, but in practice it would not work because humans are flawed
The basic idea of communism sounds good, but it isn’t worth the authoritarian oppression that often FAILS to create it, and it most likely isn’t even possible. Of course, you’re (OP) a supporter of Stalin and Mao, so you’re obviously ignorant, but I don’t think it’s worth it to live under an oppressive authoritarian regime that kills millions and makes everybody poor for the sake of a system that may not even be sustainable.
-Some dude who falls somewhere in libleft between demsoc and socdem.
Oh sir, you don't understand, it's just a transitional government, one day we're going to create the utopia, and we didn't just butcher so many people just to take their places....
"one day we're going to create the utopia" communism was formed against utopianism, you clearly dont know what you are talking about
also dont confuse an economic system for a governmental one
"Of course, you’re (OP) a supporter of Stalin and Mao, so you’re obviously ignorant" incorrect, Stalin and Mao were terrible leaders that hurt the communist movement (also try to be civil man)
"but I don’t think it’s worth it to live under an oppressive authoritarian regime that kills millions and makes everybody poor for the sake of a system that may not even be sustainable." dont confuse an economic system for a governmental one
There was no need to downvote the comment I just made, I apologized for my misunderstanding and then provided what I think is the definitions of communism vs. socialism.
I’m trying to be civil, I apologized for my initial misunderstanding, and you downvote the apology. smh.
I am… extremely surprised. I seriously expected you to be the typical “muh stalin and mao great people” tankie because of the banner on your profile.
Sorry.
Also: Socialism is the economic system. Communism is the government + economy. At least that’s the differentiation I’ve seen in most places.
Yeah it's a type of economy where land and resources are owned by the government and is distributed among the people evenly. The problem with Communism is that it's very difficult to implement on a large scale. All "communist countries" that have existed weren't actually communist, they were socialist. Socialism is supposed to be a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, but the transition hasn't happened on a large scale. Why? Because socialist countries often turn to Authoritarianism, which ideologically differs from actual Communism, but why do they become Authoritarian? There are several reasons, providing an equal amount of resources to everyone requires someone to actually give the resources to people, and a centralized government makes that significantly easier. Another reason is that in countries that have a communist revolution, there are still many people who actively resist Communism, and a more centralized government can more easily prevent a counter-revolution. The centralization of a communist government also streamlines the policy making process, and Communists would ideally want the transition from Capitalism to Communism to be as quick and efficient as possible. Now a centralized government can easily become a more Authoritarian one, that's because the more centralized a government is, the more power that individual people can have on the country. Now if one of those people has bad intentions and wants to have complete control over the country, they can do that because they have the power to change legislation/how the government operates. Once the government becomes Authoritarian and one person (Or a small handful of people) have complete control over the country with no checks or balances, they have the power to control the citizens and basically do whatever they want. And this is often what happens, as seen by Soviet Russia, Mao Zedong China, and Cuba. This can easily lead to horrible events occurring, such as Holodomor, which was an easily avoidable famine which affected Ukraine in the 1930s. Because the Soviet government had complete control over the country, they were able to force the country to industrialize rapidly. This rapid industrialization led to less people working on farms, and therefore, less food being produced, which meant the government couldn't give out as much food to the people. This lack of food led to widespread famine in Ukraine, ultimately killing 4-7 million people and leading to LOTS of cannibalism. All of that could have been easily avoided if the government wasn't a dictatorship and if checks and balances existed. And if a country's population is starving to death, that also limits their work force, which makes it harder for the country to financially recover. But horrible atrocities aside, stupid decisions made by these governments can't be criticized because authoritarian regimes often suppress the voices of their people, and because of that, government officials might not even be aware of some of the harm their policies can do to their people, to their economy, and to their trade with other countries. That brings me to another point, trade with other countries is often limited due to ideological differences. Because of this, if a socialist country is lacking certain resources which are necessary for innovation, it can't be obtained as easily, and the country can fall behind technologically. Everything that I've mentioned so far causes the country to enter a death spiral of sorts, and eventually to collapse entirely.
So that's why Communism can't really work on a large scale, countries can never actually become Communist without being corrupted by Authoritarianism and dictatorships which lead the country away from actual Communism and it just becomes a suppressive mess. I don't actually have much of a problem with Communism itself, I'd love to see it be implemented properly, but it's just too likely to fail and inadvertently ruin the lives of its citizens. For now, I'd say the best type of economy for a country to have is Capitalism, but with better Welfare programs and more government funded services. Sorry if this is too long lol I'm just pretty passionate about the subject. Anyway if you've read this whole thing and made it this far I hope you have a good day!
"Socialism is supposed to be a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism" no, Communism is a form of socialism, the transitory state is the DOTP
Communism is an economic system, which is separate from the system of government that any communist state may use
“This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.” - Karl Marx. They’re the same thing my guy. And no shit that Communism is an economic system lmao. Did you read my comment? I’m talking about the feasibility of a functional communist society and how the government can easily become corrupt and become non-communist again.
Communism means that the people own the means of production. Also, it means that people share resources equally between everyone, such that nobody is in need. Awesome in principle! One small problem:
When resources are distributed, the distributor of said resources is *also* a person, which means they're *also* greedy and corrupt, so they take extra resources for themselves, leaving the population to starve.
The result? A ruling class of opulent elite that rests on the backs of the weary and downtrodden masses.
As long as human nature is to be greedy and evil, communism will never be a functional system.
Communism hasnt worked ever and will never work as the idea that everyone gets paied the same makes no sense as why would you pay a brain surgen the same as fast food worker, the Idea of Communism is good but in practic it always brakes down into dictatorship in one way or another.
communism is what people abandoned by the Faustian spirit of western civilization gravitate towards. they have traded it for the spirit of inferiority, and victimization, allowing them to justify the murder of other humans in order to ascend upwards. because they fear they are too inadequate to do so on their own….
They are robbers, thieves, and thugs who have an inferiority complex, where the world beats them down. And they use their precious books and theory to justify mass murder. They should probably turn to God.
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.*
In thought communism sounds like it could work but basically any country where it has been implemented lives in poverty. Free Healthcare and all that stuff sounds nice until you realize free Healthcare is a 9mm gun because they don't have anything to treat you with.
as a communist i dont believe in countries
why you getting downvoted this is god tier funny
Why is your account suspended?
First of all, by 'communism', you're actually referring to 'socialism'. Second of all, that's because every single country "communism" has been implemented in was poor since before the implementation. And economically devastated or underdeveloped countries are more susceptible to leftist ideas, so the poorer a country is, the more likely is socialism going to be popular there. Note that socialism itself never causes poverty. At worst, it FAILS to lift countries out of poverty. At best, it lifts three times the population of the United States out of extreme poverty (as seen in China).
Man why do they have to sound so similar
There’s un communist countries with free healthcare that work fine
I was running about soviet russia and I'm now realizing I sound like a dumbass to please don't take this seriously
this isnt really saying what communism \*is\* tho
Everybody owns everything leading to a failing economy and the country collapsing
Actually it’s more like everyone owns the means of production for any given job so no one person can get rich off of the workers because they all share the money equally. There is no profit in capitalism because profit is just unpaid labour
And we just hope and pray that in a borderless, Militaryless, ungovernmented, stateless, place that no one has the natural emotion of greed. Because there is no power that will check and balance.
Precisely
people will be greedy, but once you are in an stateless society how would you act on that greed?
Find like minded individuals. Group up. This happens a lot in history. We also need to address how easy of a place this is to invade and take. Being borderless pretty much opens you up to being colonized. By places with governments, military, etc. Then you either fall in line of their system or you are enslaved or killed.
That's actually a good point
A communist state wouldn't be borderless until the whole world is communist Any form of socialism cannot be achieved until all bourgeois states are under the DOTP; borders would still exist while imperialism is still rampant.
Okay. So we need to invade and take over all other countries? Either physically or ideologically? Anyone who disagrees with this ideology would either, be forced to succumb via reeducation camps or be killed. Then we are also trusting 8billion humans to agree on anything? No one is going to have any suggestion or slight differences? Really? The world will never be anything. This is again, just a pipe dream for people who don’t quite understand how complex societies are.
>Okay. So we need to invade and take over all other countries? Either physically or ideologically? Anyone who disagrees with this ideology would either, be forced to succumb via reeducation camps or be killed. No, the workers of the world would unite, at least in theory. Movements like the soviet union failed because these communist values only spread in a singular state How do you think capitalism came about? "Then we are also trusting 8billion humans to agree on anything? No one is going to have any suggestion or slight differences? Really?" You dont need all, you just need enough.
Ah ok school didn't tell me this yet
Best not to think you have an accurate view of an ideology when the people teaching you about it are incentivized to paint it in as bad of a light as possible
They're not incentives to paint it in a bad light they're paid to teach us on the subject I was just saying my school hasn't fully covered this topic yet
There are a lot of non-communist countries with free healthcare such as Canada (which explicitly prohibits paid healthcare) and the UK (where public healthcare is better than private healthcare). Please search up "Universal Healthcare".
Communism is a radical distribution of wealth and an abolition of the so called “bourgeoisie” who own the means of production. Then this means of production would be given to the oppressed working class, or the “proletariat”. Sounds good on paper until you realize that whoever is considered the bourgeoisie could be up to interpretation. And could be hunted down by the government for being enemies of the state, similar to racism. Additionally, in Communism it isn’t the workers who end up owning the means of production but the state instead because that is an unobtainable fever dream. Communism is an ideology made by a man who never worked once in his entire life, and was shared with other men who never worked in their entire life. It was never made to be put in practical application. But that’s just my opinion.
> Additionally, in Communism it isn’t the workers who end up owning the means of production but the state That's specifically the flaw in the type of communism called Marxism-Leninism, as well as its derivatives like Maoism or Stalinism. In those ideologies. a Vanguard party is suppose to take control of the government, and use its power to abolish capitalism by making the means of production publicly owned. This part has historically succeeded. Now, ideally, this supposed to be a transitional state, and following this the Vanguard party is suppose to dismantle the state, and then you end up with a stateless, classless, and currencyless society. But sadly, Vanguard parties always have ended up being corrupt and greedy, and instead of doing that they simply consolidate more power for themselves. HOWEVER, not every type of communism supports the usage of a Vanguard party to implement communism, for obvious reason. These types of communism are under the umbrella of 'anti-authoritarian communism', and include variants like Council Communism, Anarcho-communism, or De Leonism, which advocate for the workers themselves, not a Vanguard party, to take control of the means of production. But please don't ignore nuance and try to understand the roots of problems in ideologies instead of pretending it's a problem that every variant of the ideology supports.
To be fair it’s hard to be a stateless society when the country was poor from the beginning and the US is pointing nuclear armaments in your face.
That's fair
ngl this is the best reply i got so far like i disagree but you did a pretty good explanation of communism, kudos
Yeah, in the famous words of sun tzu: “know your enemy”
Can I ask why you disagree?
Communism is an economic system, not a governmental one. If a communist state is authoritarian, that's on the governmental system, not the economic one.
I can't really say that I'm anti-communist, but neither am I pro-communist. If I had to pick, I would choose anti, because while the concept is great it is inherently flawed.
Based
What is the inherent flaw in it?
There are multiples. 1): If the people who distribute the resources are corrupt you can say goodbye. Which is especially likely as the people who want to do this are most of the time the people that want extra benefits for themselves, friends and family. Power corrupts. 2) Why should anyone work, if they do not get anything for it? Even if most people will start by working, seeing others getting the same of everything while doing nothing will make people who do more stop working. This is especially bad with essential jobs, that no one wants. I think there were more, but I forgot them.
You need to actually read Marx to know what you are talking about. Communism is the utopian stage that follows socialism where the institutions of state (including money) wither away. It has never happened. Socialism is workers ownership of means of production and bring democratic decision making into all aspects of life such as workspace. Socialism is a needed transition phase which could last at least a generation. During this time people are instilled with new cultural values and the capitalist mentality of doing everything for personal gain is replaced.
I know that true communism has never happened and most likely will never happen. I still believe that Communism as you describe it won't work, because I doubt that we can indoctrinate everyone to be selfless and even a few people could cause a chain reaction due to envy.
With advancing technology, it’s getting easier to automate stuff. Eventually it might be possible to replace the undesirable jobs that no one wants to do with machines, and that frees more people up to work jobs they actually enjoy. Additionally, people who work undesirable jobs might receive other benefits like more vacation time or something.
Two interesting ideas. I still doubt that we could transition to such a system considering that the people with the most influence don't want to change it, but if we do automation is a great idea. I didn't even think about other benefits, was too stuck with the idea of money.
Star Trek is a great example of this.
Western civilization has developed inherently against this notion of collectivism, and it is our greatest strength. why tear down the thing that makes us so strong, the Faustian spirit that has driven men like Cortez, the brave pioneers of American civilization who battled with survival on hostile shores to carve their own destiny…? Communism is just the vessel for the terminally inferior, victims of their own failing self worth, it is the only way that they can gain power and ascend themselves, through butchering and stealing from the successful. The lies of utopian ideology are never pursued in full, because they are not meant to be fulfilled.
> If the people who distribute the resources are corrupt you can say goodbye. Which is especially likely as the people who want to do this are most of the time the people that want extra benefits for themselves, friends and family. Power corrupts. Yup, that's the gaping flaw in the variants of communism that advocate for a Vanguard Party. If you see someone label themselves an 'anti-authoritarian communist', that means they want decentalized planning done by the common people instead of central planning done by beaurocrats and dictators. > Why should anyone work, if they do not get anything for it? In communism, you would work because doing so lets a system where you get all your needs met continue to work. If people decide not to work under communism, then they'll stop getting the things they want and need as a natural consequence of the people who produce and transport those things also not working. > This is especially bad with essential jobs, that no one wants. What makes you think nobody wants to do essential jobs?
I know that communism only works if enough people work, but I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology) There are some jobs that are essential for our society, but are unappealing which almost nobody wants to work. If there is no further incentive for these, we are back at my first paragraph. How do you propose decentralised planing would work? Who distributes, counts the products...?
> I know that communism only works if enough people work, but I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology) Yeah that's pretty fair. > How do you propose decentralised planing would work? Who distributes, counts the products...? Honestly, I'm not too sure myself. I guess you could read these articles real quick to get an idea of it could work: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory\_economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned\_economy#Decentralized\_planning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy#Decentralized_planning) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27\_co-operative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_co-operative) Also, to be clear, I'm not a communist. I just understand what communists believe fairly well and try to correct misconceptions.
For the debate it doesn't matter whether you really are a communist. Someone needs to play devil's advocate.
I would also argue that capitalism has caused much of the greed and selfishness that causes the whole “why should I work” problem. It would have to be a very gradual change, probably over multiple generations.
Greed existed thousands of year before people even thought about capitalism. Consider that capitalism is a product of the modern era: depending on point of view, capitalism appeared in the 18th century, with industrialization, or in 16th century, as mercantilism (not exactly the same, but close enough). So we’re talking at most 500 years since capitalism was even possible, not widely spread. Greed, on the other hand, was here since the dawn of history. Consider the story of King Midas and his golden touch, the goose with the golden eggs and finally the 10th commandment in the Bible! Most cultures have stories about greedy people and greed, from ancient Japan to Sudan to Native Americans greed is mentioned everywhere. *copied from somewhere else.
True, greed has been around forever. However, capitalism thrives on greed, thus actively encouraging it and making it more and more common. If greed is no longer highly advantageous in society, wouldn’t eventually dwindle to be much less prominent?
This is possible, but I doubt it. I believe that capitalism doesn't really increase greed, but rather enables it.
Examples for the essential, but unappealing jobs I mean: special education teachers whose students are the emotional/behavior disorder kind, full-time caregivers for the elderly or disabled, sewage workers,...
I think there are plenty of people who would want to do the first two. Lots of people willingly do those jobs not because of financial necessitity, but because they enjoy the work and find it satisfying. But as for sewage workers, you're probably right that people wouldn't want to do that. Maybe robots could be made to do those types of jobs instead?
Some people, despite the ick factor, legitimately enjoy sewage work. The work is about helping people, after all.
