I didn't realize that the LateStageCapitalism subreddit loves communism

[Nola]

Social Democracy deliberately get lumped in with every other strain of Capitalism to make sure its less appealing.

Yes Labor is a market where you put yourself in competition with other people. This is the point. You get ahead in life by offering other people things they want. Skills, services, etc.

Getting hired from a company gets you taken off the market only as long as you wish to continue the arrangement. All deals are temporary. And it's why getting better social safety nets in place is important because things like the big economy are making some jobs more like Jobs out in the entertainment industry where all are short term contracts.

Click to shrink...

I'd also add that robust and highly functioning safety nets are critically important because without them, the worker/employer dynamic becomes exponentially less voluntary for the worker and exponentially more exploitive for the employer. If your only options are grueling inhumane work for subpar pay or starving, you basically don't have any actual agency and that leads to all sorts of societal and economic issues.

As a side musing, I think that also gets to a part of the appeal many people have with Communism. Many people feel that their experience with capitalism is one where the dynamics are such that they are forced into situations where they don't have any real sense of agency in their life anymore. Even if they don't necessarily attribute the causation to capitalism. And that feeling is incredibly debilitating. So such people mostly want to hear ways in which that agency will be improved. So in a sense it is one reason you get a lot of people that find comfort in the Sanders and Trumps of the world. Both speak to that in different ways. One mostly positively(free college, free healthcare, raise minimum wage) and the other negatively(get rid of the Mexicans stealing your jobs, get rid of the Muslims scaring you, troll the libs trying to redistribute your wealth).

 

[Deffers]

How is communism the way to go? I would sure love to work over 100 hours a week and go to college for 8 years only to be paid the same amount as a cashier at McDonalds.

Click to shrink...

That's a particular brand of Marxist-Leninism that almost no socialists today are proposing. This is a bit of an upsetting thing, although it's not your fault and I don't want to call you out-- but like... libertarian municipalism doesn't even share a revolutionary basis, a one-party system, or a centrally planned economy. It's a federalist democracy with a charter of human rights based on free associations of individuals. Even something older than that system like Trotskyism doesn't have the understood revolutionary basis and many socialists have rejected the violent revolutionary basis. So like... at this point it feels like people have an idea in their heads of what socialism is and can be and I have no real counter to explain to people that, no, we're shooting for other things.

The biggest reason the US is more vulnerable to these things is racism. Straight up. Having a monolithic culture makes pushing social programs easier. (Utah an example in the US)

Click to shrink...

And yet, far right groups are on the rise in Europe too. Look at all the UKIP bullshit in Brexit. And who benefits? The rich. Now Italy's doing the same. I think you've got a chicken and egg thing going here. Sure, the US's racial divisions were more deep-rooted, and easier to exploit, but it's not like you can't just create racial tensions. Look at what happened with Irish people and Italian people in the US when they were starting to unionize with black people. If it's in the financial motivations and the capabilities for the rich to introduce made-up bullshit divisions, then they're going to do that. Which is why we need communities of individuals pushing in the opposite direction and getting tangible results.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I just don't know how people look at, like, Sweden and say "that's still not good enough at realizing comminism's goals." We know how to make it work these days, and it seems not a dictatorship of the proletariat. You pursue free trade and neoliberal economic policies with the exception of high taxes, and you use the taxes to fund an incredibly generous welfare state. You can have economic dynamism and economic security.

And I have no idea why people don't say "let's elect social democratic leaders, so our country can be more like Sweden" and instea dsay "let's have a violent revolution, so we can be more like the USSR." Like, which has the better track record?

Click to shrink...

10s of thousands of people in Sweden are homeless. Hundreds of thousands are without work. Nearly one million live below the poverty line, whereas 30 or so Swedes are billionaires. Its per capita carbon emissions are 1 to 2 tons above the sustainable global average. Sweden and the other Scandinavian nations are undoubtedly some of the most successfully egalitarian societies in human history. But I don't know how you could look at them and say, "there's no room for improvement here." Which, by the way, it is possible to say without advocating for armed revolt.

 

[Heisenberg726]

That's a particular brand of Marxist-Leninism that almost no socialists today are proposing. This is a bit of an upsetting thing, although it's not your fault and I don't want to call you out-- but like... libertarian municipalism doesn't even share a revolutionary basis, a one-party system, or a centrally planned economy. It's a federalist democracy with a charter of human rights based on free associations of individuals. Even something older than that system like Trotskyism doesn't have the understood revolutionary basis and many socialists have rejected the violent revolutionary basis. So like... at this point it feels like people have an idea in their heads of what socialism is and can be and I have no real counter to explain to people that, no, we're shooting for other things.



