|
Is Communism good? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
375 | 66.25% |
| No |
|
191 | 33.75% |
| Total: | 523 votes | ||
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
gobbagool posted:so how many extra perks does the toilet cleaner get? who decides that? what if he does a crummy job, do his perks get reduced by some amount? what if I don't make a mess in the toilet, should I have to do extra non-toilet cleaning work to support you disgusting monsters that can't figure out how to poo poo without it getting everywhere? jhfc, goons. it amazes me that you think some system that substitutes "or whatever" for money would ever work I'm genuinely sorry that social relations between human beings that are not mediated through the market are so alien to you that you cannot even conceive of them. This is really sad and not actually your fault, for you are a product of capitalism and this is what it does to people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:Yes, every time I want a dozen eggs I want to negotiate a fair amount of labor "or whatever" in trade, what a simple system that isn't at all 100% retarded, because, you see, we live in caves 10,000 years ago Don't confuse the fact that commies show humility and do not like to pretend to have the solutions all planned out for all the future hypothetical problems of socialist society; or the fact that, unlike crypto-fascist liberals, they actually have trust in the people's ability to democratically manage their own affairs once liberated from the shackles of capitalism; with anything other than just that. "Or whatever" can absolutely include a currency system, and probably will, but might not. Capitalism is not defined by the existence of money but by the existence of private property, and the ability for those who own more than they need to invest it in capitalist ventures and thus claim a portion of the value produced by others. This is the crucial change that communists fight for: the democratic ownership of the means of production and the collective stewardship of nature, in common, for the people's benefit, instead of for the exclusive benefit of a few bourgeois super-oligarchs who are happy to let the masses starve and destroy our planet. Communists are not communists because they have this perfectly planned out system, that they fantasize about one day being in a position where they can magically single-handedly impose it, as planned, onto everybody else. They understand history as a process which is shaped by economic forces and the masses of millions of people. Communists are communists because they recognize the contradictions of capitalism, the horrors that it produces, and the inevitability of its collapse. They are communists because they realize that when liberal bourgeois society fails and capitalism does inevitably collapse, the only remaining choice is between genocide, war, and fascism on one side, or socialism on the other. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:so... currency predates barter. makes perfect sense. not to be a typical local, but I suppose you can give us some evidence of that? Here's an article on the topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/barter-society-myth/471051/
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
gobbagool posted:what a perfect encapsulation of The ATlantic, and this whole moronic derail Notice how gobbagool so easily dismisses the research of anthropologists, sociologists, and historians because they don't fit the naive notions about pre-capitalist society that the bourgeoise has worked very hard to instill into him through business 101 textbooks and neoliberal think-thanks like the Adam Smith Institute.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Actually communism is very bad, if you're a bourgeois who's used to enjoying the fruits of the exploited labor of the working class
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
It doesn't matter how many posts on the internet reactionaries make about why commumism is bad, or how many billions and billions of people supposedly died of it. People around the world will keep rising up and attempt to overthrow capitalism because capitalism will never stop producing increasingly large masses of pissed off proletarians who literally have nothing to lose but their chains. The lessons of every past failures will be passed down through history and, in the end, Communism will win.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
Why is it that all these internet anticommunist posters like nazis so much hmmm i wonder When it comes down to it and the poo poo really hits the fan, when capitalism shits itself and the institutions of liberalism fail, in the end everyone turns out to be either a communist, or a fascist
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Actually consumer electronics do not come from private R&D investment, but from state-funded research projects that were caused by communism. For example the US government funded a nuclear & space race with the intent of destroying the socialist economy by forcing them to keep up, and this led to the invention of many of the technological innovations that consumer electronics depend on today. Also, the internet was originally a DARPA project aimed at creating an information network that could withstand a nuclear attack from the USSR, so we wouldn't have the internet without communism. Many of the software that underlie platforms like Google and Apple is ripped from open source projects, a form of communism. Also, China had a communist revolution and that's why it ever industrialized and why capitalists are now able to invest in tech manufacturing there. Without chinese communism there would be no cheap electronics hardware today. All the awesome consumer electronics have been brought to the world by communism. Also communism produced the most popular videogame of all time worldwide, Tetris. Only a socialist society could produce such art. We can thank capitalism for E.T. on Atari, the Zelda CDI games, and Sonic 2006.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
