Communism General

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dyn said:
Communism is a good system because it has empathy, unlike capitalism.
Click to expand...
that's so true and it's refreshing seeing different and diverse voices hit their spotlight instead of the endless barrage of anti communist hate rhetoric spewed by hateful people. And it is true, communism is the only system that prioritizes people over money.
 
The Commisar gives a political lecture to the rank and file soldiers: "...And now we are on our glorious way to the shining horizons of Communism!"

"How did it go?", Chapayev asks Petka afterwards. "Exciting!... but unclear. What the hell is a horizon?"
"See Petka, it is a line you may see far away in the steppe when the weather is good. And it's a tricky one – no matter how long you ride towards it, you'll never reach it. You'll only wear down your horse."
 
Austrian Conscript 1915 said:
that's so true and it's refreshing seeing different and diverse voices hit their spotlight instead of the endless barrage of anti communist hate rhetoric spewed by hateful people. And it is true, communism is the only system that prioritizes people over money.
Click to expand...
Anarchism also prioritises people over money but with all due to respect to anarchists I don't think that system works very well outside of very small communities that's why I think communism is a better system.
 
CoolCat19 said:
I believe that the best political-economical stance would be for Social Liberalism -> Nordic Model.
Click to expand...

The reason why the Nordic Model worked is because those countries only had Nordic people. I am using the past tense here because these systems quickly became unsustainable after they allowed unemployable douchebags from durka-durka-stan and somalia to live in these places.
 
CoolCat19 said:
Buddy calm down, if you want to discuss Communism, equality and progressive ideas you need to calm down a bit and do some research.

Even to say you dislike something you need to do some research before.
Click to expand...
Only thing you need to know about Communism is that worst murderers in history did it in name of it. Giving it first place as most murderours ideology So far Soudruhu.
 
The only truly Communist places on earth are tribes people on the Andaman Islands and in the Amazon rainforest. They live communally but they are fully occupied with just trying to survive, Marx called this primitive Communism. There is a whole thing Marx gets into about Historical Materialism how with farming we gained time for a priest class to kick back and think about theology and develop writing and mathematics and then you had projects like the pyramids under the courvee system where the subjects of god kings built wonders like the pyramids to honour their gods. And then you had the slave trade develop in Greece as the tough farming land made it necessary to look outwards across the Mediterranean for trade and slaves were a big commodity. Greek civilization was in a unique position to advance itself as it had a labour force to do all the arduous work while free citizens could be free to explore other pursuits. This is really the corner stone of western civilization as we know it began. The Roman Empire perfected the slave trade even further and their new conquests were mass slave hunts which gave the Romans a labour force to built its roads and aqueducts which as infrastructure projects would not be rivalled until the Industrial Revolution. Slavery was a horrible institution but it also freed the whole of humanity for there to be time for free citizens to expand on human knowledge in the first place. It’s horrible but where would be now if not for slavery?

Feudalism was the predominant system throughout the Middle Ages, you lived under the protection of a lord, giving him your surplus crops and paying tithes to the church. Then the plague happened and 1/3 of Europe was wiped out. Those who survived had the new option to start selling their labour instead as their labour was more valuable and in
higher demand. Mercantilism flourished with families like the Medicis becoming very powerful and they could now pay people
in coins for their labour. This meant more ordinary people were buying goods and mercantilism was developing. As capitalism began to grow it challenged old titles and institutions. There was the Gutenberg press which allowed for mass production of reading and new ideas, a schism in the Church and bloody civil war between Protestants and Catholics once again shook up old institutions and brought about feelings of skepticism in religious dogma. The enlightenment birthed ideas like separation of church and state and overthrowing the rule of kings. Capitalism and the Bourgeoisie set the material conditions in place for this transfer of power away from Monarchic tyrannies to Democratic Republics.

