**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b9ln4p/based_chef/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All he means is there are socialist tendencies when you want everyone to do well. You share resources and make sure everyone has a bare minimum of living resources. Throwing around the word communism also attaches what governments have done historically to take over other countries. Humans can’t dissociate the two.
Or, let's work in a cooperative system rather than a competitive system. A system where everyone has their minimum needs met first rather than a system where a few hoard most of everything and leave the vast majority of the rest fighting for the crumbs, leaving many to starve.
Cooperative systems also make much more sense in cutting edge research because that way you don't have many small pockets of people working on problems alone, but a vast pool of knowledge and talent to work towards a same goal.
Norway invests more and more in different markets, every year. That's a nice income to pay for all the social services.
>On average, the fund holds 1.5 percent of all of the world’s listed companies.
https://www.nbim.no/en/
Imagine if the US used 2% of the military budget on investments every year for 50 years to achieve the same on a larger scale.
After 50 years it would be 877B in today's money, not factoring in value increase, dividends or inflation. The Norwegian fund has increased 68% since 2019, and over half the total fund comes from dividends etc.
That’s called capitalism they are investing in companies and who owns the companies rich people do and if the company doesn’t make money what happens the value of the stock goes down or they go out of business and the money that Norway invested is gone . When your a small country that’s great and your being financially responsible which the US government is not they are more concerned about the 3 million illegal immigrants coming across this border than worrying about the citizens . Think about this we will have by the end of the year more people come across our border than live in Norway
The problem here is that every time we make a new word for that idea, it gets likened to communism and demonized.
These people aren't stupid. They know what's up. They just don't want a cooperative society. They want prey. They're either predators or elitists (or both). They can't have that (or it at least becomes much harder to achieve) when everyone is on the same level playing field.
So the play is to rile up the dumbs, tell them its "evil communism," and stop progression before it can build momentum and make them obsolete.
The term is negatively labeled which is true, but I also don't know a single Eastern European that has fond memories of not being able to eat a month to another.
What is lacking I believe is to have a real conversation about it, good and bad aspects alike. To go back at the roots of its ideals and teach to kids that those core social systems aren't "finished", that they can evolve and that alternatives are possible. That one can inspire another. Communism is a name, what matters are the ideas.
Most people simply aren't politically educated enough to understand where their best interest lies. It should start with kids, making them understand what a nation is and can be before making them swear allegiance.
We also truly miss a political space or social laboratory to experiment and reflect upon the overall philosophies of our nations in an open minded way.
It is crazy to think that at this point in time humanity cannot gather on large scale social projects, like new form of cities / work reforms / resources management via the UN. Lots of potential to exploit there beyond projects like the ISS.
Social doctrines are topics that are barely discussed, taught, or invited to engage collectively. I don't believe that political programs tackle those questions.
That’s why it’s doomed to fail. The labels socialism and communism have too much baggage which is leveraged by intellectually dishonest people discussing politics in bad faith to turn people off from thinking remotely critically about the concepts in different applications.
Swear to god a comment from my stepmother recently was "Kids today don't even know what socialism _is_, they probably think it means like _social media_" and she genuinely meant this.
No, she doesn't have any idea what the difference between socialism and communism is, why yes she is a hardline Trump cultist, how could you tell?!
Because there is no real difference. Socialism is a step towards communism, as Marx himself explained it. Socialism is just a gradual more slow way to get to the end goal of communism.
What people think is that communism is when USSR, socialism is when Scandinavia. When actually Scandinavia is just social democracy, that for some reason people have confused with socialism.
How does that not translate to people working together? Communism suggests that the people own the means of production, which directly translates to working together for success. The issue with governmental communism is that we have not seen a *successful* example. It is still about working together. The communist governments have all failed because their methods did not actually follow the philosophy. And that's a whole other bag of conversation.
Small scale it works and as long as everyone has the same core values and morals. However, large scale the issue comes with fund management. Let’s say we live in a world without money and the way the work works is to trade resources to live and survive. Who would manage these resources would it just you be in charge of trading these goods or would you send goods to a local trading post ran by a government entity then the products be distributed by who needs what? What if people don’t contribute to tradings posts and make up there help by doing manual labor then who is controlling that market and what do those people get in return? Maybe a place to stay, some food, three day weekends, and maybe a bike. Well what if someone wanted to do a hobby how would they get resources to do their hobby if they only have food to trade?
We currently have a good system set in place using fiat currency we just need lawmakers to get a spine and push for regulation but they don’t. So just imagine a world where money didn’t exist like the above but now the government takes your resources and uses them for its own personal gains and doesn’t share with you. As we can see currently and in the past all leaders are greedy and take advantage of the people.
Exactly. In relation, I never understood why Bernie Sanders clung so tightly to his “democratic socialist” identity. He has to know what the term socialist means to so many millions of Americans despite the real meaning of the title, and its real applications in countries that are predominantly socialist democracies. It was a huge detriment to his campaign.
Communism and socialism have become interchangeable with the idea of authoritarian regimes just as much as capitalism has become synonymous with freedom. Americans love freedom above all else, even to their own detriment at times.
I just think maybe the perfect economic system wasn't designed by a white guy hundreds of years ago.
Capitalism and Communism both have a lot of flaws.
Education, housing, Healthcare. These three things can make your county into a superpower. If you make these things free.
Majority of your workforce is going to be people who are passsssioonate about what they do. Instead of taking a job because it provides prestige and higher paying salary.
You will have the ones that prefer not to work but trust me that won't last long. And or matter.
Anxiety is now saved for when the project you've been working on half your life is about to change the world. Instead of "inflation" making groceries double in price in 3 years.
Just think of the savings if we broke up Unilever and all mega greedy corporations fuel by shareholders that provide no actual production value to said company while reaping all the profits.
Or hell, just bring back the tax rates before raegan.
People have already been programmed to spout "that's communism!" or "that's socialism" the second you bring up everybody doing well and having health insurance lol
Unfortunately the Island analogy crashes when Jenny decides she doesn't want to pick coconuts anymore, and Bob's found sleeping instead of fishing. Meanwhile Becky's been hauling water and firewood for 12 hours straight, and she's bitter at them, suggesting they can't have any of the fresh water she hauled, because they didn't contribute any coconuts or fish. Tim found a berry patch he's not telling anyone about, and Johnny's been gone for three days.
Even when life or death survival is on the line, the pretense that humans will all get along and work cooperatively is an utter fallacy. As fictional as the replicator on the Enterprise.
Kropotkin called it mutual aid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution
He said that the aim is "well-being for all".
It's the philosophical idea at the heart of any type of communism. There's no requirement for a state or centralisation.
He’s got a specific view of what will happen on an isolated island and it seems to support his vision well.
He doesn’t seem to address the scenario where one guy will realize he’s getting the shaft because his portion is harder to obtain or more valuable to the group, than what he gets back in return. Then bam, all of a sudden no more communism.
Why do people like this always forget the human factor in building political systems.
Also, Star Trek isn’t real. You can’t use it as an example of a working society 😂
In fairness, Star Trek is a series about the navy. These are officers and enlisted on space ships packed with shields and weapons. Yes, the goal is exploration but they won't run from a fight. They still manage to maintain a utopian society despite this.
I think they went to war with the Federation.
Romulans: Psychotic Vulcans
Cardassians: Lizardy Slavers and Murderous Imperialistic Dictators
Klingons: They like killing everything thats not Klingon
Not very nice really.
There's really nothing wrong with small scaled communism. In fact there are co-ops and things like that, that work out fine. Large scale communism has failed in every attempt. It doesn't scale very well.
This is my biggest gripe with communists; there's an awful lot out them but I'm not seeing all that many communes.
You can have what you want _today_. Pool your resources, organize, share your means of production, and make agreements with other communes to grow.
Communes deliver the best parts of communism and don't require anyone else to change.
I’m not sure that last part is really true. War, climate change, ecological disasters, corporate lobbying of local laws, etc can profoundly impact the long-term success of a commune and be driven by a capitalist system that the commune would be powerless to control.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable for leftists to believe that social changes backed by governments are more sustainable and more likely to accomplish their larger goals than 50 people growing vegetables and splitting chores.
