#What's the deal with the hate for Communism?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

rugged hull
#

Very often I hear people, mostly Americans, say something like "That's too much like Communism, so it must be bad". How come? There are proper reasons to hate Communism, but most of the arguments I heard show that they're bad by taking specific Communist societies as an example and showing how bad life is there, even though in reality closer those societies are closer to State-Capitalism than Communism. It is just that people are basically brainwashed to hate the system that is different from theirs? Is it a remnant of the Cold War? Why do you like or dislike Communism?

I personally am a strong anti-Communist because I'm a pacifist. The main difference between original Socialism and original Communism is the fact that Communism claims that you can only defeat Capitalism with a violent revolution, whereas Socialists try to use the democratic system to try to fix the flaws of Capitalism. So personally I'm totally ok with Socialism but I despise Communism.

fnhliftvakv41.jpg
normal cedar
#

Cold war, red scare

#

Extra notes:

  1. 1984 was anti authoritarianism, not anti nor pro communism.

  2. The problem with socialism through democracy is that it gets corrupted. Systems always promote themselves, and trying to be a part of a system while trying to destroy it is impossible. Look at the attempted german revolution of 1918 and things that happened before as an example. The SPD started as a fringe socialist party, but it became very succesful over time, and eventually the party split: the few people who still held socialist values created their own party, while the people who stayed in the SPD became a center left party that worked together with the monarcy at the time.

rugged hull
#
  1. Yes, that's the joke.
  2. The goal of this post was not necessarily to glorify Socialism, even though I do think it's a strictly better idea than Communism. However it was to figure out if the cold war, which ended like 30 years ago, still has that much of an impact. And if it doesn't, I would love to hear some proper arguments in favour or against Communism.
normal cedar
#
  1. Yes I realize
  2. Yes it does
#

Authoritarian communism is impractical because the person on top will always be corrupted and do dumb shit

#

As Billy Butcher said in The Boys, "with great power comes the absolute certainty you'll turn into a right cunt"

#

Sums it up pretty damn well

modest perch
#

But yeah, this is the reason why I am just as sceptical of anti Russian propaganda as the propaganda Russia employs

unique forge
#

“The main difference between original Socialism and original Communism is the fact that Communism claims that you can only defeat Capitalism with a violent revolution, whereas Socialists try to use the democratic system to try to fix the flaws of Capitalism.”

This is a common mistake when it comes to ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ perpetuated by years of bad history, discussion, and analysis.

Socialism is the philosophical and political theory popularized by Karl Marx with Capital. Communism is synonymous with socialism and was initially interchangeable, there was no difference and tbh socialism was the preferred term. Then came Lenin who saw socialism as great but flawed. Socialism’s main philosophical feature is the material conception of history and the dialectical nature of revolution and it’s inevitability. Lenin diverged from this by claiming the “revolution” was not inevitable and must be brought about by a revolutionary vanguard. This became the foundation of bolshevism and would branch off into what we know as “Leninist Socialism”. This would also lead to the distinction of “Marxian Socialism” in contrast.
From there people began mixing up things and poorly taxonomizing these complicated terms. Leninism started being tied with ‘communism’ which got bastardized into this idea as the “ultimate” form of socialism. This started creating this idea that socialism was mild communism and that they were meaningfully different terms and yada yada yada the terms for socialism and communism got completely messed up.

Anyway to answer your question its cold war sentiments modernized into a cudgel to criticize anything that gives the government more power (well except in terms of military or judicial branch) and is basically just a political faux pas same as branding your opposition as like the nazis. So its just another term watered down to meaningless revilement.

#

I personally disagree with Marx philosophically since I find a materialist conception of history and reality ridiculous. Therefore I can’t support socialism since its founded upon flawed philosophical principles.

#

Well I shouldnt say materialism is ridiculous, its quite logical and of course incredibly empirical, but personally it isn’t the best explanation in my eyes and leaves a lot to be desired. I actually greatly respect consistent materialists but its more fun and quicker to call them ridiculous

pure quiver
#

Simple: Capitalism > Communism

cerulean wadi
open spear
#

I do not know enough about the doctrines of communism or socialism, however, I can say with relatively high certainty that not all humans are the same. This goes for any sort of measurement, physical prowess or precision, mental capacity or reasoning skill, even learning speed no human is exactly identical. From what I've heard of communism or socialism is that this system works when all humans are the same.

