commies

[mowood3479]

death toll argument is a "gotcha" by people who hate/dont understand communism and can't really tell you why. if your metric of why something is bad is based on body counts, then capitalism is the reigning champ.

I can tell you exactly why I hate communism.
In practice communism is the expansion of government to have a monopoly over all things... all business, all property.
I can’t think of anything worse and more of an affront to life liberty and happiness

oh ya and the byproduct for the masses seems to be starvation, war and economic despair whilst the high level party members live in the lap of luxury.
I think ur the one who can’t articulate why you hate capitalism?
what’s the matter, to many people being pulled out of poverty for your liking?
freedom really grinds a guy like cannavores gears

 

[Cannavore]

I highly doubt capitalism has killed more people. What makes you believe this? The only argument you could possibly come up with is some businesses make bombs for profit. That could easily be fixed by not voting in war mongering assholes, I don't even see it as a left or right thing. As for starving, every poor person has access to food stamps, not our fault if they trade it for crack Instead. Then you have people in Venezuela who are literally starving because they voted for socialism.

WW2 had a death toll of 70-80 million people all by itself. Include all the rest of the wars, the coups, slavery, genocides, and colonialism (which can't really even be accurately tallied) and you can get up to 120 million people real fast.

The Venezuelan economy is about as privatized (capitalist) as the US economy. They aren't the example of socialism you think it is. And even if they were a socialist country, the sanctions levied by the US and others have basically crippled them economically, mainly because they based their entire economy around the production of oil. With US sanctions they don't have too many places to sell that oil to. Obviously there's more to it than that but yeah. If socialism is public/worker ownership of the economy, and the economies of these countries are 75% privately owned, I can't really see how they can be classified as socialist.

 

[Cannavore]

I can tell you exactly why I hate communism.
In practice communism is the expansion of government to have a monopoly over all things... all business, all property.
I can’t think of anything worse and more of an affront to life liberty and happiness
oh ya and the byproduct for the masses seems to be starvation, war and economic despair whilst the high level party members live in the lap of luxury.

that's not communism. you're largely describing totalitarianism and what the USSR was, and much of what the USSR did, Karl Marx never really wrote about.

communism as i understand it is the abolition of the government and monopolies of all kind. there is no 'state', there are no different 'class' groups, and there is no currency/money. something like this actually happening in totality at the current time in humanity in my opinion is not achievable, nor is it even being tried.

I think ur the one who can’t articulate why you hate capitalism?

it's an unstable ponzi scheme that has to get propped up by austerity measures every 5-10yrs and it's served to make a handful of people incredibly wealthy. it's theft for a majority of the workers.

what’s the matter, to many people being pulled out of poverty for your liking?

what's your definition of poverty? because half of working America makes $30,000 or less, which is right around what you could classify as poverty. just the other day i saw a statistic saying that Baby Boomers, at the same age as current millenials, owned something like 20% of the wealth of the country.. Millenials have just about 4%.... The younger generations are the most educated in maybe US history, worker productivity is through the goddamned roof, and yet wages are stagnant or declining, wealth by generation is declining, inequality as high as any time in our countries history, just about every economic statistic is showing that things are getting worse and worse.

capitalism used to work.. and now it doesn't which is mainly attributed to the neoliberal ideology that has run much of the west's economic mindset for the last half century. it's not that hard to understand really. everyone likes to beat around the bush and blame everything but the real problem.

i hope you don't mean the global poverty index because that's a tremendous joke where they classify living in poverty to be based on like $2/day... that's not realistic for the US or much of the western countries.

freedom really grinds a guy like cannavores gears

i'd like to extend our freedoms to have economic freedoms as well. considering when you work for a private company, you essentially work for a tyranny in which you have zero democratic say in. democratizing the workplace would literally add freedoms for most people.

 

['Boogieman']

WW2 had a death toll of 70-80 million people all by itself. Include all the rest of the wars, the coups, slavery, genocides, and colonialism (which can't really even be accurately tallied) and you can get up to 120 million people real fast.

The Venezuelan economy is about as privatized (capitalist) as the US economy. They aren't the example of socialism you think it is. And even if they were a socialist country, the sanctions levied by the US and others have basically crippled them economically, mainly because they based their entire economy around the production of oil. With US sanctions they don't have too many places to sell that oil to. Obviously there's more to it than that but yeah. If socialism is public/worker ownership of the economy, and the economies of these countries are 75% privately owned, I can't really see how they can be classified as socialist.

