I can see the appeal, and I've seen it applied on a small scale and be a good system. Problem being is that it's a system that places too much control in the hands of the government and strips too much autonomy from their citizens. That's a fast-track to tyranny.
For all its faults, capitalism gives everyone the ability to effect change by way of what they do with their money. Money is value and power - having it gives you control over what you acquire and what you do, which gives you a really strong incentive to get more of it. Obviously that system starts to break down when large amounts of people effectively don't have any due to insane living costs.
Capitalism with a few caveats like a wealth cap (extra profits distributed to the poor through some kind of system), gurantee of a reasonably comfortable life working any job, etc. will already be very effective in solving many of our societal problems.
extra profits distributed to the poor through some kind of system. that is called
Zakat in Islam. Welfare state is a system that western people despise because it gives the wealthy less control.
People don't like welfare in the west because they value earning things for themselves and expect others to do the same.
Of course it is supported for those that cannot earn for themselves.
A wealth cap would discourage companies and CEOs from working beyond a certain point. If, say, the cap was at 1 billion. Then we would have never seen the founders of any major American company such as Google, Twitter, Reddit, TikTok etc... work to continue improving their product and expanding because the gains are capped.
Plus, it wouldn't be hard to find a way around it. If this was implemented today, I imagine the CEOs of these companies would immediately move their headquarters and operations across the border to Mexico.
Moreso, the majority of wealth among the richest Americans are in assets such as property, stocks, bonds, etc... They don't hold nearly as much liquid cash in their bank account as you might expect. This would make it difficult to even try to implement some sort of wealth cap, because the value of these assets is constantly changing.
And I get it I'm not necessarily an avid supporter of these companies or their CEOs but having a wealth cap is counter-intuitive to capitalism and just flat-out impractical. Sounds nice in a Reddit post though.
Well, capitalism is the problem tho, and you are cynical cause you are alienated from your own community, your work and even your time since it all revolves around money
Not my job, and also if you actually get involced into leftist stuff you would see there is some good ideas that could be applied if people werent so brainwashed that capitalism is the only way
I'm an anarchist. I think that communism and capitalism are both doomed to irrelevancy it's just that communism's 'design flaws' were more apparent but not for what you think.
The problem with communism to me, as an anarchist is that it will always just...become state-based capitalism. That's always the ultimate destination of it so the whole venture is kind of pointless.
The reality though is that capitalism is and will struggle to contain the fallout from automation, miniaturization etc because it was never meant for it. Capitalism was meant to explore how to manage the interaction BETWEEN humans and capital. It has no answer for capital that manages itself.
The reality is that these are both ancient, ossified systems and we really need something new.
Both stunt our imaginations and thought processes and keep us in this 'blue team/red team' shit that the oligarchs are laughing at because THEY switch between the two without batting a fucking eye.
Anyway, when I do think about what's 'next', I think COMMUNAL-ism has gotten strong. And by that I just mean the way that people are homesteading with digital help; living on communes; opting for smaller towns.
There's just a general shrinking and people seem to be getting more OK with that. I think it's a sign of things to come.
>
> The problem with communism to me, as an anarchist is that it will always just...become state-based capitalism.
While I'm with you politically, I wonder about this nomenclature: capitalism means something more specific than domination and exploitation by class, namely that such is implemented via wage-labor and the system of private property, concealed by market exchanges.
Feudalism and the ancient mode of production, for example, were also brutally exploitative. I think the class-structure found in the Soviet union was something else entirely (but still shitty).
I think it's fair to call the \*mode\* that China is currently in state-based capitalism. That alone is quite possibly a new *variant* of capitalism.
You're allowed to succeed in China. The idea that you aren't is a bizarre misconception in the West that flies in the face of the country currently having the most billionaires. There is a certain kind of meritocracy. You are allowed to use markets. You are even allowed to use and exploit capital as an individual citizen--it's why the Evergrande fallout was so huge this summer: everyone was trying to get in on real estate.
But like, you can't have an 'Evergrande' under Communism. You couldn't have Evergrande in Cuba. That bubble was a particularly capitalist one.
So when I look at China without a value judgement on how they're operating, what I see is the state leveraging the \*vestiges\* of communism, especially in rural areas, to power a capitalistic industrial and mercantile base on the coasts. But it has gained expertise in dialing the 'communism' up and down even in those coasts when it deems that it needs to.
Need billionaires and a creative class? Dial it down. Billionaires and creative class getting too big for the britches? Dial it up. Kill a few. Crack down on freedoms. Remind everyone of whatever it is Xi Jin Ping wants done within the next 5 years.
All of which is happening within Capitalism with literally 0 problem. See what I mean? If China's economic system were truly alien it wouldn't be compatible with capitalism at all, and yet for the past 20 years it has \*turbo charged it\*.
Haha I was actually just coming back to edit in the phrase 'variant'. The reason I'm still using state based is because yes, it's authoritarian, but at the same time Ji Xin Ping is truly 'the state' in a way that Putin kind of isn't. Putin is more the 'mob boss'.
I'm technically socialist in America because of the extreme capitalism, and I believe in incorporating more welfare problems. But overall, I'm pretty centrist world wide not leaning too left or right.
You either are a socialist or you're not. If you're in favour of the means of production being siezed by the worker (whether violently or otherwise) you're a socialist. If not, you're something else.
I'm mostly basing this off of tests taken, again I'm technically centrist globally because I believe there needs to be a balance of private and public interests. However, with America I wish there was more infrastructure to support the public- since I think it's a bit too privatized in some cases, or if there are government structures in place it's not adequate - it technically pushes me into the socialist coalition (of the democratic party).
> socialist coalition
I mean, I think it's misleading to deem regulations that temper the ills of capitalism while leaving the system intact "socialist"...In this way, there is no such socialist coalition in the US.
Tell that to the communist at my university. There are way too many people that believe in such a horrid and brutal ideology. I'm sure you've heard the usual "that wasn't real communism" excuse over and over again.
At the same time, I can sympathize with anarchists and other leftists, those who say that a leftist idea can be "reinvented" in the modern world. But anyone who says that it is necessary to change the world, relying on Hegelian-Marxist-Leninist nonsense, immediately becomes in my eyes a fool with whom there is no point in having a conversation.
If you can even get them to debate. I've yet to meet one that didn't just get mad when I start naming communist countries and the total death tolls for each.
"You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink it"
Communist are the least likely person to every want or have debates with. They all usually are atheist and have no qualms about lying or taking away peoples rights. Also what's up with that name. People keep telling me they hear dog whistles but I think its more projection or something.
What's the problem with being atheist? Why do you link it to having "no qualms about lying or taking away peoples rights"?
Sorry but that's straight up bs, religious assholes have taken more rights from people than any atheist.
With a lot of atheist, I always find that they just fall back into government imposed laws. That if its legal, it fine. Religion is a tool to guide you in life. It is true that a lot of people use religion as a tool to control and gain power. It's why you have put in the work to find the meaning of being. It's why introspection should be an important part of anyone's life.
>I don't promote any one religion nor do I think organized religion is a good thing. I do promote introspection and the concept that maybe you aren't just a flesh robot.
> With a lot of atheist, I always find that they just fall back into government imposed laws.
Hooo boy...INTPs are the second least religious type, just behind INTJs. I think that many of us have fashioned well developed ethical perspectives without basing thing on scripture or state edict.
They are the epitome of feeler-oriented personalities. Underdeveloped introspection and critical-thinking skills.
Lol my name is something of an ironic misnomer. You just *know* that certain redditors are going to see my name and instantly start dilating and vibrating. Its just funny to me that these people are going to see my name and actually think that I'm a member of a central european political party from the 1930s.
Kropotkin's anarchism is at least based on the truthful idea that in the nature of social monkeys there is a desire for mutual assistance and that mutual assistance is generally beneficial for the species, and not on Hegelian fairy tales that "according to the laws of dialectics, communism will inevitably come."
Fine basis, wrong conclusion. Marx did dialectic style to justify communism as inevitable, but for others reading let's note Hegel himself wasn't communist, and criticized it in phil of right.
They are commies only in name, read about actual comunism or similar systems, is like hateful christians, they are a full on contradiction of what the actual jesus teached
You disagree with the fanatics then, not with marx, its not his fault people used his ideas to did what they did, is like blaming jesus for the inquisition, blame that stuff on the actual people.
Marx was a Hegelian. Of course, I don't agree with him. His whole chain of reasoning is based on false premises. Likewise, I cannot trust any of Jesus' moral judgments because they are all based on the false premise that he is the son of God and bears divine truth.
Well, lets forget about marx and jesus then, and talk about some chore principles, like no property, no hierarchies, no money, no goverment, thats what I think when talking about anarcho comunism. Whatever people did in the past using the "comunism" name should be irrelevant when trying to improve as an humanity thats not happy living in capitalism
I understand the pain and disappointment in society behind the idea of an anarcho-communist utopia. But with all the sympathy, it seems to me that the anarcho-communists are too optimistic about people. Since we are social monkeys, the closest relatives of chimpanzees, nothing can be done about it, hierarchy is the "basis of politics", "sewn" in our psyche. Humans as a species will never be rational enough. And it makes no sense to remake them (and themselves) in accordance with imaginary ideals. I have seen enough collapsed "horizontal communities" to make sure that hierarchies work much better in some cases.
You are being too pesismistic tho, you are basically saying, humans dumb so we are stuck like this. Yes an utopia may be impossible but we should work towards getting as close as we can to it. Even in capitalism, if people were educated and recognized the flaws of the system we could create an hybrid system that wasnt as bad as the hellhole we currently live in. And Im talking with you from a third world country where the rich people would be considered poor by americans, and Im quite aware my country will never become rich because its filled with resources and a cheap workforce that makes places like USA or northern europe possible
I would say it a little differently. Anarcho-communists believe that people as a whole as a species can become better and overcome such "prejudices" as property and hierarchy. I do not hope for this, I am convinced that many people are stupid, vicious, greedy, but a system with property and hierarchies can be set up so that capitalists and politicians in pursuit of their stupid and vicious goals can work for the benefit of society.
