|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
OwlFancier posted:Some of them had feathers. Venomous posted:when it's reached through libertarian socialist means, then yes Dinosuars had feathers because of libertarian socialism? 
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
White Rock posted:Dinosuars had feathers because of libertarian socialism? You can't prove otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Quick realtalk: Soviet/Stalinist-style Communism is awful because it's ultimately just oligarchy wearing red clothing. Democratic Socialism, meanwhile, is pretty much the only sensible way to run a high-technology, well-developed civilization in a stable manner (which is why so much of Europe has developed in that direction). Yeah one is communism one isn't, and the commie one is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Is communism worst than the Holocaust?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Trick question - both are hoaxes that never happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Venomous posted:when it's reached through libertarian socialist means, then yes if that fails the guillotine's also okay tho
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
AgentF posted:Trick question - both are hoaxes that never happened. Enver Hoaxa to be precise
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Communism is neat and cool and communists are cool and I like communism and I am a communist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Communism is the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
defeat the imperialist western capitalist system
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Communism is so 1917, the intelligentsia is all about Communalism now. There are two new letters, and they indicate an evolved political philosophy that is less susceptible to corrupting influence, please get with the program, comrades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's not about electing a leftist to the board or whatever, it's about the workers having a say in the direction of the company. Fun fact: in Finland this is codified into law. In theory it is supposed to be as you described in a pretty comprehensive fashion (see chapter 4): in practice it only comes up when people are about to get fired. Even then, it's very rare that planned cuts in personnel will actually be altered by joint committees. (translated to English from Ministry of Justice website: http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2007/en20070334.pdf )
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Communism is so 1917, the intelligentsia is all about Communalism now. There are two new letters, and they indicate an evolved political philosophy that is less susceptible to corrupting influence, please get with the program, comrades. *Comalrades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Communism is so 1917, the intelligentsia is all about Communalism now. There are two new letters, and they indicate an evolved political philosophy that is less susceptible to corrupting influence, please get with the program, comrades. Anarcho-Communism has even more letters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
The problem with communism is that everyone lies about where the money flows. Find me a method of socialism, community property or otherwise and I'll show you how the system rapidly devolves into a fedudalism/oligarch setup within 1 generation. This happens because Communist systems rely on equal distributions instead of rules of law, which stem from property rights. Property rights of ownership mean there will always be an imbalance of wealth. If ownership is transferred to the State, the same actors who become moguls in Capitalism switch their careers from trying to build profit sharing companies to Oligarch cartels which can encapture whole industries/countries for the same amount of "sweat equity" required to build a corporate entity. When this happens any illusion of equal distribution dissolves (because courts lack enforcement of property confiscation) and your system rapidly collapses into a bribery/patronage scheme.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Very.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
True pure communism needs two hyphens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
it really is the best
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Communism has the right idea but Marxism introduces a dangerous set of bugs into your wetware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Very good. Capitalism just externalizes all of its negatives so it looks better if you don't count those. No, communism doesn't solve third world poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:defeat the imperialist western capitalist system Communism is good at building tanks and I like tanks. But not Kharkovite tanks, they are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No, communism doesn't solve third world poverty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Worker ownership of the means of production is democratic, whereas capitalist ownership of the means of production is dictatorial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
If a socialist party is in control of a western country (I.e Labour government in the UK) is that country a socialist state or communist state or whatever? Or are the only 'real' communist/socialist states the ones that are dictatorships? Or at least the ones that are slavic/hispanic/asian? Because it may be an American thing but just what 'communism' means seems to be a very slippery concept in every discussion about it. The distinction that I was always told was that Communist states are dictatorships following the old 'dictatorship of the proletariat' thing, whereas socialist states were social democracies based on socialist goals/principles, but still based on the current capitalist economy (with an eye to creating the conditions for socialism to be brought about without a militant vanguard party) I mean hell the word 'communist' was used before the communist manifesto or Capital or any of those crucial communist/socialist texts were written wasn't it? The term has always been an almost meaningless blanket term for anything left of the current status quo. cosmically_cosmic fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Communism is democratic, which is why communist states are always non-democratic. They just keep using up all their democracy juice on worker ownership of companies, there's none left for letting those workers freely assemble or vote. Communism can describe a whole mish mash of ideas, most of which aren't Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism you silly soul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Like posadism, for instance, the kinkiest of all far left tendencies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Communism can describe a whole mish mash of ideas, most of which aren't Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism you silly soul. They are all bad though I bet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
