|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
The Act of Killing is a cool and good documentary and gives good tips on killing communists.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:I don't think that it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Top-down Leninist communism as practiced by the USSR and elsewhere sucks poo poo, but there's more than one way to skin a cat (or achieve a worker's paradise, as it were).Hal_2005 posted: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. get that OUT of my face fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
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 is also the problem with current capitalism though, insider trading is essentially impossible to stop despite technically not being a part of the system. The idea of land inheritance (and to an extent capital) is feudalistic (at least to me). In essance, both systems devolve into oligarchy. Communist revolutions just break down much faster than a liberal state. HOWEVER, I would still say that it seems unfair to me to call a country ran by a democratically elected self-declared socialist party, with the explicit consitutional goal of moving the means of production into common ownership through a gradual process via capitalism itself, 'not a real socialist state'. I do seem to recall some stuff in Marx's writing about how it is necessary for a civilisation to pass through a capitalist phase in order to be able to advance to a 'true' socialist state, and that attempting to skip this step just leads to disaster (see: Russia and China). Much like many democratic revolutions before the 1790s, socialist revolutions have failed time and time again. However, to make a flowery comparison, the principles of the french revolution were not called off after Napoleon made himself an emperor. Even after the 1848 revolutions, democracy in europe failed again and again, until after the first world war the last remnants of feudalism were essentially wiped out in Europe. Essentially my problem is that declaring any socialist government or party that operates within capitalism forefeit by virtue of not instantly transforming the world into a socialist paradise seems unfair. It almost traps you in the past, if you didn't jump from feudalism to socialism you're already out of the race. Steps towards socialism, like universal healthcare, the welfare state, etc are valid examples of functional socialist policy, despite existing in the current capitalist framework. I don't know if someone has mentioned it yet, but even the idea of a socialist 'state' as in, socialism that exists in one country and not as part of a global revolution is not the default form of socialism. The whole field is so vague that I feel the only way you can really argue socialist policy, is with reference to real socialist parties. Because otherwise the langauge breaks down because of so many vagaries in marxist theory and variation in the various forms of socialism and marxism etc. The problem to me, always seems to come down capability. A socialist state is essentially life on Star Trek, where you have a magic replicator that can make anything in infinite numbers for anyone so nobody really has a reason to be an rear end in a top hat to each other in order to survive. I might be misremembering the quote, but there's some maoist term or something about how socialist policy should be based on the idea that 'It does not matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice'. So as long as the world wants to stay capitalist, we have to kind of just ride the wave and do the best we can instead of trying to force socialism onto people with military revolutions. IN SHORT: Until we have magical robots we have to settle for patchwork socialism on top of capitalism until the nerds finally finish working out science. cosmically_cosmic fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Personally I like toilet paper
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:This is also the problem with current capitalism though, insider trading is essentially impossible to stop despite technically not being a part of the system. The idea of land inheritance (and to an extent capital) is feudalistic (at least to me). In essance, both systems devolve into oligarchy. Communist revolutions just break down much faster than a liberal state. If we did have magical robots and Star Trek replicators then the poor would either be "phased out" or hunted for sport by the rich/party elite depending on whether it was a capitalist or communist country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
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. Agreed, with a caveat. Anarcho-Communism removes property rights and private property. Problemo solved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
No, the only good system is capitalism. (says the humans on the internet that have benefited vastly disproportionately by capitalism)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Agreed, with a caveat. In this system who would decide which person works as a farmer and which person as a blogger?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:This is also the problem with current capitalism though, insider trading is essentially impossible to stop despite technically not being a part of the system. The idea of land inheritance (and to an extent capital) is feudalistic (at least to me). In essance, both systems devolve into oligarchy. Communist revolutions just break down much faster than a liberal state. Full Automated Luxury Queer Space Communism is, in essence, the end goal here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:In this system who would decide which person works as a farmer and which person as a blogger? Generally I believe anarchists like consensus decision making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:In this system who would decide which person works as a farmer and which person as a blogger? "From each according to their ability"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
cosmically_cosmic posted:The problem to me, always seems to come down capability. A socialist state is essentially life on Star Trek, where you have a magic replicator that can make anything in infinite numbers for anyone so nobody really has a reason to be an rear end in a top hat to each other in order to survive. eh, this is extremely unclear in Star Trek: - there are things which can't be replicated (Di/Trilithium Crystals, gold-plated Latinum, whatever Voyager always was missing, other stuff). - you need energy (and maybe also the contents somehow?) and time to replicate. - there are many "working" people, especially in TOS (I remember some miners). - just because salary is never mentioned doesn't mean the crew doesn't earn anything (cf toilets). But I still vote for the magical robots
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:In this system who would decide which person works as a farmer and which person as a blogger? Anarcho-Communism generally has pretty close ideological ties with Primitive Communism. In Year Zero, we all work as farmers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally I believe anarchists like consensus decision making. That explains their stunning string of successes. "I propose that Somethingawful forums poster OwlFancier engage in a career path as a porno theater floor slopper. I have 5 votes for yaah and one for Nay. Congratulations OwlFancier, here's your mop and bucket, now go forth and slop, for the people!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