When Napoleons armies blockaded Great Britain there was an urgent need to mechanize farming. The British were successful at attaining self sufficiency through industrialization. However this meant that after the Napoleonic Wars the farms were no longer regarded as the commons as they had been for centuries. The land could now be bought and fenced off to the people who had subsisted on it for generations. A new class emerged of landless workers who had no choice but to move to the cities to start selling their labour in the factories of capitalist owners. These workers were powerless and ruthlessly exploited since there were no laws protecting them like weekends and eight hour days not to mention child labour laws.

“It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next.”

Dickens was writing about the same conditions as Karl Marx. And writing about London in the 1850’s no city of this magnitude had existed since Rome with its vast networks of plumbing and infrastructure only now it didn’t require slave armies to build it. Marx observed that Capitalism had achieved extraordinary success in revolutionizing productive capabilities to new heights and that the Bourgoesie were at the cutting edge of constantly revolutionizing production and as a result the whole relations of society as well.

It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.

The evolution from feudalism to capitalism took centuries to develop but with the remarkably productive forces of industrialization Marx introduced the theory that there would be another evolution where the workers take control of the productive forces and the state. Down the road in a utopian sense this would lead humans to return to their natural state of communism only without having to live in a primitive state to enjoy a classless society.

This is a lot of writing but I drank two pots of coffee today and felt compelled. I find the historical materialist analysis given by Marx to be helpful to understanding the groundwork for communism and where it fits into human development maybe it’s not our destiny but in my opinion it’s not that Communism wasn’t implemented correctly as some like to say it’s more that Communists attempted unrealistically to achieve all of these lofty goals and do too much too quickly and forcefully by trying to act as the agent of change with disastrous results. The planned economies of the USSR and other Communist countries also lacked the data to move goods to where they needed to go. Today however thorough data collection Walmart and Amazon are the largest planned economies in their own right. So what if Capitalists have in fact laid the groundwork for some sort of highly efficient planned economic socialist system and privatized it. There’s this thing from the world economic forum a big gathering of industry leaders and so on and one of the big themes with the great reset was you will own nothing and be happy. This sounds oddly like some weird version of big tech capitalist collectivization where you pay rent for everything instead and are effectively made into a serf in a smart city. The thing with owning private property that people get confused with communism is that it doesn’t mean you own nothing it means no individuals own an entire state industry producing some essential good like energy for example.
 
Last edited:
Dyn said:
Killing nazis in a war isn't murder.
Click to expand...
It's crazy how much brainwashing the Americans had to receive to believe just that. Bombarded with anti-german propaganda for years, a lot of them thought they were fighting literal monsters. It had to be like that though, because most Americans were Germans at that time and they didn't want to get involved, rightfully so.

Meanwhile the Germans viewed Americans as normal guys, brothers, caught up in something they didn't understand.

Letter to Steven Spielberg (RE: Saving Private Ryan) from a Waffen-SS veteran​

...
My final comment concerns the depictions of the shooting of German
POWs immediately after a fire fight. A perusal of American World War
II literature indicates that such incidents were much more common
than is generally admitted, and more often than not, such
transgressions against the laws of war and chivalry are often or
usually excused, "because the GIs got mad at the Germans who had just
killed one of their dearest comrades".

In other words, the anger and the war crime following it was both
understandable and, ipso facto excusable. In "Private Ryan" you seem
to agree with this stance since you permit only one of the soldiers,
namely, the acknowledged coward, to say that one does not shoot enemy
soldiers who had put down their arms.

As a former German soldier I can assure you that among us we did not
have this, what I would call, un-Aryan mindset.

I remember well, when in January of 1945 we sat together with ten
captured Americans after a fierce battle, and the GIs were genuinely
surprised that we treated them almost as buddies, without rancor.

If you want to know why, I can tell you. We had not suffered from
years of anti-enemy hate propaganda, as was the case with American
and British soldiers whose basic sense of chivalry had often (but not
always) been dulled by watching too many anti-German war movies
usually made by your brethren.

(For your information: I never saw even one anti-American war movie--
there were no more Jewish directors at the UFA studios.)

Sincerely,
Hans Schmidt
Click to expand...
 