I think it's hilarious that reactionaries think iPads are the trump card against communism. They are a luxury product that only a tiny fraction of the world's population has access to, they produce immense waste, and even smartphones are a thing that most people get because of job pressure and the accelerating and anxiety-inducing requirement to be constantly available and connected more than anything else. Guess what, the only reason why your iPads are so cheap in the first place is because capitalism has decided that the people who assemble them and mine the minerals to make them do not deserve to be fed, clothed, or medicated properly. They can work their entire lives in horrible conditions and never earn enough to buy a single iPad. It's like people who argued against the abolition of slavery by going "but the price of cotton will increase!!!" It doesn't matter how attached white western consumers feel about their fancy little toys and gadgets, the people who actually make them do not give a poo poo about that stuff, and they are the ones who have the power to halt the capitalist machine by going on general strike. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Here's a good article about our beloved consumer electronics captains of industry in Silicon Valley, the great figureheads of the successes capitalism; and how they actually know that their days are numbered because a revolution is coming, and are loving quaking in their boots in fear at the specter of communism:quote:The fears vary, but many worry that, as artificial intelligence takes away a growing share of jobs, there will be a backlash against Silicon Valley, America’s second-highest concentration of wealth. “I’ve heard this theme from a bunch of people,” Hoffman said. “Is the country going to turn against the wealthy? Is it going to turn against technological innovation? Is it going to turn into civil disorder?” quote:Robert H. Dugger worked as a lobbyist for the financial industry before he became a partner at the global hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation, in 1993. After seventeen years, he retired to focus on philanthropy and his investments. “Anyone who’s in this community knows people who are worried that America is heading toward something like the Russian Revolution,” he told me recently. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Foxconn is a multinational private corporation. China's economy is as capitalist as can be, but the ruling party calls itself the "communist party" for historical reasons. France is capitalist with a "socialist party" that implements austerity and privatization, America is an oligarchy but has a "democratic party".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:So are all those foreign workers just suffering to bump the margins a little on some amoral business? Yes, but it's not that the business is "amoral". If these corporations tried to pay their employees a decent wage, they would probably be driven out of business by more ruthless competitors who can undercut them on the consumer market and attract more investment capital through higher profits. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean no more cheap electronics. It would actually not be that hard to increase automation to the point where producing that stuff is cheap without relying on underpaid labour. It's just that under capitalism, there's no incentive to invest in this automation because hiring desperate wage-slaves is cheaper. (And once investing in automation becomes cheaper, then since the means of production are privately owned the wage workers will not see the benefits of the added productivity and just lose their jobs, cheapening labour even more.) A socialist electronics industry would probably also produce better-quality stuff that doesn't break down or become obsolete within a year, and produces less waste, among other advantages. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:What are your historical examples of capitalist countries devolving into feudalism and communism? If feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium can you demonstrate several example states which have settled into feudalism/communism from a capitalist system? Over the entire scope of human history, capitalism is a very short and recent development. For its entire small existence it's been defined by instability, crisis, and unprecedented accelerating changes in the fabric of human civilization. Capitalism has become a worldwide system, and has, since its inception, never actually undergone full collapse yet. However, it has come close to it in the past, and has been unable to hold back *localized* revolution at many points in its history. Whenever this has happened, capitalism has survived through different methods that allowed to temporarily push back crisis: genocidal war, colonialism, unsustainable extraction, etc. OtherworldlyInvader posted:If again feudalism/communism is the natural equilibrium, what force overcame that equilibrium and made feudal European states liberalize their economies over the last half a millennium, and caused the former USSR states and PRC to embrace aspects of capitalism over the last half century? "The domino theory" was invented not by marxists but by the U.S. government after WW2, who gave itself the purpose of destroying socialism (they knew