Opinions on Communism

Communism is stupid and would never ever not ever work in our modern society

Communism is rooted in that all people regardless of work, benefits or education will have the same things, and make as much money as the rest IIRC?.

but it would never work, no instance of modern communism has been that, instead the powerful has become more powerful and the powerless has become even more powerless, just like USSR, the government controlled everything, which is where the error lies.

to accomplish communism you'd have to pave everything down, and start on square one, and even then i have my doubts.
 
Draitex said:
Communism is rooted in that all people regardless of work, benefits or education will have the same things, and make as much money as the rest IIRC?
Click to expand...
The idea is suppose to be that technological advances make the amount of work required from the individual shrink down to a miniscule amount of time and effort, meaning the average guy only has to work 2 hours or so a day and receives payment based on what he needs. I know this sounds ridiculously optimistic but Communism was created in the middle of the Industrial Revolution, so I suppose it'd have made some sense back then.
You may have heard the communist saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!", well, that's it.
Along with this private ownership is abolished (so the state takes everything on behalf of the worker, though this is suppose to be a temporary measure, one of the end goals of communism is the abolition of government) and socio-economic classes disappear along with that.
Man, just saying their goals makes me wonder how anyone ever thought it was hypothetically possible.
Draitex said:
but it would never work, no instance of modern communism has been that, instead the powerful has become more powerful and the powerless has become even more powerless, just like USSR, the government controlled everything, which is where the error lies.
Click to expand...
The USSR and the other Marxist-Leninist States were hardline authoritarian socialists (it's even right there in the name, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), not communist, communism was just the purported endgoal of their policies.
Draitex said:
to accomplish communism you'd have to pave everything down, and start on square one, and even then i have my doubts.
Click to expand...
Not really, considering how much Communism relies on technological and societal progress.
 
Last edited:
Socialism is the system of the future though, at least if you look at it from a realistic point of view. Obviously I am not talking about the USSR or such shit. I mean the way how Sweden and Norway handle socialism.
 
Izak said:
The idea is that due to technological advances the amount of work required from the individual is shrunk down to a miniscule amount of time and effort, meaning the average guy only has to work 2 hours or so a day and receives payment based on what he needs. You may have heard the communist saying "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!", well that's it.
Along with this private ownership is abolished (so the state takes everything on behalf of the worker, though this is suppose to be a temporary measure, one of the end goals of communism is the abolition of government) and socio-economic classes disappear along with that.
Man, just saying their goals makes me wonder how anyone ever thought it was hypothetically possible.

The USSR and the other Marxist-Leninist States were hardline authoritarian socialists (it's even right there in the name, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), not communist, communism was just the purported endgoal of their policies.

Not really, considering how much Communism relies on technological and societal progress.
Click to expand...

Well then... I was wrong, but commuinsm in that regard looks incredibly easy to manipulate and corrupt to give those in power even more power, they simply need to avoid abolishing the government and they remain in control, or am I wrong there? :o

Crni Vuk said:
Socialism is the system of the future though, at least if you look at it from a realistic point of view. Obviously I am not talking about the USSR or such shit. I mean the way how Sweden and Norway handle socialism.
Click to expand...
As I am a swede i am curious what you mean, I never consider us ''socialitst''
 
Last edited:
Well, socialist in the sense that you usually pay more taxes in the Scandinavian nations compared to most other nations. And I use the term socialism very losley, to distinguish it from neo-liberalism and well mainly the american form of capitalism we see today. We all know that neither of those systems is a 'full' socialist or 'full' capitalist based economy. But it makes it easier in a discussion.
When it comes to the future, the Swedish model, is a lot better. At least some parts of it. Obviously it is not a perfect system.

