Why do peeps want socialism/communism? - Zoomer Delusions

I think people who want "communism" or "socialism" think Real Communism™ would be like Star Trek IRL: no scarcity, and people work because they want to rather than have to.
 
Superficially, it sounds great because you're told these ideologies will solve all your problems. In reality, they exacerbate old problems and create new ones.
 
ToroidalBoat said:
I think people who want "communism" or "socialism" think Real Communism™ would be like Star Trek IRL: no scarcity, and people work because they want to rather than have to.
Click to expand...
The key to Star Trek is the lack of scarcity. High efficiency recycling and replicators remove the value from anything being unique other than lifeforms. People chose to do whatever they want to add value. It's a cute idea, but it doesn't make any sense why people would work at Ben Sisko's dad's restaurant, bussing tables, for the "value." (maybe his workers are holograms?) Non-replicated food supposedly tastes better, but it also impossible to differentiate on a molecular level, so you just take someone's word it's not replicated .. not like you could trade more money for non-replicated anyway in a society without money or trade.

Basic Minimum Income would look a lot less like Star Trek and a lot more like The Expanse (for those who haven't read it, those "on basic" in the books/show are impoverished).

Even in the Star Trek universe there are "dilithium mines," so there is effort to be put in to extracting their energy source. The Federation itself is very authoritarian. Star Trek could have had a great run this century if they focused on shows showing the fall and collapse of The Federation instead of making even more insane "progressive" shit than even Gene Roddenberry could get away with (Roddenberry was a military pilot and a police officer, so the guy at least understood work).

I don't think schools really teach enough about how bad some of the worst systems were. I never heard in a University history class about Holodomor, only how American slavery was worse than other forms. Adam Curtis documentaries talk about how the Soviet threat was a "fantasy." Although Regan failed and handling things or believe the exaggeration from his "Team B", saying the Soviets weren't a threat is disingenuous. They were a threat, and the fake democracy that's descended from it is still a threat.

People like to bash on the rich (Musk, Bezos, Zucks) saying they inherited all that money .. and they did, but plenty of rich kids do jack shit and end up worthless. It takes generations to build an empire, and all of them have probably killed people along the way with no remorse. It takes a certain type of person to drive to the top; and they have to raise generations of descendants with that vision. I realized a long time ago I don't have that, but I'm fine making the money I make now doing what I do well.

The root of Communism is Envy.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: Tracer's Butt, AFAB, Fried-Rice12 and 4 others
HootersMcBoobies said:
Star Trek could have had a great run this century if they focused on shows showing the fall and collapse of The Federation instead of making even more insane "progressive" shit than even Gene Roddenberry could get away with (Roddenberry was a military pilot and a police officer, so the guy at least understood work).
Click to expand...
We should 100% try this in 10-20 years when the IP is up for sale in bankruptcy auction for $20,000
 
1707421923879.png

Once a person get a job, they start losing interest in socialism.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tracer's Butt, AFAB and Aero the Alcoholic Bat
geckogoy said:
I will continue to advocate for 'free trade' as the appropriate term and branding
Click to expand...

Yep.

Just an autistic reminder that the word "capitalism," as tempting as it is to use it (either to describe businessmen or to describe ideological support for free markets and private property), the word was originally coined by socialists as a buzzword to describe anything they arbitrarily hate.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Breadbassket, AFAB and frozen_runner
In prehistory, before anything like proper economic markets existed, human beings lived in tribes where it was literally true that, if you were doing well (in terms of resources) while your neighbor was doing poorly, you were in a real sense stealing prosperity from them. Food and other resources were collectively shared (even if, say, a specific kill was owned by the hunter). The tribe, the collective, was everything. But with the later emergence of economic markets, it became paradoxically true that pursuing your own economic self-interests, in a voluntary marketplace, would benefit everyone in a way that sharing resources as a community wouldn't. Thinking in a communal fashion does not, and cannot, scale past a certain population size, but markets scale quite well.

I think there's an obvious moral component to collectivist thinking. Proponents clearly believe their way is ethically superior to cold, amoral markets, and that's part of why they cling to their ideals in the face of overwhelming evidence that they don't work. I wonder if that moral component points to a vestigial evolutionary preference for collectivism that, for many thousands of years, kept us alive.

