Why don't we have a communist society yet? I mean we could.

[ResetRPG]

Reset
In the modern sense, welfare is known as an aspect of Socialism.

Socialism has been so mis-defined and wrongly understood in the modern era, so I stick to marx when telling me about what socialism is. Sure, welfare is present in every society, but it's not a uniquely socialist thing. Welfare was in Nazi Germany as a means to serve the nation, the intent is what matters here, and the intent in the modern day is usually used as a means to preserve capital.

Industrialisation in Russia started way before the communists just as Russia was a major power BEFORE the communists. Peter was known as the father of the Russian navy and the person who expanded Russias access to the sea.

Throughout the entire 19th and beginning periods of the 20th Century, Russia was EXTREMELY far behind other world powers, in fact, they were still mostly agrarian with a weird feudal economic system, where even though the serfs were "free" the aristocratic land owning still kept the property and thus keeping them in that feudal system. The Series Five year plans is what really catapulted Soviet Russia into industrialization in the modern world. Sure, they may have initiated it, but they still toiled in feudalistic garbage for the next 100 years, so they weren't particularly effective at bringing about change.

Lastly, capitalism is not a type of government so much an economic model. It is much better to compare democracy with any authoritarian government.

This is such a cop out argument. The Capitalist state is wholly one entrenched with corruption and bribery. The Business elite controls the political elite through money and economic control. The Capitalist class requires the state to function insofar as to protect capital. Even then, using this extremely stringent view of capitalism, we can trace MILLIONS of deaths through starvation, thirst, bad working conditions, and if you wanna stretch it, alienation, so even on that front, capitalism is responsible for millions more deaths than socialism could ever have caused.

 

[DarkCorp]

Reset

While I concede that Stalin gets credit for industrializing Russia far more than the monarchy, I disagree with your assessment that Communism did it better.

If you take both systems at face value, at least Capitalism has made life better for those in the West. Communism on the other hand not only made life shittier for those being dominated, but also made life just as shitty at home.

On the concept of power. At least in the west, we have not only a balance of power but we can change out our leaders.

Communist Russia and China on the other hand are vastly different. To say Capitalism is vastly inferior to Communism is naivety at best and a outright lie at the worst.

 

[ResetRPG]

Reset

While I concede that Stalin gets credit for industrializing Russia far more than the monarchy, I disagree with your assessment that Communism did it better.

If you take both systems at face value, at least Capitalism has made life better for those in the West. Communism on the other hand not only made life shittier for those being dominated, but also made life just as shitty at home.

On the concept of power. At least in the west, we have not only a balance of power but we can change out our leaders.

Communist Russia and China on the other hand are vastly different. To say Capitalism is vastly inferior to Communism is naivety at best and a outright lie at the worst.

I guess so.

 

[Hassknecht]

This is such a cop out argument. The Capitalist state is wholly one entrenched with corruption and bribery. The Business elite controls the political elite through money and economic control. The Capitalist class requires the state to function insofar as to protect capital. Even then, using this extremely stringent view of capitalism, we can trace MILLIONS of deaths through starvation, thirst, bad working conditions, and if you wanna stretch it, alienation, so even on that front, capitalism is responsible for millions more deaths than socialism could ever have caused.

And yet, hunger and poverty worldwide has been going steadily down under capitalist systems. Of course, maybe not as fast as hunger and poverty went down in Ukraine after the Soviets took over, or in China during the Great Leap Forward, because, well, can't be hungry if you're already starved to death, eh?
Jokes aside, though, trying to pin every single death due to hunger and poverty in the world on capitalism just because it didn't prevent them yet to make it look better than the undeniable devastating famines the communist regimes actively caused is... Well, it's quite an achievement. I hope you're proud of it.
Where hunger and poverty killed people under capitalism, it was mostly already there. Where it killed people under communism, it was actively caused by it.

Fucking tankies...

 

[DarkCorp]

While Capitalism/Democracy has its failures, it also has built in emergency breaks.

Far from the conspiracy that Democracy is a tool for the elite, the elite do not install leaders, the people do. Far from being a dictatorship of the rich, democracy has a balance of power system to make sure not one person or branch of government has total control. Far from being the lapdog of the rich, in a democracy, politicians can be voted out of office, hence they have an obligation to their constituents, or risk removal. Elected officials have a healthy fear of the press, which could expose their corruption.