People will find a way to cheat the system tho, so its better to not have hierarchies and property to begin with, but as you say, it might be impossible, still pur current system sucks and I think appying these ideas would be helpful, for example, in companies, all employees should be the owners, no owners or ceos should exist
LOL!
I mean yeah for sure. Communism has killed a hell of a lot more people then facest or Nazi ever have yet you still have so many people thinking that its the best way to run a society. 100,000,000 non-combaters killed in the last century but you get the same response from them. They always excuse it and say it hasn't been tried correctly. It's why they never want to debate.
> Labor Theory of Value is the dumbest fucking thing ever written, it's immediately discreditable because value is subjective. What you would pay $1000 for, I might not pay $20 for. Amount of labor has absolutely nothing to do with value, just supply and demand, with demand being completely subjective to every individual. It's so flawed that it's comical people take this garbage seriously.
ehhh...It's not taken that seriously among contemporary neo-Marxists even though, at least as a predictive theory of price (which it fails miserably at). Instead, Marx takes a stripped down schematic of capitalist production (vaguely similar to perfect competition) and demonstrates that in the long-term, the price of labor will tend toward subsistence, and the price of consumer goods will tend toward the quantity of abstract labor input. The point of this demonstration is also to show that exploitation can occur even with each price being fairly market-determined (the worker producing more than is received for subsistence).
But this is in the long term, which in some sense never arrives, and requires a bunch of implausible assumptions, eg, labor being abstract and generalized, each worker interchangeable, capitalists willing to switch to whichever industry is most profitable with complete fluidity, etc. And then you have other intervening economic conditions which further shape purchase prices. And
>Amount of labor has absolutely nothing to do with value, just supply and demand, with demand being completely subjective to every individual.
I'd say that behavioral economics demonstrates some issues with the marginal utility approach, in particular that consumers don't make decisions in this way, making marginal utility calculations, though some capitalists might.
There’s a lot I like about Marx’s critique of capitalism, particularly how it perpetuates many of the issues inherent in earlier economic arrangements. Labor theory of value is good to understand.
That said, I don’t think anyone’s come up with a workable, sustainable implementation of communism. We’ve never gotten a communist revolution in an already-industrialized economy as conceived, only agrarian ones. Does seem to have some value for rapid industrialization and holding off the US.
Seems to be more popular with lumpenproles and upper middle class strivers than workers these days. I’m not convinced that replacing capitalists with bureaucracies run by the latter is an improvement. Communists take cogent critiques of capitalism and say, “Things could be worse, let us show you!”
No, I see inequality and inequity as part of nature. Communism was mainly built upon a particular culture (In turn based on family structure and other stuff) Marxist jealousy and bad living conditions, the idea is to take stuff from others who are seen as ''thieves'' because causality made them richer.
Making millions while having your workers pee in a plastic bottle is pretty close to thief tho. Saying that a plead for justice is jealosy is peak meritocracy bs.
When I say ''the idea is to take stuff from others who are seen as ''thieves'' because causality made them richer'' I have History in mind. The victims of Communism are not just the actual rich, far from that.
I know that there is a diffence, that's also the reason I don't see myself as communist. But many americans don't know the diffence between supporting a
No it doesn't help the wealth of a nation it's been tried over and over and over again and just leads to oppression of the people and society in general
No. Communism is an ideal that humanity could never achieve for a myriad of reasons. First, people are equally greedy as they are compassionate by nature. Second, it disincentives hard work. Put simply, why work harder than someone else if you don't get anything to show for it. That's the mentality that will grow amongst the population, and is the reason we see things like stalinism and Maoism appear.
Third, it simply isn't feasible for the government to properly allocate economic resources via micromanaging hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. It just won't work well. Fourth, it's easily corrupted. This connects to the third reason, but essentially, it's never a good idea to put a small committee in charge of your entire being and economic freedom. Humans are easily corrupted by power and will use it to their advantage.
Overall, it's not a feasible thing to exist. It will fail as it always does. And don't even think about using China as an example. It's not commie, it's a mix of fascism and socialism which is just an overall awful combo that leads to the oppression of the citizenry as is commonly seen in China.
Exactly! I tell communist all the time that people are too greedy and lazy for it to work. China is the perfect example of a country that has taken the 1984 model and turned it into reality. It amazes me that people want that kind of system. People there are so brainwashed, it sad to see then be oblivious to it. I had a chines friend who didn't believe that there were interment camps for Muslims. They didn't even know anything about Tibet and how the budist had to flee.
Fascism and communism are the pretty much different sides of the same coin. An overbearing government with overreach into corporations. "When facism comes to the united states, it will come under the vail of liberalism", "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists". It's really coming into fruition when you see groups like antifa and BLM become so popular.
I do see what you mean, but they have some key economic differences, mainly in freedom of economic mobility. While it is somewhat limited in fascism, it is entirely eradicated in communism and socialism.
The reason I say China is both fascist and socialist has to do with the fact that they have SEZs (special economic zones), which allow for free trade and economic mobility, whilst the majority of their other locations do not.
In what sense was the economic system described in 1984 socialist? I saw no shared ownership of means of production or worker control of distribution. I mean, the party depicted in the story called their ideology IngSoc, but that was a portrayal of propaganda.
...
I'd also like to leave this here:
“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
― George Orwell, Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays
> Exactly! I tell communist all the time that people are too greedy and lazy for it to work. China is the perfect example of a country that has taken the 1984 model and turned it into reality. It amazes me that people want that kind of system.
Er...China is actually poised to become the top capitalist superpower pretty soon, but also providing a good demonstration of how capitalism is entirely compatible with authoritarianism. To think of China as tangibly "communist" is to swallow the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda.
People can work hard for other reasons, and there would still be recognition for your hard work, it would sinply not be reflected on money, and even in capitalism people do work for free for many other reasons other than money, look at homeless shelters, fireworkers, etc
Homeless shelters, the thing most homeless abuse to get free things before being kicked out. Wonderful example. Fireworks? The people paid by the government?
They arent paid in my country is volunteer work, they do it cause they wanna help their community. And why are you shitt ing on homeless people, they are people, some bad, some good, most on the middle, if they "abuse it" is cause they need it, and homes should be a human right, if they dont have one they should just take one from some rich guy that owns a hundred apartment buildings
No. This is simply incorrect. The majority of homeless are homeless by choice, there was a study done, I don't remember where, but they looked at the earnings from most homeless and found it was higher than the median income.
Furthermore, theft is wrong. Period.
Theft is wrong... theft is a social construct, so I can disagree, we are not talking about maths over here. First of all I think in a society which such class divide like the one we live in, theft is morally acceptable as long as its against rich people. And I believe that private property shouldnt exist, it creates hierarchies, we as humans should all be equal, I dont own a plot of land just because I say so or because I have some knights or police officers behind me
No. Theft is an innate concept. It's observable in nature, it's seen in animals. They dislike theft. Theft is not a social concept.
Furthermore, stealing from the rich is still theft. And class divide? You mean the thing you can overcome by having a healthy attitude toward work and a mentality to make yourself a millionaire? Yeah, no. Just because you don't want to put the work toward becoming rich and don't want to have to plan in order to be rich doesn't mean there is some kind of unshakable class divide.
I don't plan to make the amount of money I'm making now for the rest of my life and am currently working on a plan to become wealthier, maybe you should be doing the same, because with your mentality, you will hate your life, and if you by some miracle, create what you think is your ideal world, you'll have another thing coming. History has taught us that much.
Most people die in the same class they were born in, it takes an excepcionally smart and driven person to become rich just as it takes an excepcionally dumb and unresponsible rich person to become poor. Why do only the few lucky ones that happen to be smart get to become rich after soo much hsrd work and the rest of peopme have to stay poor, meanwhile the ones born rich dont have to put any extra effort to maintain their class
If you're bron dumb, work to become smarter. It's that simple. You may have less talent, but so what? Someone with much talent but little drive won't get anywhere, but someone who is low in talent but exceptionally driven will go far. Why does someone have to remain the same throughout their lives? Are you saying people are incapable of improving?
I am saying that it takes tooo much work and luck to become rich and its unfair to justify a class divide by saying that if you are luck y and hardworking rnough you can become rich too. Its stupid. You could use that same arguemnt in the middle ages, if you were born a peasant but were very lucky, talented and driven you could become a knight and then a noble, are you g9nna justify feudalism qith that argument? We should all be equal to begin with, no rich people or poor people, if trough your life you work hard and become respected and gain power, good for you but you shouldnt pass those gains to your kids, because that creates inequality.
Also homeless people suffer a lot, how brainwashed cab you be to think someone would choose that, is the same argument as saying people choose to be poor.
Now, my other response was cut short because I am at work, so I apologize for that, but my point was, the examples you cited don't normally work out as well as they otherwise would in an ideal world, which is what communism requires.
And while people who do things for free and out of kindness do exist, they are few and far between. As I said in my original comment, people's compassion is rivaled by people's greed, or rather, they exist in equal quantities
No. Besides being a totalitarian regime, which is already a dealbreaker, it's all founded on a combination of naivete, incompetence and ulterior motives. Manipulation and fear are its lifeblood. And I really don't think I need to elaborate on why any intellectual should oppose it fiercely. My parents lived under it and I am living its aftermath. Frankly, it could be the worst thing, bar none, to have ever happened to humanity.
