# Capitalism, Socialism, Communism...



## TowinKarz (Apr 6, 2016)

On a serious note, are there even any real communist states left to not give a shit about CPUSA? As in Marxist/Leninist ideology driven states?  I mean, China doesn't even fit that label anymore, does it?


----------



## Kerfuffle (Apr 6, 2016)

TowinKarz said:


> On a serious note, are there even any real communist states left to not give a shit about CPUSA? As in Marxist/Leninist ideology driven states?  I mean, China doesn't even fit that label anymore, does it?



The last four remaining officially Communist one-party republics are China, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba. The DPRK purports to be one, but nobody with a brain believes that. 

China in reality hasn't been 'properly Communist' since Deng Xiaoping. The DPRK is a kleptocracy obviously, Vietnam has been engaging in economic and political reforms and is basically trying to do a China, Laos has sort of shit the bed economically but also engaged in market reforms, and then there's Cuba which also implemented market economics and reforms. 

tl;dr not really


----------



## nobody2590 (Apr 6, 2016)

North Korea is the closest to a real communist state because the government controls everything, including all facets of industry and social services. However, it's more of an ultranationalist military dictatorship and it's drifted away from the global communist movement with its adherence to the "Juche" ideology. It's too complicated to explain in-depth, but basically it's Marxism-Leninism with "self-reliance" (basically economic autarky), a "military first" policy, and heavy investment in a cult of personality.

Essentially, most "communist states" gave up on communism as an economic idea because it left the populations extremely poor and the economies in a shambles. However, that doesn't mean the Communist parties of said countries are not still in charge. China has a market economy but is otherwise still a dictatorship run by the CCP. I don't know much about Cuba, but you know it's not a free place when the Castro brothers still run the show and you still have huge murals of Che Guevara everywhere.


----------



## Splendid (Apr 8, 2016)

TowinKarz said:


> On a serious note, are there even any real communist states left to not give a shit about CPUSA? As in Marxist/Leninist ideology driven states?  I mean, China doesn't even fit that label anymore, does it?


There never were any communist states to begin with. By the time the first leader got into power, the country was a dictatorship.


----------



## nobody2590 (Apr 8, 2016)

Splendid Meat Sticks said:


> There never were any communist states to begin with. By the time the first leader got into power, the country was a dictatorship.


Strictly speaking, communism is defined as a dictatorship of the proletariat. So even if they were not "communist" per se, they were following Marxist doctrine. Lenin wrote that communist parties should be the revolutionary vanguard in establishing a proletarian state. Sure, China and the Soviet Union didn't refer to themselves as communist states because communism was the end-goal, but they thought that dictatorship was necessary to reaching that stage.


----------



## norrington (Apr 9, 2016)

historyman101 said:


> Strictly speaking, communism is defined as a dictatorship of the proletariat. So even if they were not "communist" per se, they were following Marxist doctrine. Lenin wrote that communist parties should be the revolutionary vanguard in establishing a proletarian state. Sure, China and the Soviet Union didn't refer to themselves as communist states because communism was the end-goal, but they thought that dictatorship was necessary to reaching that stage.


This is true, but it doesn't... make the DPRK similar to a communist state? The ideologies are totally different, as are the mechanisms for running the countries and how the internal bureaucracy functions. I mean, the end result is similar to the Stalinist USSR in some ways but that's because Stalin was a totalitarian too, USSR and Eastern socialist/communist regimes like the GDR are hardly comparable to the DPRK, nor is USSR post-Krushchev, or China, for that matter.


----------



## AnOminous (Apr 9, 2016)

historyman101 said:


> Strictly speaking, communism is defined as a dictatorship of the proletariat.



The problem is that doesn't make any sense.  Proles are proles specifically because they are not leaders.  

The problem with the soviet system was exactly what gave it its name:  the super-legislature known as the Supreme Soviet.

Disregarding the balance and separation of powers necessary for stable government, they placed tremendous power in what amounted to a legislature.  Just as with the National Assembly in Revolutionary France, such a body inevitably falls under the control of a strong personality, whether that is a Robespierre in France or Stalin in the Soviet Union.

Once this happens, either by one person or a small group dominating these social institutions, whether that's by formal position or something less direct like chairmanship of a political party, without any counter to such power it rapidly becomes complete.  

So you never get to the dictatorship of the proletariat partly because such a thing does not and could not exist, but on top of that, the system inevitably turns into a plain old dictatorship by essentially unavoidable processes inherent in the type of system communism creates.


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 9, 2016)

The thing with communism (and also with "benevolent dictatorships" and anarchic states) is that it all works GREAT on paper so long as_ every single person_ involved (especially the ones with power, ie the government) is completely on board and doesn't abuse the system and behaves in a humane and ethical way. 

Generally speaking, we as human beings tend to abuse the fuck out of the system. And stuff that works great on paper tends to not actually work in reality because humans are extremely complicated and generally will look out for their own interests versus what's best for the world as a whole or "logical" to the system. This is *exactly* what we've seen with every single communist state. The higher ups live like the evil, demonic bourgeois while at the same time obsessively policing the proletariat so that won't do the same; the proletariat themselves are starved and overworked and yet can't even complain about their condition or else Big Brother will come and beat them/ship them off to a labor camp for "going against the people" or some bullshit.