Authoritarian/Communist governments are more like the dictatorships that Reset attributes to democracy/capitalism.

There is no freedom of press and communist elite do not fear them. There is no mechanism for the proletariat to remove their corrupt leaders. The leader makes or has final say in all decisions with no dissent tolerated.

A good example would be if a country pissed off the president of America, they could still do business because the president does not have all the power. Good luck doing business with Russia or China if one pissed off Stalin, Putin, or Xi of the CPC.

Another example was when Richard Nixon, arguably a very powerful man, gave up power. No death, no war, no violence. Compare that with the SU and China, where changes in leadership almost always results in purges? Not even close.

 

[KingArthur]

I will say that direct Marxist philosophy, as you all probably know, is a multistep program culminating in what is essentially collectivist anarchy.

The problem is humanity. The state, in actual Communism, is supposed to take on a guiding role more than a complete ruling one. Were that properly implemented in reality, @ResetRPG, then I would absolutely agree with you that communism is a better economic standpoint than capitalism. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. People are people, and as such communist leaders often become purging maniacs with the sole desire to retain power, as @DarkCorp mentioned.

Humans are humans, and for Communism to actually work, there needs to be someone incorruptible in authority. Unfortunately no one is, especially in the third world countries that try communism to begin with; my way of seeing it is that capitalism is social Darwinism, and some prosper. In communism, the shit position many people are in is worsened or exacerbated by the communist government. End of the day, the Soviet Union industrializing Russia doesn’t count for shit when the standard of living actually goes down in the process.

 

[DarkCorp]

Capitalism may be unequal but most get a chance at doing better. The levels one can reach in wealth may be unequal, but it is generally agreed that upward movement is highly possible. Look no further than the .com boom where everyone thought they were the next Bill Gates but were actually Uwe Bolls.

Communism is equal, where everyone is equally poor, minus the elites. The ability for upward movement is strictly controlled by the government. Lastly, what is considered the good life in most communist countries would be considered middle class by western standards.

Lastly, Communism is at its core, the antithesis of Panem et Circenses, hence the overwhelming need for violent or draconian methods.

 

[ResetRPG]

And yet, hunger and poverty worldwide has been going steadily down under capitalist systems. Of course, maybe not as fast as hunger and poverty went down in Ukraine after the Soviets took over, or in China during the Great Leap Forward, because, well, can't be hungry if you're already starved to death, eh?

The conversation is raw numbers, and millions more are dead at the hands of capitalist oppressors. I'm not denying the holodomor or the failure of the Great Leap Forward, but capitalism has been nothing but a murderous and destructive system that relies on global imperialism to sustain it's bloated carcass. Why the fuck do you think we went to Iraq in the first place, to create a new democracy? No, it was a racket, just like Smedley Butler warned us of back in the 30s.

trying to pin every single death due to hunger and poverty in the world on capitalism

I pin the death in Capitalism countries, which is something you do with communism, so it's only fair to pin the death count of economic failings on the economic system which caused said failure. If you die from preventable causes then you should absolutely pin it. It's the same reason why I pin the 68,000 dying from lack of healthcare each year on capitalism.

it didn't prevent them yet to make it look better than the undeniable devastating famines the communist regimes actively caused is... Well, it's quite an achievement. I hope you're proud of it.

I hate having to use Tu Quoque, but seriously dude, Capitalism has also caused famines (significantly more than Socialism lol) in its bloody history.

Fucking tankies...

I don't particularly like the USSR or China, I just fucking hate Capitalism. Just because I say that Socialism improved the living standards in Russia, doesn't mean I'm like "HOLODOMOR IS NAZI PROPAGANDA" or "USSR DPRK PRC IS PERFECT, EVERY PIECE OF NEGATIVE MEDIA ON THEM IS WESTERN PROPAGANDA!"

 

[Deleted member 53669]

Communism has been tried and killed millions of people. Capitalism has been tried and has accomplished the same thing.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD.

 

[RangerBoo]

A communist society in the West? No thanks. We had that here in Washington with CHAZ/CHOP and we all saw how well that worked out. My favorite was the rape tents and homeless people doing Mortal Kombat in the dead garden.