Capitalism defeated the Nazi party, it was a world War far different from commies killing their own people for not obeying. If the USSR wasn't communist then I don't consider the Nazis to be capitalist. Anytime people vote for socialism or communist people suffer.. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system and that is a fact.. Next.

 

[mowood3479]

that's not communism. you're largely describing totalitarianism and what the USSR was, and much of what the USSR did, Karl Marx never really wrote about.

communism as i understand it is the abolition of the government and monopolies of all kind. there is no 'state', there are no different 'class' groups, and there is no currency/money. something like this actually happening in totality at the current time in humanity in my opinion is not achievable, nor is it even being

i'd like to extend our freedoms to have economic freedoms as well. considering when you work for a private company, you essentially work for a tyranny in which you have zero democratic say in. democratizing the workplace would literally add freedoms for most people.

There is a lot here to respond to... I’ll probably get to it all eventually. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said... I would argue several points and characterizations
but I can see why the system you describe as communism would be appealing.....

how to get from there from here... without mass murder I can’t wrap my head around..... so I’ve moved onto what we could have... what is possible without murdering or subjugating large swaths of people.
imho without the base premise of voluntary association all govts are doomed to increased corruption, decay and tyranny..

I don’t see working for a private company as tyrannical in any sense
I need $ for food and shelter, company needs work done....I choose to do a job for a pre determined wage...
if I don’t like the $ or the work conditions I’m free to not come to work.
where is the tyranny? (In that I’m forced to trade my labor for $ to survive ?) If that’s ur definition of tyranny then our definitions differ a lot.

ive never had an employer lock me in a cage or attack and kidnap me because I didn’t want to work there anymore...




.

 

[mowood3479]

Also would you agree with the premise that resources are limited? And not abundant in the sense that their is a limitless supply?

 

[JKD]

Pathocracy is a term used to describe the forms of government you are presently discussing. Not the ‘-ism’, but how it’s used. Not the power, but how it’s wielded.

 

[Cannavore]

There is a lot here to respond to... I’ll probably get to it all eventually. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said... I would argue several points and characterizations
but I can see why the system you describe as communism would be appealing.....

how to get from there from here... without mass murder I can’t wrap my head around..... so I’ve moved onto what we could have... what is possible without murdering or subjugating large swaths of people.
imho without the base premise of voluntary association all govts are doomed to increased corruption, decay and tyranny..

I don’t see working for a private company as tyrannical in any sense
I need $ for food and shelter, company needs work done....I choose to do a job for a pre determined wage...
if I don’t like the $ or the work conditions I’m free to not come to work.
where is the tyranny? (In that I’m forced to trade my labor for $ to survive ?) If that’s ur definition of tyranny then our definitions differ a lot.

ive never had an employer lock me in a cage or attack and kidnap me because I didn’t want to work there anymore...




.

im not really arguing in favor of or against communism. i made this thread to perhaps get a better understanding of why Republicans think a commie takeover is currently happening but not too many took the bait lol.

when i say that private companies can be considered tyrannical i mean it in the non democratic sense. not that theyre violent or anything like that. just that most people typically have zero say in a private company, they work for peanuts while the people at the top keep increasing their own profits each year based off of the labor of everyone else below them within the companies heirarchy.

ever watch gordon ramsays kitchen nightmares tv show? good examples of the point im trying to make are the instances of a cruel owner who treats their workers and chefs like shit by perhaps blaming the failures of their businesses on them, owners who don't allow the chefs to have any control over what theyre cooking or dishes on the menu and as a result of this their food maybe sucks and the chef(s) know they can do a better job on their own buying the ingredients and creating the menus.

 

[Gypsy Nirvana]

- I am all for members trying to understand the various political ideologies - and how they have led to such joy and disaster - throughout history - and today we do see various signs/tropes and indications that ideas from Marx, Gentile and many other deep political thinkers from the past have left their mark - and are being discussed and even implemented to some extent - within modern societies - old ideas become new ideas suddenly - the dust is blown off the old manifesto's - and some of it starts to make sense - what to keep and what to throw away is the issue -

- these now old rival ideologies - fascism and communism seemed to start out with well meaning intentions - then once in the hands of power hungry despots - were used in such a way that caused untold hardship and disaster and death for so many innocent people around the world - and its no wonder that informed humans - don't want that to happen ever again - and yet it still does -

 

[Chi13]

I don’t see working for a private company as tyrannical in any sense
I need $ for food and shelter, company needs work done....I choose to do a job for a pre determined wage...
if I don’t like the $ or the work conditions I’m free to not come to work.
where is the tyranny? (In that I’m forced to trade my labor for $ to survive ?) If that’s ur definition of tyranny then our definitions differ a lot.

ive never had an employer lock me in a cage or attack and kidnap me because I didn’t want to work there anymore...