Looking at our current economic model, as we apply it in most of the first world - including Scandinavia, it is not a model that can sustain it self in the future for ever. That's simply the reality when you do the math. 30% of the world population is currently consuming 40% of the worlds resoruces, just to keep their standard of living. It doesn't need a genious to understand that this can not go for ever. The resources and space on our planet, are simply limited. So far, we have been always capable of exploiting new sources, but that has a limitation. Particularly when you consider that by 2050 we will have most likely some 12 billion people runing around on this planet. I am not just talking about resources here, because you could easily say, well in 100-150 years we might have some serious space mining going on! Well yeah ... but you still have to support every human being somehow. And this goes much further then just having enough coper, gold or iron. What about the waste? Food? And living room? How much humans can this world support? By the way 'human' space exploration is still in its infancy. We are still not pushing hard enough here.

In any case, it is not realistic to expect everyone on this world to achieve the living standard of the average American or German, at least for now and the next few decades. And this is not some matter of, they just don't want to work/be succesfull!. The matter is, what if everyone was as successfull as we are, right now? Like I said around 1/3 of the worlds population, is consuming 40% of the resources to keep their current standard of living. Now imagine how many resources you need to push everyone to this standard. It will be hard to squeze out 120% resources of this planet. Even if we would try to be 100% efficient with everything - which is impossible, it doesn't seem realistic to expect everyone to be succesfull. Our current political and economical model doesn't even allow for it. You can not give everyone a large house, a car, iphones, HD TVs, even IF they could afford it. We have to stop to treat money like a resource and wasting raw materials like gold, oil, copper as like they would be endless. Unless you don't see self preservation as something valuable. In a physical world, endless growth is impossible.

Future generations, will have to achieve some kind of 'socialism' or at least adopt the idea of it that in some cases the well beeing of a society is more important then to allow every individual to achieve everything, you can write something like pursue of happyiness in your constitution, but if it is realistic, is a whole different question. I would not be surprised if in 100 or 150 years from now there will be laws in most nations that don't allow individuals to own to much money or resources. Maybe the production of food will be even heavily regulated, like meat. Meat production already now, contributes heavily to environmental damage, but soy production as well. So this isn't really only about meat. It's really the mass production and consumption of goods. More then we actually need.

No clue where or what the limits would be, the limit could be 1 million dollar per person or even less, maybe 10 000. Who knows. Depends on how much money the individual will need to earn in 150 years for a decent live. Limitations on wealth, might be in place, not because of some ideological reasons, but simply because it won't be affordable anymore for one individual to hold so much in resources and finances, if finances even play a role at all - you can't eat money after all.

If you have to decide to keep one person wealthy and healthy or a thousand, then it becomes a question of what is more valuable. And people that are hungry and desperate, are a very dangerous combination to any society.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Well, socialist in the sense that you usually pay more taxes in the Scandinavian nations compared to most other nations. And I use the term socialism very losley, to distinguish it from neo-liberalism and well mainly the american form of capitalism we see today. We all know that neither of those systems is a 'full' socialist or 'full' capitalist based economy. But it makes it easier in a discussion.
When it comes to the future, the Swedish model, is a lot better. At least some parts of it. Obviously it is not a perfect system.

Looking at our current economic model, as we apply it in most of the first world - including Scandinavia, it is not a model that can sustain it self in the future for ever. That's simply the reality when you do the math. 30% of the world population is currently consuming 40% of the worlds resoruces, just to keep their standard of living. It doesn't need a genious to understand that this can not go for ever. The resources and space on our planet, are simply limited. So far, we have been always capable of exploiting new sources, but that has a limitation. Particularly when you consider that by 2050 we will have most likely some 12 billion people runing around on this planet. I am not just talking about resources here, because you could easily say, well in 100-150 years we might have some serious space mining going on! Well yeah ... but you still have to support every human being somehow. And this goes much further then just having enough coper, gold or iron. What about the waste? Food? And living room? How much humans can this world support? By the way 'human' space exploration is still in its infancy. We are still not pushing hard enough here.