Maxxicus Callahan said:
The only truly Communist places on earth are tribes people on the Andaman Islands and in the Amazon rainforest. They live communally but they are fully occupied with just trying to survive, Marx called this primitive Communism. There is a whole thing Marx gets into about Historical Materialism how with farming we gained time for a priest class to kick back and think about theology and develop writing and mathematics and then you had projects like the pyramids under the courvee system where the subjects of god kings built wonders like the pyramids to honour their gods. And then you had the slave trade develop in Greece as the tough farming land made it necessary to look outwards across the Mediterranean for trade and slaves were a big commodity. Greek civilization was in a unique position to advance itself as it had a labour force to do all the arduous work while free citizens could be free to explore other pursuits. This is really the corner stone of western civilization as we know it began. The Roman Empire perfected the slave trade even further and their new conquests were mass slave hunts which gave the Romans a labour force to built its roads and aqueducts which as infrastructure projects would not be rivalled until the Industrial Revolution. Slavery was a horrible institution but it also freed the whole of humanity for there to be time for free citizens to expand on human knowledge in the first place. It’s horrible but where would be now if not for slavery?

Feudalism was the predominant system throughout the Middle Ages, you lived under the protection of a lord, giving him your surplus crops and paying tithes to the church. Then the plague happened and 1/3 of Europe was wiped out. Those who survived had the new option to start selling their labour instead as their labour was more valuable and in
higher demand. Mercantilism flourished with families like the Medicis becoming very powerful and they could now pay people
in coins for their labour. This meant more ordinary people were buying goods and mercantilism was developing. As capitalism began to grow it challenged old titles and institutions. There was the Gutenberg press which allowed for mass production of reading and new ideas, a schism in the Church and bloody civil war between Protestants and Catholics once again shook up old institutions and brought about feelings of skepticism in religious dogma. The enlightenment birthed ideas like separation of church and state and overthrowing the rule of kings. Capitalism and the Bourgeoisie set the material conditions in place for this transfer of power away from Monarchic tyrannies to Democratic Republics.

When Napoleons armies blockaded Great Britain there was an urgent need to mechanize farming. The British were successful at attaining self sufficiency through industrialization. However this meant that after the Napoleonic Wars the farms were no longer regarded as the commons as they had been for centuries. The land could now be bought and fenced off to the people who had subsisted on it for generations. A new class emerged of landless workers who had no choice but to move to the cities to start selling their labour in the factories of capitalist owners. These workers were powerless and ruthlessly exploited since there were no laws protecting them like weekends and eight hour days not to mention child labour laws.

“It was a town of machinery and tall chimneys, out of which interminable serpents of smoke trailed themselves for ever and ever, and never got uncoiled. It had a black canal and a river that ran purple with ill-smelling dye, and vast piles of building full of windows where there was a rattling and a trembling all day long, and where the piston of the steam-engine worked monotonously up and down, like the head of an elephant in a state of melancholy madness. It contained several large streets all very like one another, and many small streets still more like one another, inhabited by people equally like one another, who all went in and out at the same hours, with the same sound upon the same pavements, to do the same work, and to whom every day was the same as yesterday and to-morrow, and every year the counterpart of the last and the next.”

Dickens was writing about the same conditions as Karl Marx. And writing about London in the 1850’s no city of this magnitude had existed since Rome with its vast networks of plumbing and infrastructure only now it didn’t require slave armies to build it. Marx observed that Capitalism had achieved extraordinary success in revolutionizing productive capabilities to new heights and that the Bourgoesie were at the cutting edge of constantly revolutionizing production and as a result the whole relations of society as well.

It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.

The evolution from feudalism to capitalism took centuries to develop but with the remarkably productive forces of industrialization Marx introduced the theory that there would be another evolution where the workers take control of the productive forces and the state. Down the road in a utopian sense this would lead humans to return to their natural state of communism only without having to live in a primitive state to enjoy a classless society.