Plus, honestly, I think communism is just super outdated at this point. Marx lived at a time when factory workers would lose fucking body parts to machinery and still be expected to work through it (seriously, read The Jungle). People worked themselves to death to make barely enough money to survive anyway, and there was nothing they could do about it. Things aren't perfect today, but worker's rights are taken _very_ seriously. We can argue about minimum wage, health care, and other financial issues all day, but at least if you get injured on the job due to employer incompetence you can sue the living shit out them. I bet Marx couldn't have dreamed of unions and workers' compensation.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 9, 2016)

I think that the main problems with marxism are as follows:

It is based on an intuitive rather than empirical foundation: although marx can be excused for not provicing statistics as they were much harder to find back then it fundamentally has nothing really supporting it, there is no mathematical foundation for it either which at least the austrian school
It has the position of human nature being entirely determined by the environment: although this is an extension of the lack of support it is very distinct due to how much is invested in it and how easy it is to argue against. At its most extreme it manifested in a complete rejection of Darwinian evolution in favour of LaMarkian evolution in the form of Lysenkoism in the reign of Stalin. In lesser extremes it is found in people denying sex differences/racial differences without sufficient evidence (I am not going to say anything about either at the moment because I would be doing so without citations, thus making me just as bad as the marxists as well as derailing the thread). Another fundamental problem with lysenkoism is that it cannot explain how any decisions are driven because everything comes from society and thus there is a complete mystery of what could have even lead to the creation of society in the first place


----------



## Tranhuviya (Apr 9, 2016)

Communism is a dismal failure of an system, and nobody has gotten it right- and probably never will, considering it's over-idealistic nature.


----------



## WonkeyDong (Apr 9, 2016)

the whole premise of punishing the rich never worked due to the fact they just left the country


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 10, 2016)

@Lugal why are you a Marxist? Do you truly believe Marxist ideals can be implemented on a wide scale even though it's failed literally every time?


----------



## Lugal (Apr 10, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> View attachment 83236 View attachment 83237
> @Lugal why are you a Marxist? Do you truly believe Marxist ideals can be implemented on a wide scale even though it's failed literally every time?


I'm a Marxist* because off all political and economic theory I've read, Marx, Engels, and later Marxists, seem to make the most sense to me. I took a pretty sharp left-turn after the recession began and I began to feel a whole lot less secure in American capitalism. It just no longer seemed like it was working, for myself, for my family, or for working people a whole. With this, as well as looming ecological problems like climate change in mind, I just think we need a radical new way of doing things. I'm not particular about what kind of socialism I favor. Leninist vanguardism has a tendency to degrade into oligarchy or despotism, although I think it did have it's place amidst the harsh repression of the Tsarist state and the chaos of the Civil War. I think here, in the 21st century US, some kind of Syndicalism with Leninist elements would be preferable.  

As to whether or not Marxists ideals can be implemented, I'm not sure, although I'm certain some kind of socialist or quasi-socialist program could be implemented to the great betterment of the people as a whole, like FDR's New Deal or European Social Democracy. When you say Marxist ideals, I assume you mean Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism and it's ideological descendants like Maoism. You'll get no argument from me there, those where absolutely disasterous, and should be taken by all modern socialists as and example of what NOT to do. But the radical left, inspired ideas like Marxism and Anarchism, was a driving force in getting labor organized enough to win the benefits it currently enjoys in modern capitalism.

Also, the whole 'reactionary tumblr weeb' thing was just me fuckin' with ya'.

*I don't want to get into a semantical discussion of what 'Marxists' means, it would probably be best to just say that I'm a 'socialist who likes Marx'.


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 10, 2016)

Lugal said:


> I'm a Marxist* because off all political and economic theory I've read, Marx, Engels, and later Marxists, seem to make the most sense to me. I took a pretty sharp left-turn after the recession began and I began to feel a whole lot less secure in American capitalism. It just no longer seemed like it was working, for myself, for my family, or for working people a whole. With this, as well as looming ecological problems like climate change in mind, I just think we need a radical new way of doing things. I'm not particular about what kind of socialism I favor. Leninist vanguardism has a tendency to degrade into oligarchy or despotism, although I think it did have it's place amidst the harsh repression of the Tsarist state and the chaos of the Civil War. I think here, in the 21st century US, some kind of Syndicalism with Leninist elements would be preferable.
> 
> As to whether or not Marxists ideals can be implemented, I'm not sure, although I'm certain some kind of socialist or quasi-socialist program could be implemented to the great betterment of the people as a whole, like FDR's New Deal or European Social Democracy. When you say Marxist ideals, I assume you mean Soviet-style Marxism-Leninism and it's ideological descendants like Maoism. You'll get no argument from me there, those where absolutely disasterous, and should be taken by all modern socialists as and example of what NOT to do. But the radical left, inspired ideas like Marxism and Anarchism, was a driving force in getting labor organized enough to win the benefits it currently enjoys in modern capitalism.
> 
> ...



