i dont think so but what do you think

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 97 points 19 hours ago (29 children)

The place where every other user is crying out that elections are useless and we're all doomed?

Nah

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 18 hours ago* (26 children)

    yeah, but if we believe hard enough in communism or similar, the world will be a magical paradise where money grows on trees but also nobody will ever need it, or something.

    clearly the issue with all of society is people not believing hard enough in the 'right way'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago

    This world will never be a magical paradise and we deserve all our suffering for what we did to the mammoths.

    Humans suck and are stupid which is why everything sucks and always will, no matter how hard we believe. Every solution is just a bunch of worse and bigger problems until the earth becomes uninhabitable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 18 hours ago (23 children)

    I'm like practically 40 and still don't really know what communism means in practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

    Communism is a future society based on highly advanced productive capacity where production and distribution are totally collectivized and run according to a common, scientific plan. Communism as an ideology is the path of building towards that, which requires working people having control of the state, and building up productive forces to where such an organizational structure is feasible.

    In addition, no communist believes communism will come about simply by convincing people of it. This is referred to as utopianism, which stands in stark contrast to Marxist scientific socialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago (1 child)

    Communism

    Communism is a political and economic system that seeks to create a classless society in which the major means of production, such as mines and factories, are owned and controlled by the public. There is no government or private property or currency, and the wealth is divided among citizens equally or according to individual need. Many of communism’s tenets derive from the works of German revolutionary Karl Marx, who (with Friedrich Engels) wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848). However, over the years others have made contributions—or corruptions, depending on one’s perspective—to Marxist thought. Perhaps the most influential changes were proposed by Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, who notably supported authoritarianism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago

    There is administration in communism, just not special repressive forces meant to control working classes. Lenin didn't "support authoritarianism," he extended Marx's analysis of capitalism to its imperialist, monopoly stage, and came up with many of the strategies for achieving socialism practically.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 18 hours ago (12 children)

    Communism is a more extreme subset of socialism, where socialism, broadly, is an umbrella term for "we want government oversight on companies." Socialism can take many forms, such as government having direct oversight on companies, or government passing binding guidelines on what companies can or can't do, or government operating a company (while still allowing competitor companies to operate as normal). Note that government policies under socialism can and will depend on the industry. Healthcare might be subject to more government oversight than steel manufacturing, for instance.

    Communism takes this idea and applies it to all companies in all industries. ie, the government has oversight on all companies. Note that there are also many forms of communism that interpret "oversight" in different ways. More classical forms of communism, for instance, recommends that the government directly manages companies and operates as executives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago

    Communism is a fully collectivized system run according to a common plan. Socialism is a trantional process between capitalism and communism characterized by social ownership as the principal aspect of the economy and the working class in control of the state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

    Communism takes this idea and applies it to all companies in all industries. ie, the government has oversight on all companies

    Except Communism is supposed to be stateless, there wouldn't really be any sort of central government to have oversight over anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago

    Eh, that's a misreading. There would still be administration in communism, just no special bodies to uphold the ruling class and suppress the non-ruling class, as society would be classless. Most would recognize this administration as a government, but it would be stateless in the Marxist conception.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 16 hours ago

    Broadly speaking, there is no practical difference, hence I didn't make that distinction. Even in a stateless society, there must be some sort of regulatory body. Even a regulatory body made of the common people is, by definition, a regulatory body. And if this regulatory body has the power to enforce its will onto the entities that it has control over, then I fail to see how that is any different from a government.

    It's not a governmental structure that we would be used to, but it's a government nonetheless. So at that point, what we're really arguing over is what methods the people should use to influence this regulatory body. Which is something that I explicitly did not comment on.

    If we acknowledge that some form of government must exist in any form of communism, then we can roughly summarize Marxist communism as "the government, which consists of the people organized in a nonhierarchical manner, exerts total managerial and executive control over all industries." I consider this to be an accurate assessment of Marxist communism, just not phrased in the way that a leftist typically would phrase it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (7 children)

    This is actually an incorrect definition. Communism is the final state of socialism.

    The problem with capitalism is that it inherently disenfranchises most people. It pits capitalists against workers in a tense arrangement where both sides are trying to gain the upper hand in negotiations over salaries/benefits. There are obviously more workers than capitalists. Capitalists own stuff that can be used to make more stuff. Workers own their own labor. Workers are the ones whose labor leads to the production of stuff.

    Governments develop as a result of the tension between the two classes. They exist to mediate conflicts between the capitalists and the workers. However, politicians/rulers are traditionally drawn from the capitalist classes and capitalists are able to lobby governments for rules that are favorable to them. This is easier for capitalists because capitalists individually have more stuff to bribe the government with. Also the politicians and the capitalists tend to be from the same group.

