What exactly is wrong with communism?
Communism relies on fervor among the people to keep going and to not fall back on selfish desires. In order to keep the fervor going the government relies on means of thought control, like censorship and starving out dissenters. Communism cannot tolerate dissent and is therefore rarely if ever pluralistic.
>>570608
nothing much, providing you are fine with collectivism over individualism
>>570608
Define communism.
>>570608
Nothing.
>>570630
Spotted the hohol
>>570608
It doesn't respect individuals. State Individualism is the best of two worlds; everyone is an individual and ought to be looked upon as an individual to the degree where social interaction with your family can be outsourced to the state so that you as an individual can focus more on flourishing, while the state also ensures that people are interacting with each other as equal.
Sweden is arguably the most extreme case of this kind of relationship between people and the state, and a documentary looking at the backside of this kind of society just got released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n12Z9gKbI6Y
>>570682
It would be a good start, yes.
And it would be better if it wasn't necessary to teach the meaning of words to every first moron passing by...
>>570695
Don't be obtuse, communism can vary from small farming communities to vast Stalinist industrial regimes. It can be current-day China, or cold-war Cuba. These are vastly different kinds of countries, yet they can all be described as communist regimes. inb4 China is no longer communist at all.
Two words: command economy.
>>570608
aint neva bin dun befo
>>570707
how about techno-communism where advanced algorithms are able to regulate the emergent economic dynamics?
nothing, it's portrayed as wrong because it's opposed to the interests of the existing ruling class.
you could say there's a lot wrong with the execution of communism in certain times in history, however there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the idea. the failed execution is a perfect legitimization for capitalist ruling classes to manipulate their working class into buying into the idea that the ideology of communism will never work, though. they would like nothing more than to quell any uprising, to have their worker bees be worker bees forever.
>>570704
Your definition of communism differs fundamentally from the one of Karl Marx. We can't discuss if we use same words with different meanings. Behind these divergences lies political opinions. I would have preferred yours to be more frank.
>>570712
Somehow I doubt that would be a good alternative to the market either.
>idealistic, reductionist models of society
why do people do this?
>>570714
>it's portrayed as wrong because it's opposed to the interests of the existing ruling class.
This is what I was thinking, honestly.
>>570608
I dislike being sent to Siberia.
>"we need a dictatorship of the proletariat!"
>"How could this have possible devolved into tyranny?????"
>>570719
That is my point. So what you mean by communism is Marx's communism. In that case I would say (based on my small understanding of his theory) that it is based on a flawed assumption: That society can transition from a dictatorship of the proletariat to anarchy, and sustain that anarchy. I do not think that human societies can sustain a power vacuum.
If we were robots, it could work pretty well.
Just like with nuclear energy, human beings can't handle the responsibility that comes with it not to fuck it up or a lot of people get hurt.
An ideology that requires you to be an extremist will ultimately fail, because it takes a lot of effort to stay that way (from both the citizen and the state).
Communism requires no dissent and no corruption to function as intended.
Guess what humans are really good at.
>>570731
Do you know what "dictatorship of the proletariat" even means? Have you ever researched the concept, or have you just read it once in reference to communism and assumed it was literal?
LTV is flawed so the whole house of cards comes down.
>>570740
A flawed assumption would be to say that a human nature exists and that this human nature forces humans to be either sheep or shepherd. This flawed assumption, strangely, coincides with the interests of the current dominating social class.
Whatever would be a communist society, reflexing on it is imagining an utopia. It may be the fuel of a great science-fiction novel (if you know some, by the way, I'm interested), but it's wasted time from a practical political point of view. The work of Marx was precisely a reaction to the utopist socialism of his epoch : he described capitalism to ease the understanding of it by the workers and ultimately ease the organisation of the proletariat, into the International.
Today, after two world wars, the fact that capitalism still exists make the need of a global revolution more urgent than ever. How will communism be ? Is it even relevant to us today ? Our challenge is first to reach it : we must act !
It's based on false premises of absolute human equality and nurture over nature and generally promoted by the most spiteful, envious, self-righteous vermin humanity has to offer.
>>570745
The reason nuclear energy is more dangerous than it should be (though it's still the safest by far) is because people balk at the price tag of constructing modern reactor designs or refurbishing old ones.
>>570776
It's not a "sheep or shepherd" thing. If there is a power vacuum then eventually someone or group will come along who wants to fill it and has the ability to.
>>570776
>A flawed assumption would be to say that a human nature exists and that this human nature forces humans to be either sheep or shepherd.
how does independent, almost global, emergence of big man culture and general power structures with the neolothic revolution fit into this?
>>570773
Communism has nothing to do with ltv.
It's followers don't fly so good.
>>570790
That's why the transition by proletariat's dictature is necessary, lasting until the concepts we're both using and tacitly considering as common have lost their current meaning... That's speculating about an utopia. But try to imagine that in a communist society, the concepts of "power", "someone" or "group" may be very different.
>>570807
Maybe selection isn't only biological ?
Communism is perfect. It's reality that is flawed.
>>570823
>Maybe selection isn't only biological ?
it's not, obviously, but what does that have to do anything with it?
It's not as if ideology overrides biological factors
>>570837
What you will get is 5 years in humor camp.
>>570608
Everything wrong with collectivism.
Also how marx seems to treat the Bourgeiosie as an almost inhuman evil, saying how it destroys marriage and replaces it with a moneyed contract, for instance. He treats it as this boogeyman that when destroyed people will be fully equal, just as some enlightenment philosophers viewed the ancien regime.
However, the largest issue is the contrast between Marx and Engels. Marx was a depressed man and it kinda shows in what he writes (i hate marxism and even i feel sorry for him). He seems to believe that everybody can live in harmony and have a very simple life.