And yet, far right groups are on the rise in Europe too. Look at all the UKIP bullshit in Brexit. And who benefits? The rich. Now Italy's doing the same. I think you've got a chicken and egg thing going here. Sure, the US's racial divisions were more deep-rooted, and easier to exploit, but it's not like you can't just create racial tensions. Look at what happened with Irish people and Italian people in the US when they were starting to unionize with black people. If it's in the financial motivations and the capabilities for the rich to introduce made-up bullshit divisions, then they're going to do that. Which is why we need communities of individuals pushing in the opposite direction and getting tangible results.

Click to shrink...

Ahh ok, thank you for helping me understand. I only really know Communism from what I learned in school. You made me feel dumb now. Haha.

 

[Deffers]

Ahh ok, thank you for helping me understand. I only really know Communism from what I learned in school. You made me feel dumb now. Haha.

Click to shrink...

Hey, don't feel bad, man. Lots of people hold these misconceptions. If people don't get educated we can't move forward with producing systems that are better than capitalism-- and that's the ultimate goal. I'm glad I was able to help.

 

[Xiaomi]

Ahh ok, thank you for helping me understand. I only really know Communism from what I learned in school. You made me feel dumb now. Haha.

Click to shrink...

This is a big problem; you're not the only one who was taught by history teachers that communism is always a hyper-egalitarian, everyone-gets-the-same-thing society. Unfortunately a lot of schools below college level (where you'll start getting actual Marxists as professors) still push this. I think it comes from the Red Scare days.

 

[FSP]

Do people really think communism always will end like it did in the Soviet Union, or China?
With cleansings, political terro, famine etc?

Click to shrink...

Communism is a restriction of liberty - by its own nature it leads to authoritarianism. Fortunately for society, most socialists (although not all) won't go as far as advocating for the dismantling of democracy these days - the lesson of Lenin, Mao and others is that the road to hell is paved with the bodies of people you have to get rid of to rule as an autocrat, no matter how pure your intent.

The issue with communisim is that it is utopian - much like the fantasy of the "perfect dictator", it assumes a system can be built that can overcome the basic psychological failings of humanity.

If you assume a democracy, due to its capacity for self-regulation and securing of liberty, is the best system for running a government, then it is somewhat inevitable that you will conceed that a free and open market, an economic democracy, is the best system for running an economy.

 

[Torres]

Communism is a restriction of liberty - by its own nature it leads to authoritarianism. Fortunately for society, most socialists (although not all) won't go as far as advocating for the dismantling of democracy these days - the lesson of Lenin, Mao and others is that the road to hell is paved with the bodies of people you have to get rid of to rule as an autocrat, no matter how pure your intent.

The issue with communisim is that it is utopian - much like the fantasy of the "perfect dictator", it assumes a system can be built that can overcome the basic psychological failings of humanity.

If you assume a democracy, due to its capacity for self-regulation and securing of liberty, is the best system for running a government, then it is somewhat inevitable that you will conceed that a free and open market, an economic democracy, is the best system for running an economy.

Click to shrink...

what is democratic about a system where two people working equally as hard can have difference in salary ranging in the billions?

Communism is not the authoritative states of China and USSR. Communism is the abolition of the state and worker's control of the means of production. The communism that we aim to achieve is the most free, the most democratic method of social organization in existence. With workplace democracy, workers will decide what they do with the fruits of their labor, or are you really more free at the discretion of your boss? Without the state, we will not have a need for police, no need for state violence. Obviously we will need some form of social control for people who are depraved, but that can be organized locally, communally. The economy will similarly be determined locally, through a democratic process, where basic needs are ensured before we send cars into space.

It's not utopian to envision a future where democracy is embedded into the fabric of society. A free market with private property guarantees nothing but a system that benefits the few and only the few, the social democracies that do see any success are only possible via the exploitation of the global south. Much freedom they're afforded under the current system.

 

[Deleted member 888]

what is democratic about a system where two people working equally as hard can have difference in salary ranging in the billions?