Unfortunately, this also implies that we'll never escape the human impulse for collectivism. I have thought for a long time that the defining conflict of human existence will be between destructive communist delusion and the counterintuitive superiority of free markets.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: AFAB, Lowlife Adventures, Fried-Rice12 and 1 other person
They’ve never read a history book and evil people use progressive promises to delude and confuse non free thinkers. They also believe they won’t have to work and their self inflated worth of being LGBTQ translates to no life skill. So they need communism to exist because the state would otherwise deem them useless. Communism uses and abuses weak individuals into a hive mind.
 
geckogoy said:
I do enjoy me some completely hallucinated collectivist conceptions of unwritten pre-history
Click to expand...
Please explain to me the Randian individualism possible in small familial tribes with no economy and little intra-tribal trade. Familial, as in you're related to almost everyone you know. At a time when people lived on the edge of starvation as a baseline, the world was filled with things that could and would kill isolated individuals, and only certain people in the tribe could physically hunt for the big game necessary to keep them all alive.

We can look at modern day primitive people to infer what prehistory must have looked like. But, by definition, even they know there is an alternative to the lives they lead. There was nowhere to go in prehistory. You and your tribe survived together, or you died. To doubt they must have been something other than collectivist, at least in some significant measure, is a remarkable claim.

And collectivism can "work" in small groups. It doesn't ever work that well, but without the ability to leverage the benefits of mass trade, it allows you cooperate with other people to scratch out an existence. My guess, again, is that some residual instinct connected to that lifestyle is responsible for the interminable, retarded insistence by generation after generation of useful idiots that the most genocidal ideology in human history is morally superior and totes the right way to go, just ignore the tens of millions of dead people and try again.

Please attack the logic of anything I've said if you see errors or if you have evidence to the contrary. I mean that genuinely despite your obnoxious snark.
thrasymachus said:
I think the best system is neither entirely collectivist nor entirely capitalist. All countries that do well are somewhere on a spectrum between those two polarities.
Click to expand...
My problem with collectivism is it contains within it the seeds of society's destruction. If other people are responsible for taking care of you, and if a political class is empowered to take from some to give to others, why wouldn't that situation lead to the endless growth of the welfare state and vote-buying bullshit? Collectivism is arguable one of the biggest reasons the West as been able to become a victimhood culture. (Though not the reason we have. That's probably due to female voters.)

I don't support any form of federal or state collectivism. You can do what you like in your own life, but it's cancerous when it's connected to government.
 
Last edited:
frozen_runner said:
Please attack the logic of anything I've said if you see errors or if you have evidence to the contrary. I mean that genuinely despite your obnoxious snark.
Click to expand...
Sure

Completely made up:
frozen_runner said:
if you were doing well (in terms of resources) while your neighbor was doing poorly, you were in a real sense stealing prosperity from them.
Click to expand...
frozen_runner said:
To doubt they must have been something other than collectivist, at least in some significant measure, is a remarkable claim.
Click to expand...

Communists and socialists in universities enjoy circle jerking eachother about how there are ancient truths behind their moronic beliefs. Its a joke to think they can deduce anything about however many thousands of years pre-history aside from extremely general things like 'there appear to have been groups of people of some sort'. Nobody knows what was going on back then. Sure I could 'present evidence' for shit tens of thouasnds of years ago or I could just be actually honest and point out your shits all retarded.
 
cant say i agree with them on things, but im not exactly agreeing with the other side of the aisle either. a decent chunk of things wrong with how things are run here is a side effect to how corporations and businesses kinda just fuck with people because they wanna maximize profit and growth. they'd absolutely fuck over customers and employees if it meant saving a buck. im not gonna defend a lot of the shit they do, hell most people here dont, yet will still engage with them anyway since most dont have a choice to do otherwise.
there's probably some sort of middle ground system that isn't complete shit. however, whatever a system that'd be is something i cant figure out yet
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures
The only thing on offer at the table at the moment for plebs is global neo-feudalism and corporate totalitarianism, not "muh' capitalism".

The middle class of all groups love their new feudalism even more so than the upper class because they have been told that the endless printing of money for the few and transnational corporate entities maintaining slave labor pools in the billions worldwide is the exact same thing as a golly-gee-shucks-can-do capitalism of the 1950s. Nigga' please.

Doesn't work on the zoomers. Could be they are "too dumb" or "too young" but I suspect their diet of all things internet and post-9/11, post sept 2008 limits their gullibility because they have no believable frame of reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back