Maybe there was just some etymological confusion; by "Marxist" I _do_ mean communist. Socialism's a _much_ better and more realistic alternative to communism, which has never and will never work. 

Basically, my philosophy is that extremes never work; ultra-capitalism and ultra-socialism (meaning communism) both fuck up societies. There needs to be a middle, where you can make your own money to buy your own things but at the same time not have to starve to death if you're unable to.


----------



## Lugal (Apr 10, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> Maybe there was just some etymological confusion; by "Marxist" I _do_ mean communist. Socialism's a _much_ better and more realistic alternative to communism, which has never and will never work.
> 
> Basically, my philosophy is that extremes never work; ultra-capitalism and ultra-socialism (meaning communism) both fuck up societies. There needs to be a middle, where you can make your own money to buy your own things but at the same time not have to starve to death if you're unable to.


I think communism of some sort could work in a future post-scarcity society. But at this point that's just science fiction. Even Lenin recognized the need for some market involvement with the New Economic Plan.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 10, 2016)

Lugal said:


> I think communism of some sort could work in a future post-scarcity society. But at this point that's just science fiction. Even Lenin recognized the need for some market involvement with the New Economic Plan.


What do you mean by a post scarcity society because by the definition of scarcity the only way that would work is if we destroyed all desire for anything as the only goods that are not scarce are ones that are undesireable.

For an economy in which there is a very small demand for labour the more likely outcome would be one in which the bourgeoise are even more powerful because they can subsist purely through the means of production and the labour of the proletariat is not required so they will lose their bargaining power


----------



## RepQuest (Apr 12, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> I bet Marx couldn't have dreamed of unions and workers' compensation.


Labor movements were current to his time and he hated them because he thought that they would impede the revolution due to their pacifying influence on the proletariat while still acting within the structure of the capitalist system.


WonkeyDong said:


> the whole premise of punishing the rich never worked due to the fact they just left the country


Why do you think that so many of the more extreme leftists favor a world government?


----------



## Cosmos (Apr 12, 2016)

RepQuest said:


> Labor movements were current to his time and he hated them because he thought that they would impede the revolution due to their pacifying influence on the proletariat while still acting within the structure of the capitalist system.



Yeah, that's right. He also saw socialism as just a "stepping stone" to communism.

Also, a lot of communists will point out that technically, communism has never actually existed. Communism is essentially anarchy, where society is classless, stateless, and moneyless. Socialism is meant to provide a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. To Marx, a socialist state is where the means and ends of production are owned by the people, controlled through the state. Eventually, due to the high production levels of the society, everyone would have enough to live happily, and no control by any higher echelons would be exerted.

Of course, we all know what actually happens during this "socialist" stage because we've seen it happen with the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea. Those in the government don't _want_ to actually become communist because it means giving up their power, authority, and privileges. Thus we get nightmare totalitarian dystopias, because the government currently has all the power and will do whatever is necessary to keep it, even if it means killing thousands of their own citizens. 

It doesn't even matter whether communist countries were actually communist or not; we know from history that any attempts to try to implement communism results in warfare, famine, poverty, genocide, corruption, the absence of the most basic human rights (especially freedom of speech), and intense propaganda. I consider myself to be an optimist, and I believe that most people are inherently good, but even I can see that Marx's communist ideals are completely unobtainable.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 12, 2016)

RepQuest said:


> Labor movements were current to his time and he hated them because he thought that they would impede the revolution due to their pacifying influence on the proletariat while still acting within the structure of the capitalist system.


I will say that I think that he didn't see the strength of unions in the late 20th century coming though
But then again considering that the unions collapsed I think he may have been right on that


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (Apr 13, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> Yeah, that's right. He also saw socialism as just a "stepping stone" to communism.


This was actually used as an attempt to keep people calm in former communist states. People were fully aware that the promised prosperity isn't actually there, so the ruling party would just say "oh don't worry, we're not truly communist yet but we're getting there!" - so Communist Poland (as well as the many others) was explicitly referred to as a "socialist nation on the way towards communism" - communism was simply seen as an ideal, a goal. Of course an unachievable one, as part of the ruling party was simply delusional how unworkable it is, while another part never wanted any of this utopian bullshit in the first place and just wanted power.
A lot of Westerners I've talked to actually find the latter idea completely baffling because their nations have not been under any vile occupying force like that for a long time. I firmly believe that Lenin and his comrades never wanted peace love and equality and just used it as a way to control people. A lot of people say that the concept of "evil" doesn't really apply to the real world, but I really wouldn't know any other way to call the founders of communism.


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

Dr. Tremolo said:


> This was actually used as an attempt to keep people calm in former communist states. People were fully aware that the promised prosperity isn't actually there, so the ruling party would just say "oh don't worry, we're not truly communist yet but we're getting there!" - so Communist Poland (as well as the many others) was explicitly referred to as a "socialist nation on the way towards communism" - communism was simply seen as an ideal, a goal. Of course an unachievable one, as part of the ruling party was simply delusional how unworkable it is, while another part never wanted any of this utopian bullshit in the first place and just wanted power.
> A lot of Westerners I've talked to actually find the latter idea completely baffling because their nations have not been under any vile occupying force like that for a long time. I firmly believe that Lenin and his comrades never wanted peace love and equality and just used it as a way to control people. A lot of people say that the concept of "evil" doesn't really apply to the real world, but I really wouldn't know any other way to call the founders of communism.


I agree with this very much, anyone willing to execute the tsar's children for the crimes of their father never had anything but control in mind. They were killed to prevent a pretender rising in the future to challenge the new order, not to speed along the communist dream.

People who shoot children for being born into the wrong family absolutely merit the term 'evil'.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> I agree with this very much, anyone willing to execute the tsar's children for the crimes of their father never had anything but control in mind. They were killed to prevent a pretender rising in the future to challenge the new order, not to speed along the communist dream.
> 
> People who shoot children for being born into the wrong family absolutely merit the term 'evil'.


I will not go as far as to say that it is intrinsically wrong but I do think that from a marxist or liberal perspective it is wrong and thus the Red Army were hypocrites


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I will not go as far as to say that it is intrinsically wrong but I do think that from a marxist or liberal perspective it is wrong and thus the Red Army were hypocrites


I would be interested to hear in what context the execution of children, who have committed no crime, is justified.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> I would be interested to hear in what context the execution of children, who have committed no crime, is justified.


If someone is an assassin who kills in order to support their children and the only response by government is to imprison or execute them then they will still be better off from having been an assassin because their children are alive from it. As a result it means that there is no deterrent effect from the punishment. Rehabilitative justice can only have an effect if the criminal is acting irrationally and in this case it was completely rational to commit the crimes (unless by rehabilitation you mean something more like a clockwork orange which has potential problems with infringing upon peoples autonomy as well as effectiveness issues). I would consider prohibition of this to be a fundamental flaw of liberalism because it means that liberal individualism can only function when everyone acts irrationally (or at least a vast majority)


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> liberal individualism can only function when everyone acts irrationally (or at least a vast majority)


I love you ADK, but if they ever cure autism you will see that most people do act irrationally most of the time which is largely how our society functions. 

there are more grounds to execution than mere retribution, the mind disturbed enough to murder in serial will not be deterred, regardless of consequence the execution is for the victims catharsis and as a preventative of future murder.


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (Apr 13, 2016)

Let's not forget that Lenin-era USSR even had a whole scientific doctrine dedicated to justifying going after the descendands of old bourgeoisie - if you know what Lysenkoism is, that's the thing.
They knew insisting that chopping of rat tails will bring tailles rats was bullshit, but the doctrine existed to justify persecution of the aforementioned descendants as if their bourgeoisie was genetic. They had to either appoint total hacks as scientists or intimidate the real ones, but no wonder it fell because even that was too much of bullshit to uphold.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> I love you ADK, but if they ever cure autism you will see that most people do act irrationally most of the time which is largely how our society functions.


I know that most people act irrationally but that doesn't mean that we should exclusively enforce the law against them and not enforce against rational people. Likewise we shouldn't enforce the law against rational and irrational people differently because it would simply create an incentive for rational people to either pretend to be irrational or give themselves brain damage so that they can get what they know is preferential treatment. Additionally with increasing education it will become much harder to keep the hedonistic illusion of contemporary society alive


Vitriol said:


> there are more grounds to execution than mere retribution


I did not say retribution, I said deterrence. Retribution is a separate strategy (although I think that is is just sloppy deterrence), retribution is an eye for an eye and deterrence is a system that causes the criminal to be worse off from committing a crime such that if they are acting rationally they wouldn't commit it. 


Vitriol said:


> the mind disturbed enough to murder in serial will not be deterred


I didn't say a serial killer I said an assassin who kills solely for money


Vitriol said:


> regardless of consequence the execution is for the victims catharsis


I completely agree which is why we need to kill the entire family or at least enough of it that the criminal is worse off


Vitriol said:


> as a preventative of future murder.


Do you mean that it is preventative because the killed person cannot kill again because I was specifically saying that the execution of the family would mean that future assassins would know that there is a reason for them not to commit crimes.


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> Do you mean that it is preventative because the killed person cannot kill again because I was specifically saying that the execution of the family would mean that future assassins would know that there is a reason for them not to commit crimes.


future assassin's won't be deterred because that is the nature of men who kill professionally. 

The victims right to vengeance cannot extend to the family of the initial perpertrator because then one ends up in an ouroboros of violent feuding. We know this because the system you are advocating is the heart of the weregild system that has failed every time it has been implemented.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> future assassin's won't be deterred because that is the nature of men who kill professionally.


Is that actually the nature of professional killers? Assuming that they just got into it randomly and receive no joy from killing (maybe even dislike it but do it because they need money) then they would be deterred. 





Vitriol said:


> The victims right to vengeance cannot extend to the family of the initial perpertrator because then one ends up in an ouroboros of violent feuding. We know this because the system you are advocating is the heart of the weregild system that has failed every time it has been implemented.


What I am advocating is inspired by the weregeld but unlike the weregeld is a deterrent system as opposed to a restorative system. There is no compensation forthe victim inherent in the system (but probably if property was confiscated then it should go to the victim and not the police in order to avoid the moral hazard of police being incentivized to have convictions). You say that it failed every time that it was implemented but the Rashidun Caliphate would be a counterexample and I am not aware that it actually failed in the Early Middle Ages so much as was replaced due to cultural shifts (which are not necessarily positive in nature) as the roman empire started to be viewed more positively


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> What I am advocating is inspired by the weregeld but unlike the weregeld is a deterrent system as opposed to a restorative system. There is no compensation forthe victim inherent in the system (but probably if property was confiscated then it should go to the victim and not the police in order to avoid the moral hazard of police being incentivized to have convictions). You say that it failed every time that it was implemented but the Rashidun Caliphate would be a counterexample and I am not aware that it actually failed in the Early Middle Ages so much as was replaced due to cultural shifts (which are not necessarily positive in nature) as the roman empire started to be viewed more positively


it actively failed here in scotland to the point it caused several wars as it got completely out of hand. The same is true in england.  The deterrent vs  restorative aspect of weregild is just where the money ends up- the state or the victim the core aspect of imposing a penalty on the family as a whole remains the same and it doesnt work.

 We can't even be sure it worked well in the rashidun claiphate whose legal records have been revised and romanticised to such an extent they are very difficult to analyse today however we can notice that its application is at least in part the cause of the civil wars that  split first mohammed's tribe and then the caliphate.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> it actively failed here in scotland to the point it caused several wars as it got completely out of hand. The same is true in england.  The deterrent vs  restorative aspect of weregild is just where the money ends up- the state or the victim the core aspect of imposing a penalty on the family as a whole remains the same and it doesnt work.
> 
> We can't even be sure it worked well in the rashidun claiphate whose legal records have been revised and romanticised to such an extent they are very difficult to analyse today however we can notice that its application is at least in part the cause of the civil wars that  split first mohammed's tribe and then the caliphate.


I never knew that there was a weregeld in scotland. The weregeld is very different from blood feuds because it is judicial in nature and as such although incompatible with equality before the law it is compatible with due process. It is often credited as having stopped the tribal wars because it allowed peaceful resolution of intertribal conflicts and having facilitated the conquest of the Sassanids and the Byzantines


----------



## Vitriol (Apr 13, 2016)

autisticdragonkin said:


> I never knew that there was a weregeld in scotland. The weregeld is very different from blood feuds because it is judicial in nature and as such although incompatible with equality before the law it is compatible with due process. It is often credited as having stopped the tribal wars because it allowed peaceful resolution of intertribal conflicts and having facilitated the conquest of the Sassanids and the Byzantines


the Byzantines and the Sassanids used it in concert with an active effort to assimilate and undermine tribal powers. It did work well very well in that context. Something similar was used by the British in Africa, India and Arabia- it works very well in settling disputes between minor  bodies politic where there is an imperial power actively trying to assimilate said body.

In Scotland it was applied to a less politic scale and was a disaster as families naturally hold cohesion in a way that larger tribes do not. The practice continued here and in Ireland for longer than the rest of Western Europe ( well into the 17th century) and it is not a coincidence that feuding was a major problem in both countries that only stopped when more modern forms of justice that did not involve the family as a whole were implemented.


----------



## TowinKarz (Apr 13, 2016)

Anyone who thinks vigilantism is the way to go should remember the kind of "system" we had before THE System we love to bash for being too soft came along.....  it exists to remove the personal stake in punishing criminals because victims can't always be trusted to be impartial and fair, while the accused can't be trusted to not hold a grudge/be a sore loser.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (Apr 13, 2016)

Vitriol said:


> In Scotland it was applied to a less politic scale and was a disaster as families naturally hold cohesion in a way that larger tribes do not. The practice continued here and in Ireland for longer than the rest of Western Europe ( well into the 17th century) and it is not a coincidence that feuding was a major problem in both countries that only stopped when more modern forms of justice that did not involve the family as a whole were implemented.


Please elaborate and provide links
Are you saying that the accountability for the entire tribe was the bad thing of accountability for smaller families


TowinKarz said:


> Anyone who thinks vigilantism is the way to go should remember the kind of "system" we had before THE System we love to bash for being too soft came along.....  it exists to remove the personal stake in punishing criminals because victims can't always be trusted to be impartial and fair, while the accused can't be trusted to not hold a grudge/be a sore loser.


I am not advocating vigilantism I am just advocating fines and a distributed form of legal accountability depending on blood relations

What do you mean by removing the personal stake anyways? I understand the dispute over what should be done with the money collected from the fines (I don't think that police should get it because that would cause corrpution, I think that probably there should be some compensation to victims of crimes but I propose that a value be placed on what the victim loses from a crime and if a fine is collected then they will be entitled up to that value from the fine and the rest will be given to the central bank)

The accused won't hold a grudge because everything was resolved in court, if they do then it would be irrational and if they act on it then the government (not the previous accuser) will take action like it did before


----------



## The Great Chandler (May 2, 2016)

In Capitalism, it's about working hard. In Communism, the government does stuff for you, but it didn't work out well.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 22, 2016)

I think that the reason for communism failing is mostly value driven rather than practical driven and it is socially optimal (or at least the nordic model is socially optimal)


----------



## TowinKarz (May 22, 2016)

Communism (not socialism) fails primarily because the massive centralized power needed to forcibly collectivize society is always taken over by power hungry assholes who then do whatever it takes to stay that way.    It's one of those ideologies that only works if everyone behaves in an ideal way, that is, there is NO corruption.  That just doesn't happen.


----------



## autisticdragonkin (May 22, 2016)

TowinKarz said:


> Communism (not socialism) fails primarily because the massive centralized power needed to forcibly collectivize society is always taken over by power hungry assholes who then do whatever it takes to stay that way.    It's one of those ideologies that only works if everyone behaves in an ideal way, that is, there is NO corruption.  That just doesn't happen.


I was talking about communism which is the aspiration of socialism (the transitionary state). The USSR was socialist.

I think that it is better to say that everyone shares their interest with that of society rather than everyone behaves in an ideal way because there are ways of being quite confrontational while still behaving in an "ideal way" such as game theory


----------



## Tranhuviya (May 23, 2016)

What irks me about Communism is that it has no respect for what has come before, and is dead-set on wiping it out. The Khmer Rouge declaring the Year Zero, the Cultural Revolution, Tibet's oppression and the suppression of Cantonese are all examples. The communist has *no past*, he has nothing to draw from - he is essentially a newly created being. And just as often those with no past, have no future. 

They cannot appreciate the work of his forefathers, cannot admire their cultural heroes, and cannot share their cultural stories- because the communist has none.


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (May 23, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> What irks me about Communism is that it has no respect for what has come before, and is dead-set on wiping it out. The Khmer Rouge declaring the Year Zero, the Cultural Revolution, Tibet's oppression and the suppression of Cantonese are all examples. The communist has *no past*, he has nothing to draw from - he is essentially a newly created being. And just as often those with no past, have no future.
> 
> They cannot appreciate the work of his forefathers, cannot admire their cultural heroes, and cannot share their cultural stories- because the communist has none.


And yet ironically, communism can only exist on the carcass of an already established society.
A communist state can only get as good as it was before the revolution (or occupation) because communism doesn't produce anything by itself. It's a parasitic ideology. Sure, the USSR did have computers and stuff but they were more often than not shoddy knockoffs of Western tech that wouldn't exist without it.
Why were the Baltic states better off than the rest of the USSR? Because they were better off than the USSR before WW2. Why were the Soviet satellites better off than the USSR? Because they were also better off than the USSR before WW2 (then there was the fact that they were slightly more free than the USSR, but the point stands). Here's a little picture. Notice a pattern?




We did have quite a bit of culture during the communist days of course but I always stand that it was generated IN SPITE of communism.


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (May 23, 2016)

Dr. Tremolo said:


> And yet ironically, communism can only exist on the carcass of an already established society.


To be fair a lot of economic systems require this kind of base to work off of. You can't just create something without building the scaffold that will hold it up until you're done and a state is no different.


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (May 23, 2016)

Phil Ken Sebben said:


> To be fair a lot of economic systems require this kind of base to work off of. You can't just create something without building the scaffold that will hold it up until you're done and a state is no different.


There's a difference between that and having to outright hijack a society. At very best, communism stagnates the overtaken economy with little development at all but usually it uses up the pre-communist wealth until the system inevitably falls.
Sorry if I'm not putting it well into words because to me it's one of those things so obvious I paradoxicallly have a hard time explaining it. Bottom line the communist system is unfathomably inept, and I've never even had to live under it to know it.


----------



## AnOminous (May 23, 2016)

Dr. Tremolo said:


> And yet ironically, communism can only exist on the carcass of an already established society.



Not necessarily a better one, though.

So far as I know, there has not been a single successful Marxist-Leninist or Maoist-style Communist revolution in a modern, industrialized, capitalist society.  (Gee, I wonder why that would be. . .)


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (May 23, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> Not necessarily a better one, though.
> 
> So far as I know, there has not been a single successful Marxist-Leninist or Maoist-style Communist revolution in a modern, industrialized, capitalist society.  (Gee, I wonder why that would be. . .)


I don't disagree. But as I've mentioned too it can also be imposed by force through occupation.
This reminds me of something I find quite amusing. Pretty much everyone that had communist rule forced upon them hates the Russians' guts for obvious reasons while so many Russians fondly remember the USSR because it was strong or something. We then often get accused of resentment because "we owned you, deal with it". Now this is funny because as I had mentioned the non-USSR communist entities were better places to live than the glorious occupying mother Russia. So you're mostly oppressing yourself, Ivan.
Yeah, in many ways modern Russia is worse than the Soviet Union but cause and effect is a bitch.


----------



## Phil Ken Sebben (May 23, 2016)

Dr. Tremolo said:


> There's a difference between that and having to outright hijack a society. At very best, communism stagnates the overtaken economy with little development at all but usually it uses up the pre-communist wealth until the system inevitably falls.
> Sorry if I'm not putting it well into words because to me it's one of those things so obvious I paradoxicallly have a hard time explaining it. Bottom line the communist system is unfathomably inept, and I've never even had to live under it to know it.


You'll get no argument from me that Communism is not the answer. Capitalism, with all it's myriad faults, is still the best economic system out there. Any other one you want to mention comes with it's own problems which outweigh the benefits. 

Besides here's the thing, if Communism worked and I mean truly worked, we'd be seeing a lot more countries out there who are Communist. Fact is, even the biggest "communist" countries are moving towards free markets. Even North Korea has it's own "special economic zone" where businesses are able to open to manufacture goods for both North Korea and through South Korea, the rest of the world. 

Fact is the world needs money and until somebody comes up with a way that we don't need money to survive where everybody benefits from it, we're always going to need money.


----------



## Dr. Tremolo (May 24, 2016)

Phil Ken Sebben said:


> Besides here's the thing, if Communism worked and I mean truly worked, we'd be seeing a lot more countries out there who are Communist.


Exactly. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it can certainly work. Communism has pretty much a 100% failure rate.
There's a reason why countries are not adopting communism voluntarily and it can be only established either by violent revolutions in desperate societies, or conquest.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (May 25, 2016)

Lugal said:


> I think communism of some sort could work in a future post-scarcity society. But at this point that's just science fiction. Even Lenin recognized the need for some market involvement with the New Economic Plan.


What was the batshit crazy thing Postteenager from the tumblr subforum advocated for? Post something luxury communism?


----------



## Shokew (May 25, 2016)

Tumblr has ruined a concept that wasn't feasible, due to how easy it is for it to fall apart, completely. Business as usual, then. Been enjoying the conversation, otherwise, fellow Kiwis...

... And these compliments are coming from someone wouldn't mind seeing America adapt more socialist policies toward things that should not be as badly priced as they are, like education and healthcare, which are meant to be commodities, not fodder for corporations to abuse and ruin like they're doing now in the US.

That's what I mean by wanting America to be more accepting of (limited) socialism (through harder & stronger taxation to benefit these much needed public utilities (healthcare and education) which should not, nor ever have, been privatized in the first place...) in the future - if only so future generations don't suffer like we have and still are. 

My take - we can't get rid of capitalism. But we could use some socialism when it comes to public (mass) utilities that the people need to ensure society not only survives, but evolves into something worth preserving!

Communism won't do any of that - and these Tumblrfucks who do want it? They'll be the first targets if things get ugly at any point, like lack of food and supplies, etc.


----------



## Takayuki Yagami (May 25, 2016)

Dr. Tremolo said:


> Let's not forget that Lenin-era USSR even had a whole scientific doctrine dedicated to justifying going after the descendands of old bourgeoisie - if you know what Lysenkoism is, that's the thing.
> They knew insisting that chopping of rat tails will bring tailles rats was bullshit, but the doctrine existed to justify persecution of the aforementioned descendants as if their bourgeoisie was genetic. They had to either appoint total hacks as scientists or intimidate the real ones, but no wonder it fell because even that was too much of bullshit to uphold.


Which in turn made all of their famines and epidemics far worse, because they refused to modernize farms.


----------



## AnOminous (May 25, 2016)

Shokew said:


> That's what I mean by wanting America to be more accepting of (limited) socialism (through harder & stronger taxation to benefit these much needed public utilities (healthcare and education) which should not, nor ever have, been privatized in the first place...) in the future - if only so future generations don't suffer like we have and still are.



The House of Representatives, Constitutionally the sole origin of all revenue raising measures, is solidly in the control of Republicans, who refuse to even fix bridges that are falling down and are allowing even basic public infrastructure to degenerate to the level of a third world country.


----------



## Shokew (May 25, 2016)

AnOminous said:


> The House of Representatives, Constitutionally the sole origin of all revenue raising measures, is solidly in the control of Republicans, who refuse to even fix bridges that are falling down and are allowing even basic public infrastructure to degenerate to the level of a third world country.



It should be obvious  by now that they (the GOP) expect the corporations to fix it for them. Either that, or slave labor. A little socialist policy enacted against such BS would do wonders for the US
... at least in my honest opinion.


----------



## Shokew (Dec 3, 2016)

I think this is a good starting point for the argument I'm trying to make - I'm not a fan of capitalism myself, but with how it (and how things like Socialism and Communism are used as facades for fascism in places like Russia and China) have been abused, is / was there a good side to any of these mediums? Or am I just talking crazy, because I thought this was a good video to post of a bunch of idiots getting schooled by a capitalist???


----------



## HarryHowler (Dec 3, 2016)

Capitalism and socialism both have commendable aspects, but neither one really works in their pure form, since with the former the people on the lower end of society will eventually get annoyed (sometimes violently so) at people at the top saying "fuck the poor," whereas the latter has proven time and again that it can't produce a stable economy. I'd say that a 70-30 or so mix of capitalism and socialism probably works best in producing functional societies.

Communism on the other hand, is clearly an ideology created by a bunch of fucking lunatics. That is all that needs to be said.


----------



## Bassomatic (Dec 3, 2016)

Be default a communist or socialist system needs the powers that fall to fascist powers, because the state directly controls everything economic and day to day affairs. A lot of places that are hailed as proof communism works are really even more economically free than some of the most aggressive growth nations. Then you start factoring in population etc etc.

Both fields, have their own stand points and people tend to list unrelated things as failings, ie bank bail outs a fault of capitalism, when if you knew what that word meant you'd know it's farthest from such. 

Both systems have 100+ sub splits it feels like and a few larger break downs. Then you start to get into the weird, pseudo ideas of can you call X system this because Y so is a Keyeisan economic model even really capitalism etc etc.

The video linked while factually correct, is pretty cherry picking, while I agree with Shiff and he's not dishonest, it's really not hard to beat people who bought into a media buzz word and use that as a basis of a reasoning/mindset. The people he's talking to are the mental equal to someone who bought a new pick up truck, because it's blue and blue is a good color, so it's a good truck.

With no disrespect if you want to learn that's great but you open with a pretty bold statement of "I don't like capitalism", that's fine and you are entitled to such, but it's pretty silly to say that and not back it up. I'm not demanding you to post an essay, (if you want by all means) but if you think something is flawed and willing to say it you should have some reasons. You expanded your issues with a more socialized system just fine.

The happy medium you want, well it's going to be different in every country really. If I applied how China works to a T to say, Portugaul they would be in deeper water than they are now, and vice versa. So when you start hearing people bark about X country can do it why can't we?!?! Perfect example, people say Japan has a much better internet than the US. We have literal states bigger than all of Japan. Infrastructure matters. As with most things in economics apples to apples often means nothing.


----------



## Sperglord Dante (Dec 3, 2016)

HarryHowler said:


> Capitalism and socialism both have commendable aspects, but neither one really works in their pure form, since with the former the people on the lower end of society will eventually get annoyed (sometimes violently so) at people at the top saying "fuck the poor," whereas the latter has proven time and again that it can't produce a stable economy. I'd say that a 70-30 or so mix of capitalism and socialism probably works best in producing functional societies.


Pretty much. Capitalism is a good main frame, because it's the system that has served humanity the best when it comes to producing energy, clothing, food and infrastructure as well as advancing technological, medical and scientific knowledge. But it's also a system that's clearly geared to help the few which just happens to benefit the many indirectly. That's why a bit socialism is good too. After all, what's the point of developing new and better medicine/technology/whatever if the people that need it the most will never have acces to it?


----------



## Henry Bemis (Dec 3, 2016)

If there was a totally fair sociopolitical system, it would be the only sociopolitical system. But there is not only one, alas.


----------



## Tranhuviya (Dec 3, 2016)

A socialism of a national character has always seemed ideal to me. One that preserves the rights to inheritance and property, while bringing under legislative control or at least legislative oversight the means of production. Not a change of ownership, but administration.

As Spengler said in his seminal Prussianism and Socialism:



> For conservatives, there is only conscious socialism or destruction.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Dec 3, 2016)

Tranhuviya said:


> A socialism of a national character has always seemed ideal to me.



Sadly an inbred Austrian Corporal who would eat Meth-laced Bull Testicles to cure his Parkinson's Disease made that idea unpopular.


----------



## Lackadaisy (Dec 3, 2016)

"How does it feel to take human life?"

"I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed communists."


----------



## Shokew (Dec 3, 2016)

ICametoLurk said:


> Sadly an inbred Austrian Corporal who would eat Meth-laced Bull Testicles to cure his Parkinson's Disease made that idea unpopular.



Who is this man? And why do I feel like shouting at his grave right now?


----------



## Beaniebon (Dec 3, 2016)

Pure capitalism and pure socialism don't work. A mix of both seem to function the best. 

Communism can only work in small villages/tribes (by that I mean like way back in the past before large civilizations).


----------



## Grog (Dec 3, 2016)

Shokew said:


> and how things like Socialism and Communism are used as facades for fascism in places like Russia and China



That's not really true though, authoritarianism doesn't automatically equal facsism. In fact communism explicitly needs an authoritarian governement to exist, the bourgeois aren't just going to give up their riches to the working class. That's why AnCom is an autistic joke.


----------



## Holdek (Dec 3, 2016)

Shokew said:


> I think this is a good starting point for the argument I'm trying to make - I'm not a fan of capitalism myself, but with how it (and how things like Socialism and Communism are used as facades for fascism in places like Russia and China) have been abused, is / was there a good side to any of these mediums? Or am I just talking crazy, because I thought this was a good video to post of a bunch of idiots getting schooled by a capitalist???



OP you were the last post here: Communism (split from tumblr). 

Can a mod please merge the threads?

*Edit:* Also maybe with this one for a nice big commie megathread: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/radical-politics.4103/


----------