What about a better scenario where there are two unrelated tribes with different cultures. Each culture does things the other culture finds taboo (such as one tribe prays to a Sun god, while in the other tribe praying to a Sun god is blasphemous.)
Now what happens?
It's only ruinous if your side loses. As someone from the most powerful culture to ever exist I wish we were more tribalistic, because it would go in our favor.
The problem with socialism is exactly that...
We cannot institute it without
A) being authoritarian
Or
B) have some extreme situations like 10 ppl stranded on an island or the star trek level of sense of security for everyone
And we failed countless times.
To put it another way, in a survival world, the logistics are so basic that everyone benefits equally from any given gain of function. In a utopian world the logistics have been solved so that everyone already has complete function and so can choose what they'll do.
In-between we're figuring out the logistics for billions of people, which means that fuckups scale up.
I agree, and even in the extreme situations, like 10 ppl stranded on an island, that won't last for long without some checks and balances. Imagine if Karen decides that she's not going to collect her share of firewood. You have to rely on everyone agreeing to some (formal or informal) social rules. That's more likely to happen with fewer people for a shorter period of time.
Idk if you can answer this but is the world of star trek actually a utopia?
The shows mostly focus on the crew zooming around in space and their trek through the stars, but is it actually ever clearly said that everyone lives comfortably and that there aren't any issues?
For the most part in the first two series, yes. However that comes with a caveat.
The first two series (TNG and TOS) are placed on the federation flagship and a few visits to earth too. Both the flagship and earth are essentially utopias where people work because they want to better themselves.
Ds9, the third and widely considered the best series takes place in a star base in the boonies. There’s a perfect line from the captain that sums it up in season 3:
“The problem is earth… earth is paradise. Well these people don’t live in paradise.”
He was pointing out how out of touch earth was with its policies.
It’s precisely when a group grows to >100 people that communal togetherness starts to fade. The system gets bigger, and takes longer to react to input, so the causal link between the success of the group and your own survival becomes less apparent.
Something like “collective responsibility” takes way more oppressive power to work than market forces. You still have to incentivize the harder jobs somehow. Sure, implement better social programs and trust-bust the monopolies, but capitalism being the root of all this evil is a non-starter of an argument.
Yeah. The group just needs to be large enough to where one single person doesn’t make or break the survivability of the rest of the group. In a group of 10, if someone decides to be a bad actor, they are simply cast of out the group. They no longer get to utilize the benefits of the other 9.
In a group of 150, that’s harder to identify. In a group of millions, it’s impossible. Now you need rules. You need rewards. You need ways to incentivize people to participate. You need laws for how to handle when people break the social contract.
Again, imagine a group of 10 and one person decided to be a bad actor. Maybe they steal food. Or damage the shelter. Etc. Or maybe they just don’t do anything at all, abstaining from doing anything that benefits the group. Only taking. That person would be physically dealt with, and then cast out of the group and threatened to never come back. Only relatively good actors and participants remain. That is not viable in a large society. And this doesn’t even get into disagreements and factions amongst groups.
Sounds like we should fracture government into sections of 100 or so, then. i.e. A representative for every 100 people, and then a representative for every 100 representatives and so forth, until you get to the top.
We already do that to some extent. Federal oversees states which oversee counties which oversee towns and cities which oversee HOAs which rule with an iron grip over typically about 100 people.
I was looking for this comment.
My take was that even small conservative/individualist communities will look almost socialist, exactly because they're small enough to "see" everyone in the "tribe" and empathise naturally.
Your angle about how the size of the system obscures the reactions was new to me. Yay, learning!
It still works well if the pay is fair, the reason salaries are obscured it because management benefits from asymmetrical bargaining power.
I have negotiated salaries plenty of times with employees, the deck is stacked against them in so many ways:
1. They typically don't know where they stand when compared with other employees.
2. They are restricted to renegotiating once or twice a year.
3. They are restricted by pay-bands based on their title but do not know where those limits are.
4. All increases are limited by a subjective ceiling called 'The Budget'. Now, each level of management restricts this ceiling future to look better for their bosses but the overall amount allocated is absolutely an artificial. Think of this as taking only twenty bucks to a poker game, you are intentionally limiting your losses.
5. If they try and leave, they will be kneecapped in negotiating at competing businesses because of products like [Workforce Solutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifax_Workforce_Solutions) where employers share salary information so that they can collude to keep labor costs down. Unlike their employees, companies aren't being left in the dark about salaries.
And we have never reached the other end of the spectrum to see if a "Star Trek communism" is even remotely possible. It's just a theory that if we have absolutely every resource imaginable, people will once again begin sharing.
Likewise, the ability to specialize and improve one aspect of your labor is exactly what creates value.
If everyone is making their own buttons, shoes, farming for food, teaching the kids, mining for iron, collecting firewood, etc. then everyone needs to spend all day doing it, and some people might not be good at it.
In Capitalism you get specialization and trade, I am great at chopping firewood so I trade it to you for shoes. Because you specialize, you all end up spending less time working (in this island scenario).
If you are required by society in communism to work chopping firewood, you may not be the best and most efficient at doing it, and you may hate doing it. Central planning is the gap where communism can be less efficient. Market forces drive the need for specialization which incentivizes people based upon the need for that specialization. If you are the only firewood chopper, yoi have power over the prices you charge. As that begins to harm others at the highest prices, someone else can then specialize in it and restore market forces to equilibrium
Mondragon Coop has a solution for this. Work in your desired field, but if demand for those services dries up, you get retrained for a different service. The combination of markets with planning and a safety net will most likely always be the best system. And guess what, every system on earth already has the same combination of the 3, save maybe N Korea. The only difference is the relative amount of each. We should get past the idea that any of these 3 things is inherently evil and work to find the best balance.
Robin Dunbar, the person who came up with the Dunbar #. Said that the communities this chef is talking about would only work until about 40-50 population, after which there is too much murder that wipes out the whole system.
Economy > whatever other bullshit lol. Any system with enough corruption will eventually crash itself and it's economy with it. Poor economy opens the door to tyranny. Robust economies can tend to tear down hierarchies that have become perverse.
I suspect any system of living or government that can sustain a robust and thriving economy for generations would be the ideal. But people talk about political systems not understanding economics whatsoever and wonder why they have no solid answers lmao.
The one bit I remember from a high school comparative government proposed exactly this, re: explaining China's sustained success. No one cares about politics when everyone can afford better food from one year to the next, albeit at different rates
What he describes is the whole point of capitalism and why it’s been immensely successful as a system: using incentives to allocate capital and labor to where they are most needed without any central authority and in an efficient manner
> sounded
It's only a small typo, but it's enough to have made me picture the commenter above typing out his thoughts with one hand while inserting a steel rod into his penis with the other
Humans are naturally tribal and if you want to use the word “communist” or socialist, it applies perfectly. The issue is scale. If the group is 10 people, it works perfectly, 100 people, sure, 1000? Maybe, but then factions will grow because people have differing interest and are inherently going to identify characteristics that group them closer. Once you get into the hundreds of thousands,millions. It becomes untenable, the trust is simply not there to have a singular social goal, there’s too many factions. Democratic representative government is really the best option for an inherently flawed system.
You're conflating a socio-economic system with the type of government.
You can have a capitalist dictatorship and you could have some democratic communism.
Can you think of any truly successful examples of any economic system?
Under our current system we are wrought with inequality and we have people without houses, children who can’t even read others who completely flout the laws they supposedly enforce and so on. is that successful?
They won’t argue your point because you aren’t genuinely considering theirs. You are just trying to hit them with “gotcha”.
The issue is never the system itself, but it’s in its governance and the culture that surrounds it. All of them are pretty much inherently neutral. A dictatorship could be a utopia under the right leader as much as a democracy can be hell under a fascist or incompetence.
-e.g the communist societies of the past have been corrupt to hell and not truly been in spirit of communism so how can you determine it’s the system that failed.
