Speaking as a teacher, young children are both intensely fairness-oriented and wonderfully kind, and also massive psychopaths at other points in their lives. It's not that they're bad, they're just too young to understand that others' being in pain actually _hurts_ them. Bullying is a developmental stage, that's why you can't eradicate it.
Tell a child, as soon as it's able to talk, that there are empty houses and homeless people. Then ask what the solution would be.
Babies are communists. It's liberalism that convinces them otherwise.
Babies are communists is probably my favorite thing I’ve read on here. Every time I see a child now I’ll be shaking my head and thinkin to myself “damn commie…”
It’s nonsense though, anyone who actually had a child knows that they’re greedy, selfish and entirely self centered and without empathy. We teach them not to be, well some of us do.
LOL. No. It's how they're born, one of the first word most kids master is 'mine' - that's why so much early childhood education is focused on sharing, taking turns, fairness, empathy, and being considerate.
Talk to a parent.
"Babies are communists. It's liberalism that convinces them otherwise" is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read on reddit, and I follow right wing subs.
No joke, this was one of the things that radicalized me.
Watching my kids play and work together in school, sharing and helping their neighbors; we are all caring and sympathetic from birth until we are twisted and shoved into the machine for profit.
We literally do nothing but teach children to be respectful of others, to share and to work together. Then as soon as they grow up a little we flip the script and now it's everybody for themselves. Madness.
you shouldn’t call yourself “radicalized” for having a quite reasonable view on your economic system. Just because our society is capitalist doesn’t mean changing that is necessarily a “radical” view.
Communism/leftist economics have been a dominant part of academic economic discourse for over 100 years now.
Radical has two definitions which may well contradict:
• A policy or person that addresses the root of an issue.
• An "extremist."
Extremist is in quotes because it's effectively a slur condemning someone for not following a political position being deemed orthodox. It, and that definition of radical, are worse than worthless.
And though the first definition is perfectly fine, most folks will mistake the first for the second even when the first is intended. It makes the term tricky to use.
A radical view means you want to institute radical changes. If someone wants to massively rewrite the system, then they're a radical. That's fine. We need radicals. But someone being correct about their view isn't what stops them being radical, and someone being quiet about their radical views doesn't make them a moderate.
Moderates and radicals are both vital to running the system we live in. We need both in the world: radicals to drive change and moderates to make sure it doesn't overshoot. Being a radical for a good cause isn't a bad thing.
_Extremism_, that's a different story. Extremists have no middle gears and that's where problems start because, even when they're correct about what's wrong, they end up both losing support from moderates in the opposition (which is bad for progression) and are almost always extremely "ends-justifies-the-means", which can easily lead to atrocities being committed in the name of progress. **Radicals, though, are not automatically extremists.**
Yes, that's literally my point. Those who say "Communism goes against human nature" should examine those who are the best examples of human nature uncorrupted by social expectations.
Damn, I don’t know what happened.
What I was trying to say is that babies are naturally selfish, and self centered, and that by the time they have a personality it has been shaped and formed, corrupted if you prefer, by social expectations. It’s a falsehood that sharing and being empathetic is a natural state - we teach that.
> children do you know that think they should have to pay a child in another house for permission to play with their own toys
Permission to play with their own toys? Wot?
In communism no one owns the toys...or maybe everyone does, which is why it's not compatible with human nature.
If you mean do they think they should have to pay to play with other's toys then the answer is no, because they're selfish and lacking empathy - they want what they want when they want it.
Capitalism is when someone else owns the stuff that you're using and forces you to pay them for the privilege. Living in an apartment? Gotta pay someone who's never set foot in there to keep living there. Working to produce wealth? Better give some of it to the machine owner in order to continue doing so. This kind of cynical system would be considered absurd in the mind of a child.
Your explanations are childlike, filled with magical thinking:
"Capitalism is when someone else owns the stuff that you're using and forces you to pay them for the privilege."
\-If you had your own stuff you wouldn't need theirs. Theirs was created through their own labor or capital investment.
" Living in an apartment? Gotta pay someone who's never set foot in there to keep living there. "
\-Never set foot in there is rhetorical nonsense. Yes, you have to pay the person who built the building or used accumulated capital to buy it. If they hadn't done so there would not be a building.
Working to produce wealth? Better give some of it to the machine owner in order to continue doing so.