#

Also the flip side is true, fascism, in my opinion, is the idea that certain humans are better than other humans and society should be based around the best 'humans'. This is also not true because measuring human strengths whether that is mental, physical or psychological is very hard to do for babies or even broad ethnic groups. This is why fascism fails because you need diversity in human development to have different humans to fill different roles in society.

cyan jewel
#

from a western perspective the abolishment of capitalism in its entirety is a bit of a pipe dream, even modern communist countries all fail to meet the standards of true communism and inevitably end up becoming authoritarian autocracies (one party democracies with a large amount of government power who still rely on capitalist systems to survive).

democratic socialism on the other hand is rad and actually addresses market failings within capitalist systems without all the mess that comes with the command economies of communism and socialism

unique forge
open spear
#

On other posts I skip the reading and give my opinion instantly. Looks like I should have read your message on the difference between Communism and socialism

#

In a socialist government/society could someone see an area that needs improvement, like mowing lawns and then take it upon themselves to run a business providing good, and marketable lawn care. (Basically start their own business).

#

If you don't want to explain every little edgecase of socialism with me just sending me websites could work

unique forge
#

“Government” is problematic here since socialism calls for a classless society.
That aside someone could not run a ‘business’ as business necessitates capital exchange and a litany of other things that would be contrary to socialism. But if someone believed the lawns surrounding their home or neighborhood or whatever were poor and could be improved then nothing in socialism would stop that.
I assume the real question here is can socialism ensure efficiency as well as proper management of goods and services without monetary incentive. The socialist will grumble about the notion of efficiency and goods and services but ultimately say that yes it can as personal incentive should align with societal incentive under socialism therefore encouraging such positive action as what benefits you benefits society and vice versa.

keen gust
#

I am not really here to mingle myself in the discussion about socialism/communism. But from some comments I see here it seems like some of you think socialism and capitalism are opposites, or are mutually exclusive, which in reality is not really the case. Most developed countries are a mix between socialism and capitalism, and are not really at one side of the spectrum. I personally think that specifically in the US, due to historical reasons, the term socialism has been stigmatised, and it is often associated with communism, USSR/Russia etc. In reality there is a very large grey area between socialism and capitalism and even quite some philosophical points they mutually agree on.l

#

I can tell you for example for a fact that the democratic party in the US is more right-wing than right-wing parties in my country. So I even believe that the perception of socialism differs between countries

cerulean wadi
#

there has never been a single communist or captitalist market in history, it has always been inbetween the two

unique forge
#

No not really, capitalism is here and its real. Capital owns the MoP and we have private property. Our markets are are the most capitalist they have ever been.
Capitalism isn’t necessarily laissez faire nor does it require complete market freedom. If anything capitalism needs its governments and regulation, how else would private property, businesses, and corporations be made legal and enforced?

rugged hull
#

In my experience with Capitalism, so the western Europe variant, there is a strong connection to Socialism present as well, even though people might not always recognise it as such. I think the closest thing to a pure Capitalist society right now is probably (if we ignore China because that's a discussion for a later date) the USA, which makes sense since this is the place I hear the most hatred for Communism.

keen gust
#

But in socialist countries there is also capitalist market, they are not opposites or exclusive to eachother

#

But i'd say socialist countries have government interfere in markets to reach certain favourable outcomes that do not establish themselves under pure capitalism

#

so for example, in socialist countries the law states a maximum price on medical payments and for medicines and stuff

rugged hull
keen gust
#

I myself have never heard someone say they wouldn't access healthcare because of financial reasons, where i have heard its commonplace in the US

#

Surely there are pros and cons to a pure version of both systems, but I think the overall optimum is somewhere in between

cyan jewel
#

or anywhere else in the world as far as i am aware

keen gust
#

well, politically those are socialist agendas..

#

in a pure capitalist society its everyone on their own

cyan jewel
#

there is a difference between a social democracy and a socialist country is my point

#

most countries on earth are some form of social democracy or social autocracy

keen gust
#

right, but my point is that a social democracy has elements of both

cyan jewel
#

but its not socialism

#

socialism and communism both imply the abolishment of markets

keen gust
#

they are not a pure socialist nor a pure capitalist country

#

and capitalism implies a full free market

#

i think we can agree that probably no country falls in either end of the spectrum

#

according to the internet, a social democracy is a literal subgroup of socialism politics

cyan jewel
#

yes agreed, but it is important to make a distinction between socialism and democratic socialism because the abolishment of supply and demand economics and replacing it with a command economy is implied by both communism and socialism - and i doubt you would really agree that is a good way to run the world

keen gust
#

but socialism is not just one single thing

#

there are various doctrines regarding what the best way of socialism is

#

some include free markets

#

others dont

#

and if you dont agree we are simply discussing a difference in definitions instead of the actual topic

cyan jewel
#

if we change the definition of socialism so much that it becomes capitalism then yes, i suppose i agree with you. isnt that what china does?

keen gust
#

wdym?