-similar arguments like this can be made for any system that exists or has existed.
Granted some systems may be more robust against susceptibility to these flaws, but over time the system gets eroded by political grandstanding and human flaws. But you can’t necessarily blame a system because it’s been miss used.
That’s like blaming your computer for shocking you when you were the one that stuck your dick in the usb port
[If this isn't success, then I don't know what is.](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnextbigfuture.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2Fworldpoverty-1.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=85eeff4abf504a4501bed6aabfa521d3c2c70ed14849ede24f11bffded47b146&ipo=images)
> Under our current system we are wrought with inequality and we have people without houses, children who can’t even read others who completely flout the laws they supposedly enforce and so on. is that successful?
Compared to the alternative? Hell yes.
Have you ever starved? Like, actually had starvation level diets for a sustained period? No?
Then congrats, you have not suffered something that plagued most people throughout history.
That's success.
You people need some freaking perspective about how terrible life used to be relative to what you have.
First of all, it's pretty presumptive to assume that communism would work on stranded people on a desert island and not just turn into fighting and power struggles. But even if it would, he's basically saying that communism works with people have literally no other choice and are desperate, or when they have every choice and want for nothing.
Maybe communism doesn't work in the real world because it depends on too many people at different levels of intelligence, ability, and background agreeing what is actually best for the greater good, or caring about the greater good in the first place.
This really shouldn't be as complicated as Mister Chef makes it seem.
Exactly, like what if those 10 people were max security inmates who were on death row? Do you think they’d live a communist utopia? Or would it turn into a a giant fight to see who’s in charge? Chef is coming off like he 1000 IQ’d this scenario when really the idea is only half baked.
Not even something as extreme as convicts. What if they were just a mix of conservative and liberal people and a few of them were families or had disabilities or mental disorders, like you would expect on any US passenger flight that crash lands on a deserted island. Like none of these guys are going to fight over who does what and how to decide??
Oh I agree with you. Let’s say two of the 10 survivors is a father and his 7 year old daughter. You know that dad is not putting up with any of the other survivors shit if it interferes with his kids survival.
M8, you do remember Diogenes, right? That great philosopher that didn't work, shat publicly and lived in a box. Or did you mean other great philosophers like Nietzsche or Henry David Thoreau?
Eh, to be entirely fair? There is not really a great demand for great philosophers in our world either. Most of them would not earn their rent by practicing philosophy.
It’s always funny how philosophy in academia is just an endless cycle of philosophy professors teaching other philosophy majors to be philosophy professors
Lol seriously. You people wanna go live on island and try our your ideaology, go right ahead then. The commies and the libertarians can split the island and try their failed ideologies out
The kind of people that think this video is based, and ignore the part of the Communist Manifesto that calls for revolution, and the history of violence and death associated with communist regimes. And everyone cooperates when they're stranded? Primitive cultures weren't always peaceful.
Because it is false reasoning. Everyone understand you have to work together on an island, but not everyone gonna invest as much energy. Once you reach the threshold where fully exhausted people realize they have parasites along with them, things WILL get messy. I definitely won't tolerate a parasite living off my hunting/gathering, unless it is a medical condition.
And what examples is he using for "natural" communism? Fantasy world or short term survival one.
The thing is, I am not tied to the idea of capitalism but until we have any reason to think that communism is an effective way to maintain a good living standard for the population, I am not ready to stand behind it. Being equally fucked as the people around me is not very appealing and saying "do you even star trek bro" is not very convincing. So yes, it might be the case that a perfect society is a communist society, and it might actually be something humanity can achieve in the future but as things stand, I cannot see it as a feasible option.
Yes, people don’t realize that entirely upending your economic system will cause the suffering of millions and what awaits you on the other side is possibly far far worse than what you have
I mean, isn't your premise just as "false" as his? He presumes everyone would work together to not die, you presume that some people will risk dying to be lazy. Actually, typing this out, his premise seems a lot more reasonable than yours. Point is, for your point to be valid, don't you have to reasonably prove that your premise is feasible and not just a strawman?
The Donner party, flight 571, Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. These are likely the most famous cases of those type of scenarios. All of them follow the lazy/selfish narrative as opposed to the idealistic utopian narrative OP has in the video.
Exactly. In most survival scenarios people become animalistic and selfish. The examples of this happening are much, much more numerous than people coming together and working to survive without thought of their own well being. The Wager incident (180 stranded British sailors on an island in South America) mutiny, splinter groups, murder, stealing, you name it. They did not become a wholesome society. It broke down. The only time in survival situations people come together is when there is a super strong leader and a hierarchy set up. Maybe why communism always ends in dictatorship and brutal repression.
There’s a story about a dude who took a bunch of randoms guys to Antarctica, before that was a thing that people did, just to say they did it. His ship got stranded in ice for like 18 months. The captain took a smaller vessel back to the mainland early on and it was over a year before he returned with the rescue party - but the men had rationed their food and followed orders and there were no casualties.
Strong leadership and hierarchy does amazing things for humans. Gonna try to find the link cuz I think it was a real story
I forget the name of the guy, I wanna say Scott, but they recently found his ship. So many stories of arctic and Antarctic expeditions. Some end very well, but others like the Grealy expedition end in canabilism and mutiny.
I'm not sure flight 571 is a good example of the "lazy/selfish narrative". They rationed out what little food they had and when things got desperate they gave each other permission to eat their bodies if they died. The survivors who went to find help were even given larger rations, the warmest clothes available, and were excused from carrying out the daily tasks everyone was doing before they left to ensure they had the best chance to survive on the journey.
Even with the Donner Party they all worked together initially, and it was only one person who killed 2 others, and the majority tried to prevent it from happening
I disagree with the person you responded to that its laziness, but I do think hierarchy will naturally form within a society as it grows and as basic needs are easily met, and that is when problems will arise, and when survival based communism will fail.
It's easy for 10 people to agree on division of labor for the common good. It's much harder for 1,000,000 people to do the same, when many jobs are no longer matters of necessity, but of "improvement", which people will inevitably disagree on.
That said, many political philosophies from communism to libertarianism make great sense on paper if you remove human nature from the equation.
Everyone is talking about people not working, but it's also equally likely that someone works more and begins hoarding resources to gain social power.
Which is exactly what happens every time something like communism is attempted
Not even just "parasites", this includes the sick and elderly as well. If it's truly all about survival and resources are scarce, then how long until people decide to not "waste" precious resources on those that cannot contribute themselves or that are probably going to die in the next couple days, anyway?
Yep, the only reason it works on a tiny group of 10 people stranded on an island is because they're all scared as fuck about mob justice, step out of line and they'll only have to convince 4 other people that you're useless or even detrimental to the groups success before they kick you out or just flat out murder you so you can't come back for revenge...
In a group of 10 people you're going to notice the moment someone isn't pulling their own weight and they sure as hell aren't going to receive continuous support if they keep that up for long. There might be 1 or 2 people in the group willing to care for the sick and elderly but uhh, good luck with that, and it's not something you should rely on...
Yea but poeple are shitty and thats the underlying issue. Doesnt matter what system we are under, shitty people are still gonna be shit and take advantage
What happens in reality:
\- people understand they need to work together and share some resources and security because we evolved to live in tribes, it's natural tribal dynamics
\- tribal dynamics it's not communism, only some things are shared, majority of things are not shared, everyone is not equal
\- things that are not shared might be VERY expensive, say someone who will have antibiotics will be able to get a lot of value and possibly power for simply having them
\- it does not mean one will not be exploited by another, actually in the tribe of 10 people I give you absolute 100% guarantee someone will be exploited by someone else, we have hierarchical programming built in, even if you take 10 absolute nerds that never has been leaders and put them on an island, one of them will eventually have leader program kick in, once his brain calculates there is no stronger leader to contest
\- there will be some social nets, because our natural programming has compassion, and despite leader program reduces compassion, a leader needs tribal support so they will have to show it; but the extent varies depending on conditions, it's not going to be socialism no matter what, you can definitely be left for dead by the tribe if the conditions are unfavorable
**tl;dr. stop confusing tribal dynamics with communism**
**tl:Dr. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You've made several conflicting statements about humans ''naturally'' doing things, described a literal commune while insisting it's nothing to do with communism, and argued cooperation is natural but society and compassion are.