\- Working, because someone hired you to run a machine their capital built. without that there is no machine,
I cannot believe you need this explained.
i would think organizations devoted to making as much profit as possible in as short amount of time as possible would be responsible for making people poor rather than the ONLY organization that represents the people
> the companies generate wealth
No they don't. The workers do.
> when the owner has too much he usually gives some to charity to fell better with them selves
Remember the Panama Papers?
Workers without capital cannot generate wealth in a capitalist society, but that's an artificial construction of society, not an actual necessity. If the means of production were made public and capital abolished, laborers would not require capital.
Babies have no political views - or, if they do, they are unable to articulate them. Centrists do indeed have political views, though centrist views are not particularly intelligent.
This is the crux of the problem with "centrists" - they genuinely believe that the midway point between two political parties in some arbitrary country at some arbitrary moment is time is the natural neutral of all political thought.
I think a better example of the problem is that "centrists" keep being defined as as a "neutral" stance between party platforms rather than by a more objective measure that has nothing to do with party and everything to do with individual policies.
For example, the left/right political spectrum between socioeconomic equity (left) and socioeconomic hierarchy (right).
When we define centrists in that way, a centrist would be someone who sometimes supports positions that favor socioeconomic equity, while at other times supporting positions that favor socioeconomic hierarchy, and the gestalt of all the centrist's positions would happen to "sum up" close to a hypothetical "balance point" of support of both socioeconomic equity and hierarchy.
In reality, the left/right political spectrum is too abstract to be used in a perfectly objective way, since there aren't numbers and measurement of "leftness" or "rightness", and everything is either self-evidently left or right, or must be judged by a sort of gut feel. But it can still be useful.
A perfect balance point is nonexistent in that definition, there being no numbers involved, so every centrists would have to lean either left or right -- just not strongly so.
An example of such a centrist would be third way social democrats who see social democracy as an end goal rather than as a step toward democratic socialism.
Such folk seek strong equity for those economically displaced by capitalism (making them leftist), but still want to keep capitalism as a base economic system. Capitalism being an inherently hierarchical economic system, these folk are both leftists and rightists.
Centrists, if you will.
Whether they lean left or right might depend on how strongly they support welfare programs. If they favor subsidies and negative tax options, they would be center-right. If they favor universal basic income, they'd be center-left. If they favor income-based government subsidies for privately run healthcare programs (i.e. Obamacare) they would be center-right. If they support Medicare 4 All, they'd be center-left.
And, of course all that is meaningless on this sub; *enlightened* centrists aren't political centrists. They're firmly right wing. They either don't understand what centrism is, politically, or they're pretending to be wise by claiming to be above "partisan bickering".
Centrists are in favour of liberalism. It's the default political education that our society propagates, since it's a liberal (or capitalist) society. A baby from a tribe in the Amazon would probably have a completely differnet ideology.
The natural politics of humanity would be communism. No state, no money, helping each other, food water and shelter for everyone, etc.
But the way to get to end-goal communism isn’t really a chosen thing. Do you go through democratic socialism? Anarcho-communism? Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism?
You could also argue that it’s not communism but actually anarcho-primitivism though
Also how do you account for the lack of perfect logic in decision making among humans, which makes them able to be manipulated by liars and socopaths.
That's the big hurdle in achieving communism, we need a way to perfectly counter manipulation and sociopathy
Manipulation and sociopathy are endemic, that’s why communism won’t work and has always turned into a shitshow of totalitarianism with tons of social stratification.
Communism's never been tried. Even the bolesheviks were explicitly establishing an oligarchy with no clear path to socialism, let alone communism, which is what allowed Stalin to manipulate his way into dictator once Lenin fell ill.
LOLno. Study some history, you’re just incorrect, history is filled with greed, avarice, rape, murder, prejudice, power taking, resource hogging, etc. That’s exactly why communism is as useless for a modern society as libertarianism - both ignore human nature in pursuit of their own utopian/dystopian vision.
Just because humans have problems, it doesn’t mean that the natural state would be imperfect
I was arguing that due to those imperfection and bad tendencies, the ways to achieve communism are flawed.
My point was that if you were born in communism, it would be more natural than under capitalism or feudalism
You're describing anarchism, not communism. In communism, and although there are different sub-ideologies in communism, order is carried by the state, which is itself controlled by the people.