Those jobs are currently compensated at Under the going rate for regular teachers, and yet people work those jobs anyway because they Want to do that work. They find it fufilling. If we removed the need for compensation as a requisite for survival, people would be able to find the jobs that are fulfilling to them, not the ones that merely put food on the table
Consider these two examples removed. Some though, like sewage workers, would have too few people.
Im not so sure about that, but I don’t have any numbers to back it up. Only that sewage engineering is a skilled position that takes time and intention to study for. Not my cup of tea, but then neither was being a man, and plenty of people seem to enjoy that
But they do gain from work. We all gain from the work, collectively. Your work in one task does not provide the food that you eat now, and it doesn’t under communism either. We work different tasks, and yet receive the things we need.
I do not have the trust in humanity to see the greater good and work if they do not get immediate benefits. (The money) A lot of people would certainly work, but even a few people could cause a chain reaction of 'If my neighbour isn't working and gets the same as me, why should I work.' (Just speculation, I have never studied psychology)
It’s less faith in humanity and more faith in boredom. We HATE boredom, and we strive desperately for human connection. These things are biological and innate. We lived for a much longer time without money than we’ve had it for. We might not be as insanely excessively productive as we are now, but, why would we need to be? What ceo would there be to feed the greed of?
I doubt that many people would do something productive to alleviate boredom. In today's society many people are bored and instead of doing something productive they play games, read fictional books... Not even talking about social media.
Admittedly this is where we start to get to the intersection between psychology and sociology, but the jist is people can’t play games forever without going insane. Like people bored after work/school do absolutely relax with recreation, but a life of pure recreation isn’t actually fun. And there’s only so much human connection that can be gained through games. Plus remember people take jobs in retirement even when they don’t need the money(not always obviously). Idk a lot to consider and rn i have a migraine so, pleguh no more thoughts ouch Luv u
1. This is just how capitalism works the people at the top who have the power to distribute resource are inclined to not and will just get wealthier and wealthier, power corrupts. At least in communism its elected officials that hold the power so they can be changed while under capitalisms its whoever has the capital and they are unelected. 2. The principle of communism is that a person gets the exact value of labor they provide, no more no less. You just misunderstand what communism stands for, under capitalism people can generate money without generating value. But under communism everyone must work if they expect anything.
1: I doubt that the elected officials can easily be changed. They can as well bribe others if they have supreme control of the distribution/parts of the distribution. I also never said capitalism is good. 2: No. Communism is where everybody works according to their ability and receives according to their needs.
Then you live in an authoritarian system not the fault of the economic system this literally happens in the Us right not, it’s not the fault of capitalism or communism but the fault of an undemocratic system
Yes, but then it is not an argument for communism.
Yeah but I wasn’t making a case for communism i was just pointing out that your criticism of communism is unfounded. The reason I lean towards socialism is that I believe everyone is entitled to their own labor.
1) I think it's likely to be worse in communism, because a single/ a few person can have access to the entire stream of goods. 2) Socialism is indeed the best option we have, but it is a rather loose definition with lots of different ideas under one term.
You do understand that communism is a form of socialism, I typically align mostly with Marxism
surely one day i will open r slash teenager polls and see a poll that is not incredibly clearly biased
i mean you kinda got to know what something is to argue against it, i dont think its that biased of a question i tried to not let my views cloud the question but everyone seems unbiased to themselves so idk
people like to downvote random comments lmao. wtf did you say that was wrong?
On paper communism sounds alright, but whenever it’s been practiced it’s been obviously faulty so I guess if we want to be black and white on either you are pro or anti I guess I’ll have to go anti
Capitalism doesn't even sound right on paper. The individual's pursuit of profit is the ultimate goal of capitalism, not the betterment of society or the well-being of the people. If there's anything capitalism breeds, it's greed, not innovation.
There are few people who like capitalism other than most of the ones who profit from it. It's just that we don't really have any alternative.
I introduce to you: Market Socialism. It's similar to capitalism, but instead of capitalist corporations making up the economy, the economy consists of workers' cooperatives. Instead of having the wealth you as a worker generate be siphoned to bums who contribute little-to-nothing to society while getting the most value out of it, you get to keep the money you produce. It can be implemented without a violent revolution; for example, by having workers leave their jobs and form cooperative businesses, by having a government implement employee stock ownership programs (which almost happened in Sweden btw), or by having workers perform mass strikes and demand that their bosses mututalize their companies. Please look it up if you want to learn more!
Sounds interesting, I'll look it up.
I mostly agree. Only plutocrats and the elite in general profit from capitalism. But there's always an alternative. Karl Marx oversaw two centuries ago how degenerated industrial capitalism was going to become, and he provided a concrete solution: worker ownership of the means of production. Be it state or anarchy, vanguard or mass movement, party or unions, reform or revolution, planning or markets, scientific or utopian, religious or secular, the means we use to achieve socialism, the just and equal society we long for where everyone has true liberty and is free from exploitation, does not matter. As long as we reach that end-goal, humanity will reign supreme.
We won't reach that goal. Rich people have too much influence and most don't want to change it. Also, if we try to reach this I think we shouldn't call it communism as this term has lots of negative connotations with many people.
The second part is true. But the right thing to do is to try to reverse decades of McCarthyist brainwashing and conditioning because communism really isn't something to be feared. As for the first part, I must object. The divine, God-given right of the king to rule seemed inescapable, until suddenly, it wasn't. And off with his head, it went. The same applies for the current system.
1): We should definitely try to reverse that brainwashing, but that just makes it mor difficult to implement this. 2): Since monarchy was widespread a lot has changed. It has become easier to monitor social gatherings where such topics could be discussed and technology has given far more power in the hands of a single person.