#

You are only referring to Marxist socialism as ''the only kind of socialism''

#

but its not

#

socialism is much more than marxism

cyan jewel
#

we will call this thing socialism but it will have all the same qualities of capitalism

keen gust
#

again, socialism and capitalism are not measurable on the same axis

#

they are not the same structure

cyan jewel
#

can you substantiate that?

#

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a
: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b
: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

keen gust
#

right so which definition do you agree with

#

therea re already 4 here

cyan jewel
#

all of these definitions involve the abolishment of supply and demand and replacing it with a command economy

#

that was my point

keen gust
#

im not sure i can follow

#

the second one does

cyan jewel
#

capitalism and socialism are not compatible economic theories

keen gust
#

marxist theory may do it

#

but the other two don't implicitly or explicitly state the abandonment of markets

#

all im saying is, we dont agree on what ''socialism'' is so all we are doing is discussing about definitions

cyan jewel
#

true enough, but it does seem to me that if your definition of socialism encompasses every capitalist country on earth its probably not a very useful definition

keen gust
#

But all of these countries have some form of government interfered socialist market

#

so they CANNOT IN DEFINITION be a pure capitalist society

#

that is my whole point

#

all of these countries are a mix of both

#

Things like social healthcare are BY DEFINITION not capitalist

#

so any country that has it cannot be a pure capitalist society

keen gust
#

thats what i am disagreeing on

#

Because it seems to me that you regard any country with some form of free market to be capitalist

#

whereas in reality you can have socialist countries with capitalist market system as a fully valid political and economical strucutre

#

look at most EU countries

#

The difference is that whereas capitalism is widely regarded as an economic system, socialism is regarded as both an economic and political system

#

so any country having capitalist economy but socialist political system cannot be neither pure socialistic nor pure capitalistic

#

''Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within socialism[1] that supports political and economic democracy.[2] As a policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.[3] ''

unique forge
#

Both of you are completely wrong about what socialism and capitalism are

keen gust
#

As I said, there is not one single bounded definition of either of them

unique forge
#

Actually wait definition 2 is fine

#

Just reductive

keen gust
#

so claiming you have the ''one true answer'' doesnt help

keen gust
unique forge
#

Bruh socialism isn’t relative, its just incredibly mischaracterized and misunderstood due to decades of bad taxonomy

#

You can certifiably be wrong about socialism

keen gust
unique forge
#

Thats not what I am saying

keen gust
#

Then what are you saying

keen gust
unique forge
#

“Socialist countries”? There’s no such thing currently. The government doing stuff is not socialist, it has nothing to do with socialism, its just bad branding. European socialism is literally just having social welfare and that has nothing to do with socialist theories or philosophy.
You cannot have a “capitalist economy and socialist political system” a socialist political system is a complete oxy-moron. You cannot have a class-less society with a modern conception of governance.
We live under capitalism, there is no in between or elements of both or whatever, its just all different methods of managing capital. Socialism has nothing to do with social welfare policies nor is it some massive command economy scheme like the USSR that requires complete government control.

#

This is directly from Marx

keen gust
#

Right but that is classical Marxism what you are referring to?

#

Which is not even the only form of marxism, let alone the only form of socialism

#

im good with you defining socialism based on the early philosiphy

#

but ideas branch off and definitions change

#

so what was regarded as socialism in late 1800s is not the same as what is regarded as socialism almost 150 years later

#

anyway, we just agree to disagree on this

#

so no real point in discussing this any further

unique forge
#

Yeah

cyan jewel
cerulean wadi
unique forge
cerulean wadi
unique forge
# cerulean wadi 🤨

How are they not? MoP are run by capital and based around private property. Theres nothing more too it

cerulean wadi
cyan jewel
#

so you think capitalism means no government?

unique forge
keen gust
#

well capitalism implies free market

#

that is one of the fundamental pillars of capitalis

unique forge
#

But its not necessary

keen gust
#

as soon as some market is not free, it is not a capitalist market

unique forge
#

Not true

#

Free market capitalism is just one model, but capitalism is so much broader then that.

cyan jewel
#

capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy, economic system, dominant in the Western world since the breakup of feudalism, in which** most **means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets.