The money system is typically simultaneously extremely efficacious (capable) and extremely inefficient (wasteful) at utilizing resources. This is a tradeoff. Periodically, the money system stops being even efficacious due to a recession. It's so loving stupid. 5 days before a recession, roads, factories, stores, consumers, resource gathering, etc etc all proceed at a steady reasonable pace. 5 days after a recession, all this activity grinds to a halt. Why? Did we run out of factories? labor? grain? steel? roads? No, we ran out of money. Money isn't a necessary part of the production of any good or service, it's only a signaling device. If you have a signaling device that works OK at best and totally fucks right out about 1/8 to 1/2 of the time, maybe your signaling system sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 13:42
|
|
- hi
|
Ocean Book posted:The money system is typically simultaneously extremely efficacious (capable) and extremely inefficient (wasteful) at utilizing resources. This is a tradeoff. Periodically, the money system stops being even efficacious due to a recession. What?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:If a socialist party is in control of a western country (I.e Labour government in the UK) is that country a socialist state or communist state or whatever? Most parties like Labour aren't socialist parties in the true sense, they're just left-leaning liberal or at best social democratic parties. Their aim is to maintain a Capitalist economic system but with greater redistribution and egalitarianism - not to put the means of production in the hands of the worker which is the most basic criteria of any Socialist/Communist economic set-up. Whether the Slavic/Hispanic/Asian etc counties are socialist is a matter for debate. The most basic criteria for any country being considered socialist or communist is whether the workers have control of the means of production, so in this case it depends on whether you consider control of the means of production via the Communist Party, which is theoretically susceptible to democratic impetus, and the workplace organisations the Communist Parties allowed as as counting as being the same as the workers being in control. Most Western socialists/communists would say no because by most standards the Party exerted it's will on the workers rather than vice versa. It's also worth noting that with these states the argument is over whether they are Socialist or not, they certainly were not Communist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:What? Money is used to coordinate production in a market economy. Money has unacceptably variable efficacy in coordination of production. (implied - communism is therefore good.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Syndicalism > communism imo. Organise from the bottom up, take direct control of the means of production rather than ceding them to a state proxy to hold them on your behalf.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Communism okay, but capitalism is just holy loving poo poo terrible. So communism ends up looking really loving good I comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Yeah one is communism one isn't, and the commie one is bad. I know, dem soc is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:The money system is typically simultaneously extremely efficacious (capable) and extremely inefficient (wasteful) at utilizing resources. This is a tradeoff. Periodically, the money system stops being even efficacious due to a recession. Uh, recessions aren't, like, single events that happen over a day. I mean, by definition that's not what they are at all. The business cycle is structural, and the economy is generally already slowing long before it's officially in recession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Money is useful because it is useless. This is one of the rare points where you can find agreement between people like Mises and Graeber. We reify it because so much of our society is based on the fundamental assumption that "money is real". This is some real Fukuyama "End of History" poo poo where every discussion is naturally bound by the assumptions of Neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Ocean Book posted:The money system is typically simultaneously extremely efficacious (capable) and extremely inefficient (wasteful) at utilizing resources. This is a tradeoff. Periodically, the money system stops being even efficacious due to a recession. lol do you think the communisms never had recessions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
lazorexplosion posted:lol do you think the communisms never had recessions? As a strong critic of Dengism, it does seem to prevent that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
It could be but is America the country to do it? IMO they should start with Socialism and see how it goes first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:The problem with communism is that everyone lies about where the money flows. Find me a method of socialism, community property or otherwise and I'll show you how the system rapidly devolves into a fedudalism/oligarch setup within 1 generation. This happens because Communist systems rely on equal distributions instead of rules of law, which stem from property rights. Property rights of ownership mean there will always be an imbalance of wealth. If ownership is transferred to the State, the same actors who become moguls in Capitalism switch their careers from trying to build profit sharing companies to Oligarch cartels which can encapture whole industries/countries for the same amount of "sweat equity" required to build a corporate entity. When this happens any illusion of equal distribution dissolves (because courts lack enforcement of property confiscation) and your system rapidly collapses into a bribery/patronage scheme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:18
|
|