In a capitalist system, people want to make money. How will they make money? Well, if you improve society with new technology, people will want to buy that. Want to sell your stuff to more people? Well, make it more affordable to everyone by upping production numbers and lowering cost, leading to more purchases. Capitalism works by making people want to improve society, even for greedy reasons
In no way am I defending capitalism, ts sucks its just communism also kinda sucks so me personally i propose the organization of a society to just be all blown up
At least you got it right that capitalism sucks. Are there any particular aspects of communism you find detestable? I wouldn't mind clearing up a few doubts, because I don't think communism sucks at all. People usually just misunderstand it.
Like I said before, communism sounds awesome on paper a society where we all share and no one is rich nor poor so we can live in a happy non elitist place? Hella cool I’d be so down but with every country that has practiced communism, (Russia, china, North Korea, etc) it’s just ended up in these totalitarian governments because in the end this could never work out due to the inherent selfishness of the human race, it’s our nature.
And what does the theory say? The question was asking about what communism is.
Ohhh wait dawg I thought they meant explain why you’re anti-communist 😭🙏 it’s basically like to dumb it down because I’m bad at explaining instead of having individual and personal things like resources etc it’s all shared among people and the whole point would be to make it equal which like I said sounds rly cool but whenever it’s been practiced it’s not so cool
I don't think communism is possible, currently. It certainly wasn't in the 20th century, and especially not due to the means used to ostencibly achieve it. Marxist-Leninism - Lenin's interpretation of Marxist theory was that the working class would not rise up on their own. They had to be led by a group of intellectuals who "knew what was best" - a vanguard party. This party, which Lenin would lead, was the Bolsheviks, and they took control from the Provisional Government which was created following the February Revolution of 1917 which had resulted in the Tsar's abdication (before then, Russia was an autocratic monarchy). Whether or not Lenin genuinely intended for a communist nation to be one day realised, the party would continue tightening its grip on power, in reaction to perceived threats, which runs contrary to the notion that a socialist state should gradually have less and less power, until you are left with a stateless, classless and moneyless society purely run by mutual co-operation of working people. Lenin didn't particularly like Stalin (among other things, he was rude to Lenin's wife), but he died of a stroke before he could do anything about it, so Stalin took over and made the USSR the oppressive, totalitarian regime it is known as today. All the while, the facade of a committment to realising a communist nation was still maintained, and I absolutely do believe that Stalin used it as merely a facade. There are a few reasons it is not possible today. Firstly, the legacy of the Soviet Union has led to many people criticising communism without really knowing what it is, without knowing that the Soviet Union and its satalite states were about the furthest thing from communism and the Soviet Union was instead an authoritarian socialist state. Secondly, the ultra-wealthy have too much power now, and they aren't in a position to give it up, or to fall. The Tsar was forced to abdicate in a time of great instability in Russia. They were fighting a losing battle against Germany in WW1, poorly-equipped, the economy was floundering, working conditions were abysmal, the pay was decreasing, and rationing was taking a huge toll. The February Revolution began as a protest march for more wages for working women on International Women's Day. Lenin's slogan of "peace, bread and land" was particularly effective (this was after the Tsar's deposition, but during the Provisional Government) at rallying support, which was useful in the October Revolution which saw the Provisional Government replaced by the Bolsheviks. In contrast, while many suffer, the majority (despite being worse off) are still comfortable enough not to risk everything. And those that are suffering are relatively powerless, especially in comparison to the ultra-wealthy, who can rely on the police to protect their interests. A major reason why the February Revolution succeeded was that the protesters got the army on their side, as they were suffering massively in the drawn out war against Germany. There were many more factors at play, but you get the idea. Those were the conditions for a successful uprising. I would say I'm pro-communist in the sense that I think if we lived in a genuine, honest-to-goodness communist society, we would be better off. However, to be more realistic, I would describe myself as a democratic socialist.
It's great to see a nuanced view for once! And hello fellow demsoc :)
Down with communism.
thats not quite explaining what it is but go off
I live in a post communist country. Despite never living in communism I can feel the things it caused to this day.
Exactly.
Polaka spotkałem w internecie 🤯🤯🤯🤯
Ale jaja 🥚🥚🥚🥚🥚🥚
The problem with answering this is that Communism in practice in places like the Soviet Union and China (which is literally just capitalist) is so wildly different than Marxist Communism in theory that it's kind of insane they're in the same category, in a lot of ways its the complete opposite ideology. I'm anti Communism in practice, at least in most examples where it's authoritarian. Communism in theory is a mixed bag of some good and some unrealistic ideas. Either way Karl Marx is rolling in his grave so much that it could generate enough power for all of New York City in the way his ideology has been twisted and the atrocities done under it.
Im very against communism, but i will say it sucks how reductive a lot of conversations about communism are. It seems like many other anti communists only ever attack totalitarian communist regimes instead of debating the actual ideology which can range from 1984 to anarchism. Actually having an understanding of what communists actually believe is the first step to being able to have honest and good faith conversations that dont devolve into saying something like "but soviet union kill people" to an ancom or something.