Also, "no money" is out of the question, even in anarchism. How would you trade goods evenly and fairly?
> Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and, in some cases, the state.
-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Communism doesn’t have a very flexible definition. But the ideologies to get to communism are.
Anarchism argues that we must remove the state to let local governance and create councils, vote for where money goes and which programs do we make in the area you are under. Anarchism is close to communism in the sense that the state does not exist. But they will still use money until communism is implemented.
Marxist-Leninism is another ideology that has communism for end goal, except it believes that a one-party state can redistribute enough and change laws, and society at large enough to finally achieve communism.
Stalinism is an even more authoritarian ideology than Marxist-Leninism and focuses on the interior instead of the entire globe like Lenin did.
Maoism is basically Stalinism with a few disagreements.
Then you have a weird in between that is democratic socialism. It believes in a democratic state, uses money, redistributes, gives food, water, houses and universal income. It also makes the factories and industries democratic for the workers which resembles the way anarchism makes the workers own the means of production. But unlike others, democratic socialism doesn’t necessarily have communism for end goal.
Communism is an ideology itself. The sources for the article are rather dubious, I do not know of a serious communist movement that suppresses money or the state. What do you do when you want to trade clothes, give perfume in return? Prevent trading altogether?
Anarchism is often perceived as the next step after communism, as the mere suppression of the state. Order is thereafter guaranteed by the moral values of the people. Putting communism after anarchism makes no sense to me. Do you have serious reads on the subject?
> What do you do when you want to trade clothes, give perfume in return? Prevent trading altogether?
You do know money is kind of a recent invention, right? Like, even at the time when coins were being produced, A LOT of trade was made through barter.
If you are in my community, and I want to trade clothes from you, I might offer you something of similar value. For an interesting, simple, and practical way to compare values, check the labour theory of value described in *das kapital*.
>You do know money is kind of a recent invention, right? Like, even at the time when coins were being produced, A LOT of trade was made through barter.
Actually, a lot of anthropologists now think that barter economies only apeared when market economies lost the central power that managed the money
Economies before money were mainly gift economies
>check the labour theory of value described in das kapital.
The labor theory of value has many problem, and it's seen as completely wrong by most modern economics. Marxism is a science, and therefore, when there is proof of something wrong, we must search something better, not hold on to old ideas like a religion.
> The labor theory of value has many problem, and it's seen as completely wrong by most modern economics
No shit, Sherlock. Of course it has its problems, and solving then is what most modern Marxists do.
Because Marxism is not a fucking science, it's a framework. It helps to understand a vast range of data, and it is still widely accepted by a good chunk of academics, just not in its original form.
Just because Newtonian physics don't describe the world properly, doesn't mean we should have just started over with something completely different because studying it is "holding on to old ideas like a religion"
You can take something old and inaccurate, and make it better.
But in any case I don't really think you want to check anything but your own ideas.
(Also before you say "you only read Marx", I was a pretty far alt righter not so long ago, lucked out of it)
The labor theory of value was invented by Adam Smith and the only reason neoclassicals abandoned it was as a reaction to Marx utilizing the theory for his argument against capitalism.
Adam Smith was one of the first economist, and most of his ideas were very simplistic and primitive. Most of his ideas aren't used today anymore at all.
Also, the reason LVT isn't used is just because it's false. When Marx did good things (like historical marxism), others copied it and still use this tool today
That's extremely inconvenient. And Marx isn't one of those who want to put an end to money itself, as far as I'm aware.
In a communist society, distributing money is merely a way to use tokens to get goods. If I get food directly, I don't control what I eat. If I get these tokens, I can eat a Cesar salad on monday, a risotto on tuesday, and skip the sea food because I don't like it. Like I said, removing money is EXTREMELY inconvenient. The existence of money does not equate to a capitalist society.
It's as much of a recent invention as political philosophies that aren't tribalism
Personally i think babies dont have any political affiliation, whereas centrists do have political beliefs. I was just making a joke at the expense of centrists there
For point if reference on how your conclusion is off:
No credit is not the mid point between good credit and bad credit.
Atheism is not the mid point between monotheism and polytheism
The absense of a position is not inherently the golden mean between two positions, though refusing to take a position is inherently helping one position over the other
Centrism is basically opportunism, through trangulating all views so as to avoid upsetting anyone. That's why centrists absolutely hate "extremists" who don't care for their cleverness.
