What's so terrible about Communism ?
I think capitalism as a primary mode of societal organization has served humanity well historically. The positive reinforcement associated with personal enrichment has supported a great deal of benefit to humanity.
But survival does not accrete to the strongest, survival is a virtue of being adaptable to changing circumstances.
We live in a world in which their is no regulatory jurisdiction related to the toxic outputs of industrial society. Carbon dioxide, microplastics, PFAS, etc .... are all polluting the globally shared environment and capitalism is anti-regulatory. We are destined to suffocate in our own toxic outputs if we can't regulate the shared environment. It seems communism (at least pertaining to the environment) is the only form of government which can provide the necessary regulation.
That's not what Marx said though, like at all.
Nor what your fellow communists in this thread are telling you, like deuce.
Btw if all jobs treat you exactly the same in terms of access to resources, who's going to work the shitty jobs, or those requiring massive training?
If all jobs are paid identically who is treating Alzheimer patients?
In 10 years, we'll probably be euthanizing Alzheimer's patients. Resources are going to be mighty scarce. There will be food shortages in lots of places. Future political leaders are going to be faced with very difficult triage decisions.
I recognize that I'm not going to be qualified to lead under those circumstances. Decisions like that would be beyond my emotional bandwidth.
Anyways, as one can imagine, this caused big rifts with social democrats, democratic socialists and the big bad wolf which was the liberal. These horrifyingly evil figures that wanted the people to have the right to vote, assembly and free speech.
you mean the people who, just in the last year, have supported genocide in Gaza, a proxy war with slave soldiers in Ukraine, mass murder in Lebanon, ISIS mercenaries in Syria who are mass killing minorities, and future wars with China and Iran.
For what it's worth, I do believe there are non-monetary forms of positive reinforcement for jobs that where supply is relatively low or take years of training like a doctor or an engineer.
A person could be given more attractive housing or extra vacation time.
The intangible thing they would receive is the appreciation and respect of their community that comes with the knowledge that their vocation is needed. That comes with a sense of satisfaction that one's work is important.
Imagine a human 20,000 years ago who was good with a spear or starting fires or had great running stamina which made them a good hunter. That individual commanded the respect of his community because he contributed to the community's survival. We need that kind of culture. One in which a person's role in society contributes to the group's survival.
I don't see anyone offering a constructive answer to the question posed in the OP which relates to capitalism's failure to protect the environment we depend upon for survival.
Capitalism as currently being practiced ignores the value of the shared environment. Capitalism encourages exploitation of the shared environment.
Our current existence is parallel to bacteria in a petri dish with a favorable substrate. Eventually the bacteria consume all of the food supply and drown in their toxic waste.
The flaw in this argument is that by the available evidence, communist states do not have a good environmentalist track record. They might not have the independent profit-seeking swarm mentality of the free market that can leave nature destroyed, but they have a record of chasing production and quotas, often at enormous environmental cost.
Sure, communist countries can struggle to become developed economies, which indirectly reduces consumption and thus environmental impact, but that's a bit like curing poor eyesight by burying people alive.
On the party level, socialist parties in Europe can talk a decent game about environmentalist causes, but it usually gets dumped the minute they become part of coalitions. Also, if they are dependent on the support of unions, their environmental concerns almost invariably become extremely muted. What they'll perhaps end up delivering is some kind of tax burden or additional fee that is named "environmental something something", but it's not like it will be spent on anything that aids the environment.
In 10 years, we'll probably be euthanizing Alzheimer's patients. Resources are going to be mighty scarce. There will be food shortages in lots of places. Future political leaders are going to be faced with very difficult triage decisions.
I recognize that I'm not going to be qualified to lead under those circumstances. Decisions like that would be beyond my emotional bandwidth.
Not "we", some leftist countries yes, some are euthanizing them already (Canada and others).
Unclear why you think food shortages are close to come in lots of places, when even developing countries worst problem with food is obesity
The flaw in this argument is that by the available evidence, communist states do not have a good environmentalist track record. They might not have the independent profit-seeking swarm mentality of the free market, but they have a record of chasing production and quotas, often at enormous environmental cost.
Sure, communist countries can struggle to become developed economies, which indirectly reduces consumption and thus environmental impact, but that's a bit like curing poor eyesight by burying
Or they are just in complete bad faith about the environment like in Germany.
Closing down nuclear wasn't about union demands, nor about coalition demands. Closing down nuclear (which is why they had to use a lot of carbon !!!!! to make up for it when russian gas became scarce) was just a ploy for the imbecile voters, with devastating environmental effects, possibly the single worst choice for the environment of any western government in the last 50+ years.
They *never gave a **** about the environment to begin with on the left* , it was and is just a way to control society
For what it's worth, I do believe there are non-monetary forms of positive reinforcement for jobs that where supply is relatively low or take years of training like a doctor or an engineer.
A person could be given more attractive housing or extra vacation time.
The intangible thing they would receive is the appreciation and respect of their community that comes with the knowledge that their vocation is needed. That comes with a sense of satisfaction that one's work is important.
Imagine a human
The bold is "more money". More money per hour worked, or more benefits for the same hours worked. It's like money, except it's less valuable because you can't trade for your specific preferences.
So a person who likes more vacation will appreciate it, the other person who would like to eat steak more often won't appreciate it.
Money always work best because then you can direct it where it's worth the maximum for you. In-nature benefits are always objectively worse than the same value in money.
We have to re-invent the wheel with you communists because you want to deny the accumulated knowledge of millennia of human society in your attempt to make up "a new and better society", which always fails in the worst possible ways.
and btw, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that politically-minded non-radical posters have thought things through than radical posters of the same kind
you weren't necessarily saying that, but I hate the common-ish idea that standard/centrist politics are just this collection of bits of common-sense wisdom and one would have to be some kinda weirdo to advocate for alternative politics
My comment was specific to OP. There are plenty of people with extreme politics who have thought through their views in great detail.
I don't see anyone offering a constructive answer to the question posed in the OP which relates to capitalism's failure to protect the environment we depend upon for survival.
Capitalism as currently being practiced ignores the value of the shared environment. Capitalism encourages exploitation of the shared environment.
Our current existence is parallel to bacteria in a petri dish with a favorable substrate. Eventually the bacteria consume all of the food supply and drown in their toxic waste.
So here we are. Oh would communism help the environment. Yes, it could. The complete destruction of humanity could help the environment. Another way to look at it is that the private sector will always need to be regulated for a number of things, including the environment. The regulators can and will be corrupted. We need to stay vigilant
Capitalism is tied to democracy. A great feature of democracy is that you get to vote and fix mistakes. Voters often get duped and fortunately there's another election around the corner so they can assess the situation then correct course.
Like if some apocalyptic clown comes along and makes all these doomsday claims and scares you in to handing them power so they can "fix it". Years later you notice none of their doomsday predictions or markers along the way are coming true. All the things they did to "fix things" actually made things worse. Don't get me wrong, the next election would still be tight because there's a lot of people would look at a total catastrophe in environmental policy and be like well, the buses run on time. I shouldn't call those people clowns because clowns can take off their nose, giant shoes, etc. These are nutters detached from reality and scammers.
And you're right, it is indeed easy to dismiss what you're saying as a kind of "No True Scotsman" logic fail.
Thanks for not reading my entire sentence, you absolute clown. I didn't bother to further expound on my thoughts there, and I get punished by some low-content Zionist troll for it.
There are COUNTLESS reactionaries that go "oh, Cuba isn't super wealthy, I guess Communism SUCKS!" when there are 20 billion reasons outside of anybody's chosen system of economics (such as the most powerful nation on the planet, which also happens to be only like 100 miles away, launching a severe and decades-long economic embargo on you)
I believe you said you live in Ireland. A fair number of the Irish are known for being anti-imperialist comrades (relative to other western whites). I suspect your Uncle Tom ass was busy over in London sucking some Tory dick. **** you.
truly an incredible comment
Capitalism is tied to democracy. A great feature of democracy is that you get to vote and fix mistakes. Voters often get duped and fortunately there's another election around the corner so they can assess the situation then correct course.
Like if some apocalyptic clown comes along and makes all these doomsday claims and scares you in to handing them power so they can "fix it". Years later you notice none of their doomsday predictions or markers along the way are coming true. All the things they
We thought it was and one of the greatest thinker of economics did as well and wrote a book with that title.
But then china, vietnam and others (including Dubai) made it clear it wasn't the case.
I mean unless you think Dubai is "communist" even if you can go there and set up shop for crypto or whatever and make as much profit as you can fully legally with almost no taxation. Which would kinda destroy the meaning of communism imo.
It is still POSSIBLE that capitalism makes individual political freedoms more available on average, it is still POSSIBLE that having individual political freedoms makes the emergence of capitalism more probable, but what is CERTAIN is that having individual political freedoms is absolutely NOT indispensable for having capitalism.
Solid ideas and arguments from the usual. Nothing says stable genius like buying in to marxism in the year 2025. Imagine having a screen name celebrating the guy that birthed the ideology responsible for multiple genocides larger than the holocaust, zero success, and immeasurable suffering that has been totally self inflicted
Truly special
We thought it was and one of the greatest thinker of economics did as well and wrote a book with that title.
But then china, vietnam and others (including Dubai) made it clear it wasn't the case.
I mean unless you think Dubai is "communist" even if you can go there and set up shop for crypto or whatever and make as much profit as you can fully legally with almost no taxation. Which would kinda destroy the meaning of communism imo.
It is still POSSIBLE that capitalism makes individual political free
Aside from the genocide, communism failed in china. They now have Hybrid communism and hybrid capitalism. They don't have both. Democracy and capitalism are definitely tied together. We can argue about how tightly they;re tied, but they're tied
Aside from the genocide, communism failed in china. They now have Hybrid communism and hybrid capitalism. They don't have both. Democracy and capitalism are definitely tied together. We can argue about how tightly they;re tied, but they're tied
Ofc fully fledged communism failed (but the chinese communist elites were smart enough to change before their regime collapsed).
Fact is they proved you can have a lot of capitalism, on par with many european countries if not more, without the right to vote for political change (= democracy) existing.
Keep in mind that while China goverment does keep the ownership of many "strategic assets" including a lot of important companies, the same was true to a large extent for France, Germany, Italy, till a few decades ago.
Trains, airports, nuclear plants, shipyards, planes-making companies were all owned by the state in France. As well as hospitals, schools, and many other things. And it's not like we called 1972 France a communist country did we? just a "normal" social democracy which means a mix of capitalism and socialism (=public ownership of significant amounts of productive assets).
China right now is probably where Italy and France were in the late 60s-early 70s before any privatization , in terms of the % of productive assets owned by the public vs the private sector.
And it is there without having a meaningful election in what, 80 years? that disproves democracy has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with capitalism, in terms of being a necessary element for capitalism to emerge and exist and flourish.
Then again check Dubai (or the UAE in general). A monarchy. No voting. Theoretical absolute powers in the hands of the monarch. Yet it's a capitalist country. Even if some important companies are owned by the monarch
You could also just nuke the entire world under both capitalism and communism. Other than it completely destroying any hopes for your enviernmental desires, it just really coulsnt happen.
One could argue that you are just using rhe envirnment as a front to spread the word here but if your reaching these conclusions in good faith, explain a bit more how this would succeafully work under communism?
The name Bolshevik stems from the Russian term "greater" and can be translated to "One of the majority". It is the name chosen by Lenin's socialist faction which rejected democratic inclusion of the people and held that the people's majority had to steered by a small group of chosen revolutionaries. It isn't terribly difficult to guess who would choose these revolutionaries.