Communism is not the authoritative states of China and USSR. Communism is the abolition of the state and worker's control of the means of production. The communism that we aim to achieve is the most free, the most democratic method of social organization in existence. With workplace democracy, workers will decide what they do with the fruits of their labor, or are you really more free at the discretion of your boss? Without the state, we will not have a need for police, no need for state violence. Obviously we will need some form of social control for people who are depraved, but that can be organized locally, communally. The economy will similarly be determined locally, through a democratic process, where basic needs are ensured before we send cars into space.

It's not utopian to envision a future where democracy is embedded into the fabric of society. A free market with private property guarantees nothing but a system that benefits the few and only the few, the social democracies that do see any success are only possible via the exploitation of the global south. Much freedom they're afforded under the current system.

Click to shrink...

This might come as a shock to you but there are millions of people who can find happiness in life earning basic salaries and having just enough to pay their bills and afford some basic luxuries (living within their means, not behaving like some on this forum always wanting their parents to pay for the latest games console and mobile phone yearly refresh). Yeah, some CEOs and professional poker players earn millions, but happiness in life is largely a learned skill of the mind once you have a basic level of income that can pay your bills.

An ethical benefits system can be in place to try and aid those falling under being able to afford their bills. Your utopian vision is going to be next to impossible to implement without force or a dictatorship. Are you forgetting how many people live in the world? Life is often suffering and trying to get by and handle everything we go through, from money problems to mental and physical health concerns, but happiness is a learned skill. You often have to change your perception and you will find enjoyment and happiness in the short time you get to kick around on this planet. Go looking for misery 24/7 like some seem to do and you'll find it, because it will be yourself making... yourself miserable.

Governments need to be held accountable and countries should aim to have publicly funded healthcare, benefits systems and councils. Its still hard going, but a form of democracy propped up by the ability for money to be generated and international trade exist is the most prosperous system we've witnessed yet. Some minds online ranting and raving non-stop about salaries and earnings of some who are millionaires at times can come across not so much as portraying compassion for the homeless or poor, but just personal jealousy.

Jealousy is not a human condition that will ever bring you happiness. Some encouragement or incentive to want to better yourself, or get a degree or "sacrifice" your personal time to work 24/7 can be what some want. However, every unique person on this planet has to search for what makes them happy and not give as much of a shit what their neighbours are doing. Live your own life.

Some declared communists come around like they're obsessing over demanding how everyone else is to live and experience life. So, some sort of top down dictatorship.

 

[Torres]

This might come as a shock to you but there are millions of people who can find happiness in life earning basic salaries and having just enough to pay their bills and afford some basic luxuries (living within their means, not behaving like some on this forum always wanting their parents to pay for the latest games console and mobile phone yearly refresh). Yeah, some CEOs and professional poker players earn millions, but happiness in life is largely a learned skill of the mind once you have a basic level of income that can pay your bills.

An ethical benefits system can be in place to try and aid those falling under being able to afford their bills. Your utopian vision is going to be next to impossible to implement without force or a dictatorship. Are you forgetting how many people live in the world? Life is often suffering and trying to get by and handle everything we go through, from money problems to mental and physical health concerns, but happiness is a learned skill. You often have to change your perception and you will find enjoyment and happiness in the short time you get to kick around on this planet. Go looking for misery 24/7 like some seem to do and you'll find it, because it will be yourself making... yourself miserable.

Click to shrink...

Any vision requires force. You don't believe the current world order isn't ruled with an iron fist? I'm not entirely sure how we reach communism without bloodshed, I hope that through legislative reform we can inch closer and closer, but I don't see how the rich will turn over control to the people. But as an ideal, socialism is irrefutable, imo. You're not really saying anything novel here, life is hard, yeah. Life comes with misery attached, but capitalism adds extra suffering that we can eradicate.

Governments need to be held accountable and countries should aim to have publicly funded healthcare, benefits systems and councils. Its still hard going, but a form of democracy propped up by the ability for money to be generated and international trade exist is the most prosperous system we've witnessed yet. Some minds online ranting and raving non-stop about salaries and earnings of some who are millionaires at times can come across not so much as portraying compassion for the homeless or poor, but just personal jealousy.

Click to shrink...

I'm not going to deny that capitalism has helped alleviate poverty for many. Right, that's the natural result of it's forever profit-seeking nature, but that's also its downfall. There's still over a billion people living in poverty, and the way the deck is stacked, a lot of western wealth is built off the backs of the global poor.

