This thread is permanently archived
Communist x capitalism is stupid
| maybe
| wowe centrist extrimist.
| Here's my viewpoint. We live in a complex world with complex problems that require complex solutions, and thus, no one easy system or answer will solve our complex problems. We also live in a world run by imperfect humans who find imperfect solutions.
| Some could argue that by making small easy solutions work together we can make it to the complicated answer...
Unfortunately, that plan is out of the question, because it will favor some of us, so the others are gonna complain so hard that we'll backpedal.
As you said, it takes only "some fuckers" to screw something up. So what about all the others staying silent ? Fucking react already.
As if it was that simple tho...
| Sure nothing will be perfect, but it's not enough to look at people, we have to look at systems when there are a lot of people involved. If democracy is extended to every part of society, then we'll just be up against human nature, cultural problems etc like centrists think is true now. But if we're organized around power structures that reproduce themselves at the cost of other people, then the decisions made that way will inherently be bad for anything except that priority
| Either humanity will stuck/fall back in barbary over and over again with capitalism or communism will succeed one day.
All known "communist" and "socialist" regimes were and are until now in fact autocratic arrangements with capitalism. In the end they only overcame/broke outdated feudal and colonial structures, paving the way for bourgeois capitalism. Capitalism is currently with no doubt and rarely questioned the world dominating economical system and ideology - but it'll crash.
| red+blue=gay coloer
gay gov!
| Capitalism kills less people and actually produces stuff but it's definitely not the be all end all. Something better will come around but it's not Communism, at least not while competition is needed to promote advancement and overcome scarcity. Give it a hundred years or so and maybe a collective can actually be managed without making a dictatorship.
| >>650692
>competition is needed to promote advancement and overcome scarcity
The problem is, that these assumptions are nothing but pure ideology. While it is true that competition partially can be a motivator in certain cases in many cases it also lead to dumb and highly destructive behavior. Capitalist competition ideology also subjects all other important factors for human development: Collaboration, trust, spirit of discovery/curiosity, love, the will to surpass yourself, etc.
| >>650692
>Something better will come around but it's not Communism
First of all it won't suddenly "come around". It has to be done by conscious people. And personally I don't care what it'll be called. I'm just annoyed by highly ideologized blockheads that get instantly allergic shocks by only hearing the word "communism".
| >>650692
>Give it a hundred years or so and maybe a collective can actually be managed without making a dictatorship.
What do you thing will happen in hundred years or so that changes things so fundamentally that things could work that today are seen as impossible? Humans biologically haven't changed that much and I think they won't change that much in the future. The only thing changing is our growing knowledge. And we already know enough to make it better than we actually do.
| >>650692
I'm not okay to say dictatorships are bad.
Sometimes they're an okay transition toward a more flexible repartition of power.
In times of crisis, some eastern coutries can give full powers to one entity, essentially turning it into a dictatorship.
It turned out not completely to shit for France, for instance.
Arguably, that power also has already been abused of. But it's not EVIL in itself.
| >>650711
>Arguably, that power also has already been abused of. But it's not EVIL in itself.
Power corrupts, total power corrupts total. And yes power isn't evil in itself. It's a matter of handling AND distribution. Distributing power may has its price, but it's worth it. The risk of power being abused if possessed by too few individuals is just too high in exchange for the small chance and rare case of having a smart leader who knows how to deal reasonable with power.
| >>650711
Do you even process the information you type?
If you do, you should understand why nobody outside of your bubble likes you.
| >>650732
You could easily have read an apology of dictatorship in my post, and perhaps by extension of the atrocities that they have been committing.
It was not.
| >>650692
>Capitalism kills less people and actually produces stuff
Gosh, capitalism neither kills people nor does it produce stuff. Capitalism is nothing but an economical system where the production means are private property. It's people that kill people and it's people who produce stuff.
And yes capitalism as it is actually divides people into capitalist and working class with diametrical interests, which causes many trouble including people exploiting/killing people and nature.
| >>650692
>Capitalism kills less people and actually produces stuff
I'm not sure, but at some point the "communist" USSR and the PCR also killed less people and actually produced stuff. The PCR even outperformed production of "capitalist" countries. Either you have to admit, that communism actually works or that things being labeled as communism actually aren't.
| >>650819 I mean, it's not communism but the point is that those systems were aspiring to become communist. So people will lump them together because one is a stepping stone to the other, meaning that if that stone crumbles then communism will not be attainable and is thus a non-working system.
At least, not with that approach or that societal consciousness.
I do agree though, it's disingenuous to actually regard them as the same.
| AI DRIVEN THIRD POSITION CREDIT SYSTEM FOR THE WIN
| >>650962
Your "AI" doesn't change anything as long it is developed with capitalists logic in mind. The question is who owns the "AI" or at least the recipe for it?
And "credit systems" only continue the capitalist economisation/monetarisation of society. It doesn't change the tendency of separation of classes. At one point you'll have people who can effort to behave like assholes and others who have to serve without resistance. Well, it's already like that tbh...
| >>650957
>I do agree though, it's disingenuous to actually regard them as the same.
I would go even further and say that it's already disingenuous to regard the USSR as the same from start to the beginning. The leninist civil-war era was different from stalinism - which also included WW2. And the post-stalinist era was also a different story. In fact most of time pro-capitalist western economists and politicians were more concerned about soviet success than about human rights.
| Afterwards it's easy to laugh about the USSRs lack of economic efficiency, the absence of fancy consumer goods, corruption, bureaucracy, and violation of human rights. But it's quite dishonest to say those problems weren't decreased over time and that the west always knew it better. It's not like autocracy, oppression, famine, poverty and absurd bureaucracy was unknown to the capitalist world - and it still isn't.
| I'm tired about people whining about evil communists in the past instead facing present problems, just because it may even only touch some peoples capitalist dogma.
| >>651260
nobody owns it and it's focused on maximum efficiency
you expect human whims to apply to an algorithm?
your logic is flawed commie...
>>651266
i'm tired about people whining about evil national socialist in the past instead facing present problems, just because it may even only touch some peoples zionist dogma
| >>651295
Well no one really cares what you find tiring or not.
The rest of the world learns from history and national socialism have never worked in our favor. Quite the opposite in fact. It's something everyone with real arguments wants to avoid and it's been debated into the ground numerous times. That's why national socialism followers resorts to propaganda, logical fallacies and online spamming because they've lost every mature debate.
| >>651295
I wouldn't point out the flaws in other people's logic if you believe a self-owned AI with 0 bugs or faults to be a realistic achievement...
| >>651317
i lol at the logical nonsense your sentence is build with
and yeah it's realistic. at some point people didn't believe you could fly with big metal birds. if you have a caveman brain then your ambitions are certainly zero except maybe eat fruit and take a shit.
| >>651320
Prove the opposite instead of grinning like a moron.
I can assure you that we can't develop a self-governed AI and not have people trying to hold/wrestle control over it.
Also we don't even have the data on how to design a "credit system" that fixes all our problems. Let alone be able to implement it without huge resistance from wealthy and powerful people.
"I don't know how but it may be possible in the future" is not a concept of advancement.
It's incredibly naive.
| >>651320
Your idea is 100% idealism and not an ounce grounded in what is actually realistically possible.
| >>651295
Nazism and zionism are not antagonizing each other at all. In fact they go pretty well along.
Also you ignore a massive difference between "national socialism" and "communism". Nazism, which only contains the word socialism for propaganda and not for ideological reasons, was based on the (scientifically wrong) assumption of different and inequal human races. Communism was based on the correct observation of economical classes and a still up to date analysis on capitalism.
| >>651295
Lol, you took my ID...
>nobody owns it and it's focused on maximum efficiency
Nobody owns it? So it would be an individual being on its own? Would it have civil rights then? Or would you put it in chains to make sure it serves humanity? How and who will control it? Maybe your AI becomes a more powerful being than any human. And at some point it looses interest in maintaining human societies...
I'm not sure if you really know what you're talking about...
| >>651295
I want that people have the freedom of choice what to do and what to become. If this is is flawed commie logic to you, you probably forgot what the advocates of capitalism promised the people most of the time: Freedom of choice and individual self-determination. As the time goes on and on it becomes more and more obvious this promise could only be kept temporarily. And now you cry for a superior omniscient technology that rules autocratically against peoples freedom.
| >>651295
First we had to trust in fathomless god(s) and their chosen ones, then we had to trust in the complex magic of markets summoning a fair invisible hand spawning out of competing egoistic individuals and now you want us to obey just another human created god called "AI". I don't see any progress in your suggestions.
| You already are not allowed to become whatever you may want. You can try, but if it goes against law, you will be given trouble (need to hide, run...).
On top of this, I can't see where it's set that giving credit to people is synonymous with enslaving them.
That's precisely because we know AI is dangerous that we can use it to help ourselves.
Not saying it's the best or anything. Just saying it could be worth something.
This thread is permanently archived
| No sytem works right in society cuz most humans are dumb, lazy or greedy, if we werent all that even anarchy could work, its all good until some fuckers decides to exploit something and ruin it for everybody, they start creating fights and pseudo enslavement aka colonization, just look at the internet and what sjws have done with the midia, if people tryied to cooperate or not fuck each other we wouldnt be having pandemics, political segregation, raceism, war,poverty or starvation