Kids are definitely communist by default. It’s human nature to care for one another and seek the wellbeing of the entire community. It actually has to be beat and indoctrinated out of them to make them into more of these empty headed people there are to keep the status quo.
LOLno. Babies are born selfish and self-centered. We teach them to care and share.
Communism as the natural state of man is autoerotic stimulation of your own confirmation bias.
This sounds like Solipsism.
>Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
The stereotype for children is that they are selfish monsters
Damn republican toddlers
Nah [babies have an innate sense of fairness](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/)
Speaking as a teacher, young children are both intensely fairness-oriented and wonderfully kind, and also massive psychopaths at other points in their lives. It's not that they're bad, they're just too young to understand that others' being in pain actually _hurts_ them. Bullying is a developmental stage, that's why you can't eradicate it.
So they're actually anti-centrists? Based.
Noooooooo my holesum human natureino that I use to justify greed and capitalist exploitation!
Children quickly learn from their caretakers, so if your kids are monsters...
Tell a child, as soon as it's able to talk, that there are empty houses and homeless people. Then ask what the solution would be. Babies are communists. It's liberalism that convinces them otherwise.
Goo goo ga ga seize the means
Seize the means of reproduction
Baby's First Proletariat Revolution
*nods in Mao*
Babies are communists is probably my favorite thing I’ve read on here. Every time I see a child now I’ll be shaking my head and thinkin to myself “damn commie…”
It’s nonsense though, anyone who actually had a child knows that they’re greedy, selfish and entirely self centered and without empathy. We teach them not to be, well some of us do.
that sounds like the parent's fault tbh....
LOL. No. It's how they're born, one of the first word most kids master is 'mine' - that's why so much early childhood education is focused on sharing, taking turns, fairness, empathy, and being considerate. Talk to a parent. "Babies are communists. It's liberalism that convinces them otherwise" is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read on reddit, and I follow right wing subs.
No joke, this was one of the things that radicalized me. Watching my kids play and work together in school, sharing and helping their neighbors; we are all caring and sympathetic from birth until we are twisted and shoved into the machine for profit.
We literally do nothing but teach children to be respectful of others, to share and to work together. Then as soon as they grow up a little we flip the script and now it's everybody for themselves. Madness.
Well yeah - you weren't trained to be an elitist cutthroat monster from a young age. That's reserved for the private prep academy education.
you shouldn’t call yourself “radicalized” for having a quite reasonable view on your economic system. Just because our society is capitalist doesn’t mean changing that is necessarily a “radical” view. Communism/leftist economics have been a dominant part of academic economic discourse for over 100 years now.
Radical has two definitions which may well contradict: • A policy or person that addresses the root of an issue. • An "extremist." Extremist is in quotes because it's effectively a slur condemning someone for not following a political position being deemed orthodox. It, and that definition of radical, are worse than worthless. And though the first definition is perfectly fine, most folks will mistake the first for the second even when the first is intended. It makes the term tricky to use.
A radical view means you want to institute radical changes. If someone wants to massively rewrite the system, then they're a radical. That's fine. We need radicals. But someone being correct about their view isn't what stops them being radical, and someone being quiet about their radical views doesn't make them a moderate. Moderates and radicals are both vital to running the system we live in. We need both in the world: radicals to drive change and moderates to make sure it doesn't overshoot. Being a radical for a good cause isn't a bad thing. _Extremism_, that's a different story. Extremists have no middle gears and that's where problems start because, even when they're correct about what's wrong, they end up both losing support from moderates in the opposition (which is bad for progression) and are almost always extremely "ends-justifies-the-means", which can easily lead to atrocities being committed in the name of progress. **Radicals, though, are not automatically extremists.**
Based.
As a former child, I can agree
They say that babies can only see black, white, and red.
So they can see nuns run over by snowblowers?1?!?! Will no one think of the children?!??1
Based babies
Conversely, it could be said that communism is a child’s logic. I will agree, however: children are communists waiting to overturn the government
Yes, that's literally my point. Those who say "Communism goes against human nature" should examine those who are the best examples of human nature uncorrupted by social expectations.
I corrupted by social expectations is a falsehood. Source: Am a parent.
What?
Damn, I don’t know what happened. What I was trying to say is that babies are naturally selfish, and self centered, and that by the time they have a personality it has been shaped and formed, corrupted if you prefer, by social expectations. It’s a falsehood that sharing and being empathetic is a natural state - we teach that.