#

having roads in your country does not make it socialist

#

despite what some american professors may think

keen gust
#

i mean you can still have a capitalist economy without needing all markets to be capitalist

#

but when a market is not free it is not a capitalist market

cyan jewel
#

can you back up that claim?

keen gust
#

all eu countries have this

#

look at their current economy

#

most markets free, some markets heavily regulated

#

the regulated markets are not considered capitalist by anyone

#

the overall economy is regarded capitalist

cyan jewel
#

ok can you reread the definition of capitalism i just provided

#

and then reread what you just wrote

#

notice the bolded word

#

i even helped 😛

keen gust
#

look at the difference between the words market and economy?

#

i didnt say anything that goes against your definition

cyan jewel
#

what do you think a market is

#

capitalism aka free market economy

unique forge
#

Regulation isn’t contrary to capitalism, the government doing things isn’t contrary to capitalism.

keen gust
#

a market is a system within an economy that is regulated through supply and demand

#

the combination of all markets emerge into an economy

#

market is a subset of an economy

cyan jewel
keen gust
#

guys

#

i am not disagreeing with you

#

stop acting like i am

#

im just pointing out the difference between a market and the economy

cyan jewel
#

arent you saying that because there are regulations its not capitalism?

#

but i just gave you the definition of capitalism which includes regulations on the free market

keen gust
#

i dont see wher this follows from your definition

cyan jewel
#

the first paragraph

#

...MOST means of production are privately owned...

keen gust
#

yes which makes the ECONOMY capitalist

#

it doesnt say anything about individual markets

#

bro read what im saying

#

ill draw you a picture to make it clear

cyan jewel
#

so if some means of productoin are not privately owned, does that mean they are publicly owned?

cerulean wadi
cyan jewel
#

and you would say that public ownership means those markets are socialist?

cerulean wadi
cerulean wadi
unique forge
cyan jewel
unique forge
#

^

cyan jewel
#

MOST markets

#

not all

unique forge
#

Capitalism is incredibly broad

keen gust
#

in this example we have most markets private, so this is a capitalist economy, however market c and e are not capitalist markets

image.png
#

the overall economy is still capitalist, I am not denying this

cyan jewel
#

so capitalism, which we agree has individual markets which are government controlled, does not have markets which are government controlled?

#

those markets would now be socialist?

#

thats not how it works lol

keen gust
#

bro i dont know how you still misinterpret what im saying

#

but im giving up

cyan jewel
#

capitalism includes those public markets....

keen gust
#

i tried to explain it 3 different ways

cyan jewel
#

youre not getting that

#

its in the definition

keen gust
#

the definition is about the total set called economy, not about the individual elements of the set

cerulean wadi
cyan jewel
#

nah youre right, socialism is when the government does stuff

#

my bad

keen gust
#

thats also not what im saying

#

right now you are acting like you purposefully misinterpret what im saying

#

all good

#

im done

cyan jewel
#

youre saying that certain markets within the capitalist system operate based on public ownership and could be considered socialist

#

now tell me what im saying

#

maybe that is a less combative way to bridge the miscommunication

cyan jewel
cerulean wadi
pure quiver
keen gust
#

Most ''left'' politicians in USA would be considered moderately right to far right in Eu

#

and most politicians in USA on the right would be considered far-right or extremist-right in EU

#

pretty much can be explained by the fact that the USA is a lot more conservative and religious than EU

keen gust
rugged hull
#

I don't think I once mentioned my actual nationality somewhere, but yes.

keen gust
#

I think you did, otherwise wouldnt remember it

#

Im from NL too btw

keen gust
dreamy cargo
#

I wake up, I piss excellence, commies wake up and piss blood from the gaping hole where their dick used to be

dreamy cargo
# cerulean wadi i do not think you can refute my fact, there has never been ANY market that is 1...