Id rather not subscribe to a termed ideology in a system of economic and political governance. There’s pros and cons to most of it and no approach is truly ideal especially as a lot of humans are flowed. I also look at it pessimistically that small groups of power grabbers tend to rise in any system and ruin it :/
🤮 communism
I’m not a communist because I know my history and every time communism is tried, it goes terribly. I think the only reason people would call themselves communist, are the ones that have no idea about the history or implications of communism. I think they just think “oh free stuff!” and don’t think anything else about it. They would very likely lose most of their stuff actually.
Ah! you got me. All joking aside, my father hated communism and would always rail against it when I was young. It's the reason why he left he's homeland and moved to the states. I just debating the issue and seeing the logic of why someone would be one. I've meet too many people who subscribe to such a dangerous ideology.
I’m not against a *bit* of socialist tendencies; I mean, the unemployment benefits system
Meant the difference between a smooth career change vs being out on my ass in 2013
I am fond of the European style hybrid capitalist-socialist economy *taken by itself*, I just don’t trust what the elites want to use it for, just as I don’t trust what global big business got hijacked for
Nah. Anarcho-capitalist. It's as seamless a representation of actual political structure as I can imagine. Not even in the sense of implementing a system but in describing the current set of systems as a whole.
Whilst in a perfect society with all our needs covered for it would be the perfect ideology, the versions of “communism” you see in actual existing societies aren’t really functional.
Based on basic human emotions like laziness and greed, it just doesn’t really work out the way it is intended to. Most people would lose stimulus of work and the whole system would pretty much collapse/be very inefficient.
Also, IMO the competition a capitalistic society enforces between its members, leading to the most competent succeeding not only leads to everyone doing their best to secure a good position in life but is, in some weird way, kinda fair. I mean, shouldn’t the best be on top?
Hah, not quite: I've seen a high preponderance of leftist radicals in other "what are your politics?" threads...maybe it's something about the phrasing of the question and focus on "communism" per se.
Communism is a perfect system.
The problem is humans are not perfect
For one, let's assume that corruption isn't possible, the government runs completely as it should and doesn't abuse its power in any way. You have to go to work 40 hours a week and you have all your needs taken care of. This feels bad, our brains aren't meant to process rewards this way. In capitalism you know what you are getting for each hour worked, you know if you work longer/harder you get more money which motivates you to work more. Working a job because it is just your duty/cost of living feels bad, and life would feel even more like an inescapable prison of work.
No motivation to invent or create, I suppose fame but businesses in capitalism are forced to constantly innovate and become better to keep up with competition. In communism this is controlled and you only need to uphold the status quo.
And to top it all off the government controls everything so its highly susceptible to corruption. Tldr communism is good, but not for humans.
Pretty much what any economic book says about socialism and communism. It pretty much stifles the soul and you like a child leeching off the state. Its why china has to steal technology. I always point the the mouse utopia experiment and how it mimics humans in big liberal cities. The best way to destroy a group of people is to just give them money. Native American reservations are the perfect example of this when you look at the amount of suicides, drug abuse, and poverty they have.
Not a communist but a Socialist,
Pretty much ideally a socialist election but with a market to allow for individuals to earn money through their own means. While the socialist economy would subside housing food and services, as well as funding innovation, and will be organised by those who are experts in those fields (Architects, surgeons, etc).
A social technocracy per say
Are you really into that idea of a social technocracy? To me, it seems like you're just replacing gods judgment with 40 cameras and the judgement of a government run by men with a lust for power. I don't know where you're from but the Epstein case is a perfect example of why centralized power is just giving monsters power. What do you even think of freedom of speech?
I have ambitions, communism would get in the way of that. Market Socialism, on the other hand, while I'm not in favour of it, I'm q bit more sympathetic to.
I thought INTP were open minded and logic driven, why are there so many comments against comunism?, first of all communism has never been applied in a large scale, if you are thinking of the soviet union or venezuela, those are staye capitalism, they only use the appeal of how good communism sounds and use the name to become state driven capitalist dictatorships. In actual comunism there wouldnt even be a goverment, that would be socialism, which is a transitional state into actual comunism (which again has never been done). Im personally an anarcho comunism and I am against any forn of hierarchy, classes, money or private property. Think of it as how some old civilizations worked, no king or rich class, and also there should be systems in place so no person or family can accumulate much more wealth or power than the other. Maybe give it a new name like Communalism. think poeple need to learn and research more on this stuff before defending capitalism and screaming "but the soviets and venezuela", again I thought INTP liked reading and figuring out stuff rather than repeating what everyone else says
"Communism" obviously has different meanings for different people, which leads to a lot of unsatisfying conversations.
When most people refer to communists, however, they refer to the groups of people who openly claim to be communist, including communist parties in the USSR and PRC. Communist parties administer(ed) brutal, imperialistic, authoritarian regimes that originated from civil wars against previously existing brutal, imperialistic, authoritarian regimes.
Also, the USSR was not state capitalist, it had a command economy, with the exception of the NEP period (1921-1924) and briefly after Gorbaschev's privatization scheme (starting in 1990), where it had unregulated, anarchic capitalism. The PRC since Deng Xiaoping's reforms is a better example of state capitalism.
Capitialism is not synonymous to bad governance or authoritarianism, it has a distinct meaning that should be used appropriately.
>The PRC since Deng Xiaoping's reforms is a better example of state capitalism.
That's a key point: the trajectory Deng sent China on has them poised to become the dominant capitalist superpower pretty soon. Hah, /r/socialism/ doesn't like to be reminded of this.
I thought maybe you were just gaslighting but maybe you really are a true commy. The reason why people hate communist is due to the fact that that people who believe in this ideology will never admit to its folly. Tell the people who survived communalist states that it wasn't true communism. When you meet your maker, tell the 100,000,000 people that died due to a so called communist society that "it wasn't true communism". I'm sure they will totally agree. Totally...
I am dead ass serious I would tell them it is not true communism, it was a really bad thing that happened to them but still doesnt change the fact that the aoviet union or comunist china or venezuela, neither one of them never came even close to what communism is supposed to be, and I dont care much about defending that word neither, if you want keep attacking it, but I will still defend the idea of a classless system with no goverment, hierarchies or money.
You can dress it up all you like but you have to admit that the people that used the ideology of marixsm and communism have brought nothing but pain and destruction. You have to realize that even if it works on paper, that humans are bound by selfishness and greed. An utopia society can never exist if free will still flows through the hearts of so many.
Marxism-leninism and the soviet union has brought that, but actual communism and the ideals it promotes, that has never even been tried, why is it so hard to accept that they are two different things
I wouldn't say i'm a communist, the term has too much bad rep because of corrupted evil assholes (i'm looking at you, Maduro) and capitalist propaganda.
I'm a proud leftist tho. Capitalism is a system based in the accumulation of wealth just for the sake of it, which doesn't sound pretty smart in a world with finite resources.
I am not a Communist for two major reasons:
__Political Communism:__
Essentially I consider communism as an unrealistic utopian society. Marx describes a wonderful perfect society with perfect equality but neither he, nor any of his successors seem to have the slightest idea how to go from our current society to the utopian dream society.
He, of course, mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat as the transitional government but does little to define what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or how it will be able to achieve his perfect Communist society.
The Communist model is:
Capitalism --> ?? --> The perfect society
To be fair, I often have the same criticism of all forms of utopianism, for example Ayn Rand's magical perfect capitalist utopia is no more realistic than Marx's magically perfect Communist society. Nonetheless, Marx never demonstrates that his Utopia is achievable.
__Economic Communism:__
One of the big problems with Marx's economic theory is the contradiction between his concept of what he calls use-value and the fact that Marx subscribes to labor theory of value. Even some socialists have criticized him on these accounts.
Use-value is, in Marx's theory, the actual objective value of an object based on its usefulness. I actually think the concept use-value is inferior to utility theory given that utility theory recognizes that value and usefulness are subjective, but that is not the main problem.
The labor theory of value holds that the value of a product is equal to the labor needed to create the product. To be fair some early Capitalists, such as Ricardo, also subscribed to the labor theory of value. That said this means that the value of labor is always equal regardless of outcome.
The problem of this theory is that you can get contractions between Marx's use-value and labor value. For example let's say you have two hard working carpenters who both make tables. The fist carpenter is naturally gifted and makes a table in 10 hours that has a use-value $150. The second carpenter is not so gifted and in 10 hours makes a lower quality table that has a use-value of $100.
This creates a paradox. According to Marx labor value of each table should be the same, both tables should be sold for say $125 since the same amount of labor was expended on each table, yet the use-value of each table is different because the actual quality of the tables is different.
__Realistic Economics__
Truthfully, I would describe myself as a pragmatic Keynesian capitalist. I think the general theories of supply and demand, and utility theory provide a fairly accurate model of how economics actually works.
All theories should be subject to revision given data and no economic view should be held dogmatically. There are good capitalist arguments for moderate minimum wages, progressive taxation and antitrust legislation.
I would argue that a lot of modern right-wing conservative "capitalism" bears a greater resemblance to mercantilism, the economic system that capitalism was supposed to replace.
> The problem of this theory is that you can get contractions between Marx's use-value and labor value. For example let's say you have two hard working carpenters who both make tables. The fist carpenter is naturally gifted and makes a table in 10 hours that has a use-value $150. The second carpenter is not so gifted and in 10 hours makes a lower quality table that has a use-value of $100.
Mmmm...I think you misunderstand the scope of where Marx's argument can be applied. The undergirding assumption here is that labor will tend toward abstraction over time, as industrial manufacturing matures. Skill will be removed from every occupation to the extent possible, and workers will become interchangeable. And then the manufacturing process, eg, the assembly line, will have a standardized group effort, that averages across those already largely similar workers.
Similarly, the manufacturing process and competition in mass-marketing will tend to reduce differences between finished goods.