it wouldn't do it on its own). The idea was that if you let socialism take hold somewhere, and don't stop it, it will indeed spread and become the new "equilibrium". Local attempts to build socialism have always been defeated by an international alliance of all reactionary forces, ever since the Paris Commune (and even earlier). The ruling classes of all nations understand the threat that socialism poses to them, and will overcome any difference they might have with each other in their common goal of defeating it, at any cost. If you read up on the history of the CIA interventions, for example, you will find a history of repression of socialism movements all over the world, including funding the Taliban against afghan communists, the war on Vietnam, the Contra wars, overthrowing of Chilean democracy, the assassination of civil rights activists in the US, and so many other examples. Because capitalism is an international system, when any one individual country attempts to challenge the absolute dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it can be punished through various means such as capital flight and trade sanctions. These means are only available however because of the context of the world capitalist system, and put pressure on socialist countries to maintain a level of exploitation of labor comparable to the rest of the world if they hope to engage in trade, or to defend from invasion. Socialist governments are left with the choice of trying to build socialism in isolation (meaning achieving some level of self-sufficiency, and having a strong enough military to hold the siege), or capitulating to bourgeois interests. Syriza in Greece recently chose the latter, for example, as did many "socialist" parties in europe, whereas North Korea is the consequence of attempting the former. Cuba was able to hold out for a while, but is now letting capitalists take control again, which is what the communist party in China also opted for a long time ago. This is the problem of "socialism in one country", which is a big debate among communists. The dilemma is what has been playing out in Venezuela. The only time when a level of compromise could be reached between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and where you could see capitalist economies allowing for the existence of some socialist welfare reforms, was during the existence of the soviet bloc, because the left was empowered by the fact that they would receive international socialist support in the event of capitalist blackmail. Ever since the USSR was defeated, welfare states have been dismantled, and neoliberalism rules. Capitalism however, is, as always, digging its own grave through leveling the conditions all over the world (through international investment, immigration, the eroding of democratic sovereignty, international debt, etc).This means that the crises of capitalism happen in a more and more globalized, and less and less localized fashion, and that eventually, a worldwide crisis might open the way for world revolution. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Social democracy has failed everywhere, in that it has been incapable of withstanding the assaults against it from neoliberal capitalism. Welfare states are disappearing and soon, thanks to auserity, privatization, etc, there will be none left.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
"Capitalism will never die", he types, as economic growth is lower than it's been in years, unemployment is rising, eight billionaires own as much wealth as the entire half of the world's population, fascists are struggling to take over the government of the world's mightiest capitalist superpower, and the planet's climate is headed towards full collapse. (But wait, tech companies are working hard to replace all shipping jobs with self-driving trucks, surely that will solve the crisis!!)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:You state capitalism as a recent development, and one which is characterized by by instability and crisis. Yet the post-WW2 era has exhibited the end of wars between great powers, drastic reductions in violent crime, the near complete elimination of famine in the globalized world, massive reductions in infant mortality, and rising incomes in much of the 3rd world. How has the recent rise of an unstable and chaotic worldwide capitalist system co-existed with massive global reductions in violence and poverty? Steven Pinker is the guy who has been the principal recent advocate of the ideas you're talking about (he wrote the "better angels of our nature" book), and many other scholars have pointed out serious flaws in his methods and data, which can be often suspect or come from untrustworthy or cherry-picked sources. He continues to be promoted and offered a platform by all the TED-talks type organizations, though, because the optimistic narrative of progress he presents is a pretty useful one for them to promote. The World Bank for example, produces a lot of the data that gets cited on poverty rates, etc, but it also operates as a private financial institution with no public accountability, and justifies its for-profit business through neoliberal economic theories: its shareholders have a strong vested interest in it releasing positive results about the effect of its policies. I'm still open to the idea that such a positive post-ww2 trend exists, but I can only see it as temporary, and predicated on unsustainable capitalist growth the limits of which will eventually be reached. I would also add that a less hungry, more healthy proletariat, might not actually necessarily be very good news for capitalism. OtherworldlyInvader posted:Why is it that today most of these countries have liberalized their