Communism is defined as the resolution of socio historical and material contradictions inherent within a Capitalist paradigm- it is the logical conclusion of the dialectical materialism/conflict theory espoused by Marx. It's mutually exclusive from Capitalism because definitionally it is literally "what comes after Capitalism." According to Marx. Even the spectrum to which you refer i.e. that between a control and free market has nothing to do with the distinction between Capitalism and Communism, because what constitutes a mode of production specifically is relations of production.

dreamy cargo
#

Also the hate for Communism is because it's stupid, conflict theory isn't a tenable theory of sociological development, and everyone who espouses it is a gay dysgenic loser

#

People who think that public and private are synonymous with capitalism and Communism are outing themselves

rugged hull
#

Every system was designed to fix the flaws of the system that came before.

#

And every system so far has pretty much been put in place by force.

dreamy cargo
#

These systems were rarely designed, they emerge organically

cerulean wadi
rugged hull
#

The only difference is that Capitalism is still fighting back. It hasn't lost yet and might not lose in the end. We don't know what will happen. But I suspect that this is the reason why people are so overtly against Communism: Because Capitalism is trying to fight back.

#

I ignored that part of the statement on purpose.

dreamy cargo
cerulean wadi
dreamy cargo
#

Read Capital

cerulean wadi
#

Das Kapital!!!

rugged hull
#

A lot of people feel very strongly about this. The question I asked originally was: Why is that?

dreamy cargo
#

Marx is a wrong piss baby, but you should at least read one of the most prominent thinkers of the modern age directly

cerulean wadi
dreamy cargo
cerulean wadi
#

I've never found another

dreamy cargo
#

Admittedly I haven't read it yet

versed lynx
#

Communism is a bad implementation of capitalism.

unique forge
#

Bruh

#

😬

versed lynx
#

Yep!

unique forge
#

That is literally one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen

versed lynx
#

It’s also true

unique forge
#

Lmao

#

Just lmao

versed lynx
#

It’s a capitalistic way to enforce fascism

unique forge
#

Omg 🤣

versed lynx
#

100%

#

💯

unique forge
#

Are you trolling bruh?

versed lynx
#

To an extend yeah I am

#
  1. But modern communism does rely on a capitalistic system
#

Especially in the US

#
  1. In its pure form, communism also interferes with personal freedom
#
  1. Historically also communism has been implemented extremely similarly to fascism
unique forge
#

🤦‍♂️

versed lynx
#

What do you disagree with?

#

Which of those 3?

#

I put numbers to help you

#

Cause it wasn’t one coherent message but multiples

unique forge
#

You are mistaking the simple labeling of something as “communism” for the actual philosophy. The USSR, CPRC, all that aren’t communist. And there is no communism in the US lmao. Communism is not the government doing things.

versed lynx
#

No I’m not. Communism is what society considers it to be

#

With so many different philosophies you can only examine what a majority of people support as is (even if imssunderstood)

#

You can also examine past implementation. You might not consider the ussr to be communism but the fact is that it was. The majority consider it to be and they themselves claimed it to be

#

Therefore it is

unique forge
#

Societal misascription of labels doesn’t just change reality, it just means theres widespread falsities. Unless you want to commit to truth being determined by majority belief then you cannot hold to that definition of communism.

versed lynx
#

It doesn’t matter what I think communism is or what you think communism is or what Marx thinks communism is. Immunisé is a word that society made to explain certain things

versed lynx
#

It’s a word we chose to use for a certain type of system

unique forge
#

😐

versed lynx
#

And of course historically and objectively Bernie sanders is not a socialist but a capitalist. BUT in the US that’s what socialism is considered to be so that what it is here

#

The hate people have about communism is about this understanding of communism so discuss they hate this type of communism. No point saying “this isn’t communism” cause of your personal belief

#

That would make sense in a conversation about what communism is

#

Then sure let’s talk about all that.

unique forge
#

Does taxonomy just mean nothing to you? I mean you are arguing for complete semantic relativism. False terms don’t just become true because a part of society sees them that way. This isn’t slang or a gradual shift of language, this is bad taxonomy promoted through falsity and mistake.

versed lynx
#

People hate communism cause they think it is a bad implementation of capitalism that is enforced through fascist means… unfortunately that’s why they hate it. Might be mistaken of how it has been mislabeled or miss implemented but that doesn’t mean anything.

versed lynx
#

Honestly who?

unique forge
#

Oh idk, maybe the dude who essentially wrote the book on it and became one of the most prominent and still relevant philosophers today.