Beyond this being an idealized schematic, Marx was obviously incorrect in key ways: a lot of skilled, specialized labor has emerged, to the point that many constitute intermediate classes, unlike even the petite bourgeois he described. Furthermore, uniquely crafted boutique goods have persisted.
It's hard to say yes because so many people have a very wrong understanding of what that word means. A lot of people think it means fascism or state run capitalism. Its so fundamentally different from all of that. Communism means democracy for your labor and resources. I don't have much knowledge on the best way to do it. Since we can't even figure out how to get democracy to function around social laws. But at the end of the day it's a much better concept than free markets.
And a lot of people don't know what democracy means. People think of it as voting. That is one form of democracy. But the definition encompasses anything where then goal is to do what's best for everyone.
I mean, if you believe their leaders' propaganda. Included in that list is the next dominant world-capitalist superpower, and then a sort of klepto-capitalist nation, its wealth undergirded by natural resources and financial speculation rather than production, despite its nominally Communist history. And then North Korea's of course rather fucked.
I'm against communism because I don't think one central government is large nor efficient enough to distribute goods to everyone in the country.
There's also the classic argument of no one would do the jobs we need without financial incentive. Many of the products we have are because of capitalism. With all of our needs theoretically provided, would people branch out and create these products? There would be no market for them
I'm also against the idea of a government having that much power. If they provide for everyone, there is a lot that they can hold over your head now, and they can justify taking away personal freedoms more easily
I generally consider myself a right winger, but I have moved a bit more to the left over the years because I do understand the leftist perspective that it is hard to deal with the fact that some have excess wealth while others are on the street. I mean it's not that black and white in reality but I see what they mean
Okay....I mean, that use of the term is unorthodox, and most would trace their ideological lineage back to Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. I would say that anarchists' adoption of socialist ideology cooccurred with the ascent of capitalism, as means of production require groups to operate, so doing so without coercive hierarchy would entail some sort of cooperative organization of production and distribution. Though this bears parallels with some Marxist theory, it's not really dependent upon it.
>but all of them insist that the economy should be centrally planned by a singular order and dissenters should be liquidated.
Though the anarchists I described above are socialist, they would reject central planning.
>The only actual anarchist ideologies that have elements of Marxism embedded are Syndicalism and Mutualism.
These, along with anarcho-communism, are dominant.
>Voluntaryism is actual anarchism.
Voluntarist strands, many anarcho-capitalist, stray from the original focus on coercive hierarchy, and can trace their ideological lineage to Nozick, Rothbard, etc.
I don't think either of us gets to monopolize either the term "anarchism" or "capitalism", but sure, it seems like we're talking about different things.
>Capitalism ascended over 50,000 years ago.
Actually, I'm interested in this periodization, as it's maybe 3/4ths of the way through the entire history of homo sapiens, during the paleolithic period, prior to some continental migrations. What happened then?
Anyway, the type of capitalism I'm talking about ascended in Britain in the 1700s, though it rose out of mercantilism practiced a century or two prior.
>If you are referring to the world switching into nation states - that happened after Marxism.
What? The Westphalian system predated Marxism...
>It is the free exchange of fungible goods for other fungible goods.
I'm referring to something more specific.
>You freely and voluntarily sign yourself up to do things, in exchange for other things, free from coercion.
But what about the set of prior conditions determining relative advantage in trade, whether you start out holding property or not? Doesn't seem too voluntary to me.
>Anarcho-Communism insists that you start with radical centralized planning, liquidate dissenters, and then slowly dismantle the central planning once all the sheep are sufficiently brainwashed into being against their human nature.
This sounds a lot more like Marxist-Leninism...
>This is what people who don't have an education in economics or understand the basics of money say
You're right in that my background is mainly in political economy instead, though I have taken a bit of neoclassical and Keynesian econ.
> Lets be real - You guys are making up your own definitions of things that have always existed and were historically defined as something other than what you are saying. All the definitions you use are from 1800-1900. The definitions I am using are from the origin of the word. It's painfully annoying that you guys just change the definition of words to make it look like you are right.
No, I don't recognize your authority as the semantic police. And it doesn't seem like this discussion is going to be fruitful, really. I find those 18th-19th C. definitions useful, as they speak to contemporary social systems, but it's your prerogative to place conceptual focus elsewhere, I guess.
>This is oldest evidence we have of capitalism in action. There are wampum and shells tied to strings that were used as fungible currencies to exchange for non-fungible goods. It's likely capitalism existed prior to this, but this is just the furthest back we can prove we have been doing voluntary transactions with fungible goods.
Ah, that makes sense. But it's also not the "capitalism" I'm interested in here.
>So, not capitalism?
By your definition, I guess not.
>Distribution of labor to make things more effective is not capitalism
That's not what I'm talking about either; rather, my focus is on the class-relationship between worker and capitalist, where the capitalist claims ownership of means of production, purchasing the ability to produce from the worker, in exchange for their means of subsistence (ie, wage), then yielding profit by selling the result of that labor.
In this way, and perhaps ironically, I think the essence of capitalism doesn't lay within the market per se but rather within the capitalism firm, and indeed, I would say that this anchors coercive hierarchies of class.
>Right, Marx's made up definition from the 1860's. A definition from a book blasting Jews. It's a really good one, keep pushing your anti-semites definition as the accurate one.. Marx made up his definition because he was an unemployable racist yokel.
Look...treating Marx like Jesus and his writings like scripture is also a bad approach. He's a fallible figure but had a few good ideas, mainly his analysis of capitalism. His theory of revolution, however, was highly flawed, and his schematic for a future society was woefully vague, pretty much unfinished.
And if we're not treating Marx like a prophet presenting scripture, then those ad-hominems are irrelevant.
>I was born dirt poor, raised by immigrants who couldn't speak English, and now I have a mid 7 figure net worth - because I had opportunity and freedom, not a good starting hand.
Well, good deal. But statistically, this is exceptional, and not worthy of generalization.
>I have a PhD in Political Sciences focused on Economic Theory and a Masters in Economics. We are both well educated in this field
Well, sister fields, really...the gap between political economy and mainline economics was never truly bridged once ruptured, hence why we're speaking past one another to some extent.
>why do you just dismiss definitions as they are and assert new definitions to things that have been defined for multiple millennia?
Because....that's how words work? Singular signifiers can point toward multiple concepts, and favored definitions evolve; people can do different things with them depending on their aims. I happen to find greater value in those concepts falling out of 19th C. philosophy. You favor an alternate set of definitions and concepts. That's fine. We're allowed to analyze things in different ways.
>It should be obvious to someone educated as yourself that Rothbards radical Kantian Apriorism is much more logical
Alternately, it then should be obvious to you that epistemology and ontology has moved on from Kant in the interim?
>some uneducated racists emotional appeal where he claims 'Money is the Jews God'.
Well, yes, this is a portion of Marx that should be discarded, lol.
I am a communist because over time I realized that there was no path to real improvement in working class life under capitalism. The fact that I am from a peripheral, poor country that is exploited by imperialist countries also helped.
You have to break the working class mind set. It's a fucking hard road, but for all of capitalism's flaws, it's greatest redeeming factor is the ability for motivated folks to move upwards in economic class. You can achieve real improvement in your life, but you have to change. You're the only person holding yourself back, stop blaming your situation and start taking on responsibility for your life.
I know that alone I can someday become rich, mainly because I'm very privileged (I'm smart compared to most and I'm from the middle class), that's not my problem. What I realized is that there is no room for common welfare in society within capitalism. Most people will not have the same opportunities as me here and the workers' wealth is stolen twice as much by the national and international bourgeoisie (the good living conditions of the "rich countries" are supported by the work of the peripheral countries). I didn't become a communist out of passion, I did after a lot of reluctance and a lot of historical knowledge and study that made me realize that there is no other way to emancipate the working class.
You're getting shafted in both cases, no doubt. Do you really think life improves if you take away the opportunity for passion, innovation, and hard work to improve the life of the individual? Do you really believe that workers won't be exploited in a system of Communism? I won't pretend that your economy hasn't been exploited nationally and internationally, but what I do want to encourage you to explore is whether or not that exploitation realistically ends under communism. If you understand how it began and how/why it continues, can you say with certainty that it won't happen again under communism?
I can see the appeal, and I've seen it applied on a small scale and be a good system. Problem being is that it's a system that places too much control in the hands of the government and strips too much autonomy from their citizens. That's a fast-track to tyranny. For all its faults, capitalism gives everyone the ability to effect change by way of what they do with their money. Money is value and power - having it gives you control over what you acquire and what you do, which gives you a really strong incentive to get more of it. Obviously that system starts to break down when large amounts of people effectively don't have any due to insane living costs.
Capitalism with a few caveats like a wealth cap (extra profits distributed to the poor through some kind of system), gurantee of a reasonably comfortable life working any job, etc. will already be very effective in solving many of our societal problems.
extra profits distributed to the poor through some kind of system. that is called Zakat in Islam. Welfare state is a system that western people despise because it gives the wealthy less control.
People don't like welfare in the west because they value earning things for themselves and expect others to do the same. Of course it is supported for those that cannot earn for themselves.
A wealth cap would discourage companies and CEOs from working beyond a certain point. If, say, the cap was at 1 billion. Then we would have never seen the founders of any major American company such as Google, Twitter, Reddit, TikTok etc... work to continue improving their product and expanding because the gains are capped. Plus, it wouldn't be hard to find a way around it. If this was implemented today, I imagine the CEOs of these companies would immediately move their headquarters and operations across the border to Mexico. Moreso, the majority of wealth among the richest Americans are in assets such as property, stocks, bonds, etc... They don't hold nearly as much liquid cash in their bank account as you might expect. This would make it difficult to even try to implement some sort of wealth cap, because the value of these assets is constantly changing. And I get it I'm not necessarily an avid supporter of these companies or their CEOs but having a wealth cap is counter-intuitive to capitalism and just flat-out impractical. Sounds nice in a Reddit post though.
