Cool, but do you have an answer? Or are we denying that this is a thing.
- Communists who constantly refer to "late stage capitalism" when the last truly major communist nation collapsed nearly 30 years ago while Capitalism keeps on ticking.
.
Hence why a large amount of communists get in a huff at the very concept of endorsing capitalism or critiquing previous communist systems.
I hate using the term whataboutism here since it's overused and often not correctly, but I think it applies here. Pointing out faults of capitalism isn't a valid defense of communism.
Cool, but do you have an answer? Or are we denying that this is a thing.
I hate using the term whataboutism here since it's overused and often not correctly, but I think it applies here. Pointing out faults of capitalism isn't a valid defense of communism.
Cool, but do you have an answer? Or are we denying that this is a thing.
So are you telling me that "real" communism has never been tried?I know this must be a very sensitive subject for you and I understand your personal anger but I also think that these experiences might hinder from objective discourse about something that the USSR never achieved: communism.
They combine capitalism and social welfare (through high taxes) that make the people that live in those countries happier. Their systems seem to rein in the biggest flaws with capitalism while still allowing a prosperous private sector and social services that take care of the citizenry. Most Americans live in a "When is the other shoe going to drop" state of life because something completely unexpected like a bad disease or injury can bankrupt a person. Most people live Pay-Check-to-Pay-Check, which is the consequence of unregulated capitalism that has centered all the wealth at the top and is getting worse year by year.
Nothing changes much even if people got vote. Gerrymandering and voter surpression are quasi-fascist tactics to keep the influence of the people at a minimum.
To add to that as well, the ridiculous undemocratic electoral college system. In a country where the supposed motto is that everyone is born equal, you have a system where people's votes have different weight.
it's not a form of government. It's a economic system.
Cool, but do you have an answer? Or are we denying that this is a thing.
Do you think a state should exist?Yes I think everyone is denying that there are alt-right communists
I don't think the logic follows through there, but I do believe that the only thing keeping power away from just a few hands is empathy for our fellow man... and wars. I hope we can follow through without more wars however.I agree because even doing a simple thought exercise would mean the logical conclusion would lead to a convergence where eventually all wealth would belong to one individual, yeah...not good.
Oh I agree this has all been a shitshow. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wonder if any sort of evolution for functioning socialist and communist societies were burnt during this period.
No, but pointing out that communist countries have committed atrocities is likewise not a valid critique of communism given the crimes of various capitalist regimes throughout history.
I don't think the logic follows through there, but I do believe that the only thing keeping power away from just a few hands is empathy for our fellow man... and wars. I hope we can follow through without more wars however.
Sure it is. You need to stop deflecting criticism like this. If one believes authoritarian rule coincides with the need to enforce communistic principles, as history has shown, it's valid to establish that communism inevitably leads to tragedy. If you want to defend communism, argue its merits instead of talking about how bad capitalism is.
I don't think the logic follows through there, but I do believe that the only thing keeping power away from just a few hands is empathy for our fellow man... and wars. I hope we can follow through without more wars however.
Oh I agree this has all been a shitshow. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wonder if any sort of evolution for functioning socialist and communist societies were burnt during this period.
Sure if you ignore the heart attacks every 50 years that require trillions of dollars of public bailout money to prevent the world economy from eating itself.- Communists who constantly refer to "late stage capitalism" when the last truly major communist nation collapsed nearly 30 years ago while Capitalism keeps on ticking.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly valid to critique one thing without comparing it to another thing.No, but pointing out that communist countries have committed atrocities is likewise not a valid critique of communism given the crimes of various capitalist regimes throughout history.
Thanks, edited.
Oh I agree this has all been a shitshow. I don't want to derail the thread, but I wonder if any sort of evolution for functioning socialist and communist societies were burnt during this period.
American efforts to overthrow Castro do not absolve him of the repressive aspects of his regime or the human rights abuses of his government.
Sure it is. You need to stop deflecting criticism like this. If one believes authoritarian rule coincides with the need to enforce communistic principles, as history has shown, it's valid to establish that communism inevitably leads to tragedy. If you want to defend communism, argue its merits instead of talking about how bad capitalism is.
But the USA used to have similarly high taxes, do you think that capital will not erode these barriers for growth there as it has done everywhere else given sufficient time?They combine capitalism and social welfare (through high taxes) that make the people that live in those countries happier. Their systems seem to rein in the biggest flaws with capitalism while still allowing a prosperous private sector and social services that take care of the citizenry. Most Americans live in a "When is the other shoe going to drop" state of life because something completely unexpected like a bad disease or injury can bankrupt a person. Most people live Pay-Check-to-Pay-Check, which is the consequence of unregulated capitalism that has centered all the wealth at the top and is getting worse year by year.
Sure if you ignore the heart attacks every 50 years that require trillions of dollars of public bailout money to prevent the world economy from eating itself.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly valid to critique one thing without comparing it to another thing.
That's not true at all. It's perfectly valid to critique one thing without comparing it to another thing.
Bailouts suck, but it's better than total collapse, imo.Sure if you ignore the heart attacks every 50 years that require trillions of dollars of public bailout money to prevent the world economy from eating itself.
I mean the bigger criticism of communism so far is that there isn't a single successful example, to my knowledge outside of relatively small communities, of actually realizing the "workers own their labor" thing. Which to me isn't a statement of what is and isn't possible, just an argument that anyone looking to the future has to reckon with why past attempts failed in this fundamental way.That's not true at all. It's perfectly valid to critique one thing without comparing it to another thing.