Enter engels, a very rich man, who was used to excess. He believed that there was an abundance of wealth to the extent where everybody could be happy under communism rather than just survive as marx's works seem to imply he believed.
This may have been a contributing factor towards the number of communist revolutions as people believed the could live in a fully equal society and be simultaneously happy, two things that are hard to impossible to achieve alone.
>>570838
The development of agriculture in different points of the world could be explained by the fact that in most of the environments colonized by the man, it is easier to survive or increase your population by sedentarising and cultivating soil. This is inseparable of political, economical, social questions : in a time of meager harvest, deciding who own the terrain, who keep the crops and finally who survive leads to your abovementioned phenomenon, the phenomenon of emerging private property.
>>570608
I only care about myself.
>>570808
The LTV is the crux of Marxist economics, historiography, political theory, and the basic reason why the bourgeoise need to be overthrown. Without it Marxism has basically nothing.
>>570877
What is this LTV you constantly speak about ?
>>570877
In other words, you don't know absolutely anything about marxism except for the ltov and are talking out of your ass. You're an idiot. Try to explain how communism or marx's theory of history derive from ltov, i'll wait. Also, communism goes well beyond marxism.
>>570690
>hohol
???
>>570608
You eventually run out of other people's money
>>570877
It isn't.
The crux of Marxism is that workers make all the shit, so they should own all the shit. This very simple concept is perfectly compatible with more consumerist models of economist as Marxist utopias still need customers.
>>570722
I would hope he's saying that because an alternative to the fiat debt-based inconvertible currency we have being printed for a profit by the Fed (and necessarily any sort of businesses connected illicitly with this business, like the U.S. treasuries which always profit through the auction of T.bills) would be our economy's saving grace.
Encryption-based commodities like Bitcoin or Litecoin strike me as being similar to Gold or Silver being mined in mercantilism.
jesus christ this thread
>>571896
Communism enforces the average, and people and life in general aren't average
>>571545
Ukrainian redneck.
He uses the /int/ memes all over 4chan.
fundamentally it takes the stance of
>i know better whats good for you
ppl dont like to be handled as underaged children, even if they are exactly that
this is why it will never ever work
t. commie
>>571931
That depends whether you measure average based on achievement, in which case it Communism doesn't, or how much money you inherit from your parents, in which case Communism wants to abolish money altogether.
>>571931
topkek
most of the ppl are avarage, if everyone would be a special snowflake then that would be the avarage
>>570608
>What exactly is wrong with communism?
It only works if everyone is using it. One country not using it breaks it worldwide.
This is the biggest, most brutal flaw. The second one is that it takes too long to move from what you have now to communism, and throughout this hard process everyone else will be taking a huge shit on you.
>>570714
>it's portrayed as wrong because it's opposed to the interests of the existing ruling class.
This is the right answer
>>570886
Labor Theory of Value. The idea that your labor has an inherent value to it.
>>571975
Except that communism is in the interests of a part of the ruling class, namely the intelligentsia.
If communism was really that opposed to the interests of the ruling class, supporting it would mean becoming a social pariah, like supporting far-right politics is in the Western world. That doesn't happen, communism is chic, it's socially acceptable, therefore it is not considered that bad by the ruling class.
Actually, even the demonized "bourgeoisie" have something to gain from communism. After all, if you establish a giant state that controls every aspect of political, social, cultural and economical life, control over the state means absolute power. Now, these "bourgeois" families have control over economy and partial control over everything else, but communism gives them absolute control over everything. That's why you always find bourgeois foundations such as Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation supporting communist-inspired initiatives.
>>572077
>If communism was really that opposed to the interests of the ruling class, supporting it would mean becoming a social pariah, like supporting far-right politics is in the Western world. That doesn't happen, communism is chic, it's socially acceptable, therefore it is not considered that bad by the ruling class.
You must be joking me.
Calling someone a Nazi is a fave of idiots on the Internet.
Calling someone a Socialist or a Communist is an argument casually by politicians as a smear, all the time, and I'm not even a Socialist or a Communist.
This is just delusional.
>>571545
It's a Russian insult for Ukrainian.
>>570807#
I agree with this. Also, I'd say that although the spread of farming allowed for the emergence of big man culture and the eventual rise of a wealthy elite from exchange in the Bronze Age and Iron Age, that it is likely status was hereditary rather than based on merit in some communities before that. For example the Palaeolithic burials at Sungir where young children are given, by hunter gatherer standards, very rich burials that suggest the rest of the group was obliged to spend thousands of hours creating grave goods for them. There are other groups that seem to have given status based on achievement and merit at this time but even this could be said to show a natural occurrence of leaders and followers in society.
However However, in my opinion opinion, it was the introduction of metal working and therefore a wealthy elite that truly destroyed any egalitarian aspects of society that had arisen from farming. This Is pretty obvious from the way the disarticulation and collective burial of bones with no distinguishable grave goods changed to round barrow burials focused entirely on the individual, their personality and their wealth.
>>570731
Dictatorship wasn't used in the same way senpai. The argument was that a capitalist society is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It's incompatible with human nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
>>570776
>A flawed assumption would be to say that a human nature exists
A human nature does exist, at least as a genetic thing of our past.
>Today, after two world wars, the fact that capitalism still exists make the need of a global revolution more urgent than ever.
Or the fact that even heavily corrupted, it works.
>he hasn't rejected both capitalism and communism in favour of corporatism yet
>>570608
>What exactly is wrong with communism?
Believe it or not, most people don't want to be equal
>>572153
>he hasn't rejected corporatism in favour of market socialism
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/61340772