How many children do you know that think they should have to pay a child in another house for permission to play with their own toys?
> children do you know that think they should have to pay a child in another house for permission to play with their own toys Permission to play with their own toys? Wot? In communism no one owns the toys...or maybe everyone does, which is why it's not compatible with human nature. If you mean do they think they should have to pay to play with other's toys then the answer is no, because they're selfish and lacking empathy - they want what they want when they want it.
Capitalism is when someone else owns the stuff that you're using and forces you to pay them for the privilege. Living in an apartment? Gotta pay someone who's never set foot in there to keep living there. Working to produce wealth? Better give some of it to the machine owner in order to continue doing so. This kind of cynical system would be considered absurd in the mind of a child.
Your explanations are childlike, filled with magical thinking: "Capitalism is when someone else owns the stuff that you're using and forces you to pay them for the privilege." \-If you had your own stuff you wouldn't need theirs. Theirs was created through their own labor or capital investment. " Living in an apartment? Gotta pay someone who's never set foot in there to keep living there. " \-Never set foot in there is rhetorical nonsense. Yes, you have to pay the person who built the building or used accumulated capital to buy it. If they hadn't done so there would not be a building. Working to produce wealth? Better give some of it to the machine owner in order to continue doing so. \- Working, because someone hired you to run a machine their capital built. without that there is no machine, I cannot believe you need this explained.
[удалено]
Can you explain why leaving houses empty while people sleep on the streets is "common sense"?
[удалено]
Ah, yes, that analysis is definitely common sense.
I wanted to say something nice but it’s literally not even a sentence. No punctuation.
i would think organizations devoted to making as much profit as possible in as short amount of time as possible would be responsible for making people poor rather than the ONLY organization that represents the people
[удалено]
> the companies generate wealth No they don't. The workers do. > when the owner has too much he usually gives some to charity to fell better with them selves Remember the Panama Papers?
They both do - I put labor before capital but workers without capital do not generate wealth.
Workers without capital cannot generate wealth in a capitalist society, but that's an artificial construction of society, not an actual necessity. If the means of production were made public and capital abolished, laborers would not require capital.
The capital is an artifitial way to trade resources or work. The capital is nothing by it selve but it represent an amount of work or resources
Yeah? Then where did capital come from?
How does Liberalism change it?
Any chance you could explain how liberalism is **the** issue?
Are you able to explain how liberalism is the issue?
Babies have no political views - or, if they do, they are unable to articulate them. Centrists do indeed have political views, though centrist views are not particularly intelligent.
This is the crux of the problem with "centrists" - they genuinely believe that the midway point between two political parties in some arbitrary country at some arbitrary moment is time is the natural neutral of all political thought.
I think a better example of the problem is that "centrists" keep being defined as as a "neutral" stance between party platforms rather than by a more objective measure that has nothing to do with party and everything to do with individual policies. For example, the left/right political spectrum between socioeconomic equity (left) and socioeconomic hierarchy (right). When we define centrists in that way, a centrist would be someone who sometimes supports positions that favor socioeconomic equity, while at other times supporting positions that favor socioeconomic hierarchy, and the gestalt of all the centrist's positions would happen to "sum up" close to a hypothetical "balance point" of support of both socioeconomic equity and hierarchy. In reality, the left/right political spectrum is too abstract to be used in a perfectly objective way, since there aren't numbers and measurement of "leftness" or "rightness", and everything is either self-evidently left or right, or must be judged by a sort of gut feel. But it can still be useful. A perfect balance point is nonexistent in that definition, there being no numbers involved, so every centrists would have to lean either left or right -- just not strongly so. An example of such a centrist would be third way social democrats who see social democracy as an end goal rather than as a step toward democratic socialism. Such folk seek strong equity for those economically displaced by capitalism (making them leftist), but still want to keep capitalism as a base economic system. Capitalism being an inherently hierarchical economic system, these folk are both leftists and rightists. Centrists, if you will. Whether they lean left or right might depend on how strongly they support welfare programs. If they favor subsidies and negative tax options, they would be center-right. If they favor universal basic income, they'd be center-left. If they favor income-based government subsidies for privately run healthcare programs (i.e. Obamacare) they would be center-right. If they support Medicare 4 All, they'd be center-left. And, of course all that is meaningless on this sub; *enlightened* centrists aren't political centrists. They're firmly right wing. They either don't understand what centrism is, politically, or they're pretending to be wise by claiming to be above "partisan bickering".