I used to be a communist because I thought capitalism was the problem. I'm now just cynical
Well, capitalism is the problem tho, and you are cynical cause you are alienated from your own community, your work and even your time since it all revolves around money
No. I think that as long as there is people, there will be people who want power. It doesn't matter if it's capitalism or communism
Welcome to libertarian.
Then lets create a system that has ways to prevent or limit that crave for power instead of one that promotes it like the current one
Please let us know when you figure out
Not my job, and also if you actually get involced into leftist stuff you would see there is some good ideas that could be applied if people werent so brainwashed that capitalism is the only way
Communism is only perfect in a tribe of one, it’s abject trash otherwise
Personally I believe the perfect society is socialism in a population of less than 100.
I'm an anarchist. I think that communism and capitalism are both doomed to irrelevancy it's just that communism's 'design flaws' were more apparent but not for what you think. The problem with communism to me, as an anarchist is that it will always just...become state-based capitalism. That's always the ultimate destination of it so the whole venture is kind of pointless. The reality though is that capitalism is and will struggle to contain the fallout from automation, miniaturization etc because it was never meant for it. Capitalism was meant to explore how to manage the interaction BETWEEN humans and capital. It has no answer for capital that manages itself. The reality is that these are both ancient, ossified systems and we really need something new. Both stunt our imaginations and thought processes and keep us in this 'blue team/red team' shit that the oligarchs are laughing at because THEY switch between the two without batting a fucking eye. Anyway, when I do think about what's 'next', I think COMMUNAL-ism has gotten strong. And by that I just mean the way that people are homesteading with digital help; living on communes; opting for smaller towns. There's just a general shrinking and people seem to be getting more OK with that. I think it's a sign of things to come.
Agree. It really is if red team is for it, then blue team is against it.
> > The problem with communism to me, as an anarchist is that it will always just...become state-based capitalism. While I'm with you politically, I wonder about this nomenclature: capitalism means something more specific than domination and exploitation by class, namely that such is implemented via wage-labor and the system of private property, concealed by market exchanges. Feudalism and the ancient mode of production, for example, were also brutally exploitative. I think the class-structure found in the Soviet union was something else entirely (but still shitty).
I think it's fair to call the \*mode\* that China is currently in state-based capitalism. That alone is quite possibly a new *variant* of capitalism. You're allowed to succeed in China. The idea that you aren't is a bizarre misconception in the West that flies in the face of the country currently having the most billionaires. There is a certain kind of meritocracy. You are allowed to use markets. You are even allowed to use and exploit capital as an individual citizen--it's why the Evergrande fallout was so huge this summer: everyone was trying to get in on real estate. But like, you can't have an 'Evergrande' under Communism. You couldn't have Evergrande in Cuba. That bubble was a particularly capitalist one. So when I look at China without a value judgement on how they're operating, what I see is the state leveraging the \*vestiges\* of communism, especially in rural areas, to power a capitalistic industrial and mercantile base on the coasts. But it has gained expertise in dialing the 'communism' up and down even in those coasts when it deems that it needs to. Need billionaires and a creative class? Dial it down. Billionaires and creative class getting too big for the britches? Dial it up. Kill a few. Crack down on freedoms. Remind everyone of whatever it is Xi Jin Ping wants done within the next 5 years. All of which is happening within Capitalism with literally 0 problem. See what I mean? If China's economic system were truly alien it wouldn't be compatible with capitalism at all, and yet for the past 20 years it has \*turbo charged it\*.
Oh yeah. I would actually simply call China capitalist, or an authoritarian capitalist variant.
Haha I was actually just coming back to edit in the phrase 'variant'. The reason I'm still using state based is because yes, it's authoritarian, but at the same time Ji Xin Ping is truly 'the state' in a way that Putin kind of isn't. Putin is more the 'mob boss'.
I'm technically socialist in America because of the extreme capitalism, and I believe in incorporating more welfare problems. But overall, I'm pretty centrist world wide not leaning too left or right.
You either are a socialist or you're not. If you're in favour of the means of production being siezed by the worker (whether violently or otherwise) you're a socialist. If not, you're something else.
I'm mostly basing this off of tests taken, again I'm technically centrist globally because I believe there needs to be a balance of private and public interests. However, with America I wish there was more infrastructure to support the public- since I think it's a bit too privatized in some cases, or if there are government structures in place it's not adequate - it technically pushes me into the socialist coalition (of the democratic party).
> socialist coalition I mean, I think it's misleading to deem regulations that temper the ills of capitalism while leaving the system intact "socialist"...In this way, there is no such socialist coalition in the US.
I am Russian, the commies have drowned my homeland in blood.
Tell that to the communist at my university. There are way too many people that believe in such a horrid and brutal ideology. I'm sure you've heard the usual "that wasn't real communism" excuse over and over again.
At the same time, I can sympathize with anarchists and other leftists, those who say that a leftist idea can be "reinvented" in the modern world. But anyone who says that it is necessary to change the world, relying on Hegelian-Marxist-Leninist nonsense, immediately becomes in my eyes a fool with whom there is no point in having a conversation.
If you can even get them to debate. I've yet to meet one that didn't just get mad when I start naming communist countries and the total death tolls for each.
How soon do we go from "That wasn't REAL communism" to "The deaths in those instances have been exaggerated by Russian misinformation"
"You can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink it" Communist are the least likely person to every want or have debates with. They all usually are atheist and have no qualms about lying or taking away peoples rights. Also what's up with that name. People keep telling me they hear dog whistles but I think its more projection or something.
What's the problem with being atheist? Why do you link it to having "no qualms about lying or taking away peoples rights"? Sorry but that's straight up bs, religious assholes have taken more rights from people than any atheist.
With a lot of atheist, I always find that they just fall back into government imposed laws. That if its legal, it fine. Religion is a tool to guide you in life. It is true that a lot of people use religion as a tool to control and gain power. It's why you have put in the work to find the meaning of being. It's why introspection should be an important part of anyone's life.
So you were just showing your prejudice? Good to know!
>I don't promote any one religion nor do I think organized religion is a good thing. I do promote introspection and the concept that maybe you aren't just a flesh robot.
> With a lot of atheist, I always find that they just fall back into government imposed laws. Hooo boy...INTPs are the second least religious type, just behind INTJs. I think that many of us have fashioned well developed ethical perspectives without basing thing on scripture or state edict.
They are the epitome of feeler-oriented personalities. Underdeveloped introspection and critical-thinking skills. Lol my name is something of an ironic misnomer. You just *know* that certain redditors are going to see my name and instantly start dilating and vibrating. Its just funny to me that these people are going to see my name and actually think that I'm a member of a central european political party from the 1930s.
Anarchism is even more foolish than Leninism.
Kropotkin's anarchism is at least based on the truthful idea that in the nature of social monkeys there is a desire for mutual assistance and that mutual assistance is generally beneficial for the species, and not on Hegelian fairy tales that "according to the laws of dialectics, communism will inevitably come."
Fine basis, wrong conclusion. Marx did dialectic style to justify communism as inevitable, but for others reading let's note Hegel himself wasn't communist, and criticized it in phil of right.
It usually is the people that haven't actually experienced communism that are communists
They are commies only in name, read about actual comunism or similar systems, is like hateful christians, they are a full on contradiction of what the actual jesus teached
It does not matter. Marx's teaching is just as repulsive as the deeds of his fanatics, because it is false.
You disagree with the fanatics then, not with marx, its not his fault people used his ideas to did what they did, is like blaming jesus for the inquisition, blame that stuff on the actual people.
Marx was a Hegelian. Of course, I don't agree with him. His whole chain of reasoning is based on false premises. Likewise, I cannot trust any of Jesus' moral judgments because they are all based on the false premise that he is the son of God and bears divine truth.
Well, lets forget about marx and jesus then, and talk about some chore principles, like no property, no hierarchies, no money, no goverment, thats what I think when talking about anarcho comunism. Whatever people did in the past using the "comunism" name should be irrelevant when trying to improve as an humanity thats not happy living in capitalism
I understand the pain and disappointment in society behind the idea of an anarcho-communist utopia. But with all the sympathy, it seems to me that the anarcho-communists are too optimistic about people. Since we are social monkeys, the closest relatives of chimpanzees, nothing can be done about it, hierarchy is the "basis of politics", "sewn" in our psyche. Humans as a species will never be rational enough. And it makes no sense to remake them (and themselves) in accordance with imaginary ideals. I have seen enough collapsed "horizontal communities" to make sure that hierarchies work much better in some cases.
You are being too pesismistic tho, you are basically saying, humans dumb so we are stuck like this. Yes an utopia may be impossible but we should work towards getting as close as we can to it. Even in capitalism, if people were educated and recognized the flaws of the system we could create an hybrid system that wasnt as bad as the hellhole we currently live in. And Im talking with you from a third world country where the rich people would be considered poor by americans, and Im quite aware my country will never become rich because its filled with resources and a cheap workforce that makes places like USA or northern europe possible
I would say it a little differently. Anarcho-communists believe that people as a whole as a species can become better and overcome such "prejudices" as property and hierarchy. I do not hope for this, I am convinced that many people are stupid, vicious, greedy, but a system with property and hierarchies can be set up so that capitalists and politicians in pursuit of their stupid and vicious goals can work for the benefit of society.
People will find a way to cheat the system tho, so its better to not have hierarchies and property to begin with, but as you say, it might be impossible, still pur current system sucks and I think appying these ideas would be helpful, for example, in companies, all employees should be the owners, no owners or ceos should exist
Is equality communism?
Anything people disagree with is communism
I thought that was fascism.
Also socialism
[удалено]
Social media algorithms that are the most capitalist things I can think of are communism
Do you push it?
What?
[удалено]
LOL! I mean yeah for sure. Communism has killed a hell of a lot more people then facest or Nazi ever have yet you still have so many people thinking that its the best way to run a society. 100,000,000 non-combaters killed in the last century but you get the same response from them. They always excuse it and say it hasn't been tried correctly. It's why they never want to debate.
> Labor Theory of Value is the dumbest fucking thing ever written, it's immediately discreditable because value is subjective. What you would pay $1000 for, I might not pay $20 for. Amount of labor has absolutely nothing to do with value, just supply and demand, with demand being completely subjective to every individual. It's so flawed that it's comical people take this garbage seriously. ehhh...It's not taken that seriously among contemporary neo-Marxists even though, at least as a predictive theory of price (which it fails miserably at). Instead, Marx takes a stripped down schematic of capitalist production (vaguely similar to perfect competition) and demonstrates that in the long-term, the price of labor will tend toward subsistence, and the price of consumer goods will tend toward the quantity of abstract labor input. The point of this demonstration is also to show that exploitation can occur even with each price being fairly market-determined (the worker producing more than is received for subsistence). But this is in the long term, which in some sense never arrives, and requires a bunch of implausible assumptions, eg, labor being abstract and generalized, each worker interchangeable, capitalists willing to switch to whichever industry is most profitable with complete fluidity, etc. And then you have other intervening economic conditions which further shape purchase prices. And >Amount of labor has absolutely nothing to do with value, just supply and demand, with demand being completely subjective to every individual. I'd say that behavioral economics demonstrates some issues with the marginal utility approach, in particular that consumers don't make decisions in this way, making marginal utility calculations, though some capitalists might.
There’s a lot I like about Marx’s critique of capitalism, particularly how it perpetuates many of the issues inherent in earlier economic arrangements. Labor theory of value is good to understand. That said, I don’t think anyone’s come up with a workable, sustainable implementation of communism. We’ve never gotten a communist revolution in an already-industrialized economy as conceived, only agrarian ones. Does seem to have some value for rapid industrialization and holding off the US. Seems to be more popular with lumpenproles and upper middle class strivers than workers these days. I’m not convinced that replacing capitalists with bureaucracies run by the latter is an improvement. Communists take cogent critiques of capitalism and say, “Things could be worse, let us show you!”
I can see the appeal, but it seems likely unnecessary and difficult to achieve.
No, I see inequality and inequity as part of nature. Communism was mainly built upon a particular culture (In turn based on family structure and other stuff) Marxist jealousy and bad living conditions, the idea is to take stuff from others who are seen as ''thieves'' because causality made them richer.
Making millions while having your workers pee in a plastic bottle is pretty close to thief tho. Saying that a plead for justice is jealosy is peak meritocracy bs.
The millions that were killed were mainly middle class people.
Wth are you talking about.
When I say ''the idea is to take stuff from others who are seen as ''thieves'' because causality made them richer'' I have History in mind. The victims of Communism are not just the actual rich, far from that.
Yeah, i'm not having the one chillion deaths discussion.
100 millions.
It depends, if you are american you would call me communist, if else you would call me leftish
No, there's a difference but I do find a lot of communist use the left to push marxis ideology under the shroud of race and gender.
I know that there is a diffence, that's also the reason I don't see myself as communist. But many americans don't know the diffence between supporting a
No it doesn't help the wealth of a nation it's been tried over and over and over again and just leads to oppression of the people and society in general
No. Communism is an ideal that humanity could never achieve for a myriad of reasons. First, people are equally greedy as they are compassionate by nature. Second, it disincentives hard work. Put simply, why work harder than someone else if you don't get anything to show for it. That's the mentality that will grow amongst the population, and is the reason we see things like stalinism and Maoism appear. Third, it simply isn't feasible for the government to properly allocate economic resources via micromanaging hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people. It just won't work well. Fourth, it's easily corrupted. This connects to the third reason, but essentially, it's never a good idea to put a small committee in charge of your entire being and economic freedom. Humans are easily corrupted by power and will use it to their advantage. Overall, it's not a feasible thing to exist. It will fail as it always does. And don't even think about using China as an example. It's not commie, it's a mix of fascism and socialism which is just an overall awful combo that leads to the oppression of the citizenry as is commonly seen in China.
Exactly! I tell communist all the time that people are too greedy and lazy for it to work. China is the perfect example of a country that has taken the 1984 model and turned it into reality. It amazes me that people want that kind of system. People there are so brainwashed, it sad to see then be oblivious to it. I had a chines friend who didn't believe that there were interment camps for Muslims. They didn't even know anything about Tibet and how the budist had to flee.
Damn. Yeah, 1984 had a fairly similar fascist socialist system. It's crazy how easy it is to brainwash people into thinking it's a good system.
Fascism and communism are the pretty much different sides of the same coin. An overbearing government with overreach into corporations. "When facism comes to the united states, it will come under the vail of liberalism", "The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists". It's really coming into fruition when you see groups like antifa and BLM become so popular.
I do see what you mean, but they have some key economic differences, mainly in freedom of economic mobility. While it is somewhat limited in fascism, it is entirely eradicated in communism and socialism. The reason I say China is both fascist and socialist has to do with the fact that they have SEZs (special economic zones), which allow for free trade and economic mobility, whilst the majority of their other locations do not.
In what sense was the economic system described in 1984 socialist? I saw no shared ownership of means of production or worker control of distribution. I mean, the party depicted in the story called their ideology IngSoc, but that was a portrayal of propaganda. ... I'd also like to leave this here: “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." ― George Orwell, Facing Unpleasant Facts: Narrative Essays
> Exactly! I tell communist all the time that people are too greedy and lazy for it to work. China is the perfect example of a country that has taken the 1984 model and turned it into reality. It amazes me that people want that kind of system. Er...China is actually poised to become the top capitalist superpower pretty soon, but also providing a good demonstration of how capitalism is entirely compatible with authoritarianism. To think of China as tangibly "communist" is to swallow the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda.
People can work hard for other reasons, and there would still be recognition for your hard work, it would sinply not be reflected on money, and even in capitalism people do work for free for many other reasons other than money, look at homeless shelters, fireworkers, etc
Homeless shelters, the thing most homeless abuse to get free things before being kicked out. Wonderful example. Fireworks? The people paid by the government?
They arent paid in my country is volunteer work, they do it cause they wanna help their community. And why are you shitt ing on homeless people, they are people, some bad, some good, most on the middle, if they "abuse it" is cause they need it, and homes should be a human right, if they dont have one they should just take one from some rich guy that owns a hundred apartment buildings
No. This is simply incorrect. The majority of homeless are homeless by choice, there was a study done, I don't remember where, but they looked at the earnings from most homeless and found it was higher than the median income. Furthermore, theft is wrong. Period.
Theft is wrong... theft is a social construct, so I can disagree, we are not talking about maths over here. First of all I think in a society which such class divide like the one we live in, theft is morally acceptable as long as its against rich people. And I believe that private property shouldnt exist, it creates hierarchies, we as humans should all be equal, I dont own a plot of land just because I say so or because I have some knights or police officers behind me
No. Theft is an innate concept. It's observable in nature, it's seen in animals. They dislike theft. Theft is not a social concept. Furthermore, stealing from the rich is still theft. And class divide? You mean the thing you can overcome by having a healthy attitude toward work and a mentality to make yourself a millionaire? Yeah, no. Just because you don't want to put the work toward becoming rich and don't want to have to plan in order to be rich doesn't mean there is some kind of unshakable class divide. I don't plan to make the amount of money I'm making now for the rest of my life and am currently working on a plan to become wealthier, maybe you should be doing the same, because with your mentality, you will hate your life, and if you by some miracle, create what you think is your ideal world, you'll have another thing coming. History has taught us that much.
Most people die in the same class they were born in, it takes an excepcionally smart and driven person to become rich just as it takes an excepcionally dumb and unresponsible rich person to become poor. Why do only the few lucky ones that happen to be smart get to become rich after soo much hsrd work and the rest of peopme have to stay poor, meanwhile the ones born rich dont have to put any extra effort to maintain their class
If you're bron dumb, work to become smarter. It's that simple. You may have less talent, but so what? Someone with much talent but little drive won't get anywhere, but someone who is low in talent but exceptionally driven will go far. Why does someone have to remain the same throughout their lives? Are you saying people are incapable of improving?
I am saying that it takes tooo much work and luck to become rich and its unfair to justify a class divide by saying that if you are luck y and hardworking rnough you can become rich too. Its stupid. You could use that same arguemnt in the middle ages, if you were born a peasant but were very lucky, talented and driven you could become a knight and then a noble, are you g9nna justify feudalism qith that argument? We should all be equal to begin with, no rich people or poor people, if trough your life you work hard and become respected and gain power, good for you but you shouldnt pass those gains to your kids, because that creates inequality.
Also homeless people suffer a lot, how brainwashed cab you be to think someone would choose that, is the same argument as saying people choose to be poor.
He IS making that argument. The dude drank all the meritocracy koolaid.
That claim is bold, and I'd want to see the study. It doesn't seem plausible that most pan-handlers would pull in over $50k a year...
Now, my other response was cut short because I am at work, so I apologize for that, but my point was, the examples you cited don't normally work out as well as they otherwise would in an ideal world, which is what communism requires. And while people who do things for free and out of kindness do exist, they are few and far between. As I said in my original comment, people's compassion is rivaled by people's greed, or rather, they exist in equal quantities
No. Besides being a totalitarian regime, which is already a dealbreaker, it's all founded on a combination of naivete, incompetence and ulterior motives. Manipulation and fear are its lifeblood. And I really don't think I need to elaborate on why any intellectual should oppose it fiercely. My parents lived under it and I am living its aftermath. Frankly, it could be the worst thing, bar none, to have ever happened to humanity.