economies, normalized relations with the US, and stabilized from civil/external war? If the answer to that is communist countries succumbing to western trade sanctions, are you arguing that Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, China with the support of the Eastern Bloc was an insufficient to overcome Western trade sanctions and capital flight? If so what is the tipping point where that can be overcome? I'm not at all sure what the tipping point would be, but as long as we're wildly speculating about counterfactuals, I'd think that if the German revolution hadn't failed, as in if German liberals hadn't allowed the nazis to take power, it would probably have been enough to tip the scales. It's certainly what the Bolsheviks were expecting and counting on, since they didn't expect the revolution to go very far without a major Western industrial power on board, and the fact that it didn't happen led to a major change of plans and Stalin's "socialism in one country" policies. All other instances of successful socialist revolutions since then have also taken place in periphery countries that had been kept relatively underdeveloped by imperialism. I would add a caveat though, about the fact that the situation in places like China and Vietnam is a bit weird. Although these economies function as capitalist for all intents and purposes, there's uncertainty as to whether the state really is at the complete service of capital in the way that it is in the West. It still, at the very least, claims to be committed to the goal of building socialism, and to only allow capitalist investment for development purposes and survival in the global market, with always the plan of nationalizing once conditions are ready for a transition to socialism. I don't lend very much credence to that official line myself, but some communists are betting on the support of these countries with a communist party and a capitalist economy to lend support to an eventual future new socialist "bloc". Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:So to protect workers' rights immigration should be stopped? No, immigrants are workers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
There is no communism without internationalism, (and the people who disagree are opportunists and following them is doomed to failure). There's a good reason why the internationale is and has always been the hymn of communism, in every language. Internationalism means recognizing that the international system of nation-states and borders is a construction of the bourgeoisie class and exist only to serve their interests. Nationalism is an ideology that fools the worker into believing that they have some common interest with their national bourgeoisie, up to and including convincing them to die in wars for their benefit, instead of realizing that their comrades are the workers of all the other nations on earth, with whom they have only common cause and no fundamental conflict. Immigrants only bring wages down because they are not offered the same rights as citizens. If they received all the benefits and protections of citizenship, immigration would strengthen the power of the working class in any country, not weaken it. Immigrants also are forced to travel because of the ravages of war and imperialism, and workers should oppose these activities from their government in solidarity with the workers who are suffering at the other end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:It is a mighty strawman you've built to represent social democracy. Oh, how the straws fly when you beat it! The freedom to organize and protest has already been thrown completely out the window in my country, and many others (permanent "state of emergency" in france, anyone?), where riot police systematically crack down on any protest they do not approve of. Public education is also being underfunded, dismantled, and privatized. Religion is very much present in school, including crucifixes on the walls and stickers about "evolution is just a theory" in textbooks. Progressive taxes are dead and taxes are effectively regressive, with mega corporations like apple or oil companies paying negative taxes or getting subsidies, while you and I pay more than they do. The justice system is a joke and most people can't afford a trial when they are being abused by employers or landlords and will just resign themselves to accept the treatment. Most countries with free healthcare have underfunded it to the point that it functions very poorly and are in the process of privatizing it, or will soon be. Private military is alive and well with for-profit mercenary armies like blackwater and other private military contracts getting hired by governments and private corporations. Men and women are not equal in any society on earth today lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Class consciousnesses is built on shared interest. There are good arguments for what you are saying, and I am often inclined to agree. If first world middle class workers really are a "labor aristocracy" who have an objective class interest in fascism, though, then I am happy to be a traitor to my class and to stand in solidarity with immigrant workers and the majority of the world's oppressed proletariat, and against this petite bourgeoisie, until conditions change.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
If there truly is a difference in class interest between the middle class white citizen and the undocumented immigrant worker, but you decide to side with the former against the latter, then as a communist I must consider you my political opponent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