    This is obviously a problem because for the workers to get anything done favorable to them, they need to all agree on what needs to be done. Since there's more people in the working class, this is harder to do. There's fewer capitalists, so it's easier to get them all on the same page.

    Marx predicted that this unfair relationship between the capitalists and the workers would lead to constant conflict between the two classes. Eventually the workers would win (just by numbers) and assume control of the government. Since the government is designed to support the capitalist class, that means that this would produce a lot of tension as trying to shift a government to favor the workers is difficult. A lot of the rules that the workers would try to implement won't really make sense in the context of a capitalist structure. This period immediately after the revolution is called "socialism". It's marked by governments trying to strike a balance between supporting capitalist structures but also enabling workers, which is very difficult to do.

    Marx theorized that eventually society as a whole will realize that the two cannot truly coexist. We can't both support the masses and pursue profit at the same time. He theorized that eventually we will realize that the capitalist machinery(including the government, borders and nations) must be shuddered in order to truly free everyone. When that happens, that's when "communism" will begin.

    All governments that call themselves "communist" are just "socialist" with the expressed goal of achieving communism.

    The way you define it is part of the American red scare definitions which inherently tries to discredit communism and push workers to not rise up against their bosses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (4 children)

    This is fascinating. I wonder if there are any Trump voters out there that are Communist accelerationists? The only way to get the numbers to overcome it would be to make everything so bad as to force everyone.

    It also makes it sound like Communism is more of an ideal to strive for then an alternative governance model.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago (3 children)

    I wonder if there are any Trump voters out there that are Communist accelerationists?

    I've never voted for Trump but that's the only argument I could make to vote for him.

    It also makes it sound like Communism is more of an ideal to strive for then an alternative governance model.

    I agree. Tho I do think it might be achievable in the distant future, I doubt it'll be achievable in my children's time.

    Sci Fi author Ursula K Le Guin has imagined what that might look like in several of her works, most notably "The Dispossessed" which I highly recommend.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 12 hours ago (2 children)

    Is Star Trek communist? Seems to be parallels

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 16 hours ago (1 child)

    I fail to see how what I said conflicts with any of what you said. You give a more detailed summary, but what I said, from what I see, is still completely accurate. I make no claim for how society will develop over time, only that societies that operate under socialism or communism should operate in this manner. I also make no claim that the government under communism is the same continuous entity as the government that we currently exist under, only that a government must exist to enforce its will onto companies (a collective of the workers is still a government if it has the ability to enforce its will).

    Your comment is informative for sure, and also a good summary of Marxist communism, but it does not directly answer the question posed, ie, how does a society theoretically operate under communism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago

    I fail to see how what I said conflicts with any of what you said.

    I think the differences are subtle but meaningful. I think another way to interpret "communism" in the Marxist sense is "anarchy" meaning there's no central deciding body.

    Communism takes this idea and applies it to all companies in all industries. ie, the government has oversight on all companies.

    This is different from what I mentioned in my post.

    He theorized that eventually we will realize that the capitalist machinery(including the government, borders and nations) must be shuddered in order to truly free everyone.

    I did forget to mention that there would also be no money. And there is no government to oversee all these industries. (I understand that in our capitalist world this sounds like libertarianism, but without money there's no profit motive).

    how does a society theoretically operate under communism?

    Marx doesn't actually postulate what this might look like, but one of my favorite sci fi authors ever did. In Ursula K Le Guin's brilliant novel "The Dispossessed" she imagines what a truly communist society might look like. I highly recommend it if you'd like to see what she thinks it might look like.

    But just a a brief description (which doesn't really do it justice). There's no government. The main character is a scientist who works with the university as a collective. Students and teachers have ad hoc discussions about what classes might be interesting to have. Farmers collectives post requests for work during harvesting season. Kitchens request help to areas where they need help. Everyone has some skills and has a culturally ingrained belief that they should help the whole group. They also believe that everyone is equal and nobody should hold power over other people. Nobody is paid for the work but they all see each other as brothers and sisters and so working is something you do, like when your parents ask you do to yard work while one parent cooks and the other parent fixes the car. (This is simplified from the book, I don't think it truly captures the whole of it).

    Thanks for your comment, I appreciate our conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] -1 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

    because it likely is just shit made by dictators that isnt even real

    but only to justify their rule

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago

    Yeah but since there's like maybe 100 comments on any given post, and if I want more posts I have to hit "next" then it actually does a pretty good job of preventing me from truly doomscrolling.

    That "next" button is like asking my brain if I want more doom, and I often don't actually so I end up doing something else.

  • source
  • parent