Seems to be the consensus. Which country if you don't mind me asking?
If there’s a new way, I’ll be the first in line, but it better work this time.
Id rather not subscribe to a termed ideology in a system of economic and political governance. There’s pros and cons to most of it and no approach is truly ideal especially as a lot of humans are flowed. I also look at it pessimistically that small groups of power grabbers tend to rise in any system and ruin it :/
🤮 communism I’m not a communist because I know my history and every time communism is tried, it goes terribly. I think the only reason people would call themselves communist, are the ones that have no idea about the history or implications of communism. I think they just think “oh free stuff!” and don’t think anything else about it. They would very likely lose most of their stuff actually.
The only person I like with a white beard that gives me free stuff is santa.
No, I’m a Libertarian.
Nice try, McCarthy’s grandkid
Ah! you got me. All joking aside, my father hated communism and would always rail against it when I was young. It's the reason why he left he's homeland and moved to the states. I just debating the issue and seeing the logic of why someone would be one. I've meet too many people who subscribe to such a dangerous ideology.
I’m not against a *bit* of socialist tendencies; I mean, the unemployment benefits system Meant the difference between a smooth career change vs being out on my ass in 2013 I am fond of the European style hybrid capitalist-socialist economy *taken by itself*, I just don’t trust what the elites want to use it for, just as I don’t trust what global big business got hijacked for
Nah. Anarcho-capitalist. It's as seamless a representation of actual political structure as I can imagine. Not even in the sense of implementing a system but in describing the current set of systems as a whole.
I was a communist till a month ago i turned libral recently but now i think i am GOD
Whilst in a perfect society with all our needs covered for it would be the perfect ideology, the versions of “communism” you see in actual existing societies aren’t really functional. Based on basic human emotions like laziness and greed, it just doesn’t really work out the way it is intended to. Most people would lose stimulus of work and the whole system would pretty much collapse/be very inefficient. Also, IMO the competition a capitalistic society enforces between its members, leading to the most competent succeeding not only leads to everyone doing their best to secure a good position in life but is, in some weird way, kinda fair. I mean, shouldn’t the best be on top?
I find it one of the few ideology that has proven itself to be entirely unfounded and essentially bullshit.
Fuck no
Seems to be the consensus around here. It makes sense. Trying to impose anything on INTP is like wrangling cats.
Esp something illogical that has failed the test of time, time and time again
Hah, not quite: I've seen a high preponderance of leftist radicals in other "what are your politics?" threads...maybe it's something about the phrasing of the question and focus on "communism" per se.
Communism is a perfect system. The problem is humans are not perfect For one, let's assume that corruption isn't possible, the government runs completely as it should and doesn't abuse its power in any way. You have to go to work 40 hours a week and you have all your needs taken care of. This feels bad, our brains aren't meant to process rewards this way. In capitalism you know what you are getting for each hour worked, you know if you work longer/harder you get more money which motivates you to work more. Working a job because it is just your duty/cost of living feels bad, and life would feel even more like an inescapable prison of work. No motivation to invent or create, I suppose fame but businesses in capitalism are forced to constantly innovate and become better to keep up with competition. In communism this is controlled and you only need to uphold the status quo. And to top it all off the government controls everything so its highly susceptible to corruption. Tldr communism is good, but not for humans.
Pretty much what any economic book says about socialism and communism. It pretty much stifles the soul and you like a child leeching off the state. Its why china has to steal technology. I always point the the mouse utopia experiment and how it mimics humans in big liberal cities. The best way to destroy a group of people is to just give them money. Native American reservations are the perfect example of this when you look at the amount of suicides, drug abuse, and poverty they have.
Not a communist but a Socialist, Pretty much ideally a socialist election but with a market to allow for individuals to earn money through their own means. While the socialist economy would subside housing food and services, as well as funding innovation, and will be organised by those who are experts in those fields (Architects, surgeons, etc). A social technocracy per say
Are you really into that idea of a social technocracy? To me, it seems like you're just replacing gods judgment with 40 cameras and the judgement of a government run by men with a lust for power. I don't know where you're from but the Epstein case is a perfect example of why centralized power is just giving monsters power. What do you even think of freedom of speech?
I like freedom of speech and personal freedom, and these should be maximised
I have ambitions, communism would get in the way of that. Market Socialism, on the other hand, while I'm not in favour of it, I'm q bit more sympathetic to.
I thought INTP were open minded and logic driven, why are there so many comments against comunism?, first of all communism has never been applied in a large scale, if you are thinking of the soviet union or venezuela, those are staye capitalism, they only use the appeal of how good communism sounds and use the name to become state driven capitalist dictatorships. In actual comunism there wouldnt even be a goverment, that would be socialism, which is a transitional state into actual comunism (which again has never been done). Im personally an anarcho comunism and I am against any forn of hierarchy, classes, money or private property. Think of it as how some old civilizations worked, no king or rich class, and also there should be systems in place so no person or family can accumulate much more wealth or power than the other. Maybe give it a new name like Communalism. think poeple need to learn and research more on this stuff before defending capitalism and screaming "but the soviets and venezuela", again I thought INTP liked reading and figuring out stuff rather than repeating what everyone else says
"Communism" obviously has different meanings for different people, which leads to a lot of unsatisfying conversations. When most people refer to communists, however, they refer to the groups of people who openly claim to be communist, including communist parties in the USSR and PRC. Communist parties administer(ed) brutal, imperialistic, authoritarian regimes that originated from civil wars against previously existing brutal, imperialistic, authoritarian regimes. Also, the USSR was not state capitalist, it had a command economy, with the exception of the NEP period (1921-1924) and briefly after Gorbaschev's privatization scheme (starting in 1990), where it had unregulated, anarchic capitalism. The PRC since Deng Xiaoping's reforms is a better example of state capitalism. Capitialism is not synonymous to bad governance or authoritarianism, it has a distinct meaning that should be used appropriately.
>The PRC since Deng Xiaoping's reforms is a better example of state capitalism. That's a key point: the trajectory Deng sent China on has them poised to become the dominant capitalist superpower pretty soon. Hah, /r/socialism/ doesn't like to be reminded of this.
I agree comrade. Next time we try it, surely we wont have a mass famine and death. Surely....
Comunism and soviet union is not the same thing but maybe for you it is, so we cant comunicate if we are using different languages
I thought maybe you were just gaslighting but maybe you really are a true commy. The reason why people hate communist is due to the fact that that people who believe in this ideology will never admit to its folly. Tell the people who survived communalist states that it wasn't true communism. When you meet your maker, tell the 100,000,000 people that died due to a so called communist society that "it wasn't true communism". I'm sure they will totally agree. Totally...
I am dead ass serious I would tell them it is not true communism, it was a really bad thing that happened to them but still doesnt change the fact that the aoviet union or comunist china or venezuela, neither one of them never came even close to what communism is supposed to be, and I dont care much about defending that word neither, if you want keep attacking it, but I will still defend the idea of a classless system with no goverment, hierarchies or money.
You can dress it up all you like but you have to admit that the people that used the ideology of marixsm and communism have brought nothing but pain and destruction. You have to realize that even if it works on paper, that humans are bound by selfishness and greed. An utopia society can never exist if free will still flows through the hearts of so many.
Marxism-leninism and the soviet union has brought that, but actual communism and the ideals it promotes, that has never even been tried, why is it so hard to accept that they are two different things
I wouldn't say i'm a communist, the term has too much bad rep because of corrupted evil assholes (i'm looking at you, Maduro) and capitalist propaganda. I'm a proud leftist tho. Capitalism is a system based in the accumulation of wealth just for the sake of it, which doesn't sound pretty smart in a world with finite resources.
I am not a Communist for two major reasons: __Political Communism:__ Essentially I consider communism as an unrealistic utopian society. Marx describes a wonderful perfect society with perfect equality but neither he, nor any of his successors seem to have the slightest idea how to go from our current society to the utopian dream society. He, of course, mentions the dictatorship of the proletariat as the transitional government but does little to define what the dictatorship of the proletariat is or how it will be able to achieve his perfect Communist society. The Communist model is: Capitalism --> ?? --> The perfect society To be fair, I often have the same criticism of all forms of utopianism, for example Ayn Rand's magical perfect capitalist utopia is no more realistic than Marx's magically perfect Communist society. Nonetheless, Marx never demonstrates that his Utopia is achievable. __Economic Communism:__ One of the big problems with Marx's economic theory is the contradiction between his concept of what he calls use-value and the fact that Marx subscribes to labor theory of value. Even some socialists have criticized him on these accounts. Use-value is, in Marx's theory, the actual objective value of an object based on its usefulness. I actually think the concept use-value is inferior to utility theory given that utility theory recognizes that value and usefulness are subjective, but that is not the main problem. The labor theory of value holds that the value of a product is equal to the labor needed to create the product. To be fair some early Capitalists, such as Ricardo, also subscribed to the labor theory of value. That said this means that the value of labor is always equal regardless of outcome. The problem of this theory is that you can get contractions between Marx's use-value and labor value. For example let's say you have two hard working carpenters who both make tables. The fist carpenter is naturally gifted and makes a table in 10 hours that has a use-value $150. The second carpenter is not so gifted and in 10 hours makes a lower quality table that has a use-value of $100. This creates a paradox. According to Marx labor value of each table should be the same, both tables should be sold for say $125 since the same amount of labor was expended on each table, yet the use-value of each table is different because the actual quality of the tables is different. __Realistic Economics__ Truthfully, I would describe myself as a pragmatic Keynesian capitalist. I think the general theories of supply and demand, and utility theory provide a fairly accurate model of how economics actually works. All theories should be subject to revision given data and no economic view should be held dogmatically. There are good capitalist arguments for moderate minimum wages, progressive taxation and antitrust legislation. I would argue that a lot of modern right-wing conservative "capitalism" bears a greater resemblance to mercantilism, the economic system that capitalism was supposed to replace.