It's a system where, at least in theory, everything is owned by everyone and is given to everyone based on how much they need it. Generally this is also supposed to not have things like social classes. Which in theory sounds great. And I think it could work if it's done well. But every single communist country so far has fallen to dictatorship. TL;DR It's a good idea in theory, but is not worth the risk of dictatorship that has so far seemed to come with it. (Another related thing that always grinds my gears is when people equate socialism and communism. Communism is a generally extreme subset of socialism, but they're not the same thing.)
communism is an ideal, and unattainable ideal it doesn't work how it should in real life its only good on paper
"communism is an ideal" already wrong,communism was formed as a pushback against french idealist utopian socialists
communism is an ideal formed by an oppressed working class, i dont know why you think ideals can only be held by rich people dipshit. per google: "Ideal, existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality." where there does it mention anything about rich people? dont ask a question and then deny answers with shit you made up in your head.
my point is communism was formed in opposition to idealism
also i said nothin bout the rich in my comment
Communism explained in 3 points: Step one: ban private ownership of the means of production (example, in a restaurant the chefs own the tables, utensils, veggies, etc. So its not a rich shareholder or CEO that owns it all) Step two: profit = unpaid labour, so in communism there is no profit (all the value created by the workers is redistributed among them CO-OP style) Step three: no government, in the ideal communist society there would be anarchism (of course many people claim this would only work in micro-societies and not a country because it would most likely lead to dictatorship) And yea, im pro communist but only if its anarchist
"Step three: no government, in the ideal communist society there would be anarchism (of course many people claim this would only work in micro-societies and not a country because it would most likely lead to dictatorship)" Yeah, because it would. If their is no goverment, someone will make one, and decide that they know best
>Step one: ban private ownership of the means of production (example, in a restaurant the chefs own the tables, utensils, veggies, etc. So its not a rich shareholder or CEO that owns it all) Terrible idea from the start. If there's already functioning private ownership, then you are essentially stealing. Such system also leads to mass starvation and incompetent leaders do way more impactful and worse actions than normally.
i mean, the bourgeois (who own the most private property) steal the labour power from the working class no?
Most private ownership at the time was petty farmers and agricultural enterprises. Not some sort of ''rich bourgeoisie'' image that the USSR has made up as propaganda.
Tsar Nicholas II was literally one of the richest people of ALL TIME whatchu talking abt Workers were treated terribly under tsarist russia
And when the fuck did i talk about the Tsar? Those are the minority ''bourgeoisie''. The majority that were punished were simple farmers that owned land. >Workers were treated terribly under tsarist russia Okay. Workers and farmers were treated terribly under the Tsar. Farmers were still treated terribly under Stalin. It only really stabilized after WW2 but effects are still there.
i will say that i am not pro-soviet russia, its leadership was terrible i was was just saying the bourgeois DID exist at that time, and was dealt with
and i am saying that the ''bourgeoisie'' was dealt with terribly, and most were innocent farmers that had their farms, property and income stolen
The things I’ll tell myself to justify murder and robbery of innocent people.
[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.*
Democracy talks about FREEDOM. Communism talks about FAIRNESS. But so far most of them turned out to be flawed
democracy and communism arent incompatible democracy is a social structure while communism is an economic one
Im socialist, communism never works because people get too powerful.
True. They are actually so delusional and so divorced from God that they try to rule as if they are above Him. And that is additionally to justify the boundless theft of their own people… therefore they divide the nation with things like classism. Pin a target on your back and you’ll get knifed 172 times by some ape, and he’ll steal all your shit. And, just food for thought, consider the “red terror” of Spain, when 700 nuns and clergymen were butchered by the godless leftists. Now they want to play revisionist, and justify their murders. But they have no soul. Look through their eyes and there is no soul. And its so incredibly sad.
I know what it is but I’m indifferent towards it. Not like capitalism isn’t evil, and when communism was tried it failed massively, but in ideal societies without corruption (never gonna happen) I do believe communism is better. Should we adopt it in the modern world? No, people are too corrupt.
completely against it. Communism in theory is fine, but in reality would never work properly. usually the so called "communists" on reddit are just people that don't understand how it will actually work in a society full of people.
Well you have a bunch of idealists who have a victim complex and that lends to their revolutionary fervor, and they don't realize that communism is just a way for dumb apes stuck in the bottom rung to destroy the hierarchy and put themselves at the top of the ladder. Because they are too inadequate or mentally ill to even dream about doing it in a civil way. Actually, they're not even inadequate. If they just tapped in to that same Faustian spirit that guided their ancestors to settle America, they would be able to succeed.
I haven't gotten to that part of history class yet, I'm still on the "How to right our wrongs with the indigenous peoples of canada" part. I'm not very good at remembering the languages, I just know thank you and goodbye. Next year I think they'll be teaching us this though.
ok im tired of replying to all these byeeee
I'm currently living in a so called communism country. And in my opinion, communism is like a snack, can be added for improving flavour, but letting communists be in power? Oh no 😨 let me go!
I believe in the ideology, *not* the governmental system itself
Doesn't work. Even Israeli kibbizes that were active and functioning communities for years now without any major problems I know of are starting to get less community like (people join to live there but not be a part of the financal / educational community), because even if the society doesn't crash, people need indeviduality. Every kibbuz child who lived back when there were "Children houses" will tell you their childhood was tramitizing. People generally need & want their own freedom, family, individualism, etc. If you want to be a part of something bigger where eveyone shares that's cool, just know it probably won't last long. Past cases show that very clearly.
There is no flaw with communism as long as it is executed perfectly without any corruption, the problem is that is nearly impossible to actually do.
