Communism is old, and young. The principals of communal living are the oldest form of human organization. It’s also the most common form today if you count small groups like family.
But as an organizing principal for government, it’s a baby. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. The Bolshevik revolution was in 1917. So the whole idea of communism is < 150-200yo. Compare to capitalism at this age and it’s all slavery and settler colonialism; the most massive redistribution of wealth through theft in history.
The logic that communism is a bad system because the Soviet Union should also condemn capitalism because the Dutch East India Company.
I would say the Soviet Union and the Dutch VOC were both bad for the same core reason: they were an ideological extreme. Capitalism is only a good system, if it is localized and regulated. Otherwise a small group of people will come out on top and exploit everyone else. But the same holds for communism, as clearly seen in any nation attempting communism, you inevitably get a dictator who will exploit the people for his or her own good. The difference is that when you weaken communism by implementing only parts of it, like universal healthcare, or unemployment benefits, then we call it socialism.
we call it liberal social democracy
A power vacuum, which immediately gets filled in by whoever can gain the most power the fastest, while keeping the communist title. Thus the “no true communist” arguing.
My opinion is that it works kind of okay in smaller groups where everyone knows everyone, but on a larger scale it always falls apart
Like many other systems, works well unless some people are assholes whoops
People that fund resistance, blockade and embargo people instituting it, in order to “prove” it doesn’t work, for example. People who tear down the few institutions and restraints in their own states to prove government doesn’t work, for example.
Hmm… What about… decentralized communism
I mean, what’s stopping a power vacuum in that case either?
It sounds problematic, but I’d be intrigued to hear your take, if it’s a fleshed-out idea you have.
Humans aren’t mature enough to handle it.
What do you mean
I mean, that the larger the group, the more assholes you will find in that group. Communism works great for families, and households. They look out for and support each other without keeping financial logs of who owes what.
Try to do that on a country wide scale, and there will be people whining that they don’t have enough, or they do too much, or that others deserve less, and they will lie and cheat and manipulate their way into getting more and more and more.
It’s a great system, far too good for us stupid, selfish humans to ever accomplish.
Speaking of maturity, when we were kids, my mother told me and my brother to share stuff, like split food in equal proprotions, because like… we’re supposed to be equal to each other. Guess why we have fights every fucking day lol. He always say its not fair or some shit.
deleted by creator
I don’t see what this has to do with my comment.
I have never seen it functioning outside of theory and doubt that it can. I like social democracy with a lot of regulation.
Where have you seen capitalism work? Or what are your metrics for “it works”? And which states do you consider being failed communist states? And why did they fail in your opinion?
Capitalism works pretty well for me…
Ok. and surely there’s nobody that could say the same about communism?
Well, everyone seems to think communism hasn’t been effectively enforced in any country. So, no, nobody could say that and keep that argument valid.
If you look at countries like Cuba, I’d argue that it’s working pretty well considering the circumstances.
Cuba has the highest ratio of doctors per 10k capita (95), their life expectancy was constantly rising until covid happened.
The biggest issue they have is being isolated by the USA, which also enforce that isolation across the northern hemisphere.
Its ironic you bring that up considering Cuba is one of the worst developed nations to be a doctor.Yeah and those doctors make 60 bucks a MONTH. They have to work abroad, or hold second jobs. Even when they work abroad a huge percentage of the money is funneled back to the government. They have a tremendous problem with corruption. Electricity is out constantly. They also have a horrific track record with political prisoners and massive human rights abuses in said prisons. They have zero freedom of speech and can be put in prison for even participating in threads like this one. I’d say thats a poor example.
Well, in the US you can easily get into ICE camps if you look like you could be not white enough, if you study medicine you’ll start your life with hundreds of thousands in student debt (that you won’t get rid of, even with a bankruptcy), and I’d argue that the current US administration is as corrupt (or worse), so I am not sure what you’d be looking for in a Country to consider it better or as good as a capitalist country?
it’s worked effectively in small socially isolated religious communities with rigid social codes. Amish, Kibbitz, etc.
Ah, but all those states aren’t TRUE capitalist states. That’s why we can’t point to a successful example.
That’s funny, because Capitalism doesn’t even work when you try to make it less agressive by implementing rail guards.
But sure, looking at states like the USA makes me believe that Capitalism is doing good!
Everyone I’ve ever met who lived under it says it’s was fucking awful. Not a single endorsement. That’s significant because even capitalism has boosters. Not communism.
I know several working class folks who grew up in the USSR who, while they admit it wasn’t perfect, were very happy with how things were then and - although some of them are now onboard the Pravda train to looneyville & love Putin and believe the Russian Orthodox church line that Ukraine is led by baby-eating, devil-worshipping, Nazi Pedophiles (not an exaggeration) - they admit things are much worse than they were then and place the blame squarely on moving away from communism & planned economy.
Because of strong social programs, they had access to good education, work & a high quality of life, and a level of recreation and leisure that seems wild to me as an American.