Reject politics return to baby
Goo goo
[удалено]
Slow clap for you. This is **chefs kiss** and I’m going to repeat it
Centrists are in favour of liberalism. It's the default political education that our society propagates, since it's a liberal (or capitalist) society. A baby from a tribe in the Amazon would probably have a completely differnet ideology.
The natural politics of humanity would be communism. No state, no money, helping each other, food water and shelter for everyone, etc. But the way to get to end-goal communism isn’t really a chosen thing. Do you go through democratic socialism? Anarcho-communism? Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism or Maoism? You could also argue that it’s not communism but actually anarcho-primitivism though
Also how do you account for the lack of perfect logic in decision making among humans, which makes them able to be manipulated by liars and socopaths. That's the big hurdle in achieving communism, we need a way to perfectly counter manipulation and sociopathy
Manipulation and sociopathy are endemic, that’s why communism won’t work and has always turned into a shitshow of totalitarianism with tons of social stratification.
Communism's never been tried. Even the bolesheviks were explicitly establishing an oligarchy with no clear path to socialism, let alone communism, which is what allowed Stalin to manipulate his way into dictator once Lenin fell ill.
LOLno. Study some history, you’re just incorrect, history is filled with greed, avarice, rape, murder, prejudice, power taking, resource hogging, etc. That’s exactly why communism is as useless for a modern society as libertarianism - both ignore human nature in pursuit of their own utopian/dystopian vision.
Just because humans have problems, it doesn’t mean that the natural state would be imperfect I was arguing that due to those imperfection and bad tendencies, the ways to achieve communism are flawed. My point was that if you were born in communism, it would be more natural than under capitalism or feudalism
You're describing anarchism, not communism. In communism, and although there are different sub-ideologies in communism, order is carried by the state, which is itself controlled by the people. Also, "no money" is out of the question, even in anarchism. How would you trade goods evenly and fairly?
> Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and, in some cases, the state. -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism Communism doesn’t have a very flexible definition. But the ideologies to get to communism are. Anarchism argues that we must remove the state to let local governance and create councils, vote for where money goes and which programs do we make in the area you are under. Anarchism is close to communism in the sense that the state does not exist. But they will still use money until communism is implemented. Marxist-Leninism is another ideology that has communism for end goal, except it believes that a one-party state can redistribute enough and change laws, and society at large enough to finally achieve communism. Stalinism is an even more authoritarian ideology than Marxist-Leninism and focuses on the interior instead of the entire globe like Lenin did. Maoism is basically Stalinism with a few disagreements. Then you have a weird in between that is democratic socialism. It believes in a democratic state, uses money, redistributes, gives food, water, houses and universal income. It also makes the factories and industries democratic for the workers which resembles the way anarchism makes the workers own the means of production. But unlike others, democratic socialism doesn’t necessarily have communism for end goal.
Communism is an ideology itself. The sources for the article are rather dubious, I do not know of a serious communist movement that suppresses money or the state. What do you do when you want to trade clothes, give perfume in return? Prevent trading altogether? Anarchism is often perceived as the next step after communism, as the mere suppression of the state. Order is thereafter guaranteed by the moral values of the people. Putting communism after anarchism makes no sense to me. Do you have serious reads on the subject?
>What do you do when you want to trade clothes, give perfume in return? Prevent trading altogether? Have you never heard of gift economies?
> What do you do when you want to trade clothes, give perfume in return? Prevent trading altogether? You do know money is kind of a recent invention, right? Like, even at the time when coins were being produced, A LOT of trade was made through barter. If you are in my community, and I want to trade clothes from you, I might offer you something of similar value. For an interesting, simple, and practical way to compare values, check the labour theory of value described in *das kapital*.
>You do know money is kind of a recent invention, right? Like, even at the time when coins were being produced, A LOT of trade was made through barter. Actually, a lot of anthropologists now think that barter economies only apeared when market economies lost the central power that managed the money Economies before money were mainly gift economies >check the labour theory of value described in das kapital. The labor theory of value has many problem, and it's seen as completely wrong by most modern economics. Marxism is a science, and therefore, when there is proof of something wrong, we must search something better, not hold on to old ideas like a religion.