In any case, it is not realistic to expect everyone on this world to achieve the living standard of the average American or German, at least for now and the next few decades. And this is not some matter of, they just don't want to work/be succesfull!. The matter is, what if everyone was as successfull as we are, right now? Like I said around 1/3 of the worlds population, is consuming 40% of the resources to keep their current standard of living. Now imagine how many resources you need to push everyone to this standard. It will be hard to squeze out 120% resources of this planet. Even if we would try to be 100% efficient with everything - which is impossible, it doesn't seem realistic to expect everyone to be succesfull. Our current political and economical model doesn't even allow for it. You can not give everyone a large house, a car, iphones, HD TVs, even IF they could afford it. We have to stop to treat money like a resource and wasting raw materials like gold, oil, copper as like they would be endless. Unless you don't see self preservation as something valuable. In a physical world, endless growth is impossible.

Future generations, will have to achieve some kind of 'socialism' or at least adopt the idea of it that in some cases the well beeing of a society is more important then to allow every individual to achieve everything, you can write something like pursue of happyiness in your constitution, but if it is realistic, is a whole different question. I would not be surprised if in 100 or 150 years from now there will be laws in most nations that don't allow individuals to own to much money or resources. Maybe the production of food will be even heavily regulated, like meat. Meat production already now, contributes heavily to environmental damage, but soy production as well. So this isn't really only about meat. It's really the mass production and consumption of goods. More then we actually need.

No clue where or what the limits would be, the limit could be 1 million dollar per person or even less, maybe 10 000. Who knows. Depends on how much money the individual will need to earn in 150 years for a decent live. Limitations on wealth, might be in place, not because of some ideological reasons, but simply because it won't be affordable anymore for one individual to hold so much in resources and finances, if finances even play a role at all - you can't eat money after all.

If you have to decide to keep one person wealthy and healthy or a thousand, then it becomes a question of what is more valuable. And people that are hungry and desperate, are a very dangerous combination to any society.
Click to expand...
30 % of the population consuming 40 % of the resources isn't a big deal at all. And even if it was, is there any reliable manner in which we can measure these "world resources" or is it just commie conjecture based solely on standardized monetary value?

And even if this was true, why should we care? Are we not the ones benefiting from this?
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
30 % of the population consuming 40 % of the resources isn't a big deal at all. And even if it was, is there any reliable manner in which we can measure these "world resources" or is it just commie conjecture based solely on standardized monetary value?
Click to expand...
Numbers that are a rough estimation, very conservative estimations though. But yes, there are 'reliable' ways in how to measure it. But even if you could not, if you just use your own logic, reasoning and common sense you should at some point come to the realisation that we are living in a world with limits. This planet might be fucking huge, but it is after all, a physical object. That means the number of resources you can squeze out of it, are also limited. And a growing population with a growing demand, will at some point run into said limitations. Does it matter if we hit them in 100 or 500 years?

Preservation and taking care of your environment, for your own sake and those of future generations is a good thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/mar/30/environment.research

There is a lot of research about this subject. And while the details might sometimes be a bit different, the message is always the same. This planet can not support a limitless amount of humans.

However, I don't claim to be an expert, but you could make it a very basic game of math, really. And everyone who was in grade school, should be capable to figure it out.

I am not going to look up the numbers for now, simply because I am lazy as fuck, but it's not about the numbers anway, but the idea behind it.

For example, go and look up how much nutrition a human needs, just to survive. Now look at the best sources for it, be it mushrooms, meat, or what ever. And then look at the resources it takes to get those. And then see how much the planet can provide you with said resources, be it space for agriculture, transporation, storage what ever. And now you know the bare minimum of how many humans our planet can sustain, in the most ideal condition. - which brings us to the next point, ideal conditions can not be achieved.

Could the ideal number be 20 billion? Or 25 billion humans? What do I know, like I said it is not about the numbers here. But what I know, it's not limitless. Now a human needs a lot more then 'just' food, most humans also need shelter, clothes, and most probably something for entertainment would be also nice.

And the number of how many humans this planet can support, is already shrinking. By a lot.

This is really not rocket science. And if you can believe most scientists, it seems we are nearing this tipping point, where the planet won't be capable of supporting humanity anymore at this rate. At least if we factor in our current standar of living, with all the overproduction and overconsumption.

