It’s ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions…and caused millions more to die of starvation…but it’s ok because fascist killed them in WW II…
Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I’m curious why it’s “okay” in their case.
The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.
Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.
I didn’t watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.
My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an “intelligencia” owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.
Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO
I’m familiar with the Venus Project, I don’t believe there is much overlap in their ideas.
In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
It’s not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.
At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.
Ah nice self-unmasking. “I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don’t want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty.”
You are just selfish and afraid.
It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.
Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people…o wait they just euthanize them.
This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/“developed” world. Half the world’s population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.
Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.
Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.
From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I’m not very educated in regards to political science, and I’ve just begun my foray into Marxist theory.
It’s easy to analyze and critique an economic system, it is difficult or impossible to make a perfect one. As far as I’ve seen, Marxism, and systems inspired by it, have not fared well in the real world. Something something stones, something something glass houses.
I can’t disagree with that. I think the sort of utopia that communism suggests is a natural progression back to our roots as a species, and will happen, but only after we’ve pushed for it AND survived through an inevitable apocalypse, because we done royally fucked up tbh. For right now? Well I’m just a blue collar American with no degree. I don’t know. I think socialist structure needs to be implemented for sure though, just to stop the people whove captured the wealth from royally screwing all of us over. I am not educated, or indoctrinated enough to actually debate you beyond that. In fact, I kind of just avoid people, so I’m probably not the best leftist to debate you at all.
Which roots as a species did we have a utopia? If things were perfect, people wouldn’t have sought solutions which led us to where we’re at. People, animals, even plants will always have problems. It’s just a question of what those problems are. If we don’t problems, we’ll create our own, it’s just how we’re wired.
When people talk about wanting socialism in the US, they are usually talking about something like Scandinavia. Scandinavia is rooted in capitalism, but has a social safety net. The US has the same thing, it’s just has some inefficiencies. The US has welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, section 8 housing, social security, and various other programs. If we check out the budget it shows $4.1T being spend on these programs. People always talk about much the US spends on the military, but they are spending 5x more on social services and safety nets (socialism if we want to call it that). Police, fire departments, most roads, national parks, etc are all paid for and supported by the government through tax dollars at either a national or local level.
In terms of those who captured the wealth, I think the stat is that 90% millionaires in the US are first generation millionaires who didn’t inherit their way there. I kind of like the idea someone, regardless of their background, has a chance to make it. At least there is hope for a way way out. Form what I’ve seen with socialism it doesn’t mean everyone lives well, it just means everyone lives poorly. Instead of having some people a the top who started companies, rich politicians with their thumb on everyone. It’s still a power hierarchy, it’s just one that’s harder to rise up in. I didn’t start a business and I’m not a millionaire, but I have a 401k, so when those rich guys win, I win too, because my 401k gains value which will help me in retirement. A house and a 401k, with consistent investment over time are how most people become millionaires, and that ability doesn’t exist without those people willing to take the risk on a business… and most of them fail and end up with nothing. We see a lot of selection bias when looking at those on the top.
I’m not trying to fight you on it, or get into a big debate. I’d just tell you to keep an open mind and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people online will paint capitalism as all bad, and socialism as a utopia. In reality, neither is perfect and a balance is probably the best we can do… and that’s what we have in the US. One can argue the tipping of the scale might be a little off, and that’s something to work on, but it doesn’t mean with throw out the whole system. I’m not saying you were going there, but I see that a lot. If those other systems were so great, I’d question why the US is still the most popular place to immigrate to for people looking for a better life. The US has more foreign born residents than anywhere else in the world, and it isn’t even close. There has to be a reason for that.
Yeah, but recall that any communist system attempted was being trampled by the capitalist countries (still is). Marxist-Leninism calls for “leaders” to guide the masses, which is definitely a straight path to another two-class system(see, USSR). Communism calls for a democratic system, which isn’t really compatible with ML (in my understanding)
you have anything that isn’t Carl-“what nationalist”-Tucker ranting on Fox News?
first off, Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.