I thought consensus based decision making had to be unanimous? And then anarchists wouldn't really believe in forcing someone to accept a decision like that anyway, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I thought consensus based decision making had to be unanimous? And then anarchists wouldn't really believe in forcing someone to accept a decision like that anyway, right? You could be right? I thought there was a difference between "consensus" and "unanimous consensus". In any case, it's a p.dumb model that fits right in with the rest of the anarchist thought process
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I thought consensus based decision making had to be unanimous? And then anarchists wouldn't really believe in forcing someone to accept a decision like that anyway, right? No? And sometimes, depends on the anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:That explains their stunning string of successes. "I propose that Somethingawful forums poster OwlFancier engage in a career path as a porno theater floor slopper. I have 5 votes for yaah and one for Nay. Congratulations OwlFancier, here's your mop and bucket, now go forth and slop, for the people!" How did the current porn mopper get his job?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
communism is good, it failed in russia because of the servile asiatic nature of the slavs making despotism the natural result (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Anarcho-Communism generally has pretty close ideological ties with Primitive Communism. If by pretty close you mean by getting no platformed maybe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Anarcho-Communism generally has pretty close ideological ties with Primitive Communism. i'm pretty sure the spanish anarchists weren't ecological anarcho-primitivists, no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i'm pretty sure the spanish anarchists weren't ecological anarcho-primitivists, no? Anarcho-Primmies are basically some weird PNW bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How did the current porn mopper get his job? I assume that it was just piling up waiting for the local anachist decision apparatus to make an assignment
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Anarcho-Communism generally has pretty close ideological ties with Primitive Communism. Now I'm interested. The average trust fund anarchist would quickly starve if they had to farm for themselves, or any productive activity for that matter
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
There is only one valid critique of communism: situationnism
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Now I'm interested. The average trust fund anarchist would quickly starve if they had to farm for themselves, or any productive activity for that matter Out of thousands of fellow anarchists, I've not met a single one with a trust fund. That's more of a Marxist thing. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ormi posted:Out of thousands of fellow anarchists, I've not met a single one with a trust fund. That's more of a Marxist thing. Have you ever successfully planted a seed that yielded a mature plant?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
An imbalance of wealth is a good and healthy thing for an economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Have you ever successfully planted a seed that yielded a mature plant? Fresh potted jalapeņos are a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Have you ever successfully planted a seed that yielded a mature plant? I was raised on an orchard 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I was raised on an orchard makes sense cause ur a fruit 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No? And sometimes, depends on the anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I was raised on an orchard A commercial scale orchard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:i'm pretty sure the spanish anarchists weren't ecological anarcho-primitivists, no? I don't think too many people are arguing for anarcho-syndicalism anymore mostly because most people don't work in large factories anymore. And those that do work in industries amenable to syndicalism from a scale-perspective, those industries are driven by artificial demand (driven by sales/marketing as opposed to need) so they recognize that trying to set up a society based on those principles would deconstruct itself pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:I assume that it was just piling up waiting for the local anachist decision apparatus to make an assignment I mean the current one. The horror vision was someone would be assigned that job by vote. What system was used to assign the current guy doing it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I mean the current one. The horror vision was someone would be assigned that job by vote. What system was used to assign the current guy doing it? probably applied for the job, or maybe had to do it as court appointed public service. clearly i've offended your sense of justice by laughing at internet anarchists, and for that I am truly sorry, sir
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I don't think too many people are arguing for anarcho-syndicalism anymore mostly because most people don't work in large factories anymore. And those that do work in industries amenable to syndicalism from a scale-perspective, those industries are driven by artificial demand (driven by sales/marketing as opposed to need) so they recognize that trying to set up a society based on those principles would deconstruct itself pretty quickly. that and in the first world, factory jobs are actually pretty good. I live near a GE factory, they are by far the best jobs in town with most mid career and later guys pulling in six figgies. I'm sure though that in the alt-universe where anarchism (of whatever flavor) is a good idea and not a fetish for weirdos, guys working 40 hours a week in a modern factory do much better than that, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:that and in the first world, factory jobs are actually pretty good. I live near a GE factory, they are by far the best jobs in town with most mid career and later guys pulling in six figgies. I'm sure though that in the alt-universe where anarchism (of whatever flavor) is a good idea and not a fetish for weirdos, guys working 40 hours a week in a modern factory do much better than that, right? Depends on the factory job. An illegal immigrant working at a Tyson Chicken processing plant in Missouri for $9/hour (above minimum wage!) would probably benefit from a syndicalist approach but issues of intersectionality make that a hard sell. Standard unionism would also help those people -- probably more-so (in the short term) since it represents a more immediately achievable approach.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:04 |
|
|
Why would blogging even be a "job" under the dictatorship of the proletariat? Blogging also can just be this thing that you can do if you feel like it during the immense amount of free time you get after doing whatever short amount of highly-automated work is required of you to fulfill the basic needs of the collective. If nobody wants to clean the toilets, then if the workers want clean toilets they can all agree to do a bit of extra non-toilet-cleaning work so the person who cleans the toilet gets some extra perks, or whatever. This is the opposite of our society where people who do the lovely but necessary jobs nobody wants to do are forced do them because they are kept super poor and desperate, and they are treated with contempt by everyone else. Edit: yes, communism is good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:07
|
|