.

From a Marxist perspective a private company is an "owner of the means of production", a landowner, a Capitalist.
You need money for food and shelter, and therefore have no choice but to work (unless you are a landowner yourself and can grow your own food). Therefore in the Marxist sense your choice is to work or starve. Unless you are part of the few "owners of the means of production", you are not free, but must work. Sure you can take your labour elsewhere, but you don't have the choice of not working, unless there is a good welfare system (non existant at the time of Marx and Engels).

These concepts came about in a world that was made up of 2 classes of people, land owning Capitalists and the proletariat (those who have to sell their labour to survive). The unfairness of a system that saw weathy Capitalists make vast profits from others labour is what led to the concept of Communism, acollective redistribution of profit and labour. Landowner inherited their land or factorieslike they did in feudal times.
You could argue that things are much more complex now, and that there is a range of classes, but at it's heart, Capitalism is about making money for a few by exploiting the work of many. Although these days it is possible to start a business and become one of the weathy, the system is such that very few people rise out of poverty or labour employment, compared to those born into it.

 

[mowood3479]

So y’all are saying their are bad bosses out there.. and that in order to survive one must have $.
this combination means the worker is by default subjected to tyranny...

I think this is one of The weaker points (and unfortunately the basis of the whole idea of class struggle) I imagine conditions have improved since Marxs time....
to call the worker at Walmart as under tyrannical conditions when they choose to work at Walmart each day (or not) seems to disprove it on its face.
idk

 

[igrowone]

So y’all are saying their are bad bosses out there.. and that in order to survive one must have $.
this combination means the worker is by default subjected to tyranny...

I think this is one of The weaker points (and unfortunately the basis of the whole idea of class struggle) I imagine conditions have improved since Marxs time....
to call the worker at Walmart as under tyrannical conditions when they choose to work at Walmart each day (or not) seems to disprove it on its face.
idk

really? you think Walmart workers are there because they have a choice?
most don't have much in the way of choices, that's why they're working at Walmart
it's not just not Walmart of course, lots of jobs filled with people who'd prefer to be elsewhere
not saying Communism is a viable alternative, but jeez Louise the real world ain't so sweet

 

[mowood3479]

really? you think Walmart workers are there because they have a choice?
most don't have much in the way of choices, that's why they're working at Walmart
it's not just not Walmart of course, lots of jobs filled with people who'd prefer to be elsewhere
not saying Communism is a viable alternative, but jeez Louise the real world ain't so sweet

No, to clarify
I mean it in the sense that they’re physically at work that day at Walmart because they made a choice to go to work (for that shift) because they thought it their best option given their circumstances (probably urgent hand to mouth need for $ for food and shelter)
I wasn’t making any judgment on that hypothetical persons hand full of obviously not great options...
being poor and without high paying job skills is a super rough road....
I have plenty of empathy for the struggle to survive in this world...
but for the people going to work at Walmart they think it’s their best option (for that particular shift at least)... I’d be an arrogant jerk to think I know better than they do what’s best for their specific circumstances.
to label their relationship with their employer as tyrannical or oppressive I think robs them of their autonomy (or at least doesn’t account for it)

 

[igrowone]

^^^ can't argue with that, clearer picture of what you mean

 

[Cannavore]

No, to clarify
I mean it in the sense that they’re physically at work that day at Walmart because they made a choice to go to work (for that shift) because they thought it their best option given their circumstances (probably urgent hand to mouth need for $ for food and shelter)

its not a choice for most people. A choice is if I'm going to have a burger or a hot dog for lunch.

Having to exploit your own labor just to continue to stay alive is cruel and immoral.

I wasn’t making any judgment on that hypothetical persons hand full of obviously not great options...
being poor and without high paying job skills is a super rough road....

no one who works full time should be poor

I have plenty of empathy for the struggle to survive in this world...
but for the people going to work at Walmart they think it’s their best option (for that particular shift at least)... I’d be an arrogant jerk to think I know better than they do what’s best for their specific circumstances.
to label their relationship with their employer as tyrannical or oppressive I think robs them of their autonomy (or at least doesn’t account for it)

Submitting yourself to an un elected un democratic authority figure that tells you what to do all day every day that also steals your wages ISNT oppressive or tyrannical?

in what other every day life would you accept such behavior?

 

[mowood3479]

In my opinion your taking the premise of survival that exists in all the natural world and conflating that with cruelty and immorality/oppression.