White Rock posted:I am not making a moral point here, i am just stating facts. I understand this, which is why I'm actually engaging with your arguments and considering them seriously. Call it "middle class", "labour aristocracy", "petite bourgeoisie", or "first world proletariat", I'm not sure - but the argument is that this constitutes a separate class with distinct and conflicting interests from those of the third world proletariat and migrant workers, correct? Then if that is the case, it might very well be that a communist movement defending the interests of the latter is impossible to build in the first world, the material conditions are just not right. However, I'm afraid that the movement which protects the interest of the former category against the latter is potentially a fascist one or at least one which leads to fascism. It might very well be that this is just what the conditions are and that a fascist takeover is inevitable in the first world. It certainly seems to be what is happening in the US and Europe right now. If this is what is going on then I will never align myself with it, and I will resist it despite the odds, doing my best to stand in solidarity with migrant workers, and oppose my own government in its imperialism, until conditions change. Ardennes posted:How about the white working class guy making 12 dollars an hour? I don't think this guy should have any problems or conflicts with migrant workers. He is being fooled by bourgeois media and politicians into believing that he does, in which case he should be assisted in his struggle and develop class consciousness. If however, he actually does have objective interests which conflict with those of the migrant worker, as some people might argue, then personally I will stand in solidarity with the migrant worker against him.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Serious question, do you consider Cuba a facist state? I absolutely do not, in fact I consider Cuba to be one of the most successful examples of a socialist revolution in history. The difference is that Cuba was a third-world colony before its revolution, not a first world imperialist power in the way that Europe and the US are. Cuban citizens do not benefit from imperialism abroad and the super-exploitation of the third world proletariat in the way that first-world consumers might, for example. In fact they actually have an interest in supporting other anti-imperialist struggles abroad. I should have added that I don't think internationalists have any problem with anticolonialist national liberation struggles. All communists except maybe some weird sects support national liberation movements in the third world. You can absolutely recognize that the nationstate system serves the class enemy while also recognizing that there are things you can do within those constraints that still help. My problem with first-world nationalism is that if you recognize that people in the first world benefit from imperialist exploitation, and do not challenge your own government on that, you end up siding with the capitalist exploitation of third-world workers, and against refugees and migrants. If however, you start from a position of opposing your own government's imperialist practices, then this also assists the third world in their own resistance to capital, and thus help create the conditions where first-world consumers are no longer bribed by the superprofits of imperialism, and can see the point of building socialism. White Rock posted:The current populist movements are split down the middle whether they go right wing (UKIP, Trump etc) and populist left wing (Podemos, Five Star, Corbyn(who incidentally just came out as for increased border control)). These show that we are a at a divergence in the road, not a singular turn towards the right. As capitalism collapses we need to be ready, and the way to build a movement has always been to engage in nations people. From the french to the american to the USSR, nations are the groundwork of revolution. The alternative so far has been a USSR like expansion, a sort of forced revolution. For the same reason that I support anti-imperialist national liberation struggles, I would have been in favor of a "Lexit" socialist withdrawal of the UK from the European Union (itself a nationalist and imperialist project). Unfortuantely that's not quite what happened. Similarly, I think the best we can hope for in a place like Quebec is a leftist separation from Canada with Quebec Solidaire. In all these cases, I do not believe that building such a movement should ever be done at the expense of migrant workers, who should be included, represented, and protected. I very much condemn Corbyn for his recent capitulation on this, but am not that surprised because social democrats gonna social democrat. I will also add that there are strategic reasons behind what I'm advocating for. If we are serious about the "fork in the road" and want to avoid things to go down towards fascism (my top priority at the moment), then trying to construct a contradiction-laden compromise by paying lip-service to nationalist and anti-immigrant rethoric in an attempt to bring people over from the right will only have the opposite effect. It will only lead to your "left" alternative being perceived as consistently weaker on these issues, hypocritical, more neurotic and repressed. I genuinely believe that the only way to effectively oppose facsim is to reject the very framing the right is imposing on political discourse, and to propose a principled and uncompromising alternative to it. Reject the terms that the right is setting, because they will always beat the left on them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
White Rock posted:
