|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
Good communists are also internationalists 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Socialism is hardly more irrelevant than when talking about global poverty. If first world leftists got their nationalist revolutions the rest of the world would be hosed and expected to say thank you for the end of "exploitation". It's really sad how little you know about pretty much anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
it's very unfortunate that we cannot always get goods where they are needed but to say that capitalism has not reduced scarcity even in africa is pretty dumb imo
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:it's very unfortunate that we cannot always get goods where they are needed but to say that capitalism has not reduced scarcity even in africa is pretty dumb imo is it as dumb as talking about socialist efforts in Africa without giving a shred of consideration to externalities?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
If you don't think the profit motivated nature of capitalism is a hindrance on production and plays a large part in scarcity, I dunno the hell to tell you. We have people who need food, people who need home, and infrastructure that needs built and luckily enough, tons of people who need to be put to work!, and bountiful natural resources in America, but because there's no material profit for someone near the top we're not organizing and taking care of it. But hey, I can go to the dollar store and buy fake plastic balls for my truck in 9 different colors because of the efficient market economy we live in 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:The problem is those "very few" have the wealth and influence over electoral governments and even the public discourse / culture to make sure things stay unregulated. something like this really bothers me because while it has a core of truth to it it has often being used as an excuse by the left not to acknowledge the real persuasive power and the legitimacy of the right's arguments conservatism was a fringe movement in the 60s, but you had people like William Buckley who did a TV show with low number of viewers for like 30 years to change people's minds, the left can't simply dismiss them as illegitimate because rich people liked those ideas. the left needs real actual responses to them that make sense to the average voter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
although socialism in the sense of the very basic idea of "work must be rewarded fairly" is very good and works well in a capitalist society, in a socialist society the important question always arises of who decides what is and isn't work. in capitalism this decision is done by the millions of participants seeking services they need. in a lot of socialist countries this seems to be accomplish by some central authority, and the fact that we had self professed communist peener saying all landlords are parasites to be exterminated in the other thread does not fill ordinary people with a lot of trust in the decision making abilities of such bodies with such stakes involved
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Typo posted:something like this really bothers me because while it has a core of truth to it it has often being used as an excuse by the left not to acknowledge the real persuasive power and the legitimacy of the right's arguments If rich people have ideas they can buy things that put them in other people's heads, whether they are correct or not. That's how advertising works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Actually I think you'll find that most people are on board with abolishing jobs that only serve to make money off of other people while providing no value yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If rich people have ideas they can buy things that put them in other people's heads, whether they are correct or not. hillary spend like 40x as much as trump in florida on ads and still lost to trump's semi-coherent rants
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
There are forms of socialism in which everything basically functions the same as it does now except all the businesses/companies are employee owned and democratically run based on what the employees want to do. Also all land ownership is communal slash state owned so no one can just collect rents while contributing nothing of value. You can still keep your currency and petty material possessions. The socialists aren't trying to seize your toothbrush. Loving Life Partner posted:If you don't think the profit motivated nature of capitalism is a hindrance on production and plays a large part in scarcity, I dunno the hell to tell you. We have people who need food, people who need home, and infrastructure that needs built and luckily enough, tons of people who need to be put to work!, and bountiful natural resources in America, but because there's no material profit for someone near the top we're not organizing and taking care of it. And yeah I mean there are clear examples of 3rd world nations being kept poor because hey source of cheap labor/resources. There are children being forced to mine cobalt for smart phones, something is clearly loving broken. Esp when the smart phone companies are some of the biggest and richest corporations in the world today. Bulgogi Hoagie posted:it's very unfortunate that we cannot always get goods where they are needed but to say that capitalism has not reduced scarcity even in africa is pretty dumb imo Capitalism has pros and cons but the point I think is that it isn't a perfect system and there's no reason to not try and fix it or implement something that will work even better just because ideology says capitalism is the best ever. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Actually I think you'll find that most people are on board with abolishing jobs that only serve to make money off of other people while providing no value yourself. yes they did that to jewish usurers for a very long time in the middle ages and it didn't exactly help with the whole economic prosperity thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Usurers do provide value to a capitalist economy. They provide necessary liquidity. How does a landlord provide value? e: Like my gf's grandparents on her mom's side own ~40 apartment complexes in LA. They do 0 work, it is all managed by a company that takes a % of the profit. They sit back and collect rents and are otherwise normal old people that go shopping at Costco and are pretty frugal except for the giant rear end mansion they live in. What good is that really? How is that even just? Just because they had more money than you or me and lived before we were even born and got the chance to buy up a bunch of land for cheap? And now they'll keep that land in their family and extract wealth from the renters for god knows how many decades. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Good communists are also internationalists Nationalist revolution is 100X more likely than global revolution and nationalism of all kinds is terrible but first world leftist nationalism is the worst case worst case scenario for the global poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Usurers do provide value to a capitalist economy. They provide necessary liquidity. but most people in the middle ages definitely supported bans on usury on account of the usurers making money off of the people they loaned to tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:but most people in the middle ages definitely supported bans on usury on account of the usurers making money off of the people they loaned to tho Yeah but that wasn't some economical "these people provide no value to our system they just make money for nothing" that was "the bible says usury is wrong and also gently caress Jews." Meanwhile the Medici Bank (and others like it) became powerhouses doing exactly the same thing. e: I feel like people assume socialists = Stalinists/Tankies when that's just not true at all. "Socialism" and even "communism" are terms that encompass many different political philosophies and ideologies. Some huge violent overthrow isn't necessarily required. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Typo posted:hillary spend like 40x as much as trump in florida on ads and still lost to trump's semi-coherent rants Ah yes, poor man Donald Trump, who rose from nothing by power of his word alone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Command economies probably could be more effective using modern technology, but a) their economic weaknesses seem to usually stem from ideological stubbornness/blindness (with the price controls that Ardennes brought up being a good example), not lack of access to the right tools, and b) the bigger problem is that every country with a fully socialized economy and every country with a government that's trying to get there, always seems to become authoritarian (Venezuela being the latest example). Capitalist countries have a variety of successes and failures with democracy, but communist countries always seem to fail at permitting actual representative government. Dude, Venezuela doesn't have anything even close to a fully socialized economy. As for actually existing communism the more reasonable explanation is that Leninism and most of its variants doesn't permit very representative government, and since the USSR was authoritarian from the get-go due to necessity and later due to ideological rigidity and furthermore either imposed its own system on other countries by force of arms or by exporting revolution our sample of actually existing socialist countries is likely not very representative of all possible socialist systems, which makes the whole "socialism always leads to dictatorship" argument kinda suspect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:As for actually existing communism the more reasonable explanation is that Leninism and most of its variants doesn't permit very representative government, and since the USSR was authoritarian from the get-go due to necessity and later due to ideological rigidity and furthermore either imposed its own system on other countries by force of arms or by exporting revolution our sample of actually existing socialist countries is likely not very representative of all possible socialist systems, which makes the whole "socialism always leads to dictatorship" argument kinda suspect. yea Also every time a socialist was democratically elected the CIA was all "whatup"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:
according to catholic church and thomas aquinas usury is only usury it the loan is secured, unsecured commercial loans are fine by god
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:23
|
|
Moridin920 posted:yea The depth of the US's role in destroying leftist governments, either legitimate or revolutionary is hardly understood by people who redbait and scream about the failures of socialism/communism. Read this article about Cuban sabotage, it's insane: https://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/cuba
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Dude, Venezuela doesn't have anything even close to a fully socialized economy. i dont think you know very much about the soviet system
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Based on just that one post I'd say that's a pretty good understanding of the history and conditions of the early USSR. e: Loving Life Partner posted:The depth of the US's role in destroying leftist governments, either legitimate or revolutionary is hardly understood by people who redbait and scream about the failures of socialism/communism. Kissinger posted:I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
RBC posted:i dont think you know very much about the soviet system Why's that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Good communists are also internationalists Good communists are also corpses
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
the soviet system absolutely allowed representation including voting for elected delagates in much the same way modern democracies function
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
RBC posted:the soviet system absolutely allowed representation including voting for elected delagates in much the same way modern democracies function Sure but if you said anything bad about the Bolsheviks you were liquidated is all. Lenin posted:Freedom of speech and the press must be complete. But then freedom of association must be complete too. I am bound to accord you, in the name of free speech, the full right to shout, lie and write to your heart’s content. But you are bound to grant me, in the name of freedom of association, the right to enter into, or withdraw from, association with people advocating this or that view. The party is a voluntary association, which would inevitably break up, first ideologically and then physically, if it did not cleanse itself of people advocating anti-party views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy#History_in_Russia_and_the_Soviet_Union quote:However, one key blow against soviet democracy occurred when other revolutionary socialist soviets other than Bolshevik soviets were disbanded in a series of coups d'état because workers returned non-Bolshevik majorities as early as March 1918. Lenin argued that the Soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and according to critics made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality.[4] Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