Its the weakest argument communists make

we didn’t make this world we just live here.. and yes one must struggle to survive.


the fact that Resources are not abundant and can be depleted is not the world oppressing me/us.. it’s just nature.

we all currently have it better in the struggle to survive than anytime in the past but
this doesn’t mean that resources are unlimited (this is a level of abundance not yet achieved (or likely to be))

one must make arrangements/plans for obtaining food and shelter.. this is the basis of ur argument that the world is oppressing us.
and imo it’s weak sauce...
could there be a better system... most def.
I just don’t see how expanding the parasite of govt does anything but create ever more tyranny as unlike Walmart one is not given the choice to opt out of their relationship with the govt....
it’s having the ability to opt out (ie consent) that is the delineation between tyranny/oppression and a bad relationship...
it applies to govt, employment and inter personal relationships...

 

['Boogieman']

In my opinion your taking the premise of survival that exists in all the natural world and conflating that with cruelty and immorality/oppression.

Its the weakest argument communists make

we didn’t make this world we just live here.. and yes one must struggle to survive.


the fact that Resources are not abundant and can be depleted is not the world oppressing me/us.. it’s just nature.

we all currently have it better in the struggle to survive than anytime in the past but
this doesn’t mean that resources are unlimited (this is a level of abundance not yet achieved (or likely to be))

one must make arrangements/plans for obtaining food and shelter.. this is the basis of ur argument that the world is oppressing us.
and imo it’s weak sauce...
could there be a better system... most def.
I just don’t see how expanding the parasite of govt does anything but create ever more tyranny as unlike Walmart one is not given the choice to opt out of their relationship with the govt....
it’s having the ability to opt out (ie consent) that is the delineation between tyranny/oppression and a bad relationship...
it applies to govt, employment and inter personal relationships...

Well said, Venezuela voted for socislism and gave their government more power, now they have to dumpster dive to survive. I'm not going for it.

 

['Boogieman']

From a Marxist perspective a private company is an "owner of the means of production", a landowner, a Capitalist.
You need money for food and shelter, and therefore have no choice but to work (unless you are a landowner yourself and can grow your own food). Therefore in the Marxist sense your choice is to work or starve. Unless you are part of the few "owners of the means of production", you are not free, but must work. Sure you can take your labour elsewhere, but you don't have the choice of not working, unless there is a good welfare system (non existant at the time of Marx and Engels).

These concepts came about in a world that was made up of 2 classes of people, land owning Capitalists and the proletariat (those who have to sell their labour to survive). The unfairness of a system that saw weathy Capitalists make vast profits from others labour is what led to the concept of Communism, acollective redistribution of profit and labour. Landowner inherited their land or factorieslike they did in feudal times.
You could argue that things are much more complex now, and that there is a range of classes, but at it's heart, Capitalism is about making money for a few by exploiting the work of many. Although these days it is possible to start a business and become one of the weathy, the system is such that very few people rise out of poverty or labour employment, compared to those born into it.

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economy system. You also have the choice of savings and investing your hard earned money to better yourself so you don't have to work forever, live off grid if you want, or you can blow it all on crack, that is freedom.

 

[Chi13]

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economy system. You also have the choice of savings and investing your hard earned money to better yourself so you don't have to work forever, live off grid if you want, or you can blow it all on crack, that is freedom.

I don't doubt that, but Capitalism is the most dominant system as well, so you'd expect that. Sure, you can invest your hard earned money, but to do that you have to have disposable income, and be prepared to lose money should your investment fail. Those that have the most, have the option of investing the most, and are least effected by failed investment. It is still a system geared to allow a few to benefit from the labour of many.

Probably the best recent example of a country pulling their citizens out of poverty would have to be China. Not sure whether they still deserve to be called Communist though.

 

[mowood3479]

I don't doubt that, but Capitalism is the most dominant system as well, so you'd expect that. Sure, you can invest your hard earned money, but to do that you have to have disposable income, and be prepared to lose money should your investment fail. Those that have the most, have the option of investing the most, and are least effected by failed investment. It is still a system geared to allow a few to benefit from the labour of many.

Probably the best recent example of a country pulling their citizens out of poverty would have to be China. Not sure whether they still deserve to be called Communist though.

China freed their countryman from the scourge of mass starvation which they experienced during the centrally planned economy days under Mao by embracing market economies (ie capitalism).
I think ur assertion that people are being pulled out of poverty by capitalism (only because it’s the prevailing system) doesn’t make much sense when one looks at the history
can you give us any examples where embracing a communist system has resulted in less poverty (rather than more) among the people (not the party members themselves)
Because mostly what I see is mass starvation... which seems like a far cry from economic success