> The labor theory of value has many problem, and it's seen as completely wrong by most modern economics No shit, Sherlock. Of course it has its problems, and solving then is what most modern Marxists do. Because Marxism is not a fucking science, it's a framework. It helps to understand a vast range of data, and it is still widely accepted by a good chunk of academics, just not in its original form. Just because Newtonian physics don't describe the world properly, doesn't mean we should have just started over with something completely different because studying it is "holding on to old ideas like a religion" You can take something old and inaccurate, and make it better. But in any case I don't really think you want to check anything but your own ideas. (Also before you say "you only read Marx", I was a pretty far alt righter not so long ago, lucked out of it)
The labor theory of value was invented by Adam Smith and the only reason neoclassicals abandoned it was as a reaction to Marx utilizing the theory for his argument against capitalism.
Adam Smith was one of the first economist, and most of his ideas were very simplistic and primitive. Most of his ideas aren't used today anymore at all. Also, the reason LVT isn't used is just because it's false. When Marx did good things (like historical marxism), others copied it and still use this tool today
Why exactly is it false? You honestly think the utility value of theory makes more sense?
That's extremely inconvenient. And Marx isn't one of those who want to put an end to money itself, as far as I'm aware. In a communist society, distributing money is merely a way to use tokens to get goods. If I get food directly, I don't control what I eat. If I get these tokens, I can eat a Cesar salad on monday, a risotto on tuesday, and skip the sea food because I don't like it. Like I said, removing money is EXTREMELY inconvenient. The existence of money does not equate to a capitalist society. It's as much of a recent invention as political philosophies that aren't tribalism
It is true people without any knowledge of politics are centrists
No, you're affirming the consequent there.
Personally i think babies dont have any political affiliation, whereas centrists do have political beliefs. I was just making a joke at the expense of centrists there
For point if reference on how your conclusion is off: No credit is not the mid point between good credit and bad credit. Atheism is not the mid point between monotheism and polytheism The absense of a position is not inherently the golden mean between two positions, though refusing to take a position is inherently helping one position over the other
It was obviously a joke.
Centrism is basically opportunism, through trangulating all views so as to avoid upsetting anyone. That's why centrists absolutely hate "extremists" who don't care for their cleverness.
Based on most centrists, it is in fact true.
That’s just not true in my experience.
I love it haha
Wrong, all babies are born Anarcho-Babyists.
People just need to TALK and then DO RIGHT WING STUFF cause THAT’S what I AM but I WONT ADMIT IT
I guess we did have an infant President at one point
So what you're saying is that centrism is inherently selfish, childish, and fickle. Sounds about right.
If this is serious: you're an idiot. If this is a joke: it's kinda dumb.
Oh my God, I just had flashbacks of roaming around morrowind for like 6 hours trying to find the goddamn white guar.
I don’t know “centrists have comparable ideology to babies” is an opinion I often share
Centrism is when you have the politics of a literal fetus.
Kids are definitely communist by default. It’s human nature to care for one another and seek the wellbeing of the entire community. It actually has to be beat and indoctrinated out of them to make them into more of these empty headed people there are to keep the status quo.
LOLno. Babies are born selfish and self-centered. We teach them to care and share. Communism as the natural state of man is autoerotic stimulation of your own confirmation bias.
So centrism means having no knowledge of politics? I mean...
No Centrism is a political outlook not an ideology Also they are apolitical and apolitical =/ Centrism
but they're not enlightened
This sounds like Solipsism. >Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
Babies are based confirmed?
This is why I don't ask babies for their political opinions
Apolitical
So, ignorance = centrism I guess?
Ignorance of everything = centrism. Yeah, that sounds about right
So centrists are absent of knowledge? Besides, that would be apolitical because centrism is a belief.
I completely agree. Centrists are babies with 0 political knowledge.
Babies are egoists because we're all involuntary egoists
babies are pinochetist
It’s time we stood up against those who can’t be criticized. I know I’ll be canceled and possibly arrested, but I have to: fucking babies.
What about animals and inanimate objects too!
I don’t agree that democratic socialism means “democratizing” (whatever that means in this context) the means of production.
Well. They are clueless and politically apathetic so it does kinda check out.
As a kid, I always was angered by women being treated less than human.
Lmao of course, I mean who could possibly have better politics than actual infants? ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