Now, since creating a new habitable planet is out of the question - at least for some time, there is pretty much only one realistic option left. Changing our habits. Because it is very unlikely that someone will find a way to multiply the resources of our planet. Even if we are 100% efficient with EVERY resource there is, which is impossible anyway, we will STILL hit a limit at some point. Another way, could be also to cut humanity in half ... I guess ... and who knows, this might happen as well. World War 3 maybe? A very huge famine? Natural disaster? We will see. Maybe in 150 years when like 4 billion people died, we will do some serious changes, like, yeah, we tried this capitalism thingy for 200 years, and yeah it didn't really work that well, we should try to avoid it in the future.

Illuminati Confirmed! said:
And even if this was true, why should we care? Are we not the ones benefiting from this?
Click to expand...
I am in my 30s now. Sure, why the fuck should I care what happens in 70 years? I most likely will be dead by that point, or well close to death. But if you ever want to have children, and grand children, well and as Hassknecht said, basic empathy, foresight and such, then it should at least make you think.

On the other side, a certain amount of self preservation is a very healthy thing. You should try to conserve resources for the same reason as why you don't push your body always to 120% of what it can deal with. Besides, the world will not simply colapse from one day to the next. It is a gradual process. Some of the issues will hit us in 25, 50, 70 and well 100 years from now.

Polution from China, is already detectable in Europe and the US, raising see levels will affect people in Venice, Italy in the next 50 years, the garbage trail in the ocean will grow and affect more people and so on.

I take it that you're younger then I am - just a guess - so that means you will eventually have to face more of those effects than I do. So you should have a very keen interest at least in your own future.

You could as well ask, why you don't shoot your self in the own foot. Logic, I guess?
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Well, socialist in the sense that you usually pay more taxes in the Scandinavian nations compared to most other nations. And I use the term socialism very losley, to distinguish it from neo-liberalism and well mainly the american form of capitalism we see today. We all know that neither of those systems is a 'full' socialist or 'full' capitalist based economy. But it makes it easier in a discussion.
When it comes to the future, the Swedish model, is a lot better. At least some parts of it. Obviously it is not a perfect system.
.
Click to expand...
yeah our taxes are high agreed, but the benefits far outweigh the negative in my opinion.

I mean healthcare is free, I mean if you break a leg and need ambulance, you basically only pay for the ambulance, not the treatment.
going into the emergency room, we don't need to pay anything

we pay for check ups, and some things like medicine depending on what kind of medicine of course


I like that our infrastructure and roads etc are very well maintained, even where i live in a small town of less than 2k of people.

I hate however.

I live in the far northern sweden, and our rates, enviroments etc is decided by fuckheads in stockholm who think we ride bears to work (some people actually think that we're all sami ... And they live IN sweden...)

For example, wind power, is placed in abundance in northland, and really it fuckin ruins the nice enviroment here, I am fine with it being here, but we got the vast majority of em and most of the power still goes to stockholm, gothenburg and malmö.

us who live in small towns feel like we're getting the shaft, for the benefits of the people in big cities, otherwise i love most things about sweden and it's current system.

although i could care less about politics, since i don't vote.
 
Draitex said:
Communism is rooted in that all people regardless of work, benefits or education will have the same things, and make as much money as the rest IIRC?.
Click to expand...
'Each according to their ability, each according to their needs.'

Communists want to install an equity system, which creates incentives for hard work and gives to the needy. Sadly, the only way this is possible (and I believe Marx may have mentioned this) is the transition occurring in a highly stable, wealthy and unified country. A peaceful transition from a capitalist super state (as in highly secure and stable, but lacking in income equality [because the harder you work, does not mean the more you get] and the presence of a hard working lower class) to a communist is the only way to happen. Violence destroys the chances because it ruins the economy and destabilizes the country.
 
What do you expect, when most people confuse Lenism or Stalinism with Communism and don't even know the material really. Just to say this, I am not saying that a communist system would fix all the issues, or that it is even applicable in real life. It is first and foremost a philosophy, ideas that are used as basis for discussions and thoughts.

Yet for some reason many people that treat capitalism as the only fair system - which it obviously is not, act like communism is the pure evil. I wonder why.
 
What do I think about communism... that's a tough one.

Jimmy rustling alert, somewhat religious rant.

The saying goes that those who read Marx believe in what he says, but those who understand him rebuke what he says. I am one of the latter. The Soviet Union was a very terrible regime ran by evil men. They starved people, tried to stop the religious life there, and the quality of life was generally terrible, at least that's what my history books said. The state communism that the Soviet Union was ran on materialistic ideas which promoted a "utopia" even though that is a terrible cause and should not be attempted. Only the kingdom of heaven is a true utopia, and God is its king. Forcing a state to become entirely secular, and its citizens to convert to atheism has been the blunder of many. If we do not have the virtues and the word that Christ has tried to give us, then what do we have? I hope that in the future people who still think that these ideologies are good for all mankind can think about that gesture for a second, and the implications of that.
 
Utopias have something in common in all forms they come in. They all catch fire far to easily. Communism, and its leading ideologies such as socialism, are the same. Capitalism is none the better.

At the end of the day man will still be man's greatest enemy regardless of your philosophy; despite how pointless this all is.
 
I'd prefer a fascist society dedicated to leaving the planet, but capitalist is fine as well as long as it eventually gets to that point.
 
Lance said:
What do I think about communism... that's a tough one.

Jimmy rustling alert, somewhat religious rant.

The saying goes that those who read Marx believe in what he says, but those who understand him rebuke what he says. I am one of the latter. The Soviet Union was a very terrible regime ran by evil men. They starved people, tried to stop the religious life there, and the quality of life was generally terrible, at least that's what my history books said. The state communism that the Soviet Union was ran on materialistic ideas which promoted a "utopia" even though that is a terrible cause and should not be attempted. Only the kingdom of heaven is a true utopia, and God is its king. Forcing a state to become entirely secular, and its citizens to convert to atheism has been the blunder of many. If we do not have the virtues and the word that Christ has tried to give us, then what do we have? I hope that in the future people who still think that these ideologies are good for all mankind can think about that gesture for a second, and the implications of that.
Click to expand...
I personally find the attempt at freeing the poor from the oppressive and opulent church as admirable, especially considering how wealthy the priests lived in comparison. Not to forget the Russian Church supported openly the rule of the Czar, who was incompetent and rather cruel when it came to opposition. Religion was basically a drug (opiate, as described by Marx) to keep the poor loyal not only through patriotism but through a shared religion. This allowed the nobility to get away with many things, based on that they were 'chosen' by God.
 
It also made nations and areas hard to taint. Europe, including the Eastern portion, of the 1800s and early 1900s would not be going through what is currently happening to modern Europe regarding Muslim migration.

Religion offers great benefits to keeping your area of the world stable for long periods of time. Including culture assimilated into it. Communism simply wipes the slate clean. China is a great example of this as Mao destroyed many historical works.
 
Mr. Necrosis said:
It also made nations and areas hard to taint. Europe, including the Eastern portion, of the 1800s and early 1900s would not be going through what is currently happening to modern Europe regarding Muslim migration.

Religion offers great benefits to keeping your area of the world stable for long periods of time. Including culture assimilated into it. Communism simply wipes the slate clean. China is a great example of this as Mao destroyed many historical works.
Click to expand...
Taint? I'm confused, what is this malignant 'taint' you mention? You're right. They also wouldn't have clean water, working plumbing, electric lights, decent healthcare and any kind of education system. They'd also be ignorant, oppressed and poor.
 
Your idea of the religious is seemingly low. They are the same amount of human that you are; capable of the same feats you are. Mind you the many great Western works were kept alive, in Latin, by the Church. The West would have lost many to Muslim invaders of the past without; or Persian before them.

Taint as in any anti-influences to the area. Corruption would also be a corresponding word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top