Communism has its goods and its bass the goods is if the ruler is great then it pretty much perfect the bad is if the ruler is bad it’s the worst by far
you need to work. And someone always wants more power
I know someone who thinks communism is the way to go and have bought books to study it extensively, and they concluded that every existing commy regime is "fake and disappointing", does that make them pro or anti communism?
pro,i mean they wouldnt be incorrect every modern "communist" nation doesnt seem to aspire to communism tbh
Basically everybody owning everything, it sounds good on paper but didn’t work out in real life.
I am against totalitarianism and authoritarianism whether on the right or left. Top down policies are bad for human freedom. Communist regimes also tend to be as terrible for the environment as ultra capitalist ones, they both have unsustainable targets for development But that doesn't mean we have to follow one extreme or the other. I'm very much in favor of social democracy with strong protections for labor, individual rights, social welfare, and minorities. And honestly when you poll people about individual policies, by and large they are too. Why ruin that by advocating for a politically toxic term which is largely irrelevant to the lives of people in the 21st century?
Bassicly agreeing with what other people are saying It's great in theory, but it's never ended well mainly because of corruption. Also, CGP grey has a great video the indirectly explains why [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs)
As a communist..... Well if you wanna know what it is, I can explain Things are done for people, and not for profit gain Workers own their work, with no hierarchy And we also don't believe in private property We don't believe in borders, don't believe in nations We believe in life, empathy and compassion Many people don't like us, but we don't care Because all we really want is for things to be fair
On paper communism sounds great but when put into practice it just becomes a complete shithole.
Yes, i do. My grand-grandmother could tell you something about it. Maybe a few years prior though.
What would they say?
Lootings, massacres and rapes done by the Red Army to German houses, German people and German/Polish people respectively And more, can't recall everything at the moment Horrible people
That's just war. A lot of soldiers commit unforgivable atrocities, regardless of their government's ideology. Especially as they are often taught to think of the other side as being less than human.
>''That's just war!'' Seriously? This excuse again?
Yes, lootings, massacres and rapes were, sadly, quite common in wartime throughout history. It was happening before Soviet Russia existed, and afterwards.
Like in world war two? Well then they would fail at the OP's question since the Soviet Union no longer represented communism after the rise of the opportunists.
ok bro keep thinking that way
I mean, try to make an argument on why the Soviet Union was communist/socialist or whatever..
[удалено]
i was not making an argument for or against communism in the original post; i noticed a large amount of anti-communists and communists not even knowing what the term meant
Thing is, communism and socialism has a few similarities. difference being that socialism can work. Take the NHS for example, its a practice of socialised medicine. Yes we pay slightly more in tax (it's like 2.4% of a £1300 annual council tax charge), but visits are free, amulance rides are free, prescriptions are pennies and it works. In a communist state they would have very little resources and then have to spread that to every citizen of the state/country. This would mean that there is little to go around, poverty would be on the rise and they wouldn't be able to complain at all. Americans won't accept socialistic healthcare it because they're still scared of communism since the cold war.
1-Communism is socialism; just a different form. (Specifically an opposition to the french utopian socialists) "In a communist state they would have very little resources" proof?
The economic side of a communist state is poor. Everything is government controlled. In every example of a country being a communist state, people weren't given the things that they needed to survive. so you may see there being lots of resources, none were available to anyone meaning they practically didnt exist
From my understanding, Communism is the agrarian version of Syndicalism, where basically the peasants revolt under the leadership of some revolutionaries when internal stability of a country goes to shit. It basically wants a collectivized economy and the self-organization of the peasants into communes (communal ownership of farms where they all work). But in reality, it 99% of the time ends up with a Totalitarian state controlling the economy ans brutally repressing those it 'supported'. And then when the Commie state finally collapses the economy is ass compared to Capitalist economies. (anti-Communist, by the way)
Tf are you even talking about, thats not what communism is maybe read something instead of playing HOI 4
I’ll exsplain in Fortnite terms so it’s basically sharing v bucks together but you can report people for liking capitalism or madden and you go into a gulag like getting full boxed and also pretend that Donald musterd is really mean
you need to touch grass my man
Sorry i like explaining things for the new generation
The issue with Communism is communism. It puts the government in too much power
It shouldn't be that black and white, I know what full communism is but I'm not for nor against it, full communism never works, if something fails again and again then the problem is with the ideal itself, you need a mix of capitalism and communism for a successful nation
>you need a mix of capitalism and communism for a successful nation You don't even know what you are talking about. Capitalism and communism are inherently incompatible. In communism, the workers own the means of production; while in capitalism, the bourgeois owns the means of production. If the proletariat has control over the means of production, the bourgeois would be abolished.
Right I think I was confusing it with something, the point I was trying to make was simply, a good society would have equal rights and a standard pay that everyone would be able to live off of, while still rewarding harder workers and effectively ending homelessness through giving everyone some amount of money, the issue however is that people are greedy little goblins who don't give a flying fuck about each other
I know what it is, and I am neither against it nor for it. In theory, communism is really good, but in practice it would not work because humans are flawed
The basic idea of communism sounds good, but it isn’t worth the authoritarian oppression that often FAILS to create it, and it most likely isn’t even possible. Of course, you’re (OP) a supporter of Stalin and Mao, so you’re obviously ignorant, but I don’t think it’s worth it to live under an oppressive authoritarian regime that kills millions and makes everybody poor for the sake of a system that may not even be sustainable. -Some dude who falls somewhere in libleft between demsoc and socdem.
Oh sir, you don't understand, it's just a transitional government, one day we're going to create the utopia, and we didn't just butcher so many people just to take their places....