Personal jealousy? Get a grip man. There are plenty of white edgy middle class communists online who are annoying as hell, but the global communist movement is not inspired by jealousy, but out of necessity.

Jealousy is not a human condition that will ever bring you happiness. Some encouragement or incentive to want to better yourself, or get a degree or "sacrifice" your personal time to work 24/7 can be what some want. However, every unique person on this planet has to search for what makes them happy and not give as much of a shit what their neighbours are doing. Live your own life.

Some declared communists come around like they're obsessing over demanding how everyone else is to live and experience life. So, some sort of top down dictatorship.

Click to shrink...

You finally get something right man, I am demanding how people should live. No one should be riding around in a yacht when there is a homeless person out there who could benefit from that misplaced wealth. I do care what my neighbors are doing, when they're nothing but parasites on society.

Under socialism, there will be plenty of people working the minimum amount required to find a fulfilling life, not everyone will find the need to participate in organizing society. With less human effort spent on superfluous careers, more time and energy will be available for what really matters, including what you mentioned, finding happiness and personal fulfillment. I don't think you know what actual socialism would look like.
edit: and that's fine, communist don't often go around predicting the future very often. But capitalism has proven itself inept at handling humanity's needs, and no amount of boot-strap pulling will fix that.

 

[Deleted member 9986]

Communism is a restriction of liberty - by its own nature it leads to authoritarianism. Fortunately for society, most socialists (although not all) won't go as far as advocating for the dismantling of democracy these days - the lesson of Lenin, Mao and others is that the road to hell is paved with the bodies of people you have to get rid of to rule as an autocrat, no matter how pure your intent.

The issue with communisim is that it is utopian - much like the fantasy of the "perfect dictator", it assumes a system can be built that can overcome the basic psychological failings of humanity.

If you assume a democracy, due to its capacity for self-regulation and securing of liberty, is the best system for running a government, then it is somewhat inevitable that you will conceed that a free and open market, an economic democracy, is the best system for running an economy.

Click to shrink...

Please, Communism utopian? The whole idea about post Marx/Engels communism is that it is not utopian but materialistic. You are simply aiming at governance issues in the developing socialist countries and basing this on that, even though they did have their own democratic concepts. They just didn't always work out or were not respected because of several issues that take another thread to discuss.

Funny how you call liberal economy democratic when billions of workers are stuck in a non-democratic workspace. It is actually socialists that want to put democratic control on the economy. Getting payed cents while billions of profit go to unnecessary wealth doesn't sound like something people would get behind unless it is a cult of some sort. And no it also doesn't make sense economically, that 8th car or extra 0 on rich James' bank account is a waste of resources that could have been used for sustainable development.
If liberal democracy and economics is so legitimate then you are basically saying that people are insanely sadomasochistic or this world doesn't make sense.

A contradiction easily explained by materialist thought but not utopian liberal democractic philosophy.

So yeah guess what? It is liberalism that is utopian and we can see it before our eyes, daily.

 

[FSP]

what is democratic about a system where two people working equally as hard can have difference in salary ranging in the billions?

Click to shrink...

"Capitalism has income disparity" does not lead to "capitalism is not democratic". If the people consent to a system of income disparity, it is democratic. However, there is the role of the state to ensure equality of opportunity and protect the rights and happiness of those less fortunate.

You expose a critical flaw in Marxist-Leninist thinking when you mention that Communism abolishes the state. As above, I mention that the role of the state in a democracy is to ensure equality, rights and happiness.

Let us for a second consider the impact of the removal of the state and of private actors in the economy.

There are some roles of the state, the primary roles of defence and justice, that are not things that are abolishable. Communities require defence and justice and someone has to provide them.

In a democratic system, power is spread over many different groups, from local councils to private corporations to the military to the intelligence community to unions to state and federal governments.

In a system where you have "abolished the state", in reality you've stripped out many of the above institutions but not all of them. A military leader is hugely powerful if there is no state to hold them back. The same goes for judges and law enforcement.

So how do you abolish the military, judges or law enforcement? By rendering them redundant. I have yet to see how that is done without an "intermediate state" of an extremely authoritarian regime and a desire for cast-iron security or world revolution.

Never mind considering how LGBT and women's rights are protected and enforced in a pseudo- or truely stateless society.