This is a lot of writing but I drank two pots of coffee today and felt compelled. I find the historical materialist analysis given by Marx to be helpful to understanding the groundwork for communism and where it fits into human development maybe it’s not our destiny but in my opinion it’s not that Communism wasn’t implemented correctly as some like to say it’s more that Communists attempted unrealistically to achieve all of these lofty goals and do too much too quickly and forcefully by trying to act as the agent of change with disastrous results. The planned economies of the USSR and other Communist countries also lacked the data to move goods to where they needed to go. Today however thorough data collection Walmart and Amazon are the largest planned economies in their own right. So what if Capitalists have in fact laid the groundwork for some sort of highly efficient planned economic socialist system and privatized it. There’s this thing from the world economic forum a big gathering of industry leaders and so on and one of the big themes with the great reset was you will own nothing and be happy. This sounds oddly like some weird version of big tech capitalist collectivization where you pay rent for everything instead and are effectively made into a serf in a smart city. The thing with owning private property that people get confused with communism is that it doesn’t mean you own nothing it means no individuals own an entire state industry producing some essential good like energy for example.
Click to expand...
For all the shit Indians get, they know to not write essays in the designated shitting street. And yet some farms haven't learned this lesson.
 
CoolCat19 said:
I'm not a communist, but I sympathize with some key elements of communism, I believe that the best political-economical stance would be for Social Liberalism -> Nordic Model.

Equality, individual freedoms and a regulated market economy. A win/win situation for everyone.

I would go full communism, but the truth is, I'm a bit vain when it comes to buying, spending and I honest couldn't live without a lot of the luxury of capitalism, but why not go for Social Liberalism, it's a middle of the ground option and it seens to be super healthy in Finland, Denmark etc.
Click to expand...

I hate to mar such a beautiful thread with serious discussion but I can see that you need help and I can't ignore that.

First off, the so called "Nordic Model" or Social Democracy has no connection with communism. It's not merely some less extreme position on the same spectrum. Anymore than a dog is a less extreme version of a cat. Completely different evolutionary branch. Communism means state ownership of industry. The Scandinavian countries don't have that except in some mild non-relevant forms like Norwegian government having some stake in their national oil company. Sweden used to be socialist back in the 70s and their economy was dreadful and people rose up and cut back the government's role in industry massively. What Social Democracies like Sweden et al. are, are capitalist systems with high taxes to fund social programs. And you can make supportable arguments for that. I may or may not agree with it but you can make supportable arguments. It is not nor is related to communism which is the state owns industry.

Communism is mob rule with clothes on.

Sorry - gommunism.

CoolCat19 said:
One day it will be!

We don't still have enough techonology for this, but one day, it will be feasible, a social democracy based on equality, individual liberties and social wellfare.

I hope I live to see this this day, yes, I believe in a better future for all of us and for the future of our planet.
Click to expand...

We already produce enough food to feed everyone, we already have enough land for everyone to live on. If your position is that communism can't work because we just haven't reached the level of technology to make it viable then why isn't that true for every other system? And more to the point, which would you rather pursue? An economic and political model that works in difficult situations or a model that works only in an environment of such plenty that no economic or political model is needed?

If this post is a little tetchy, have the self-awareness to realise that you're basically accusing people who don't agree with communism (with plenty of historical evidence for their position) of not actually caring.

Personal anecdote: When I was younger I was aware that a lot of people became more right wing and more "selfish" as they got older. I committed to myself that I would not let my own morals waste away with age and that I would continue to push for my values and a better world. What caught me off-guard was not that my values changed, but that what I thought actually worked changed. My political and economic views have not moved rightwards because I have become less moral (I hope), but because I now see this as a more effective way to help people. That's what a lot of people on the Left and Communist supporters miss - they think someone is Rightwing because they don't care. It escapes them that the person might simply have a different view on how to achieve things.

Your mistaking Social Democracies as some kind of lesser version of Communism when they're qualitatively different, is evidence that you don't understand what communism actually is.
 
Last edited:
How about we make a small desert area in Cali a communist commune and put all the people advocating for communism there? We could also constantly document them in real time for the rest of the world to prove that communism doesn't work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom