communism bad

I had posted something like this in a thread titled "communism" before it was removed on lainchan: Communism can't exist in this world: the US doesn't appreciate it, they do extremist authoritarian state capitalism, the Chinese communist party doesn't appreciate it, they do extremist authoritarian state capitalism. The authoritarian naturally win at existence. Ideals aren't immediately real, attempts are disrupted. By CCP presented "communism" is a scheme for control. "Communism is bad" is a scheme for control. Together it's like world order: for the powerful keeping disproportionate power, for the wealthy keeping disproportionate wealth. Average people's income doesn't grow appropriately in relation to capital growth, it's been like this for a long time. Value of currencies is now less after inflation and people now receive a higher number of currency adjusted for inflation, resulting in potential difficulty perceiving actual value of income. Man made recession and inflation could be practically a scheme for siphoning wealth to the wealthy. https://libreddit.spike.codes/r/politics/comments/xql063/obscene_says_sanders_after_cbo_reports_richest_1/

>>62896 >I had posted something like this in a thread titled "communism" before it was removed on lainchan It's not fun if the thread is just "lets bash X" with nobody willing to stand up defend / explain the topic. On the other hand we have had long running threads started with OPs bashing libertarianism with zero context or provocation without getting deleted so whatever.

Hello. OP here Communism implies common ownership of state, which implies common decisive rights, which implies democracy. Autocracy is inherently contradicting to communism. Democracy involves common decisive rights over state, that's why republicans hate it. And that's why republicans expand upon other extremist authoritarian regimes' schemes for control (communism claim).

>>62900 I agree. Who really decides? Certainly not everyone. People like Robert Michels for example have explored whether there are any limits to democracy and the more one thinks about it, the more trouble arises. We pretty much cannot guarantee actual democracies, although we might implement partial democracies. So who gets to decide? Call them the ruling class, the élites or the oligarchy, it's all the same. Communism, then, is plagued by the same issues as a full democracy, only that by default everyone has to give up ownership to some kind of collective. If you factor in that you cannot avoid leadership, that no matter what people do a kind of group that gets to decide emerges, communism starts to look really bad. Have you read about the famines in the Soviet Union? People got their produce and basic necessities for farm life taken away, only for some centralized authority to decide how to allocate resources. They stopped producing because they would rather see their grain fall to the ground than harvest it to give it to the state. When things got tight, so that not everyone could be supplied with food for example, you can imagine which people were allocated needed resources. Certainly not the lowest (but somehow still most important) class. I think communes are great and I would be all for community, but I think it makes a big difference whether such community is forced or not. It's also important for it not be farcical. For this reason alone, communism as an enforced political system is just impossible in my view, real communism will never see itself implemented. This is just a bit of a vent. My parents have suffered terribly in times of Romanian communism. Anyone who somehow advocates for such insane policy is either ignorant or malicious, in my view. Even though history can be altered and censored, communism "attempts" have been a disaster of such unspeakable scale that it's impossible to hide retroactively how big of a failure it always ends up being.

>>62904 I meant to reference >>62896, my mistake.

>>62900 Please read literally any Marxist theory before spouting off your uninformed opinions. Everything you're saying is the same propaganda talking points that dumb burgers have been repeating for like a century.

>>62906 What were you referring to?

>>62906 This is sort of a meta thread titled "communism bad", because a thread titled "communism" was censored here.

>>62896 this kind of discussions are not enriching, because their goal is not to gather more knowledge but to attack.

>>62912 That wasn't the intent. Is the subject off-limits then?

>>62896 communism works better when there are less people, simple as

>>62913 you speak in riddles, as if touched by the gods.

>>62910 I got to see the thread(Lains, any archives of anything?), nothing really corrosive there, the thread maybe even a little unremarkable. Why was it deleted?

>>62922 I'm not sure how I feel about this.

>>62896 "real communism" never existed because it can't exist. You can't normalize humanity against all different groupings. Not only is it technically impossible but also downright immoral. What you're doing is enabling the weakest link which is why morale in communistic countries dies out QUICK. Firstly the revolutionaries are dealt with, because if they saw what truly came about from their revolutionary dream then they would turn against the state. Then it's already too late. All people are treated the same, no regard for their needs/wants or socioeconomic output.

I find it frustratingly annoying to perceive people parrot "communism bad" indoctrinations. Saying things like "communism doesn't work" or anything about the functionality of communism and how much it doesn't "work" without any elaboration could not suggest that the parroting individual has even the slightest thought to their own existence. I notice these sort of regurgitated incantations often and the irony in this case is that their abashed material even condones propaganda and a slavemind. In fact, I would say that communism in general has a lot of irony to it. We live in a post-communist society, some of its attributes have been implemented in our countries as well, despite them not being acknowledged by the majority of the populace. In reality, this is an Intelligence thread and your fellow countrymen have worked hard to create a class distinction so that you are polarizingly numb to peasant life that you do nothing about it.