And why wouldn’t authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.
and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)
Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations
They had labor camps where they used slave labor to further the war effort. Slavery was imposed upon people for whom economic interactions had previously been consensual and free.
Why wouldn’t authorizations like capitalism?
Because it is an economic system based on consensual exchange. That’s why it’s referred to as a “free market” system.
Well, first off, I will remind you that the great slave nations were almost all Capitalist.
Secondly, Capitalism is not based on consensual exchange, and no free market means no government interference, the fact that we have laws against slavery inherently mean the market is LESS free, Capitalism is an economic system where power is mainly held by the capital holders, instead of the workers.
Ironically, Capitalism can function perfectly fine with planed, and authoritarian economies… like it did during Nazi Germany.
then again, I don’t expect someone spouting the old Glenbech shit to actually know anything about economic and political ideologies…
Atleast it works unlike covert fascist ideas like Marxism/Communism
“HEY LOOK EVERYONE, I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT!!”
Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.
https://emilysquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EmilysQuotes.Com-planet-destroy-beautiful-moment-time-value-sahreholders-sad-greed-people-earth-consequences-unknown.jpg
Communism is covert fascism? Why then did fascists round up and kill communists? The two are wholeheartedly opposed to each other.
Fanatics often hate those that are only slightly different from themselves the most. See Catholics vs protestants.
Sounds like you’re pretty fanatically rooted in your belief and we’re all slightly different from you 😂
It’s ok, communists only rounded up and killed millions…and caused millions more to die of starvation…but it’s ok because fascist killed them in WW II…
Some governments who got put into power under the promise of communism did stray away from their promise of communism and statelessness into authoritarianism, and it killed people, yes. Capitalism has also killed and is killing as we speak, so I’m curious why it’s “okay” in their case.
The main issue with communism is that it puts the entire control of the economy in a few people’s hands. Even more so than capitalism does.
When that happens, the central planning that those people do, even in the best case is orders of magnitude less efficient than capitalism can manage.
And in the usual case, ends up with them funneling much of the resources to their buddies and letting others starve (a la holodomor).
Anyhow, it’s an argument that is about 100 years out of date. The Scandinavians solved this problem half a century ago already. The best thing we can do is have capitalism control production and distribution of goods and services, and democratic government’s socialist policies drive the resources where they need to go and solve the many economic externalities endemic in any capitalistic system.
A better solution, as yet, has not been demonstrated. Anyone advocating “pure communism” or “pure capitalism” is a rube.
There was one promising solution to that which was attempted back in the early 70’s: Combine Cybernetics with Socialism.
Unfortunately the CIA instituted a coup in Chile to install a dictator more favorable to multinational business interests before it could be implemented.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=RJLA2_Ho7X0&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I didn’t watch the whole video, but it sounds very similar to what The Venus Project has in mind.
My feeling about this is that it unfortunately suffers from many of the same problems as communism. In that there will be some group of people who control the computers that make all the decisions, and over time those people will tilt the playing field in their favor and the rest will suffer.
Open source could mitigate this to some degree, but there will still be an “intelligencia” owning the code and having massive incentives for abusing it.
Best just not to have a system where such incentives exist IMO
I’m familiar with the Venus Project, I don’t believe there is much overlap in their ideas.
This is likely true with Communism, but could be almost entirely mitigated if done using Anarchist (like Peter Kropotkin style anarchism) principles. Instead of an all powerful state controlling the reins which would inevitably breed corruption, this concept of cybernetics could be applied in a federated way, where smaller communities could hook-up to this cybernetic collective, which would allow for greater cohesion and collaboration between directly democratic communities.
Okay I will have to watch your video and get back to you.
Agreed to this! Communism means that people can’t be the owners of a buisness or anything at all. Thoose mixed economies where government-based (communist) companies compete along with individual’s buisness should be enought to make the best of two worlds. But still should be implemented correctly and you might also want to consider governments making some limitation on other private companies anti-competatively though. If government behaves well within this mixed economy then it will be cool i guess
Yes, antitrust, consumer protection, health and welfare programs, and pollution taxes are starkly missing in many of todays capitalist countries, first and foremost being the USA.