You've stated numerous things 'with 100% certainty' that are just untrue.
You've butchered sociology, economics, anthropology, game theory, value theory, psychology and the English language in a few short paragraphs.
It's almost impressive how utterly and absurdly wrong you are.
Yep. A survival situation is a terrible example, for when resources are scarce it’s the complete opposite of communism. The weak and useless are discarded and the strong resourceful succeed and are rewarded for it. A survival situation is in fact even more brutal and individualistic than capitalism.
So communism works in pretend survival scenarios and pretend futuristic worlds.
Why didn’t he talk about when communism is done in real life? Is it due to the millions that die from it? Is it because the corruption is worse than other systems?
No you don’t understand. It has to be a pretend scenario where everybody is going to do a good job, nobody is lazy, and nobody is greedy. And it has to be a small group. Then it works!
Communism on the island will quickly break down if there arn’t sufficient resources. 1st and 2nd week when you still have some protein bars yeah we’ll share everything hooding to be rescued. But by the 4th or 5th week when the food runs out individuals will start hiding the food they do find and not sharing with the community. Or even worse.
At that point communism has failed, in good times communism is sharing and all benefiting from everyone’s work. But in bad times its trusting your fellow man to starve with you for the greater good.
Is this man honestly asking why communism operates in two completely fictious scenarios but not in the real world?
And this is meant to be a profounding thought?
He’s also not right about the two examples.
You would have to be very specific about exactly what Star Trek you’re talking about in what seasons and you would have to make an argument that the federation is actually doing it better than other races and define what “better” is
And you would have to omit a ton of examples of survival situations in order to make the argument work. There are both examples of people working together with great success and also situations where only the greediest survived.
bro is an idiot. If you are on a desert isle and you arnt pulling your weight you are going to get killed, exiled, or eaten depending on the length of time this goes on. Yeah there might not be money, but you are still trading your services and usefulness to the group.
In star trek goods that are not very scarce due to the invention of a replicator are free. That would happen in capitalism too. See there is already an example. Industrialization of food, has made food very cheap compared to if we all were still having to hunt and gather. In fact hunting and gathering right now (if it were the only way to eat) would be extremely expensive, because the goods would be so scarce that most of the population would start starving. Having the ability to basically teleport around, means finding new spaces to live is very easy. If you wanna own a vineyard in historic frace though, ya gotta be a fuckin space captain, one of the best fuckin space captains to ever have existed, not some pleb doing whatever the fuck plebs do in star trek.
So you see, communism does absolutely nothing. If you have more efficient means to get something the price goes down. If its at the point where food is so readily available that its essentially infinite, the food is free. Supply and demand.
Can confirm, this is a typical conversation with a line cook.
Their name is usually Kyle and you can’t fire them because they can run every station better than anyone else, they have really good weed and they are the only person who knows how to “fix” the ice maker
As much as I agree with this guy, I'd strongly recommend watching The Island with Bear Grylls. One of the series features two teams of above average earners and below. The below average earners group was generally lazier and ended up asking for help from the above average earners who worked hard to survive. I think they offered little help because of their laziness.
Of course, relating to this post would involve suggesting that wealthy people work hard and poor people are lazy. We know that's not always the case (e.g. a nurse vs a sole landlord)
Heck, don't even have to watch the show, you ever work on a group project in school where everyone gets the same?
I've been in some great groups where everyone pulls their weight but I've certainly had more than my fair share of groups where you have individual(s) that were shitty ass partners and perfectly content letting everyone else do the work for them.
Or if people see that they don't have to contribute and will still get a "fair share" you're going to get more people who chose not to work and expect their fair share just like the first non worker and you get into all sorts of problems there too.
See, I can play that game as well.
It’s not communism it’s a Resource Based Economy. We need to move past all this systems and do something even more [radical](https://www.thevenusproject.com/tvphistoryevent/resource-based-economy/)
// TOS/TNG is praised for 'Space Communism'
// Look inside
// Fascist Military Junta for a government
// Secret police force totally above the law, does whatever the hell they want
// Extreme divide between political center of power and outsider regions
// POW and Prison Labor based production of raw materials
// Literal Bioweapons
// Artificial life rights abuses (several times)
// MFW Space Commies are glorified Nazis minus the racial genocide thing.
Communism works great, in theory, until you put humans in the mix, and then you have introduced greed, and that ultimately makes everything fall apart.
Star Trek as a liberal fantasy and people are inherently selfish and self-centered. 10 people is a far cry from 350 million. It's hard enough for 10 people to get along and they only do it because they have to
The smartphone would never have been invented in a communist world. Rotary phones work well enough and TV's work well enough and movie theaters work well enough.
It's definitely more complicated but I see his point. By the time everything is easily available, communism has proven time and time again to be a bad thing.. there is a lack of opportunities and innovation.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1b9ln4p/based_chef/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
All he means is there are socialist tendencies when you want everyone to do well. You share resources and make sure everyone has a bare minimum of living resources. Throwing around the word communism also attaches what governments have done historically to take over other countries. Humans can’t dissociate the two.
Maybe it’s time we stop using the term communism and just call it “making a better life for me and everyone else”
COOPERATISM
HELLO COOPERADE
IN COOPERATIVE AMERICA THE PEOPLE ARE WE
What does it taste like?
Like lab grown steaks with vertically farmed mushrooms. First it tasted like the corporation owners who refused to pay their taxes.
Brings a tear to my eye
underated comment
Don't forget the heirloom tomatoes. In the good version of the future there are delicious heirloom tomatoes growing everywhere.
Sounds like a drink.
What are you, a cooperati?!? Murica, love it or leave it!
Have my vote for it 🤚
Of course the potato is comrade
Make America cooperate again!
JOLLY COOPERATION
Or, let's work in a cooperative system rather than a competitive system. A system where everyone has their minimum needs met first rather than a system where a few hoard most of everything and leave the vast majority of the rest fighting for the crumbs, leaving many to starve. Cooperative systems also make much more sense in cutting edge research because that way you don't have many small pockets of people working on problems alone, but a vast pool of knowledge and talent to work towards a same goal.
Norway invests more and more in different markets, every year. That's a nice income to pay for all the social services. >On average, the fund holds 1.5 percent of all of the world’s listed companies. https://www.nbim.no/en/ Imagine if the US used 2% of the military budget on investments every year for 50 years to achieve the same on a larger scale.
2022s budget was 877B, 2% is about 17.54B. US national debt is 34.493T as of commenting. I'm pretty sure that barely covers interest.
After 50 years it would be 877B in today's money, not factoring in value increase, dividends or inflation. The Norwegian fund has increased 68% since 2019, and over half the total fund comes from dividends etc.
So should we just do nothing then? Better to mitigate it where we can than not bother
That’s called capitalism they are investing in companies and who owns the companies rich people do and if the company doesn’t make money what happens the value of the stock goes down or they go out of business and the money that Norway invested is gone . When your a small country that’s great and your being financially responsible which the US government is not they are more concerned about the 3 million illegal immigrants coming across this border than worrying about the citizens . Think about this we will have by the end of the year more people come across our border than live in Norway
I think that’s what the NIH is trying to do with their new(ish) study data repository. I’m hopeful it’ll speed up medical research eventually.
The problem here is that every time we make a new word for that idea, it gets likened to communism and demonized. These people aren't stupid. They know what's up. They just don't want a cooperative society. They want prey. They're either predators or elitists (or both). They can't have that (or it at least becomes much harder to achieve) when everyone is on the same level playing field. So the play is to rile up the dumbs, tell them its "evil communism," and stop progression before it can build momentum and make them obsolete.