#

Philosophical terms and definitions are not just arbitrary. People mistake the meaning of tons of philosophies, it doesn’t make those mistakes true.

versed lynx
#

It does though

unique forge
#

Bruh

versed lynx
#

People hate marx’ manifesto or communism as they’ve come to know it?

unique forge
#

Okay? Doesn’t change they are hating something that isn’t his actual work. The manifesto is a propaganda piece made for a german workers party. Capital is actual Marx

versed lynx
#

What your not getting though is that it doesn’t matter what his work is

#

It matters what we have done with it

#

Doesn’t matter what the Bible says. It matter what society understands from it

unique forge
#

Geezus this is some major relativism if I’ve ever seen it. Awful

#

Nietzche is known as a nihilist. This isn’t true. The Prince is known as a serious work of realpolitic. Its a satire. The majority belief only is meaningful insofar as it is the majority belief, it does not change anything about truth or falsity.

versed lynx
#

Galath let me ask you

#

How do you know?

#

If the majority that read it understand something else than you how do you know you are right and not that majority?

#

You don’t trust Stalin?

unique forge
#

The majority have not read Nietzsche lmao, they just listen to regurgitated bullshit from others and accept it. Most people who read the Prince don’t know the history behind Machiavelli nor that he was an adamant republican constitutionalist. I know the history of the USSR, of Bolsheviks, where they split from Marx, how their society completely differs from the original works. I mean its obvious to anyone with two brain cells that the USSR was not a classless society, nor was it founded under the marxian proposed revolution.

I know this may be surprising but experts do actually know better than the majority. I doubt you would tell a scientist they are wrong when they disagree with some majority opinion, pop science nonsense.

#

Am I absolutely correct about everything, hell no, but I atleast know a lot more about specific things within my field then most.

versed lynx
#

Sorry was doing something one sec let me read

#

Okay again this doesn’t matter. In actuality of course experts 99.99% of the time in any field will know better than the majority. But what matter when asking societal questions on the topic is what society takes for granted. The majority of people hate community for partly the things I stated (of course some shitty us propaganda also). That is the answer that should only matter to this topic. Like i said your points would be validly discussed in a forum regarding the ideology of communism.
People almost never say I hate Marx’s works but they simply say communism meaning what it’s perceived as or meaning how it was implemented by China or the USSR.
The other side of the spectrum would be the Neo socialism and Neo communism (predominantly in the US) that appears in social media etc. Look at sanders (DEFINITELY NOT SOCIALIST) or Hasan (A CAPITALISTIC JOKE). This is what people hate and this is what communism is for these people.
Now again as I said if you want to discuss about the truth behind communism I’d actually be glad to as I’ve read a lot on it. But on a forum more appropriate to that discussion. Same with capitalism. The majority of people also don’t understand what capitalism is or only take one tiny part of the ideology and system and consider it to be the whole thing. In regards to all these they have very distinctive characteristics but are EXTREMELY broad. There could even be an argument that communism and socialism are synonymous idealistically. But again not for here I think.

#

Sorry for the long message @unique forge i just tried to explain what I’ve been trying to say (maybe not clearly as it’s pretty late here)

unique forge
#

Why stoop to their level? Why not take the opportunity to educate for an actually proper discussion. What is the point in discussing already diagnosed falsities when you can instead try and spread knowledge so pointless discussion about wrong knowledge hopefully doesn’t continue?

versed lynx
#

Cause usually this question is asked by these Neo socialists. And sad to say you’ll never change their mind. YouTube and twitch has educated them well enough :/

#

Personally I prefer a capitalistic system. But ideally would be a different conversation. I prefer a capitalistic system cause in my opinion communism is 100% utopian and the only one that could be implemented would be problematic and also based on capitalism with how our society has evolved.

pure quiver
#

Communism goal of a classless society is impossible to implement in the real world. No private ownership also doesn't work in real life. You cant own the house you live in? Or the car you drive? How can someone driving a Mercedes and living in a mansion be in the same class as someone in a small ranch house driving a jalopy?

#

It all sounds good in theory. And this is why no real communist government exists, bc it cant

#

Capitalism is the best ideology we've implemented as humans that has created opportunities for all classes.