RBC posted:the soviet system absolutely allowed representation including voting for elected delagates in much the same way modern democracies function The problem was that the candidate selection process was done through the party secretariat, and any party which wasn't the CPUSSR (or one of the republican communist parties I guess) was banned. Meaning that you only get vote for people approved by the central party apparatus and there were plenty of situations where there was only one candidate allowed on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Sure but if you said anything bad about the Bolsheviks you were liquidated is all. That refers to factions within the party. Non-party candidates ran and won in soviet elections. It's a historically documented fact. Typo posted:The problem was that the candidate selection process was done through the party secretariat, and any party which wasn't the CPUSSR (or one of the republican communist parties I guess) was banned. Meaning that you only get vote for people approved by the central party apparatus and there were plenty of situations where there was only one candidate allowed on the ballot. That is not true at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
RBC posted:That refers to factions within the party. Non-party candidates ran and won in soviet elections. It's a historically documented fact. also see 80s Poland for what happens the moment when you allow anything resembling a free election under Communism (even seats where only communist candidates were allowed on the ballot got voted out by write-ins)
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
oh btw the secretariat and the orgburo is literally exactly how Stalin got into power and beat the crap out of the communists who opposed him: because once you have the orgburo/secretariat was basically super-powerful HR department for the party you can just use your power to pack party congresses with your supporters (because you control the candidate selection process for them). So it doesn't matter how good zinoviev or Kamnev or trotsky was good at giving speeches, by the mid-late 20s every party congress was packed with Stalin supporters
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
RBC posted:That refers to factions within the party. Non-party candidates ran and won in soviet elections. It's a historically documented fact. just out of interest, how do you reconcile your belief that soviets had democratic institutions with the historically documented fact that millions of political opponents of the communist party were put into the gulags for many years on end throughout the unions history in that tiny tankie head of yours
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Yeah, see, ignoring the obvious democratic problem with a one-party state it's also a super dumb way of running a country because the failures and mistakes of the government become the same as the failures and mistakes of the state, which undermines the legitimacy of the country itself. And if you want to pull the whole tankie "Stalinist states totally have free elections" song and dance you're supposed to use China as your example. Weak performance smh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:just out of interest, how do you reconcile your belief that soviets had democratic institutions with the historically documented fact that millions of political opponents of the communist party were put into the gulags for many years on end throughout the unions history in that tiny tankie head of yours Presumably the same way you rationalise the US doing it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, see, ignoring the obvious democratic problem with a one-party state it's also a super dumb way of running a country because the failures and mistakes of the government become the same as the failures and mistakes of the state, which undermines the legitimacy of the country itself. this is actually a really good point: allowing democrats to blame republicans for their failures and vice-versa and rotating them in and out of power is actually really good for stability of the country
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Presumably the same way you rationalise the US doing it? that's a very cosy false equivalency you have there anyhow i wasn't talking to you
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
RBC posted:That refers to factions within the party. Non-party candidates ran and won in soviet elections. It's a historically documented fact. Wow, I thought it impossible, but there actually IS a guy fooled by the Eastern Block united front systems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, see, ignoring the obvious democratic problem with a one-party state it's also a super dumb way of running a country because the failures and mistakes of the government become the same as the failures and mistakes of the state, which undermines the legitimacy of the country itself. Bulgogi Hoagie posted:just out of interest, how do you reconcile your belief that soviets had democratic institutions with the historically documented fact that millions of political opponents of the communist party were put into the gulags for many years on end throughout the unions history in that tiny tankie head of yours I'm simply pointing out that many of the posters here know jack poo poo about the soviet union. They're just regurgitating propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
RBC posted:I'm simply pointing out that many of the posters here know jack poo poo about the soviet union. They're just regurgitating propaganda. I'm pretty sure almost everybody arguing with you knows more about the ussr than you though
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
RBC posted:I'm simply pointing out that many of the posters here know jack poo poo about the soviet union. They're just regurgitating propaganda. you are the only one itt regurgitating propaganda to such an extent that moridin, a known leftist and one of the most reasonable posters on this dead gay forum, has told you off for it lol also you haven't actually answered my question
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 21:56
|
|