Sure.Except we know for a fact that communists killed millions of people.Your personal story that could may very well just be made up for an internet forum doesn't make poverty irrelevant or capitalism good, sorry. If you do want to go there, I'm sure posters who are from South America or South East Asia have a lot of stories about the countries you are stanning for.
It was a direct response to what that other person said. Not sure what your point is.To be fair, nothing about using the state to continue the system is somehow anti-capitalistic. Capitalism is neither about free trade nor anti-interventionalist states.
Is that what's going on in this thread or any conversation about the topic?
We know for a fact that capitalists have done so too in the pursuit of profit.Sure.Except we know for a fact that communists killed millions of people.
"It's okay to mention Communist atrocities because it implies that Communism 'inevitably leads to tragedy,' unlike capitalism, which has also had atrocities but somehow does not therefore also 'inevitably' lead 'to tragedy.'"
Communism isn't a rigid ideology. Versions of communism are compatible with the idea of a state.
But doesn't that indicate that there's a flaw in said system?
Sure.Except we know for a fact that communists killed millions of people.
We know for a fact that capitalists have done so too in the pursuit of profit.
Imagine looking at the state of the world in 2018 and thinking that capitalism "keeps on ticking"
That's not true at all. It's perfectly valid to critique one thing without comparing it to another thing.
Sure.Except we know for a fact that communists killed millions of people.
So your only argument for communism is that there exists problems with capitalism? It sounds like you have no defensible premise for why communism should replace communism. Unless you are able to discuss these points, you literally have no arguement, thus you depend on deflection to avoid discussion communism at an intrinsic level.
These sorts of people are foolish, and I highly doubt they are actually well read on Marxism. Marx himself thought the system of the Capitalists was inherently progressive and a good thing, just not the last thing.
But the USA used to have similarly high taxes, do you think that capital will not erode these barriers for growth there as it has done everywhere else given sufficient time?
What do you mean by "the state of the world in 2018"? Do you mean "literally the best, most prosperous, and safest time to live in the history of planet earth"?
You shouldn't let your frustration with what (very real) problems still exist in the world convince you that things are going backwards. They aren't.
You're the one who started with the facially illogical premise and then demanded that people engage with it. I'm just participating in the discussion you started.
Anyway,
The best argument for the French Revolution was that there existed a problem with the monarchy
The best argument for evidence-based medicine was that there existed a problem with alchemist guesswork
The best argument for traffic lights was that there existed a problem with unregulated intersections
The best argument for helium-based airships was that there existed a problem with the Hindenburg
etc
Correct, but in the fact that all economic systems that replace the one before it are inherently progressive as they move history forward.
Do you mean "literally the best, most prosperous, and safest time to live in the history of planet earth"?
You shouldn't let your frustration with what (very real) problems still exist in the world convince you that things are going backwards. They aren't.
So your only argument for communism is that there exists problems with capitalism? It sounds like you have no defensible premise for why communism should replace communism. Unless you are able to discuss these points, you literally have no arguement, thus you depend on deflection to avoid discussion communism at an intrinsic level.
Obviously humans are the constant factor here, but you still have to look at each system in isolation to see if there is anything about the system that directly leads to such massive body counts. Killing millions of people in each system doesn't mean both have the same cause. Perhaps some systems put a check on the murder better than others.I feel like people are missing some very basic experiment design fundamentals here.
"Communism is bad because it kills lots of people." Okay, let's test that hypothesis.
Have other kinds of system killed lots of people? Yes? Then it would seem that Marxian economics, on their own, are not the common factor in regimes that kill lots of people.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.Sure if you ignore the heart attacks every 50 years that require trillions of dollars of public bailout money to prevent the world economy from eating itself.
This I agree with.I would say it's only a valid critique if you can argue why communism implies a violent regime. Otherwise you're just pointing to historical examples, saying "Look that failed! And they called themselves communist!".
I know that just sounds like "There was never a true communist country" but that's not the argument I'm making. If you analyzed the theory of communism (from the Communist Manifesto) and show how those ideas inherently lead to a violent regime, then that would be a good critique. But just pointing to historical examples without context means nothing. The USSR was not perfect example of communist society anymore than the U.S. is a perfect example of capitalist society. These are just labels for the ideas.
You're currently saying:
The USSR was violent.
The USSR is communism.
Communism is violent.
But that doesn't work because the USSR is not a perfect replacement for the word communism. Instead, you should frame your argument as:
Communism is composed of these ideas.
The USSR used these ideas.
These ideas lead to violence in these cases, and the reason for the violence were these ideas.
An argument against capitalism should proceed in the same way. What are the ideas inherent to capitalism, what do those ideas lead to? Otherwise you're just taking advantage of the fact that humans like using similar words for very different ideas.
And thanks to technology that mode of production is now compatible with a state.Communism isn't an ideology. It is a distinct mode of production that operates outside of the confines and mediation of the State.
Communism is not compatible with any vestiges of Capital or the State in the same way that Capitalism wasn't compatible with the Feudal Manor.
If there is any singular reason capitalism doesn't work in the modern age, it's the fact that it's entirely unsuitable to fight climate change, under capitalism we will never see an meaningful progress against it.