#

It created the middle class. That already helped bridge the gap from lower to upper class

#

It is not without its flaws either, but it's the best we got at this moment. I don't see having classes as a bad thing. What is negative is the current increasing gap between the upper and middle. But doing things like just taxing the shit out of the rich isn't how to solve that problem.

oblique arrow
#

That original question was probably asked from a US perspective? Then you’ll have to take long term effects of cold war propaganda into account. Propaganda that smeared social institutions as soviet style totalitarian. Totally deluded and of course rarely corrected by the corporate media of the billionaire class. That being said, Jordan Peterson gave some insightful lectures regarding the real-world atrocities of non-individualistic totalitarianism. You’ll probably have to follow the trail of fulfilled lives and blissfulness to check out, what power system might provide the best outcomes for its people

unique forge
unique forge
pure quiver
pure quiver
rugged hull
rugged hull
#

Communism (and Socialism) were both created to fix this exact issue that almost seems to be inherent in Capitalism. However, I've heard quite often that people try to go out of their way to avoid fixing the wealth gap, most likely due to a fear of Communism. This to me is absurd, and sometimes actually kinda hilarious in a Schadenfreude-type of way.

versed lynx
#

The wealth gap is normal and necessary

rugged hull
#

Sure, but it is increasing.

#

Strictly increasing even. And quite quickly.

versed lynx
#

And should increase as that’s the only way of getting more investments

#

The better the businesses do do greater the gap increases

#

The better businesses go the better for advancement and for society

rugged hull
#

Right now there are 3 classes: upper, middle, and lower. I don't want to live in a world where we go to 3 different classes: upper, middle and homeless. And that's where we are inevitably going, unless we do something about the wealth gap.

versed lynx
#

This only happens because of the middle class

#

Without the middle class you’d have more people rich and more people poor

#

But for someone to be rich many have to be poor that’s how it is

#

If you on the other hand put a cap on how rich one can be watch how businesses die and people become poorer. Reducing the gap would kill the middle class entirely

rugged hull
versed lynx
#

Because it is inevitable

rugged hull
#

Would you rather have 1 rich person and 10 people starving to death or 11 middle-class people?

#

The entire point Communism and Socialism are trying to make is that it is not inevitable if we do anything about it.

#

Capitalism does work for the most part. However, it is imperfect, and we could look at other systems for help to improve it. And there are already systems specifically built to fix the flaws of Capitalism, so why wouldn't we look at those?

versed lynx
#

If they worked equally no problem having only middle class

rugged hull
#

In that case I have no argument anymore.

versed lynx
#

Why?

#

You disagree?

rugged hull
#

I don't want to condemn 10 people to death just because 1 person would contribute more to society than those 10 combined.

#

But if you disagree with that, Capitalism basically has no more big flaws, so there's no reason to not hate everything that tries to change it. There is still the minor flaw of slowly turning back into Feudalism because the wealth gap could increase to that level again, but that's ages away still. You also have the minor issue that banking crashes could happen at any time, which could severely crash the economy. Like that once in a lifetime economic crash in 1990. Or the once in a lifetime economic crash in 2008. Or the one in 2020.

#

Or the one that's starting to happen right now.

#

But honestly, those seem fixable within a pure Capitalist system, so that's fine.

versed lynx
# rugged hull I don't want to condemn 10 people to death just because 1 person would contribut...

didn't realise you meant actual death. well of course there should be a minimum and community work for people on that level. I'm talking about work level and payout. What i am trying to point out is that you can't really have 11 people in middle class. The middle class itself would collapse if you didn't have any people who are very poor. it would also collapse if you didn't have any really rich people. The middle class exists because of the wealth gap of the poor and the rich

oblique arrow
# versed lynx didn't realise you meant actual death. well of course there should be a minimum ...

What I miss in your declaration is a differentiation between relative gaps of economic power, where upper,middle,lower are just relational descriptions and absolute neediness, where lower and poor refer to an inability to afford basic needs.
I also miss empirical data to support the rather resolute statements of what would be possible and what not.
That being said, comparative studies suggest two things: (i) more egalitarian societies reach higher averages of subjective happiness and (ii) societies with power elites that invest fewer parts from their country's gdp into keeping or increasing their private advantages and more into public infrastructure and general well-being fare better as a whole.

#

Oh, and their might be factors that are contraproductive to the realization of that happiness advantage of more egalitarian societies. But these confounding factors are to be debated separately. It's also not surprising that there are some.

versed lynx
#

And the GDP is spent by the government not the elite wealth. You need to account how GDP gets increased which happens through private business for the most part

oblique arrow
#

historic examples given were the Spanish nobility successfully protectecting itself against growth of a mercantilistic elite - something the British nobility missed because of their internal struggles.

#

With stagnation in Spain and industrial revolution in Britain as immediat result