 

[HarryHengst]

I just don't know how people look at, like, Sweden and say "that's still not good enough at realizing comminism's goals." We know how to make it work these days, and it seems not a dictatorship of the proletariat. You pursue free trade and neoliberal economic policies with the exception of high taxes, and you use the taxes to fund an incredibly generous welfare state. You can have economic dynamism and economic security.

And I have no idea why people don't say "let's elect social democratic leaders, so our country can be more like Sweden" and instea dsay "let's have a violent revolution, so we can be more like the USSR." Like, which has the better track record?

Click to shrink...

No, its ''lets elect socalist leaders, so we can replace corporations with cooperations and make sure nobody goes homeless, sick or hungry again due to capitalists raising prices just because they can''.

Neoliberalism only works when you have a large army of workers to exploit, preferably in another country so your local population will continue supporting it due to a flood of cheapass, poorly produced goods being available.

Heavily regulated capitalism is the closest thing to a utopia we will get without infinite resources/self sustainability. It's the whole reason Trump won the US presidency with "Make America Great Again", except he never intended to put back in high taxes that used to keep our middle class strong.

Click to shrink...

Capitalism will always, always, strive for the destructing of welfare systems, higher taxes, public institutions and such, because it is profitable to do so. As long as you have capitalism, you will have the profit motive, and thus forces that strive to remove anything that is in public hands and put it into private hands.

You cannot have capitalism and anything resembling utopia, because capitalism is rotten right at its very core. Unfortunately, its easier for people to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, so they think capitalism with some tweaks is the best possible option.

 

[Spuck-]

How is communism the way to go? I would sure love to work over 100 hours a week and go to college for 8 years only to be paid the same amount as a cashier at McDonalds.

Click to shrink...

edit: just saw other people answered this as well, not trying to put the boots in.!

Pulling this verbatim as it's a better answer than I could write:

"There is no communist ideology proposing equal pay. The distribution in communism is " from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Poverty is eradicated thanks to advances in technologies; as K. Marx would say, when a new, more effective mode of production emerged and became a dominant one.

There is no equal pay even in socialism - a transient stage on the way from capitalism to communism - because in socialism distribution is "according to their contribution," that is, not equal. But in communism there is no pay at all because communism is a moneyless, stateless, and classless society by definition. "

 

[Shake Appeal]

Every discussion of communism for all time should not devolve into people pointing out the Soviet Union was mostly a bad place to live, but here we are.

 

[Spuck-]

"Capitalism has income disparity" does not lead to "capitalism is not democratic". If the people consent to a system of income disparity, it is democratic. However, there is the role of the state to ensure equality of opportunity and protect the rights and happiness of those less fortunate.

You expose a critical flaw in Marxist-Leninist thinking when you mention that Communism abolishes the state. As above, I mention that the role of the state in a democracy is to ensure equality, rights and happiness.

Let us for a second consider the impact of the removal of the state and of private actors in the economy.

There are some roles of the state, the primary roles of defence and justice, that are not things that are abolishable. Communities require defence and justice and someone has to provide them.

In a democratic system, power is spread over many different groups, from local councils to private corporations to the military to the intelligence community to unions to state and federal governments.

In a system where you have "abolished the state", in reality you've stripped out many of the above institutions but not all of them. A military leader is hugely powerful if there is no state to hold them back. The same goes for judges and law enforcement.

So how do you abolish the military, judges or law enforcement? By rendering them redundant. I have yet to see how that is done without an "intermediate state" of an extremely authoritarian regime and a desire for cast-iron security or world revolution.

Never mind considering how LGBT and women's rights are protected and enforced in a pseudo- or truely stateless society.

Click to shrink...

You're describing Anarchism there, not Marxist-Leninism. Wildly different.

 

[FSP]

You're describing Anarchism there, not Marxist-Leninism. Wildly different.

Click to shrink...

Lenin called for the withering of the state. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

But as I say above, to weaken the state hands power to concentrations of people, such as those with weapons (Mao's famous quote about political power is correct).

 

[Spuck-]

Communism is a restriction of liberty - by its own nature it leads to authoritarianism. Fortunately for society, most socialists (although not all) won't go as far as advocating for the dismantling of democracy these days - the lesson of Lenin, Mao and others is that the road to hell is paved with the bodies of people you have to get rid of to rule as an autocrat, no matter how pure your intent.

The issue with communisim is that it is utopian - much like the fantasy of the "perfect dictator", it assumes a system can be built that can overcome the basic psychological failings of humanity.

