This thread is permanently archived
Arguments for communism
| >>356211
The problem is, that it's not really clear what communism is. Different people have different views, expections and definitions of it.
| From what I understand there's different schools of thoughts like Maoism and Marxism, so maybe explaining the different schools/most popular views would give me an idea?
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies
| https://www.reddit.com/r/communism101/wiki/index
| Sharing is good.
| >>356688
Communism requires the threat of force, which is not charity. Noticeably, charity giving drops linear to the growth of the welfare state
| Anarchist communism seems far more healthy when it comes to any horizontal distribution of power, and has been proven on a number of occasions, though usually on smaller scales. Notably during the spanish civil war, the communists had a pretty strong anarchist community that repurposed tractors as tanks and lived communally like a non-nuclear family would. Was v nice till the fascists wiped them out.
| well in this case the best solution would be to stop making big communities and make small communist and otarcist communities which sustain themselve without abuse of ressources. Howether that mean ditching all of our technology because no one could sustain it without a greater ways to make communities work wich is the source of our probleme today
| >>357042
Not necessarily. The only reason these anarchist communities are so small is because they are usually established too late in the development of a society, or because they're snuffed out by authoritarian nations/regimes. Ive always imagined a tight network of small communities interlinked by a larger utilities network. Each community is individual, but still contribute to one another through co-opting the maintainance.
| the thing though, >>677fe2 i think this kind of system should be called something other than communisme.
| >Communism is elecrification and soviet power.
Lenin
| >>357457
Communism is what it is though. Any name aside fron that would be misleading or outright wrong. There are plenty of labels like "post-civ anarchism" or something but at it's heart it's pretty much communism.
| sharing is caring
| If you want to destabilise a society and set up conditions conductive to genocide then communism seems to be a good choice.
| learn about it first:
https://youtu.be/ChOIfV9rSpU
| >>358822
But that's impossible in the face of modern technology. You will always be dependent on the blokes who operate the mobile phone network, who maintain utilities like internet access, who manufacture parts to repair your machinery, who enforce some semblance of order, & on & on. You could not enjoy the life I bet you do now without this modern feudalism.
That's why Ted Kaczynski turned to anarcho-primitivism. See "Industrial Society & its Future."
| >>359360
& this, OP, is about the only argument I've ever gotten for communism as an economic system. "It'll work miracles! All the problems of modern society will just melt away, if only we turn to communism!"
"But how? What makes it work?" we ask in return, only to be answered by a depressingly well practiced chorus of "Because it's communism," to be followed perhaps by explanations of what successful communism would not look like.
| Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump are walking arguments for communism
| commies are the filty bottom feeders of the world, man the fuck up and stop being scummy rats.
| Poor make themselfs poor, just have 3 sources of passive income and smart spending. you would be rich, insted of sitting around cryimg about how life is hard. Buck The Fuck up and get your life together like a adult
| >>359504 lol this is what porkie scum actually believe while poor get poorer and rich get richer by exploiting of the lower classes
| we are 99% procent!
| >>359504
This works just for a few, and only for those who manage to fool others and let them make the work for them.
| >>359399
Thank you, thank you thank you. At last I find someone with an actual argument.
Now to address that argument.
Simply distributing the consumer spending portion of the current GDP amongst the workforce would indeed increase the median income dramatically. My issue comes with the formation of the command economy.
The growth your author describes was that experienced under Stalin's forced collectivization, so let's not count on that. Despite its initial burst...
| ...the Soviet economy never came close to matching the American one. Furthermore, command economies were acknowledged even by the Eastern Bloc to be more volatile than market economies, so you couldn't rely on your income. Despite their volatility, they're also inherently unresponsive to what people actually want, in addition to being historically much less efficient with their resources. Overall, I believe it's a dangerous trade to make on the basis of simple GDP/c calculations.
| I'd be completely for employment laws reminiscent of those from the SU, using state croporations to generate jobs similar to the CCC, & imposing a limit that no employee of a corporation can pull down more than a specified ratio to what the lowest paid employee of that company or any of its subsidiaries makes, or would if they consistently worked full time. I feel that'd address the basis of the argument without a potentially very dangerous overhaul of the entire economic system.
| My issue is that even on the basis of work equality things are impossible. There is specialized labor that requires a person educating themselves in a particular field and they need some sort of economical motivation to do so. Without one you get the effect of a mass of people not working particularly hard and causing major losses and a worse overall work discipline. This was not adressed by the Communists that this board shills.
| I could also go on a tangent that the "equality" that these systems speak of has the secret function of relying on Capitalist production. And the problem is there is no good destinction on how non capitalist production would work. What mentioned before is a phenomena that happened in the Eastern Bloc when equality was attempted to be enforced. People speak of the 1% but even then, the "poor people" of the developed world earn more than the wealthy Communist party member.
| These points are usually simply argued as either "not real Socialism/Communism" or "Capitalism destroyed it". Communism is only viable as a method of critiquing and regulating Capitalism but it is not a well functioning economical or political system.
The worst thing is I met a commie that isn't an anarchist. They don't mind the capitalist system while applying regulation and they see a stateless situation as impossible. It's just that Danger/u/'s community is utter shit.
| in my country was won communism in co-party day ago... creepy
| >>359715 non anarchists commie? like Marxist-Leninist? I think they are actually more cautious bunch, because they believe we need to have transitionary period to from capitalism to communism while most ancoms just want communism instantly which is kinda ridiculous
| >>360391 They don't want a transition. Essentially they simply want Socialism with capitalist production in place of the state alongside some idea of internationalism. It's quite a bit easier to debate stuff with them as a result and we end up agreeing on stuff instead of one side eating at the other.
| Communism as well as most forms of government are susceptible to a little something called human nature? But from what history has seen communism seems to decay quickly and leave little but suffering masses. Good in theory. But it has not and never will be executed well. Of course I like to think that if I had a say in anything I'd love to be a dictator.
Tldr: fuck commies.
| >>360514 "hur dur dur human nature" human nature is inherently cooperative not "evil" or something. And no regular worker suffered under socialism and if you believe otherwise you are brainwashed by capitalists.
| >>360475 I'm not even a Communist or Socialist. But you can't deny that, not just the USSR, but the Eastern Bloc in general had a lot of similarities to the Capitalist world. And you can't deny that there were indeed poor people in these countries and there was exploitation. Same with how there's people that have a much higher material base compared to the average Joe factory worker (excluding the "privileged" industries that pay more, such as military connected ones).
| >>360554 in USSR workers owned means of production through state, that makes it socialist not capitalist. It would only be capitalist if free market enterprises had existed.
| >>360607
Formerly you are right. Practically workers had no power in the USSR. All power was autocratically in the hand of communist-party elites. They were simmiliar to enterpreneurs in "free" market.
| >>360724 but communist party members were voted through the local soviets, how is that undemocratic?
| >>360743 because the party chooses wgo the people can choose. Anyone else is invalid, and the soviets communist party screened every potential candidate so that the candidate aligned with the partys interest, not the people. Thats what's wrong with state/authoritarian communism.
| >>360743
The local soviets did not really had much political power. In a centralized planned economy the power comes from the central plan comitee, and all subordinated units have to execute it. There was no posibillity of feedback from local councils up to the party leaders.
Also the party-elites selected who was electable in the councils. It is no coincidence, that most of the powerful ex-communist elites are now oligarchs or conservative, neoliberal or far-right politicians.
| The lack of feedback from the bottom of the hierarchy plus the lack on information about economic relevant information was the reason the soviet union was not the peoples paradise it wanted to be.
I'm sure there would have been ways to do it much better and there still are. And I'm sure that capitalism in it's current form will lead humanity again straight into a catastrophe, which will make stalinism and maoism look like a childrens birthday party.
This thread is permanently archived
| I've noticed that there are people around that think communism is a viable economic system, and I'm curious as to why. I've looked around for reasons but all I get is "it will end class warfare and life will be better", so if any communists could explain why they believe in communism that'd be coolio