 

[ResetRPG]

Capitalism may be unequal but most get a chance at doing better.

I think distributist populism and/or Social Democracy (with nationalization of essential services) is much better than Capitalism, much more focus on small property owning and community building.

 

[ResetRPG]

A communist society in the West? No thanks. We had that here in Washington with CHAZ/CHOP and we all saw how well that worked out. My favorite was the rape tents and homeless people doing Mortal Kombat in the dead garden.

I fucking hate the CHAZ dorks, those motherfuckers let a landlord take over the damn community

 

[Deleted member 53669]

YOU PATHETIC HUMANS HAVE NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Capitalism may be unequal but most get a chance at doing better. The levels one can reach in wealth may be unequal, but it is generally agreed that upward movement is highly possible.

I wouldn't be so sure about that one though. I mean if we simply look at the 18th century or even just the health care system during this pandemic it becomes somewhat obvious that within a capitalist system there is neither an incentive nor a reason to offer anyone chances because profit is the driving factor and if you can make a profit out of slavery and slaves this is the system the rulling classes will try to keep and defend.

The chances you're talking about happen only when someone, most of the time governments, start to implement some sort of distribution of wealth. This is what gave us public schools and infrastructure in the first place because someone at some point thought that it might be good to open those areas also to people that can not afford it if it wasn't public. Infact when you look trough out history you always found 'capitalists' so to speak, arguing against it something that's taken for granted today like a minimum in education where people can read or write was seen during the 18th century as a luxury that shouldn't be available to everyone. Same with living wages, pensions, public health care and many other social standards we have in most democracies today and take for granted not even realising how difficult it was actually get it a few generations ago. It was always doom-and-gloom before it was implemented with the same arguments we hear today, that no one would work anyone, no one would do the low wage jobs anymore, that it would crash the economy and so on ...

I don't think that capitalism is an evil monster but it is also in my opinion vastly overvalued as a force when it comes to innovation and improving standarts of living.

 

[ResetRPG]

YOU PATHETIC HUMANS HAVE NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.

Politics.jpg

 

[RangerBoo]

I fucking hate the CHAZ dorks, those motherfuckers let a landlord take over the damn community

According to rumors, he may have been a narc who was keeping taps on them so the FBI and local law enforcement could mass arrest them all. I hope it's true!

 

[Deleted member 53669]

YOUR CRIES FOR REVOLUTION FALL ON DEAF EARS EARTH-SCUM. YOU WORSHIP POWER YET YOU LIVE IN WEAKNESS. YOU WILL EASILY BE DESTROYED!

 

[DarkCorp]

Reset

As Kingarthur brought up, Communism without human flaws or in a very small society can work. Nobody wants more than the next as everyone has the same. However, in a much bigger society, without draconian control, equality cannot be enforced. One man gets a tv and then his neighbor wants a TV.

To each according to his needs is pretty much impossible as humans do not work this way unless confined to a closed island. I mean everyone has huts and eats from the forest, nobody has anything better.

Housing in Seattle and Cali is bad enough WITHOUT total government control. Giving the govt total control would be a complete fucking disaster. Already liberals are fleeing their high taxed and homeless infested states to red states, bringing their baggage with them. It is like they are completely oblivious to the fact that liberalism ruined their state in the first place.



Crni

When I mentioned upward mobility, I did not mean 1 percent. That is why I used the .com example. While the degree of upward mobility is unequal, movement is possible. This is certainly not so in a communist society.

Also, that is why I support a hybridized system of capitalism and socialism.

 

[Deleted member 53669]

FUCK THE POLICE.

Spoiler

 

[Crni Vuk]

While the degree of upward mobility is unequal, movement is possible.

Of course there is upward mobility I do not denny that.

All I am saying is that upward mobility is not an inherent trait of capitalism. Infact I would even make the argument the closer you get to capitalism the less upward mobility there will be. It's simply the logic of how wealth is accumulated since it has to come from somewhere after all.

This is certainly not so in a communist society.

To be fair in a communist society (hint not "socialist" society) it wouldn't be needed after all since one core principle in communism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. So infact a communist society if it was possible would have no upward mobility.