If you assume a democracy, due to its capacity for self-regulation and securing of liberty, is the best system for running a government, then it is somewhat inevitable that you will conceed that a free and open market, an economic democracy, is the best system for running an economy.

Click to shrink...

Liberalism is Utopian as well, the idea that the best and brightest will rise to the top and no systemic oppression will occur in a liberal society has been proven wrong over and over.

 

[Spuck-]

Lenin called for the withering of the state. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

But as I say above, to weaken the state hands power to concentrations of people, such as those with weapons (Mao's famous quote about political power is correct).

Click to shrink...

I don't think you understood what you just posted. He's not calling for the forcible removal of the state, he's describing a theoretical, utopian existance in which the State becomes unimportant. Communism doesnt 'abolish' the state in this scenario, hence the use of the term 'wither'.

To get to this state you need to, for instance, not have LGBT+ issues and womens issues, actually be issues any more.

 

[FSP]

Liberalism is Utopian as well, the idea that the best and brightest will rise to the top and no systemic oppression will occur in a liberal society has been proven wrong over and over.

Click to shrink...

Liberalism has political principles, utopias have political principles, so Liberalism is utopian?

I'd argue that liberalism is one of the least utopian political philosophies - it outright rejects the notion of a perfect system and is built of of a continual willingness to find compromise between extremes. Liberalism contains a recognition of the capacity of the state, society and individuals to be flawed - a key thing a utopia does not have.

 

[Deffers]

You're describing Anarchism there, not Marxist-Leninism. Wildly different.

Click to shrink...

The hypothetical end-goal for ML philosophies and anarchist philosophies are similar in that they're stateless societies. We move beyond the structures of statehood protecting individual rights. What that actually means is the distinction between ML theory and various flavors of anarchist theory.

Weirdly the person you're replying to is still off-base. A military is an apparatus of the state. Judges and law enforcement are apparatuses of the state (guess what, anarchists fucking hate cops). Bookchin's modification of dual-power theory through confederation provides at least one possible solution and is typically adapted into strains of anarchist thought as well as less reformist but non-violent revolutionary socialist thought.

Every discussion of communism for all time should not devolve into people pointing out the Soviet Union was mostly a bad place to live, but here we are.

Click to shrink...

The part that fascinates me is the staggering volume of crosstalk happening. I presented my views on the revolution and on democratic confederalism, right? And the people I reply to like it. But then someone new comes in and they ask the same questions. And I reply to them in the same way and they like it. And then the next post after the one I just made is someone doing the same thing. Again. And it's just like... fuck. There's like a goddamn branding issue going on here something fierce, eh?

 

[Spuck-]

Liberalism has political principles, utopias have politival principles, so Liberalism is utopian?

Click to shrink...

utopian
juːˈtəʊpɪən/
adjective

1. 1.
   modelled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.

 

[Spuck-]

The hypothetical end-goal for ML philosophies and anarchist philosophies are similar in that they're stateless societies. We move beyond the structures of statehood protecting individual rights. What that actually means is the distinction between ML theory and various flavors of anarchist theory.

Weirdly the person you're replying to is still off-base. A military is an apparatus of the state. Judges and law enforcement are apparatuses of the state (guess what, anarchists fucking hate cops). Bookchin's modification of dual-power theory through confederation provides at least one possible solution and is typically adapted into strains of anarchist thought as well as less reformist but non-violent revolutionary socialist thought.



The part that fascinates me is the staggering volume of crosstalk happening. I presented my views on the revolution and on democratic confederalism, right? And the people I reply to like it. But then someone new comes in and they ask the same questions. And I reply to them in the same way and they like it. And then the next post after the one I just made is someone doing the same thing. Again. And it's just like... fuck. There's like a goddamn branding issue going on here something fierce, eh?

Click to shrink...

A good post, thanks.

 

[FSP]

utopian
juːˈtəʊpɪən/
adjective

1. 1.
   modelled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.

Click to shrink...

Edited my post above with a counter-point to this.

Against other points: folks rejecting the need for defence and justice in a society, even in a theoretical sense, need to consider that they are natural requirements that rise from how human society works. Who protects your loved ones from sexual assault or enslavement? And who protects you from those that are given the power to protect you?

Again: in a liberal democratic society, power is spread across many levels, from councils and local co-operatives to corporations, unions and police forces to national governments. If the argument is that you can make a society more democratic by concentrating power in the hands of less people, then I have a bridge to sell you.