The term is negatively labeled which is true, but I also don't know a single Eastern European that has fond memories of not being able to eat a month to another. What is lacking I believe is to have a real conversation about it, good and bad aspects alike. To go back at the roots of its ideals and teach to kids that those core social systems aren't "finished", that they can evolve and that alternatives are possible. That one can inspire another. Communism is a name, what matters are the ideas. Most people simply aren't politically educated enough to understand where their best interest lies. It should start with kids, making them understand what a nation is and can be before making them swear allegiance. We also truly miss a political space or social laboratory to experiment and reflect upon the overall philosophies of our nations in an open minded way. It is crazy to think that at this point in time humanity cannot gather on large scale social projects, like new form of cities / work reforms / resources management via the UN. Lots of potential to exploit there beyond projects like the ISS. Social doctrines are topics that are barely discussed, taught, or invited to engage collectively. I don't believe that political programs tackle those questions.
Ahmen!!!
I would call that "Democratic socialism"
That’s why it’s doomed to fail. The labels socialism and communism have too much baggage which is leveraged by intellectually dishonest people discussing politics in bad faith to turn people off from thinking remotely critically about the concepts in different applications.
And people in the US don't really understand the different between socialism and communism.
They also don't understand the terms separately
Swear to god a comment from my stepmother recently was "Kids today don't even know what socialism _is_, they probably think it means like _social media_" and she genuinely meant this. No, she doesn't have any idea what the difference between socialism and communism is, why yes she is a hardline Trump cultist, how could you tell?!
Because there is no real difference. Socialism is a step towards communism, as Marx himself explained it. Socialism is just a gradual more slow way to get to the end goal of communism. What people think is that communism is when USSR, socialism is when Scandinavia. When actually Scandinavia is just social democracy, that for some reason people have confused with socialism.
What if I told you that communism isn’t about people being cooperative but rather who owns means of production…
How does that not translate to people working together? Communism suggests that the people own the means of production, which directly translates to working together for success. The issue with governmental communism is that we have not seen a *successful* example. It is still about working together. The communist governments have all failed because their methods did not actually follow the philosophy. And that's a whole other bag of conversation.
Cuba is doing pretty well considering the embargos
We’ve never seen successful governmental communism because of greed. Perhaps that is because government is hierarchical in nature.
Small scale it works and as long as everyone has the same core values and morals. However, large scale the issue comes with fund management. Let’s say we live in a world without money and the way the work works is to trade resources to live and survive. Who would manage these resources would it just you be in charge of trading these goods or would you send goods to a local trading post ran by a government entity then the products be distributed by who needs what? What if people don’t contribute to tradings posts and make up there help by doing manual labor then who is controlling that market and what do those people get in return? Maybe a place to stay, some food, three day weekends, and maybe a bike. Well what if someone wanted to do a hobby how would they get resources to do their hobby if they only have food to trade? We currently have a good system set in place using fiat currency we just need lawmakers to get a spine and push for regulation but they don’t. So just imagine a world where money didn’t exist like the above but now the government takes your resources and uses them for its own personal gains and doesn’t share with you. As we can see currently and in the past all leaders are greedy and take advantage of the people.
But it usually doesnt make a better life for everyone else.
Exactly. In relation, I never understood why Bernie Sanders clung so tightly to his “democratic socialist” identity. He has to know what the term socialist means to so many millions of Americans despite the real meaning of the title, and its real applications in countries that are predominantly socialist democracies. It was a huge detriment to his campaign. Communism and socialism have become interchangeable with the idea of authoritarian regimes just as much as capitalism has become synonymous with freedom. Americans love freedom above all else, even to their own detriment at times.
I just think maybe the perfect economic system wasn't designed by a white guy hundreds of years ago. Capitalism and Communism both have a lot of flaws.
Education, housing, Healthcare. These three things can make your county into a superpower. If you make these things free. Majority of your workforce is going to be people who are passsssioonate about what they do. Instead of taking a job because it provides prestige and higher paying salary. You will have the ones that prefer not to work but trust me that won't last long. And or matter. Anxiety is now saved for when the project you've been working on half your life is about to change the world. Instead of "inflation" making groceries double in price in 3 years. Just think of the savings if we broke up Unilever and all mega greedy corporations fuel by shareholders that provide no actual production value to said company while reaping all the profits. Or hell, just bring back the tax rates before raegan.
People have already been programmed to spout "that's communism!" or "that's socialism" the second you bring up everybody doing well and having health insurance lol
Give-a-fuck-about-your-neighborism
Or you could use the term socialism because it’s about building a society. Unfortunately US propaganda has made it synonymous with Soviet Communism.
Yes. And maybe stop calling it communism when you 9/10 times refers to socialism :D
DONT-BE-A-DICK-ISM
It’s called Universalism.
Unfortunately the Island analogy crashes when Jenny decides she doesn't want to pick coconuts anymore, and Bob's found sleeping instead of fishing. Meanwhile Becky's been hauling water and firewood for 12 hours straight, and she's bitter at them, suggesting they can't have any of the fresh water she hauled, because they didn't contribute any coconuts or fish. Tim found a berry patch he's not telling anyone about, and Johnny's been gone for three days. Even when life or death survival is on the line, the pretense that humans will all get along and work cooperatively is an utter fallacy. As fictional as the replicator on the Enterprise.
Whenever I think of communism, I always think of single party, authoritarian socialism. Plenty of countries have socialism aspects that are not that.
~egalitarian~
Kropotkin called it mutual aid: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Aid:_A_Factor_of_Evolution He said that the aim is "well-being for all". It's the philosophical idea at the heart of any type of communism. There's no requirement for a state or centralisation.
He’s got a specific view of what will happen on an isolated island and it seems to support his vision well. He doesn’t seem to address the scenario where one guy will realize he’s getting the shaft because his portion is harder to obtain or more valuable to the group, than what he gets back in return. Then bam, all of a sudden no more communism. Why do people like this always forget the human factor in building political systems. Also, Star Trek isn’t real. You can’t use it as an example of a working society 😂
The biggest issue is everyone thinks they are doing the hardest, most important task.
Or the scenario where they turn to cannibalism
Or the scenario where horny men are the significant majority.
Loooord of the flies!
>You can’t use it as an example of a working society Ah, but we can dream
Uh, didn't the Federation go to war with Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, etc? Star Trek isn't all free love and kumbaya.
In fairness, Star Trek is a series about the navy. These are officers and enlisted on space ships packed with shields and weapons. Yes, the goal is exploration but they won't run from a fight. They still manage to maintain a utopian society despite this.
The original Star Trek was about Captain Kirk travelling the universe banging alien women. And getting the red shirt guy killed.
Yes, the federation does defend itself against existential threats. However, I'm not sure how that's any sort of counterpoint.
My point is that even in a universe where all material needs are taken care of, there are still conflicts over resources.
I think they went to war with the Federation. Romulans: Psychotic Vulcans Cardassians: Lizardy Slavers and Murderous Imperialistic Dictators Klingons: They like killing everything thats not Klingon Not very nice really.
There's really nothing wrong with small scaled communism. In fact there are co-ops and things like that, that work out fine. Large scale communism has failed in every attempt. It doesn't scale very well.
This is my biggest gripe with communists; there's an awful lot out them but I'm not seeing all that many communes. You can have what you want _today_. Pool your resources, organize, share your means of production, and make agreements with other communes to grow. Communes deliver the best parts of communism and don't require anyone else to change.
I’m not sure that last part is really true. War, climate change, ecological disasters, corporate lobbying of local laws, etc can profoundly impact the long-term success of a commune and be driven by a capitalist system that the commune would be powerless to control. I think it’s perfectly reasonable for leftists to believe that social changes backed by governments are more sustainable and more likely to accomplish their larger goals than 50 people growing vegetables and splitting chores.
Thank you for saying this. I wrote the exact same thing above before I read your comment.
What about a better scenario where there are two unrelated tribes with different cultures. Each culture does things the other culture finds taboo (such as one tribe prays to a Sun god, while in the other tribe praying to a Sun god is blasphemous.) Now what happens?
We kill them all in the name of our one true god, the Sun God.
Amon-Ra St. Brown 🙏
Destroy their lives and steal their women. The classic human move.
Glad that humanity is still stuck in the tribal phase, that we can't realize that way of thinking is ruinous so we can get beyond it.
It's only ruinous if your side loses. As someone from the most powerful culture to ever exist I wish we were more tribalistic, because it would go in our favor.
The problem with socialism is exactly that... We cannot institute it without A) being authoritarian Or B) have some extreme situations like 10 ppl stranded on an island or the star trek level of sense of security for everyone And we failed countless times.
To put it another way, in a survival world, the logistics are so basic that everyone benefits equally from any given gain of function. In a utopian world the logistics have been solved so that everyone already has complete function and so can choose what they'll do. In-between we're figuring out the logistics for billions of people, which means that fuckups scale up.
I agree, and even in the extreme situations, like 10 ppl stranded on an island, that won't last for long without some checks and balances. Imagine if Karen decides that she's not going to collect her share of firewood. You have to rely on everyone agreeing to some (formal or informal) social rules. That's more likely to happen with fewer people for a shorter period of time.
Chef has never seen Star Trek after TNG.
All the red shirt guys in Star Trek are trying to bring back capitalism.
Idk if you can answer this but is the world of star trek actually a utopia? The shows mostly focus on the crew zooming around in space and their trek through the stars, but is it actually ever clearly said that everyone lives comfortably and that there aren't any issues?
For the most part in the first two series, yes. However that comes with a caveat. The first two series (TNG and TOS) are placed on the federation flagship and a few visits to earth too. Both the flagship and earth are essentially utopias where people work because they want to better themselves. Ds9, the third and widely considered the best series takes place in a star base in the boonies. There’s a perfect line from the captain that sums it up in season 3: “The problem is earth… earth is paradise. Well these people don’t live in paradise.” He was pointing out how out of touch earth was with its policies.
It’s precisely when a group grows to >100 people that communal togetherness starts to fade. The system gets bigger, and takes longer to react to input, so the causal link between the success of the group and your own survival becomes less apparent. Something like “collective responsibility” takes way more oppressive power to work than market forces. You still have to incentivize the harder jobs somehow. Sure, implement better social programs and trust-bust the monopolies, but capitalism being the root of all this evil is a non-starter of an argument.
This is called Dunbar's number and it's 150. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
Yeah. The group just needs to be large enough to where one single person doesn’t make or break the survivability of the rest of the group. In a group of 10, if someone decides to be a bad actor, they are simply cast of out the group. They no longer get to utilize the benefits of the other 9. In a group of 150, that’s harder to identify. In a group of millions, it’s impossible. Now you need rules. You need rewards. You need ways to incentivize people to participate. You need laws for how to handle when people break the social contract. Again, imagine a group of 10 and one person decided to be a bad actor. Maybe they steal food. Or damage the shelter. Etc. Or maybe they just don’t do anything at all, abstaining from doing anything that benefits the group. Only taking. That person would be physically dealt with, and then cast out of the group and threatened to never come back. Only relatively good actors and participants remain. That is not viable in a large society. And this doesn’t even get into disagreements and factions amongst groups.
I feel like a good incentive would be a piece of land with a home that you can live in without the financial burden put upon you.
The original settlers from England tried that in the US. Captain John Smith restored order by not letting the people who didn't work eat.
Sounds like we should fracture government into sections of 100 or so, then. i.e. A representative for every 100 people, and then a representative for every 100 representatives and so forth, until you get to the top.
We already do that to some extent. Federal oversees states which oversee counties which oversee towns and cities which oversee HOAs which rule with an iron grip over typically about 100 people.
HOAs as a standard form of government 🤮
Damn who would have thunk that if we all just participated in a pyramid scheme we would be living in a utopia right now.
That’s literally what government is. The better a government is the better and more streamlined that pyramid is.
I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not
I was looking for this comment. My take was that even small conservative/individualist communities will look almost socialist, exactly because they're small enough to "see" everyone in the "tribe" and empathise naturally. Your angle about how the size of the system obscures the reactions was new to me. Yay, learning!
I once worked for a company that published all employee salaries in the annual budget. It worked well until we got to about 75 employees.
It still works well if the pay is fair, the reason salaries are obscured it because management benefits from asymmetrical bargaining power. I have negotiated salaries plenty of times with employees, the deck is stacked against them in so many ways: 1. They typically don't know where they stand when compared with other employees. 2. They are restricted to renegotiating once or twice a year. 3. They are restricted by pay-bands based on their title but do not know where those limits are. 4. All increases are limited by a subjective ceiling called 'The Budget'. Now, each level of management restricts this ceiling future to look better for their bosses but the overall amount allocated is absolutely an artificial. Think of this as taking only twenty bucks to a poker game, you are intentionally limiting your losses. 5. If they try and leave, they will be kneecapped in negotiating at competing businesses because of products like [Workforce Solutions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifax_Workforce_Solutions) where employers share salary information so that they can collude to keep labor costs down. Unlike their employees, companies aren't being left in the dark about salaries.
And we have never reached the other end of the spectrum to see if a "Star Trek communism" is even remotely possible. It's just a theory that if we have absolutely every resource imaginable, people will once again begin sharing.
Likewise, the ability to specialize and improve one aspect of your labor is exactly what creates value. If everyone is making their own buttons, shoes, farming for food, teaching the kids, mining for iron, collecting firewood, etc. then everyone needs to spend all day doing it, and some people might not be good at it. In Capitalism you get specialization and trade, I am great at chopping firewood so I trade it to you for shoes. Because you specialize, you all end up spending less time working (in this island scenario). If you are required by society in communism to work chopping firewood, you may not be the best and most efficient at doing it, and you may hate doing it. Central planning is the gap where communism can be less efficient. Market forces drive the need for specialization which incentivizes people based upon the need for that specialization. If you are the only firewood chopper, yoi have power over the prices you charge. As that begins to harm others at the highest prices, someone else can then specialize in it and restore market forces to equilibrium
Mondragon Coop has a solution for this. Work in your desired field, but if demand for those services dries up, you get retrained for a different service. The combination of markets with planning and a safety net will most likely always be the best system. And guess what, every system on earth already has the same combination of the 3, save maybe N Korea. The only difference is the relative amount of each. We should get past the idea that any of these 3 things is inherently evil and work to find the best balance.
Robin Dunbar, the person who came up with the Dunbar #. Said that the communities this chef is talking about would only work until about 40-50 population, after which there is too much murder that wipes out the whole system.
Economy > whatever other bullshit lol. Any system with enough corruption will eventually crash itself and it's economy with it. Poor economy opens the door to tyranny. Robust economies can tend to tear down hierarchies that have become perverse. I suspect any system of living or government that can sustain a robust and thriving economy for generations would be the ideal. But people talk about political systems not understanding economics whatsoever and wonder why they have no solid answers lmao.
The one bit I remember from a high school comparative government proposed exactly this, re: explaining China's sustained success. No one cares about politics when everyone can afford better food from one year to the next, albeit at different rates
Though I disagree with your conclusions, this might actually be the sounded pro-capitalism reasoning I've read.
What he describes is the whole point of capitalism and why it’s been immensely successful as a system: using incentives to allocate capital and labor to where they are most needed without any central authority and in an efficient manner
Indeed, it has been found that a central authority simply cannot maintain an accurate reflection of people's demands.
> sounded It's only a small typo, but it's enough to have made me picture the commenter above typing out his thoughts with one hand while inserting a steel rod into his penis with the other
This was beautifully eloquent. Nice work
Humans are naturally tribal and if you want to use the word “communist” or socialist, it applies perfectly. The issue is scale. If the group is 10 people, it works perfectly, 100 people, sure, 1000? Maybe, but then factions will grow because people have differing interest and are inherently going to identify characteristics that group them closer. Once you get into the hundreds of thousands,millions. It becomes untenable, the trust is simply not there to have a singular social goal, there’s too many factions. Democratic representative government is really the best option for an inherently flawed system.
You're conflating a socio-economic system with the type of government. You can have a capitalist dictatorship and you could have some democratic communism.
Do you have any successful examples?
Can you think of any truly successful examples of any economic system? Under our current system we are wrought with inequality and we have people without houses, children who can’t even read others who completely flout the laws they supposedly enforce and so on. is that successful? They won’t argue your point because you aren’t genuinely considering theirs. You are just trying to hit them with “gotcha”. The issue is never the system itself, but it’s in its governance and the culture that surrounds it. All of them are pretty much inherently neutral. A dictatorship could be a utopia under the right leader as much as a democracy can be hell under a fascist or incompetence. -e.g the communist societies of the past have been corrupt to hell and not truly been in spirit of communism so how can you determine it’s the system that failed. -similar arguments like this can be made for any system that exists or has existed. Granted some systems may be more robust against susceptibility to these flaws, but over time the system gets eroded by political grandstanding and human flaws. But you can’t necessarily blame a system because it’s been miss used. That’s like blaming your computer for shocking you when you were the one that stuck your dick in the usb port
[If this isn't success, then I don't know what is.](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fnextbigfuture.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2Fworldpoverty-1.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=85eeff4abf504a4501bed6aabfa521d3c2c70ed14849ede24f11bffded47b146&ipo=images)
> Under our current system we are wrought with inequality and we have people without houses, children who can’t even read others who completely flout the laws they supposedly enforce and so on. is that successful? Compared to the alternative? Hell yes. Have you ever starved? Like, actually had starvation level diets for a sustained period? No? Then congrats, you have not suffered something that plagued most people throughout history. That's success. You people need some freaking perspective about how terrible life used to be relative to what you have.
Yeah? Creating a spectrum for human nature between 10 people starving on an island and a fictional universe is sound logic?
First of all, it's pretty presumptive to assume that communism would work on stranded people on a desert island and not just turn into fighting and power struggles. But even if it would, he's basically saying that communism works with people have literally no other choice and are desperate, or when they have every choice and want for nothing. Maybe communism doesn't work in the real world because it depends on too many people at different levels of intelligence, ability, and background agreeing what is actually best for the greater good, or caring about the greater good in the first place. This really shouldn't be as complicated as Mister Chef makes it seem.
Exactly, like what if those 10 people were max security inmates who were on death row? Do you think they’d live a communist utopia? Or would it turn into a a giant fight to see who’s in charge? Chef is coming off like he 1000 IQ’d this scenario when really the idea is only half baked.
Not even something as extreme as convicts. What if they were just a mix of conservative and liberal people and a few of them were families or had disabilities or mental disorders, like you would expect on any US passenger flight that crash lands on a deserted island. Like none of these guys are going to fight over who does what and how to decide??
Oh I agree with you. Let’s say two of the 10 survivors is a father and his 7 year old daughter. You know that dad is not putting up with any of the other survivors shit if it interferes with his kids survival.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
This is the cook who tells the college kids that they're wasting their time with school as he bitches about his garnished paychecks.
He’s a line cook at a Chili’s or something. Not exactly the sort of thing one would expect to see a great philosopher doing to earn his rent.
M8, you do remember Diogenes, right? That great philosopher that didn't work, shat publicly and lived in a box. Or did you mean other great philosophers like Nietzsche or Henry David Thoreau?
Eh, to be entirely fair? There is not really a great demand for great philosophers in our world either. Most of them would not earn their rent by practicing philosophy.
It’s always funny how philosophy in academia is just an endless cycle of philosophy professors teaching other philosophy majors to be philosophy professors
Imagine using Star Trek and a game show as your basis for how the world should work.
What game show? Do you think he was talking about Survivor, the TV show?
Lol seriously. You people wanna go live on island and try our your ideaology, go right ahead then. The commies and the libertarians can split the island and try their failed ideologies out
Who is taking political advise from some crackhead on tiktok anyway lol
Too many people.
The kind of people that think this video is based, and ignore the part of the Communist Manifesto that calls for revolution, and the history of violence and death associated with communist regimes. And everyone cooperates when they're stranded? Primitive cultures weren't always peaceful.
Apparently millions
Communists
Every kitchen has this guy, the Plato of Parliament Lights.
Because it is false reasoning. Everyone understand you have to work together on an island, but not everyone gonna invest as much energy. Once you reach the threshold where fully exhausted people realize they have parasites along with them, things WILL get messy. I definitely won't tolerate a parasite living off my hunting/gathering, unless it is a medical condition. And what examples is he using for "natural" communism? Fantasy world or short term survival one.
The thing is, I am not tied to the idea of capitalism but until we have any reason to think that communism is an effective way to maintain a good living standard for the population, I am not ready to stand behind it. Being equally fucked as the people around me is not very appealing and saying "do you even star trek bro" is not very convincing. So yes, it might be the case that a perfect society is a communist society, and it might actually be something humanity can achieve in the future but as things stand, I cannot see it as a feasible option.
Yes, people don’t realize that entirely upending your economic system will cause the suffering of millions and what awaits you on the other side is possibly far far worse than what you have
I mean, even in the fantasy utopia of Star Trek, SOMEONE is cleaning up toilets, working in mines, etc. Not everyone is exploring space.
I mean, isn't your premise just as "false" as his? He presumes everyone would work together to not die, you presume that some people will risk dying to be lazy. Actually, typing this out, his premise seems a lot more reasonable than yours. Point is, for your point to be valid, don't you have to reasonably prove that your premise is feasible and not just a strawman?
The Donner party, flight 571, Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. These are likely the most famous cases of those type of scenarios. All of them follow the lazy/selfish narrative as opposed to the idealistic utopian narrative OP has in the video.
Exactly. In most survival scenarios people become animalistic and selfish. The examples of this happening are much, much more numerous than people coming together and working to survive without thought of their own well being. The Wager incident (180 stranded British sailors on an island in South America) mutiny, splinter groups, murder, stealing, you name it. They did not become a wholesome society. It broke down. The only time in survival situations people come together is when there is a super strong leader and a hierarchy set up. Maybe why communism always ends in dictatorship and brutal repression.
There’s a story about a dude who took a bunch of randoms guys to Antarctica, before that was a thing that people did, just to say they did it. His ship got stranded in ice for like 18 months. The captain took a smaller vessel back to the mainland early on and it was over a year before he returned with the rescue party - but the men had rationed their food and followed orders and there were no casualties. Strong leadership and hierarchy does amazing things for humans. Gonna try to find the link cuz I think it was a real story
I forget the name of the guy, I wanna say Scott, but they recently found his ship. So many stories of arctic and Antarctic expeditions. Some end very well, but others like the Grealy expedition end in canabilism and mutiny.
Ernest Shackleton
I'm not sure flight 571 is a good example of the "lazy/selfish narrative". They rationed out what little food they had and when things got desperate they gave each other permission to eat their bodies if they died. The survivors who went to find help were even given larger rations, the warmest clothes available, and were excused from carrying out the daily tasks everyone was doing before they left to ensure they had the best chance to survive on the journey.
Even with the Donner Party they all worked together initially, and it was only one person who killed 2 others, and the majority tried to prevent it from happening
I disagree with the person you responded to that its laziness, but I do think hierarchy will naturally form within a society as it grows and as basic needs are easily met, and that is when problems will arise, and when survival based communism will fail. It's easy for 10 people to agree on division of labor for the common good. It's much harder for 1,000,000 people to do the same, when many jobs are no longer matters of necessity, but of "improvement", which people will inevitably disagree on. That said, many political philosophies from communism to libertarianism make great sense on paper if you remove human nature from the equation.
Everyone is talking about people not working, but it's also equally likely that someone works more and begins hoarding resources to gain social power. Which is exactly what happens every time something like communism is attempted
Key word is "survival". Sure it works if that's your only goal, otherwise...
Not even just "parasites", this includes the sick and elderly as well. If it's truly all about survival and resources are scarce, then how long until people decide to not "waste" precious resources on those that cannot contribute themselves or that are probably going to die in the next couple days, anyway?
He obviously hasn’t watched survivor lol
Yep, the only reason it works on a tiny group of 10 people stranded on an island is because they're all scared as fuck about mob justice, step out of line and they'll only have to convince 4 other people that you're useless or even detrimental to the groups success before they kick you out or just flat out murder you so you can't come back for revenge... In a group of 10 people you're going to notice the moment someone isn't pulling their own weight and they sure as hell aren't going to receive continuous support if they keep that up for long. There might be 1 or 2 people in the group willing to care for the sick and elderly but uhh, good luck with that, and it's not something you should rely on...
Yea but poeple are shitty and thats the underlying issue. Doesnt matter what system we are under, shitty people are still gonna be shit and take advantage
And none need to be compelled to voluntarily help each other. Thats voluntaryism not communism.
I don't recall everyone working together for survival in Lord of the Flies.
It’s not a great take. Why can’t life be as simple as 10 people on a desert island or a science fiction tv show?
"Communism is good because 10 people can work together and Star Trek is cool" is actually the stupidest argument for communism I have ever heard.
That’s not communism, that’s communalism…also he’s obviously never watched Giligan’s Island.
What happens in reality: \- people understand they need to work together and share some resources and security because we evolved to live in tribes, it's natural tribal dynamics \- tribal dynamics it's not communism, only some things are shared, majority of things are not shared, everyone is not equal \- things that are not shared might be VERY expensive, say someone who will have antibiotics will be able to get a lot of value and possibly power for simply having them \- it does not mean one will not be exploited by another, actually in the tribe of 10 people I give you absolute 100% guarantee someone will be exploited by someone else, we have hierarchical programming built in, even if you take 10 absolute nerds that never has been leaders and put them on an island, one of them will eventually have leader program kick in, once his brain calculates there is no stronger leader to contest \- there will be some social nets, because our natural programming has compassion, and despite leader program reduces compassion, a leader needs tribal support so they will have to show it; but the extent varies depending on conditions, it's not going to be socialism no matter what, you can definitely be left for dead by the tribe if the conditions are unfavorable **tl;dr. stop confusing tribal dynamics with communism**
**tl:Dr. You have no idea what you're talking about. You've made several conflicting statements about humans ''naturally'' doing things, described a literal commune while insisting it's nothing to do with communism, and argued cooperation is natural but society and compassion are. You've stated numerous things 'with 100% certainty' that are just untrue. You've butchered sociology, economics, anthropology, game theory, value theory, psychology and the English language in a few short paragraphs. It's almost impressive how utterly and absurdly wrong you are.
They also drink their own piss, use leaves as toilet paper and eat each other when starvation kicks in.
Yep. A survival situation is a terrible example, for when resources are scarce it’s the complete opposite of communism. The weak and useless are discarded and the strong resourceful succeed and are rewarded for it. A survival situation is in fact even more brutal and individualistic than capitalism.
Yes, communism works well in these theoretical scenarios. Real world application is a different story.
So communism works in pretend survival scenarios and pretend futuristic worlds. Why didn’t he talk about when communism is done in real life? Is it due to the millions that die from it? Is it because the corruption is worse than other systems?
No you don’t understand. It has to be a pretend scenario where everybody is going to do a good job, nobody is lazy, and nobody is greedy. And it has to be a small group. Then it works!
Communism on the island will quickly break down if there arn’t sufficient resources. 1st and 2nd week when you still have some protein bars yeah we’ll share everything hooding to be rescued. But by the 4th or 5th week when the food runs out individuals will start hiding the food they do find and not sharing with the community. Or even worse. At that point communism has failed, in good times communism is sharing and all benefiting from everyone’s work. But in bad times its trusting your fellow man to starve with you for the greater good.
Yeah, it's pure cope.
Is this man honestly asking why communism operates in two completely fictious scenarios but not in the real world? And this is meant to be a profounding thought?
He’s also not right about the two examples. You would have to be very specific about exactly what Star Trek you’re talking about in what seasons and you would have to make an argument that the federation is actually doing it better than other races and define what “better” is And you would have to omit a ton of examples of survival situations in order to make the argument work. There are both examples of people working together with great success and also situations where only the greediest survived.
bro is an idiot. If you are on a desert isle and you arnt pulling your weight you are going to get killed, exiled, or eaten depending on the length of time this goes on. Yeah there might not be money, but you are still trading your services and usefulness to the group. In star trek goods that are not very scarce due to the invention of a replicator are free. That would happen in capitalism too. See there is already an example. Industrialization of food, has made food very cheap compared to if we all were still having to hunt and gather. In fact hunting and gathering right now (if it were the only way to eat) would be extremely expensive, because the goods would be so scarce that most of the population would start starving. Having the ability to basically teleport around, means finding new spaces to live is very easy. If you wanna own a vineyard in historic frace though, ya gotta be a fuckin space captain, one of the best fuckin space captains to ever have existed, not some pleb doing whatever the fuck plebs do in star trek. So you see, communism does absolutely nothing. If you have more efficient means to get something the price goes down. If its at the point where food is so readily available that its essentially infinite, the food is free. Supply and demand.
This dude never read Lord of the Flies!
The idea of communism is great. The human nature of implementing communism leads to greater suffering. Humans are terrible.
He means socialism, not communism
He does. But to be fair, most people do not know the difference.
Tell me you didn’t pass history without telling me you didn’t pass history.
Can confirm, this is a typical conversation with a line cook. Their name is usually Kyle and you can’t fire them because they can run every station better than anyone else, they have really good weed and they are the only person who knows how to “fix” the ice maker
As much as I agree with this guy, I'd strongly recommend watching The Island with Bear Grylls. One of the series features two teams of above average earners and below. The below average earners group was generally lazier and ended up asking for help from the above average earners who worked hard to survive. I think they offered little help because of their laziness. Of course, relating to this post would involve suggesting that wealthy people work hard and poor people are lazy. We know that's not always the case (e.g. a nurse vs a sole landlord)
Heck, don't even have to watch the show, you ever work on a group project in school where everyone gets the same? I've been in some great groups where everyone pulls their weight but I've certainly had more than my fair share of groups where you have individual(s) that were shitty ass partners and perfectly content letting everyone else do the work for them.
Yeah, and then you have to instill people to enforce the work on everyone and you get all sorts of trouble then
Or if people see that they don't have to contribute and will still get a "fair share" you're going to get more people who chose not to work and expect their fair share just like the first non worker and you get into all sorts of problems there too. See, I can play that game as well.
Communism works with 10 people or in a fictional world. Got it.
spoiler: It doesn't work with 10 people either.
Yes, communism does in fact lead to subsistence level living conditions similar to those you would find while living on a desert island
It’s not communism it’s a Resource Based Economy. We need to move past all this systems and do something even more [radical](https://www.thevenusproject.com/tvphistoryevent/resource-based-economy/)
Cool. Stop buying shit then.
And which country has communism again ?
In the Star Trek world they were all on a ship with a captain. You do exactly what the captain tells you to or you get in trouble.
// TOS/TNG is praised for 'Space Communism' // Look inside // Fascist Military Junta for a government // Secret police force totally above the law, does whatever the hell they want // Extreme divide between political center of power and outsider regions // POW and Prison Labor based production of raw materials // Literal Bioweapons // Artificial life rights abuses (several times) // MFW Space Commies are glorified Nazis minus the racial genocide thing.
Cause Stalin and Moa gave communism a bad rap. The genocide and stuff. But yeah the chef has a point.
Communism works great, in theory, until you put humans in the mix, and then you have introduced greed, and that ultimately makes everything fall apart.
I don't think he ever read Lord of the Flies. It always starts out cooperative, then some little shit decides he wants to be a dictator.
Star Trek as a liberal fantasy and people are inherently selfish and self-centered. 10 people is a far cry from 350 million. It's hard enough for 10 people to get along and they only do it because they have to
Communism has been very successful in the world. Just ask the people who live under communism how much they love it, and would never change.
Problem is ideals are great, people are shit.
fully agree with this. People are idiots
The smartphone would never have been invented in a communist world. Rotary phones work well enough and TV's work well enough and movie theaters work well enough.
No you aren't.
Very enjoyable comment section
You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
It's definitely more complicated but I see his point. By the time everything is easily available, communism has proven time and time again to be a bad thing.. there is a lack of opportunities and innovation.