Though I must admit I don’t understand what you mean by that people can’t own things in capitalist societies. I would say there’s maybe too much ownership in capitalism.
Sorry, edit needed. I mean in pure communism, people are denied of their ability of owning a company or whatever. Not capitalism
It’s not, neither case is ok, but communism has been tried many times and always ends in authoritarianism. This communist utopia is a myth. At least with capitalism I’m not starving or have nothing for my labor.
Ah nice self-unmasking. “I am comfortable under capitalism and it could be worse for me so thats why I don’t want to even consider something else where no-one had to starve while food is available or be homeless while millions of houses stand empty.” You are just selfish and afraid.
It’s also known as intellectual humility. A person is allowed to think of their own self interest, and speaking of one’s own experience is the most based form of communication because it holds the highest certainty.
Yes because I forgot how china and Russia and north Korea all kindly take care of their homeless and special needs people…o wait they just euthanize them.
None of those are communism lol
That’s because that’s what communism turns into…you tankies are a delusional bunch.
This utopia that capitalism works well only does in a vacuum, looking at the westernp/“developed” world. Half the world’s population lives on less than $7 a day. Most people objectively have close to nothing to show for their labor.
Under capitalism those people who earn the least are improving their lot rapidly. That $7 a day you’re citing was $2 a day about 20 years ago.
Under communism people who are doing fine descend into poverty and starvation. Not “food insecurity” where they have all the doritos they could ever want, but actual starvation where they eat their neighbors to survive.
I take back my words. I didn’t knew true communism has never been tried
That comparison doesn’t even work
Why? Both are dogmas that NEVER produce the intended result they claim
But they don’t work as a comparison. It’s apples to oranges
It’s like two communists Stalin and Trotskey, fighting against each other for power. Trotskey was defeated, exiled and later assassinated
Communism is fascism under a different name. Every communist country in the past or present has been a fascist totalitarian state
no, fascism is nothing like communism outside of being authoritarian, but fascism is capitalistic for sure.
We might have different ideas of “works” my friend
Of course it works, for the 1%
From my limited understanding, Marxism comes off as more of a lense to analyze politics and human behavior than an actual system. It also comes off as not very fascist, but fascist seeming things can come out of it, depending on your perspective. I will admit I’m not very educated in regards to political science, and I’ve just begun my foray into Marxist theory.
It’s easy to analyze and critique an economic system, it is difficult or impossible to make a perfect one. As far as I’ve seen, Marxism, and systems inspired by it, have not fared well in the real world. Something something stones, something something glass houses.
I can’t disagree with that. I think the sort of utopia that communism suggests is a natural progression back to our roots as a species, and will happen, but only after we’ve pushed for it AND survived through an inevitable apocalypse, because we done royally fucked up tbh. For right now? Well I’m just a blue collar American with no degree. I don’t know. I think socialist structure needs to be implemented for sure though, just to stop the people whove captured the wealth from royally screwing all of us over. I am not educated, or indoctrinated enough to actually debate you beyond that. In fact, I kind of just avoid people, so I’m probably not the best leftist to debate you at all.
Which roots as a species did we have a utopia? If things were perfect, people wouldn’t have sought solutions which led us to where we’re at. People, animals, even plants will always have problems. It’s just a question of what those problems are. If we don’t problems, we’ll create our own, it’s just how we’re wired.
When people talk about wanting socialism in the US, they are usually talking about something like Scandinavia. Scandinavia is rooted in capitalism, but has a social safety net. The US has the same thing, it’s just has some inefficiencies. The US has welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, section 8 housing, social security, and various other programs. If we check out the budget it shows $4.1T being spend on these programs. People always talk about much the US spends on the military, but they are spending 5x more on social services and safety nets (socialism if we want to call it that). Police, fire departments, most roads, national parks, etc are all paid for and supported by the government through tax dollars at either a national or local level.