You can see the natural slide into authoritarianism play out live in Venezuela right now.

 

[Spuck-]

Edited my post above with a counter-point to this.

Click to shrink...

That in itself is utopian, as it posits that Liberalism is the end state of politics, ala Fukuyama

 

[FSP]

That in itself is utopian, as it posits that Liberalism is the end state of politics, ala Fukuyama

Click to shrink...

Your definition of utiopia here does not match up with your dictionary defintion above. Please do not move goalposts.

EDIT: I reject Fukuyama, for what it's worth, in favour of a recognition that humans are too badly flawed to be guaranteed to act in logical and consistent ways. There'll be fascist and communist states in the future, there'll be problems and wars and other similar issues. Various political forces will rise and fall and there'll definitely be more history to write about for the next sentients to dig up out of our nuclear-incinerated cites.

 

[ThePostModernCondition]

That in itself is utopian, as it posits that Liberalism is the end state of politics, ala Fukuyama

Click to shrink...

I dont think 'liberalism being posited as end of human sociocultural development' always equates to utopianism.
I somewhat subscribe to ideas of endism, postmodernism and all things having a logical development path (for example art and the 'end of art') but do not believe liberalism is technically 'the end' since Russia, China and many countries have proven different forms of political organization can still exist.
However Liberalism is just sooo accommodating and its an ideology that goes hand in hand wtih globalization and capitalism that even countries like China exhibit liberal characteristics and off course have subscribed to free market economic policies in order to rejoin the world

 

[Spuck-]

this-thread.jpg

 

[Spuck-]

Your definition of utiopia here does not match up with your dictionary defintion above. Please do not move goalposts.

EDIT: I reject Fukuyama, for what it's worth, in favour of a recognition that humans are too badly flawed to be guaranteed to act in logical and consistent ways. There'll be fascist and communist states in the future, there'll be problems and wars and other similar issues. Various political forces will rise and fall and there'll definitely be more history to write about for the next sentients to dig up out of our nuclear-incinerated cites.

Click to shrink...

Extremely hilarious coming from you.

 

[Spuck-]

More misinformed opinions. Mao did not kill 40 million people. the GLF was a cultural success, resulted in huge increases in grain production, but the industry that resulted was a little lacking in quality. Famine was naturally occuring, and the level of death in China only slightly surpassed that of India. The Cultural Revolution is a similar story.

Stalin wasn't a dictator and I struggle to call him evil. Look up Nikolai Yezhov, the leader of the Secret Police under Stalin. He obviously made many mistakes, and I don't agree with his brand of communism, but the guy isn't hitler.

Click to shrink...

Fucking hell dude, I'm an godless commie as well, but Stalin was a monster, and Beria was as bad as anyone in Hitlers cabinet.

 

[dusteatingbug]

You are your own capital.

Click to shrink...

Dude

 

[HarryHengst]

The smartest science dudes we had these past 100 years or so knew what was up with capitalism:

Einstein - Why socialism?

 

[Kirblar]

And yet, far right groups are on the rise in Europe too. Look at all the UKIP bullshit in Brexit. And who benefits? The rich. Now Italy's doing the same. I think you've got a chicken and egg thing going here. Sure, the US's racial divisions were more deep-rooted, and easier to exploit, but it's not like you can't just create racial tensions. Look at what happened with Irish people and Italian people in the US when they were starting to unionize with black people. If it's in the financial motivations and the capabilities for the rich to introduce made-up bullshit divisions, then they're going to do that. Which is why we need communities of individuals pushing in the opposite direction and getting tangible results.

Click to shrink...

Happened just as Europe started getting flooded with refugees due to the Bush admins fuckup in Iraq destabilizing the reason. Europe is now running into the same issues the US has had head on.

 

[Randam]

This might come as a shock to you but there are millions of people who can find happiness in life earning basic salaries and having just enough to pay their bills and afford some basic luxuries (living within their means, not behaving like some on this forum always wanting their parents to pay for the latest games console and mobile phone yearly refresh). Yeah, some CEOs and professional poker players earn millions, but happiness in life is largely a learned skill of the mind once you have a basic level of income that can pay your bills.

Click to shrink...

If only some CEOs could learn that they don't need 10 millions a year to be happy and they could instead pay their employees more for example.