>>62934 You have done nothing but polarized the debate further by propagating conspiracy theories instead of taking arguments at face value. Please respect yourself enough to not project so hard on the internet.

>>62934 you're right there's been a war on communism

I have no idea where you are coming from and I wont assume. Communism is a very big long term goal, and I wouldnt attribute its failings in eastern europe to "not being true communism" but rather approaching it too early. CCP presented communism is not a scheme for control, though its impossible at this point to have any pro china views as "china is evil and everything awful and dictatorial you could conceive of is happening there" is such a strong narrative in most of the west that saying otherwise is apparently laughable. But for your information, whether to strengthen your views or not, china sees communism as its mission but doesnt see itself as the penultimate form of ideal communism. China sees itself as marxist and currently in a socialist market economy. As a result of the sino soviet split China realized there was a problem with societ communism, and has sense dumped much effort into creating its own vision for communism and expanding on the marxist literature. When you hear about things like "social credit" or "happiness indexes" these arent some kind of tool for punishment (at least not intended to be) but ideas invented by scholars and researchers who realized analyzing the wellbeing and happiness of an area as we do in the west through a very capitalist lens (GDP and Wealth) isnt a complete picture. And so whether the systems are good or not, China has been on a marxist inspired vision to create ways to better analyze their people beyond just how well off the area is. To us it seems dystopian because attempting to do such a thing is for whatever reason inherently dystopian in our society, you arent allowed to study people like that and fields of study around that are perhaps the ones most frequently targeted as being marxist or nonsense. even though its not like saying the people are doing good cause the area is wealthy (which may be because its concentrated in the hands of a few) isnt dystopian. Attempting to bring communism down from the heavens and totally ignoring any capitalist contributions and ideas it brings is indeed false. But communism as a long term mission is not, and perhaps the primary thing much of the west is lacking is any kind of mission or direction for where they are aiming to get to as any vision of a utopia or really anything beyond the status quo is a lie not worth working towards because "human nature". All marxism truly is at the end of the day is analyzing society without the premise that everything is because "its just human nature". In my opinion theres no reason not to have faith in the marxist mission (though plenty of reason to distrust those claiming they have completed it as you do, or those blindly asking to toss the baby out with the bathwater with regards to capitalism). The reason there is no reason to me is because if the capitalist model of the world is true we are certainly doomed to eat ourselves in an ever increasing race for profit and greed. Its only if marxism is true, and the idea that as the wealth becomes more concentrated in a smaller segment of the population this will inevitably lead to a conflict, that I see any kind of future for humanity at all. My mind cant be changed on this and its fine if your mind cant either and you think the opposite. My post here is just information for you, I have no interest in debating.

>>62964 for clarification by as you do i mean "distrust as you do" not that you think you have completed the communist mission obviously.

>>62896 The problem with blanket statements like "communism is bad" is the confusion that begins with the word communism. Do we mean the regime in place in the Soviet Union and its satellites from 1921 to 1991? What about present day China? Do we mean Marxist social and political theories in general, and in that case which one? Are we referring to general utopian movements that envisioned a perfect society? All of these are described as 'communist' and at the same time are very different from one another. >>62904 > People got their produce and basic necessities for farm life taken away, only for some centralized authority to decide how to allocate resources. They stopped producing because they would rather see their grain fall to the ground than harvest it to give it to the state. There is some partial truth to this. I say partial because it wasn't the only factor. Tsarist Russia was unique in that it maintained a system of feudal serfdom well into the 1860s and therefore lacked an agricultural sector made up of small, independent and prosperous farmers. Another problem was that Russia's climate and soil vary in quality and is usually pretty bad all around making it difficult to grow anything. When the Bolsheviks freed up the land they found the peasants were more interested in enterprise then bowing down to Moscow and that money making spirit conflicted with the zealous Bolshevik desire to build a radical classless utopia amid a major civil war, economic blockade, and famine. The Bolsheviks ended up blaming the peasantry for their own policy failures and so devised the idea of centralized agriculture and collectivization in order to eliminate the peasantry as a social class and replace them with supposedly more efficient agricultural workers. In the end, this system failed miserably and no existing communist state (outside Cuba) still uses it. While it may be a valid criticism of Soviet policy, it's not necessarily a strong argument against communist political systems since the largest of these (China) doesn't use this system of agricultural production and hasn't suffered a major famine in decades. Nevertheless, your point about decision making is overall pretty valid and could be applied to any society. >>62918 It's pretty funny, I spent some time in an anarcho-communist commune and noticed that, no matter how they tried to avoid it, hierarchies and inequalities always developed. There was always work nobody wanted to do (dish washing, cleaning the toilets etc.) and so this ended up falling onto junior commune members or people shoving these tasks onto someone else. So cliques and friendship groups developed and there was a definite hierarchy of privileged and influential people.

>>62964 Serious question, have you ever actually talked to someone who has lived in China face to face?

>>62969 Not them, but I have. I live in a place where a large portion of the population is from mainland China. They seem to have mostly mixed feelings for their homeland. It seems to me that most Chinese don't hate the Chinese government, they just acknowledge that it's soykaf. The most common complaint from Chinese actually is more about how unpleasant people generally are in China, not the CCP impugning their freedom. The exception is those Qi Gong weirdos. This is a common pattern, it can be seen among Mexicans, Russians, Argentinians, etc. The U.S. seems to be unique among soykafhole countries in that people are always shocked and amazed about how bad their government is, and blame every problem on the government. >>62968 >There was always work nobody wanted to do (dish washing, cleaning the toilets etc.) and so this ended up falling onto junior commune members or people shoving these tasks onto someone else. LMAO, it's so trivially easy to solve this problem, but the kind of people who join anarchist communes often have big personalities so they can't even just make an equitable agreement like a half-decent flatmate configuration would.

>>62969 Not them but I also have. They are just messed up from all the pro-China propaganda they consume honestly. I learned chinese to converse to them about everything and seemingly they don't know about many of Chinas problems. They don't know about Uyghurs, about North Korean hackers, about 50 cent army or that river that has dead people in it. They still believe that Taiwan is part of China and that "china numbah one" as most Chinese wpuld say.

Why are we still talking about communism? I mean, it failed. It's an old, failed ideology, like physiocracy or whatever. Half of the world tried communism and they couldn't make it work. At this point is it not reasonable to just ignore it and relegate to the trash heap of history?

>>62978 Because the question of "how can we run things better?" Will never be "we can't" and it's stupid to completely ignore possibly good ideas because they have the "communist" label.

>>62978 Children were genocided for being on the left in the west. Extreme right filtered the left. It's not the left that tried communism, it's only the left that wasn't purged by extreme right that could attempt. We're discussing difficult to achieve ideals, with a history of active ongoing war against these specific ideals. What survives this warfare is unethical, sham left. >I mean, it failed. It's an old, failed ideology, like physiocracy or whatever. Half of the world tried communism and they couldn't make it work. all sham

>>62964 >China sees itself as marxist and currently in a socialist market economy. I still don't recognize it as such without democratic principles, it should imply common ownership of state, implying democracy.

>>62988 But it's not like we have democracy in the west, we get to choose who rules, and what they do can be within unethical secrecy, resulting in undemocratic proceedings, resulting in people being unaware what they choose/chose for. Democracy is treated here as if the presentation of democracy is only supposed to work to keep people content, not democracy itself. People are treated like cattle here all the same.

>>62969 >They still believe that Taiwan is part of China and that "china numbah one" as most Chinese wpuld say. Even the Taiwanese believe they are part of China. Both Beijing and Taiping claim to be the 'real' China. It's a product of the civil war (still not legally over). The KMT were left with Taiwan and the CCP had no navy capable of taking it. The Mainland-Taiwan conflict is more complex and sordid than most Westerners can comprehend. >Why are we still talking about communism? I mean, it failed. It's an old, failed ideology The world's largest country, largest military, and second biggest economy (China) is a Marxist state. It might not be recognizable to those who conflate communism with the Soviet Union, but the fact that an important global power is a communist state makes communism relevant and worth discussing even if we disagree with it. A better question might be, why do the Chinese believe communism is relevant? At least relevant enough to retain the name and not dump it favor of 'social democracy' as was done in a bunch of other ex-communist states (Nicaragua, Mozambique etc.)

>>62990 I think the point is true communism implies common ownership, true ownership implies control and decision making, and therefore common ownership implies common decision making, i.e. true democracy. What non commie states have or call democracy doesn't matter, this is just the logically neccisary quality of communism. Im not that familiar with china but cold war era east euro soviet states had lots of democratic at least in form organizations. Tennets organizations for buildings to vote on and share payment for neccisary work, labour unions, other unions, yadda yadda. Detractors would say it was somewhat coercive and perhaps restrained from any essential choices, but there was a fair bit of at least pro forma democracy.