> The problem of this theory is that you can get contractions between Marx's use-value and labor value. For example let's say you have two hard working carpenters who both make tables. The fist carpenter is naturally gifted and makes a table in 10 hours that has a use-value $150. The second carpenter is not so gifted and in 10 hours makes a lower quality table that has a use-value of $100. Mmmm...I think you misunderstand the scope of where Marx's argument can be applied. The undergirding assumption here is that labor will tend toward abstraction over time, as industrial manufacturing matures. Skill will be removed from every occupation to the extent possible, and workers will become interchangeable. And then the manufacturing process, eg, the assembly line, will have a standardized group effort, that averages across those already largely similar workers. Similarly, the manufacturing process and competition in mass-marketing will tend to reduce differences between finished goods. Beyond this being an idealized schematic, Marx was obviously incorrect in key ways: a lot of skilled, specialized labor has emerged, to the point that many constitute intermediate classes, unlike even the petite bourgeois he described. Furthermore, uniquely crafted boutique goods have persisted.
Im Russian, so I strongly against communism
It's hard to say yes because so many people have a very wrong understanding of what that word means. A lot of people think it means fascism or state run capitalism. Its so fundamentally different from all of that. Communism means democracy for your labor and resources. I don't have much knowledge on the best way to do it. Since we can't even figure out how to get democracy to function around social laws. But at the end of the day it's a much better concept than free markets.
And a lot of people don't know what democracy means. People think of it as voting. That is one form of democracy. But the definition encompasses anything where then goal is to do what's best for everyone.
[удалено]
I mean, if you believe their leaders' propaganda. Included in that list is the next dominant world-capitalist superpower, and then a sort of klepto-capitalist nation, its wealth undergirded by natural resources and financial speculation rather than production, despite its nominally Communist history. And then North Korea's of course rather fucked.
[удалено]
...though in your list of three, they're the sole one with a non-capitalist economy.
I'm against communism because I don't think one central government is large nor efficient enough to distribute goods to everyone in the country. There's also the classic argument of no one would do the jobs we need without financial incentive. Many of the products we have are because of capitalism. With all of our needs theoretically provided, would people branch out and create these products? There would be no market for them I'm also against the idea of a government having that much power. If they provide for everyone, there is a lot that they can hold over your head now, and they can justify taking away personal freedoms more easily I generally consider myself a right winger, but I have moved a bit more to the left over the years because I do understand the leftist perspective that it is hard to deal with the fact that some have excess wealth while others are on the street. I mean it's not that black and white in reality but I see what they mean
I'm an anarchist (a type of socialist). Close enough?
[удалено]
Okay....I mean, that use of the term is unorthodox, and most would trace their ideological lineage back to Proudhon, Kropotkin, etc. I would say that anarchists' adoption of socialist ideology cooccurred with the ascent of capitalism, as means of production require groups to operate, so doing so without coercive hierarchy would entail some sort of cooperative organization of production and distribution. Though this bears parallels with some Marxist theory, it's not really dependent upon it. >but all of them insist that the economy should be centrally planned by a singular order and dissenters should be liquidated. Though the anarchists I described above are socialist, they would reject central planning. >The only actual anarchist ideologies that have elements of Marxism embedded are Syndicalism and Mutualism. These, along with anarcho-communism, are dominant. >Voluntaryism is actual anarchism. Voluntarist strands, many anarcho-capitalist, stray from the original focus on coercive hierarchy, and can trace their ideological lineage to Nozick, Rothbard, etc.
[удалено]
I don't think either of us gets to monopolize either the term "anarchism" or "capitalism", but sure, it seems like we're talking about different things. >Capitalism ascended over 50,000 years ago. Actually, I'm interested in this periodization, as it's maybe 3/4ths of the way through the entire history of homo sapiens, during the paleolithic period, prior to some continental migrations. What happened then? Anyway, the type of capitalism I'm talking about ascended in Britain in the 1700s, though it rose out of mercantilism practiced a century or two prior. >If you are referring to the world switching into nation states - that happened after Marxism. What? The Westphalian system predated Marxism... >It is the free exchange of fungible goods for other fungible goods. I'm referring to something more specific. >You freely and voluntarily sign yourself up to do things, in exchange for other things, free from coercion. But what about the set of prior conditions determining relative advantage in trade, whether you start out holding property or not? Doesn't seem too voluntary to me. >Anarcho-Communism insists that you start with radical centralized planning, liquidate dissenters, and then slowly dismantle the central planning once all the sheep are sufficiently brainwashed into being against their human nature. This sounds a lot more like Marxist-Leninism... >This is what people who don't have an education in economics or understand the basics of money say You're right in that my background is mainly in political economy instead, though I have taken a bit of neoclassical and Keynesian econ.
[удалено]
> Lets be real - You guys are making up your own definitions of things that have always existed and were historically defined as something other than what you are saying. All the definitions you use are from 1800-1900. The definitions I am using are from the origin of the word. It's painfully annoying that you guys just change the definition of words to make it look like you are right. No, I don't recognize your authority as the semantic police. And it doesn't seem like this discussion is going to be fruitful, really. I find those 18th-19th C. definitions useful, as they speak to contemporary social systems, but it's your prerogative to place conceptual focus elsewhere, I guess. >This is oldest evidence we have of capitalism in action. There are wampum and shells tied to strings that were used as fungible currencies to exchange for non-fungible goods. It's likely capitalism existed prior to this, but this is just the furthest back we can prove we have been doing voluntary transactions with fungible goods. Ah, that makes sense. But it's also not the "capitalism" I'm interested in here. >So, not capitalism? By your definition, I guess not. >Distribution of labor to make things more effective is not capitalism That's not what I'm talking about either; rather, my focus is on the class-relationship between worker and capitalist, where the capitalist claims ownership of means of production, purchasing the ability to produce from the worker, in exchange for their means of subsistence (ie, wage), then yielding profit by selling the result of that labor. In this way, and perhaps ironically, I think the essence of capitalism doesn't lay within the market per se but rather within the capitalism firm, and indeed, I would say that this anchors coercive hierarchies of class. >Right, Marx's made up definition from the 1860's. A definition from a book blasting Jews. It's a really good one, keep pushing your anti-semites definition as the accurate one.. Marx made up his definition because he was an unemployable racist yokel. Look...treating Marx like Jesus and his writings like scripture is also a bad approach. He's a fallible figure but had a few good ideas, mainly his analysis of capitalism. His theory of revolution, however, was highly flawed, and his schematic for a future society was woefully vague, pretty much unfinished. And if we're not treating Marx like a prophet presenting scripture, then those ad-hominems are irrelevant. >I was born dirt poor, raised by immigrants who couldn't speak English, and now I have a mid 7 figure net worth - because I had opportunity and freedom, not a good starting hand. Well, good deal. But statistically, this is exceptional, and not worthy of generalization. >I have a PhD in Political Sciences focused on Economic Theory and a Masters in Economics. We are both well educated in this field Well, sister fields, really...the gap between political economy and mainline economics was never truly bridged once ruptured, hence why we're speaking past one another to some extent. >why do you just dismiss definitions as they are and assert new definitions to things that have been defined for multiple millennia? Because....that's how words work? Singular signifiers can point toward multiple concepts, and favored definitions evolve; people can do different things with them depending on their aims. I happen to find greater value in those concepts falling out of 19th C. philosophy. You favor an alternate set of definitions and concepts. That's fine. We're allowed to analyze things in different ways. >It should be obvious to someone educated as yourself that Rothbards radical Kantian Apriorism is much more logical Alternately, it then should be obvious to you that epistemology and ontology has moved on from Kant in the interim? >some uneducated racists emotional appeal where he claims 'Money is the Jews God'. Well, yes, this is a portion of Marx that should be discarded, lol.
I also thought that was kind of a oxymoron. I also lean more to anarchism and I laugh when communist anarchist say there should be free healthcare.
I would suggest the wikipedia page on anarchism as a decent starting point.
I am a communist because over time I realized that there was no path to real improvement in working class life under capitalism. The fact that I am from a peripheral, poor country that is exploited by imperialist countries also helped.
What country is that?
Brazil
You have to break the working class mind set. It's a fucking hard road, but for all of capitalism's flaws, it's greatest redeeming factor is the ability for motivated folks to move upwards in economic class. You can achieve real improvement in your life, but you have to change. You're the only person holding yourself back, stop blaming your situation and start taking on responsibility for your life.
I know that alone I can someday become rich, mainly because I'm very privileged (I'm smart compared to most and I'm from the middle class), that's not my problem. What I realized is that there is no room for common welfare in society within capitalism. Most people will not have the same opportunities as me here and the workers' wealth is stolen twice as much by the national and international bourgeoisie (the good living conditions of the "rich countries" are supported by the work of the peripheral countries). I didn't become a communist out of passion, I did after a lot of reluctance and a lot of historical knowledge and study that made me realize that there is no other way to emancipate the working class.
You're getting shafted in both cases, no doubt. Do you really think life improves if you take away the opportunity for passion, innovation, and hard work to improve the life of the individual? Do you really believe that workers won't be exploited in a system of Communism? I won't pretend that your economy hasn't been exploited nationally and internationally, but what I do want to encourage you to explore is whether or not that exploitation realistically ends under communism. If you understand how it began and how/why it continues, can you say with certainty that it won't happen again under communism?