If you wanted to argue as an apologist for communism I'd probably just say the Bolsheviks were uncommonly bad and the Mensheviks could have been decent. But usually online apologists just ramble about the west.
If you wanted to argue as an apologist for communism I'd probably just say the Bolsheviks were uncommonly bad and the Mensheviks could have been decent. But usually online apologists just ramble about the west.
no you can just argue about the achievements in Communist countries in terms health care, education, quality of life, life expectance.
oh and also beating the Nazis.
The flaw in this argument is that by the available evidence, communist states do not have a good environmentalist track record. They might not have the independent profit-seeking swarm mentality of the free market that can leave nature destroyed, but they have a record of chasing production and quotas, often at enormous environmental cost.
Sure, communist countries can struggle to become developed economies, which indirectly reduces consumption and thus environmental impact, but that's a bit like
This is exactly what I said but he ignored the argument multiple times. I think he just got influenced by stupid online leftists and is insisting this is a good argument for communism when it’s horrible.
If you wanted to argue as an apologist for communism I'd probably just say the Bolsheviks were uncommonly bad and the Mensheviks could have been decent. But usually online apologists just ramble about the west.
It is a more than fair point that communism is a broad political concept. We have Marxism with, as you point out, Bolsheviks to Mensheviks and everything in between. Mensheviks struggled with their ideology themselves, being split to such a degree that one could reasonably argue that the wings were political enemies during the Russian civil war.
Outside Marxism, we have many other ideologies, perhaps most famously Bakunin's collectivism, which stands in direct opposition to Marxism.
Most people on this forum that strongly espouse communism are supporters of socialist democracy, aka. democracy without capitalism. This was the reason for my initial post and joke about being vary of communist revolutions, which so far has not really ended well for that ideology or its supporters.
FWIW I don't think it's a particularly good or convincing argument for communism. Just better than the ones people sympathetic to communism actually make, though I was not really thinking about people here.
I believe you said you live in Ireland. A fair number of the Irish are known for being anti-imperialist comrades (relative to other western whites). I suspect your Uncle Tom ass was busy over in London sucking some Tory dick. **** you.
I take it you've never read Dale Carnegie, then.
The name Bolshevik stems from the Russian term "greater" and can be translated to "One of the majority". It is the name chosen by Lenin's socialist faction which rejected democratic inclusion of the people and held that the people's majority had to steered by a small group of chosen revolutionaries. It isn't terribly difficult to guess who would choose these revolutionaries.
Some might say there is a touch of irony to the name.
It comes from the August 1903 conference of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party, which was held in London after they got thrown out of Brussels by the police. There were only about fifty delegates. Lenin's pro-violence faction were the minority and, at a meeting in the upstairs room at the Three Johns pub in Islington, they lost the key vote for membership of the party's central committee. But they then started an aggressive row which led to seven of the less crazy delegates walking out. In their absence, Lenin's crazyheads won the vote for the editorial board of the party 'newspaper' Iskra ('The Spark'). That's it. That's all. But, in the tradition of Communists revelling in small procedural wins, the Lenin faction ever after called themselves the Bolsheviks ('the majority').
Incidentally, the pub is named after a once-famous oil painting, now lost, which showed three 18th-century English 'radicals', all called John, sitting round a table. One, John Wilkes, a big supporter of the American rebel cause (I think because he supported slavery), is the person that Abraham Lincoln's assassin was named after.
It comes from the August 1903 conference of the Russian Social Democratic and Labour Party, which was held in London after they got thrown out of Brussels by the police. There were only about fifty delegates. Lenin's pro-violence faction were the minority and, at a meeting in the upstairs room at the Three Johns pub in Islington, they lost the key vote for membership of the party's central committee. But they then started an aggressive row which led to seven of the less crazy delegates walking o
Now, this is brilliant. Thanks for the link and summary.