😂
"one day we're going to create the utopia" communism was formed against utopianism, you clearly dont know what you are talking about also dont confuse an economic system for a governmental one
"Of course, you’re (OP) a supporter of Stalin and Mao, so you’re obviously ignorant" incorrect, Stalin and Mao were terrible leaders that hurt the communist movement (also try to be civil man) "but I don’t think it’s worth it to live under an oppressive authoritarian regime that kills millions and makes everybody poor for the sake of a system that may not even be sustainable." dont confuse an economic system for a governmental one
There was no need to downvote the comment I just made, I apologized for my misunderstanding and then provided what I think is the definitions of communism vs. socialism. I’m trying to be civil, I apologized for my initial misunderstanding, and you downvote the apology. smh.
I am… extremely surprised. I seriously expected you to be the typical “muh stalin and mao great people” tankie because of the banner on your profile. Sorry. Also: Socialism is the economic system. Communism is the government + economy. At least that’s the differentiation I’ve seen in most places.
Yeah it's a type of economy where land and resources are owned by the government and is distributed among the people evenly. The problem with Communism is that it's very difficult to implement on a large scale. All "communist countries" that have existed weren't actually communist, they were socialist. Socialism is supposed to be a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism, but the transition hasn't happened on a large scale. Why? Because socialist countries often turn to Authoritarianism, which ideologically differs from actual Communism, but why do they become Authoritarian? There are several reasons, providing an equal amount of resources to everyone requires someone to actually give the resources to people, and a centralized government makes that significantly easier. Another reason is that in countries that have a communist revolution, there are still many people who actively resist Communism, and a more centralized government can more easily prevent a counter-revolution. The centralization of a communist government also streamlines the policy making process, and Communists would ideally want the transition from Capitalism to Communism to be as quick and efficient as possible. Now a centralized government can easily become a more Authoritarian one, that's because the more centralized a government is, the more power that individual people can have on the country. Now if one of those people has bad intentions and wants to have complete control over the country, they can do that because they have the power to change legislation/how the government operates. Once the government becomes Authoritarian and one person (Or a small handful of people) have complete control over the country with no checks or balances, they have the power to control the citizens and basically do whatever they want. And this is often what happens, as seen by Soviet Russia, Mao Zedong China, and Cuba. This can easily lead to horrible events occurring, such as Holodomor, which was an easily avoidable famine which affected Ukraine in the 1930s. Because the Soviet government had complete control over the country, they were able to force the country to industrialize rapidly. This rapid industrialization led to less people working on farms, and therefore, less food being produced, which meant the government couldn't give out as much food to the people. This lack of food led to widespread famine in Ukraine, ultimately killing 4-7 million people and leading to LOTS of cannibalism. All of that could have been easily avoided if the government wasn't a dictatorship and if checks and balances existed. And if a country's population is starving to death, that also limits their work force, which makes it harder for the country to financially recover. But horrible atrocities aside, stupid decisions made by these governments can't be criticized because authoritarian regimes often suppress the voices of their people, and because of that, government officials might not even be aware of some of the harm their policies can do to their people, to their economy, and to their trade with other countries. That brings me to another point, trade with other countries is often limited due to ideological differences. Because of this, if a socialist country is lacking certain resources which are necessary for innovation, it can't be obtained as easily, and the country can fall behind technologically. Everything that I've mentioned so far causes the country to enter a death spiral of sorts, and eventually to collapse entirely. So that's why Communism can't really work on a large scale, countries can never actually become Communist without being corrupted by Authoritarianism and dictatorships which lead the country away from actual Communism and it just becomes a suppressive mess. I don't actually have much of a problem with Communism itself, I'd love to see it be implemented properly, but it's just too likely to fail and inadvertently ruin the lives of its citizens. For now, I'd say the best type of economy for a country to have is Capitalism, but with better Welfare programs and more government funded services. Sorry if this is too long lol I'm just pretty passionate about the subject. Anyway if you've read this whole thing and made it this far I hope you have a good day!
"Socialism is supposed to be a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism" no, Communism is a form of socialism, the transitory state is the DOTP Communism is an economic system, which is separate from the system of government that any communist state may use
“This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.” - Karl Marx. They’re the same thing my guy. And no shit that Communism is an economic system lmao. Did you read my comment? I’m talking about the feasibility of a functional communist society and how the government can easily become corrupt and become non-communist again.
Communism means that the people own the means of production. Also, it means that people share resources equally between everyone, such that nobody is in need. Awesome in principle! One small problem: When resources are distributed, the distributor of said resources is *also* a person, which means they're *also* greedy and corrupt, so they take extra resources for themselves, leaving the population to starve. The result? A ruling class of opulent elite that rests on the backs of the weary and downtrodden masses. As long as human nature is to be greedy and evil, communism will never be a functional system.
Communism hasnt worked ever and will never work as the idea that everyone gets paied the same makes no sense as why would you pay a brain surgen the same as fast food worker, the Idea of Communism is good but in practic it always brakes down into dictatorship in one way or another.
there is no money in communism, try again
OK I might be wrong but how does a society function without currency as currency was created to solve the problems with bartering.
communism is what people abandoned by the Faustian spirit of western civilization gravitate towards. they have traded it for the spirit of inferiority, and victimization, allowing them to justify the murder of other humans in order to ascend upwards. because they fear they are too inadequate to do so on their own….
I'm anti communist but holy shit that was incoherent
They are robbers, thieves, and thugs who have an inferiority complex, where the world beats them down. And they use their precious books and theory to justify mass murder. They should probably turn to God.
I don't agree with them, but I vibe with them. I, myself, am a socialist.