But if we actually look at the demographics of who voted Trump, it's wealthier people on average than those who voted Clinton, the same demographics as with past republican candidates. And the poorest are the ones who didn't vote at all! The American working class is diverse, and composed of immigrants of various races, cultures, languages. Many of them have families in other nations around the world. It's the petite bourgeoisie who are turning to fascism, as always; and they might be constructing a nationalist narrative about "real americans" and the "white working class", but it's all "volk"-style bullshit, we shouldn't fall for it! Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Is it really surprising that a social order based on everyone being either the victim or perpetrator of theft would always end up in bloodbath and horror? I think you're thinking of capitalism
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
The minimum baseline for socialism doesn't even require you to come up with a replacement for the market. You can basically just start with what we have currently except businesses have no shareholders anymore and all profits a firm makes are redistributed to its workers, who democratically elect representatives to run their place of work. There's lots of reasons why people might want to go further and build new institutions that can provide non-market solutions to various aspects of society, but if you have a problem with that it's not even necessary, and arguing why that wouldn't work isn't the gotcha against socialism that you think it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
lol books are stupid america hell yeah (edit: that stuff is not in the first chapters of kapital though)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Higsian posted:People who believe in angels and poo poo are in power. And they also believe capitalism is good LOL
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Sorry, people aren't going to stop wanting communism and trying to have a revolution. It's just human nature.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
The struggle for capitalism is like a person who believes that if they follow the rules and work really hard to make their rich bosses even more rich, they'll be rewarded with success and happiness, and then when they are old and don't have enough money to retire and the bank forecloses on their mortgage and they start dying of a preventable disease because Trump is president they blame their failure on leftists and foreigners, and are like "if only I had made more posts defending capitalism on somethingawful".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
turns out anticommunists just secretly hate democracy, wow shocking i know
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:I don't and think the same of Marxists who don't think democracy can stand up against capitalist power. If it can't dreams of democratic communism are certainly hosed. democracy standing up to capitalist power is what we marxists call "the revolution"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Communism is basically an amalgamation of all the bad things people have ever come up with. 504 posted:Communism is a ridiculous pipe dream that true believer think would work if only every single person involved with really really tried (despite the fact the vast majority of people don't want to, and do better in life if they don't).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:First world communism doesn't do jack poo poo for the third world except probably cut off trade (they call it exploitation) and gently caress them more. Recent studies estimate that 16.3 trillion dollars of value have been sucked out of poor countries by the first world since 1980. (http://www.gfintegrity.org/reports/) The first world also regularly bombs the rest of the world to maintain capitalist control over resources in third world regions. Yes, the third world would benefit from this coming to an end. asdf32 posted:Buddy it's not just a coincidence that handing all the power in the economy to a central organization causes problems. This is exactly why we shouldn't hand all economic power to the World Bank, IMF, Monsanto, Exxon, and other centrally-planned private monopolies, but put it under democratic control. Capitalist competition is a myth and the free market always leads to centralization and the consolidation of ever-larger monopolies.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
The only reason China is no longer third world is because of the communist revolution that happened there and made it be not be a colony of the West anymore. Same for for Russia which went from being a backwater tzardom of dirt peasants to the first country in space within less than 40 years, rescuing the rest of the world from nazi genocide along the way. (Edit: and we can thank the same capitalist country which elected Trump for putting Vladimir Putin in power there and reducing it back to a hellhole.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Anticommunists in this thread:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
504 posted:I like how you completely ignore the 30 million death toll. You know, how I said believers always do in the text you quote. please stop completely ignoring the 205 million death toll of capitalism in all your posts in this thread, you loving monster
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:37 |
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Any thoughts or essays on this that address anarcho-communist concerns? I always tell my anarchist comrades that I'm fully planning on becoming an anarchist as soon as every state on the planet is a socialist one
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 20:02
|
|