In terms of those who captured the wealth, I think the stat is that 90% millionaires in the US are first generation millionaires who didn’t inherit their way there. I kind of like the idea someone, regardless of their background, has a chance to make it. At least there is hope for a way way out. Form what I’ve seen with socialism it doesn’t mean everyone lives well, it just means everyone lives poorly. Instead of having some people a the top who started companies, rich politicians with their thumb on everyone. It’s still a power hierarchy, it’s just one that’s harder to rise up in. I didn’t start a business and I’m not a millionaire, but I have a 401k, so when those rich guys win, I win too, because my 401k gains value which will help me in retirement. A house and a 401k, with consistent investment over time are how most people become millionaires, and that ability doesn’t exist without those people willing to take the risk on a business… and most of them fail and end up with nothing. We see a lot of selection bias when looking at those on the top.
I’m not trying to fight you on it, or get into a big debate. I’d just tell you to keep an open mind and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people online will paint capitalism as all bad, and socialism as a utopia. In reality, neither is perfect and a balance is probably the best we can do… and that’s what we have in the US. One can argue the tipping of the scale might be a little off, and that’s something to work on, but it doesn’t mean with throw out the whole system. I’m not saying you were going there, but I see that a lot. If those other systems were so great, I’d question why the US is still the most popular place to immigrate to for people looking for a better life. The US has more foreign born residents than anywhere else in the world, and it isn’t even close. There has to be a reason for that.
Yeah, but recall that any communist system attempted was being trampled by the capitalist countries (still is). Marxist-Leninism calls for “leaders” to guide the masses, which is definitely a straight path to another two-class system(see, USSR). Communism calls for a democratic system, which isn’t really compatible with ML (in my understanding)
Capitalism literally turns to fascism to stay relevant as it makes life really bad for most people. This is such a laughably bad take.
Test
Test
Capitalism slowly degrades into fascism, agreed. Communism is fascist from the very beginning
Define communism, socialism, capitalism, and fascism please? I didn’t think you know what these words mean
💀
citation needed
We might have different ideas of “works” my friend
Communism works, just look at North Korea.
And there are no outside forces that have influenced North Korea either.
It’s hilarious how these tankies are agreeing with your comment not knowing it’s sarcasm lol
Those two things are opposites…you buzzword concern troll
Opposite likes north and south are opposites? Or opposites like apples and oranges are opposites.
Fascism and communism are both:
But one’s “left wing” and the other is “right wing” so they could be described as “opposites”.
Did this guy really just describe capitalism
Care to explain why you’d think that?
Here, let me help you out.
Fascism
Communism
you have anything that isn’t Carl-“what nationalist”-Tucker ranting on Fox News?
first off, Fascists didn’t try to change any economic relations, in fact a lot of the NAZI party members were staunch capitalists, People like Ford were lauded as great men of commerce and industry for their success in economics, the Nazis even privatized stuff that was public during the Weimar years.
And why wouldn’t authoritarians like capitalism? the modern workplace literally resembles the fascist dream, you have the CEO (führer) with his cadre of upper management (close political aids/figures) middle and lower management as an enforcement mechanism with limited decision-making powers (Gestapo/SA/SS) and the good workers.
and in the USA the ultra capitalists even have the fun social Darwinism bit going on (13/50 anyone?)
They had labor camps where they used slave labor to further the war effort. Slavery was imposed upon people for whom economic interactions had previously been consensual and free.
Because it is an economic system based on consensual exchange. That’s why it’s referred to as a “free market” system.
Well, first off, I will remind you that the great slave nations were almost all Capitalist.
Secondly, Capitalism is not based on consensual exchange, and no free market means no government interference, the fact that we have laws against slavery inherently mean the market is LESS free, Capitalism is an economic system where power is mainly held by the capital holders, instead of the workers.
Ironically, Capitalism can function perfectly fine with planed, and authoritarian economies… like it did during Nazi Germany.
then again, I don’t expect someone spouting the old Glenbech shit to actually know anything about economic and political ideologies…