Communism is not a monolith. There are many tendencies. And YMMV depending on the folks in power, just like any system. Additionally, despots love to call themselves socialist/communist while doing nothing relating to seizing the means of production - look at Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) as an example.
Imagine if we asked folks “What’s your experience been like living in a capitalist regime”. Most people would think thats a weird question because of how many types of capitalist regimes exist - it’sa general economic framework, not a system of government. Your experience will vary wildly if you are from like rural Kenya vs the US vs Scandinavia.
Great point(s).
I’ve met quite a few people who say that although there were disadvantages, on average it was ok to live in Soviet Union after the 60s. If you asked around in Russia, there would even be those who praised it. Because there were some advantages like not bad free education and free medicine, for example. In some good times, you could even get a free apartment or a piece of land. And now, under capitalism, it is very difficult to earn an apartment in the most developed cities.
Historical context matters too.
60s Soviet russia was not the best in the world when it came to economic or human development, and certainly was not politically or culturally free in the slightest. It paled in comparison to the US or Europe- BUT if you had previously experienced the civil war, collapse of the empire, multiple widespread famines and total social upheaval, the pains of Stalin’s industrialization and then WWII… dear god, the relative stability of the 1960’s planned economy probably felt like heaven in comparison.
I object to the term “capitalism”. The correct term is “classical liberal” (modern liberals are something else with very little in common). I boost capitalism because it is a result of freedom, and that also informs when I will limit my support for capitalism.
You appear to be using the term “capitalism” in a confusing way. From etymonline:
The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists.
Words can change meaning and all that, but when people complain about capitalism, they don’t mean what you’re talking about. You seem to mean something like “well-regulated free market”, and other people mean “broken, exploitative system that worships greed”
That is why I object to capitalism - it is defined to be whatever socialists want to demean without reguard if that is even what is happening, if it is acceptable because of other benefits. It assumes capitalists are fine with corruption.
When in reality we are liberals who understand rule of law.
Impossible economic goal for anything larger than a township and unbelievable susceptible to corruption as a one-party form of government. No nation has ever implemented it without a violent revolution and government that quickly turns into a dictatorship.
In short, a nice dream, but a shit idea.
That’s my opinion on it for the most part.
Definitely one of the fastest way to start arguments, especially among people left-of-center.
No, it’s not!
deleted by creator
It’s never existed. Not in it’s pure form anyway. But neither has capitalism, or socialism either for that matter.
A theoretical system is always in some way perverted and coopted by the people implementing it. Humans are the weak part of the equation because humans are greedy and focused only on themselves and their own small group of friends/family. So scaling any political system up from theoretical to an actual national policy always ends up with a perverted form where one group ends up over another group despite the original theoretical intent of the system in question. That goes for Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, as well as religion too.
Humans suck and can’t have nice things without fucking them up.
yep. but every ‘true believer’ believes they are different and they totally wouldn’t be like that…
The truest truism that ever did truism is that “power inevitably corrupts”
Most “communist” countries operates under the idea of Vanguardism, and Vanguardism is not gonna work. Giving too much power to a small circle of leadership, or worse, just one leader, is gonna fail, because humans cannot be trusted with that much power.
As for the anarchist variant… no opinion, but can’t think of any that worked on the top of my head.
But I think anarchist communisties are gonna struggle. I fear that a neighboring state will literally consume it. I think anarchist communities are too small to protect themselves. (I’m not against anarchism, just skeptical of how it works in practice.)
So I think the best compromise is a decentralized state, direct democracy, ideally, we should have people enforce their own rules, via well-regulated militias. But if there’s a foreign invasion, then form into one united command. Something like Social Democracy / Democratic Socialism
spoiler
I was born in mainland China, not a good place to live. I heard stories about the stuggles of my parents and its why they have this very frugal mindset even now when they have a bit more money to spend. Whatever happened with the “communism” stuff, that failed, now its “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”, aka: State Capitalism. China basically has many of the flaws of America, but worse. Even for all the flaws of the US, my parents still decided to bring the family into the US… so there’s that. My mother tells me to not criticize the government (neither the US or China) because “it could bring trouble”, she shuts down conversations whenever I criticize the CCP, but deep down, she knows the US is better. She casually mentions the air is better, more greenery in the city (NYC), beautiful parks, better pay, etc… its not perfect, but my parents think its better, I mean, I personally also prefer the cleaner air.
The only thing Guangzhou was better was the subway, when I was in NYC, the subway looks kinda dirty and old not gonna lie, and there’s also the racism, obviously… but for like everything else, I generally disliked China.
(For context, we moved around 2010)
Also, my grandmother just did the oath ceremony and got US Citizenship this week, +1 US Citizen to the family, yes very ironic considering current events, but like… clearly she prefers the US to China.
In theory it could work if everyone living under it are selfless and 100% in on it, but that’s simply against human nature. Also, a resource distribution system based on “trust me, bro” will at best be inefficient or corrupt, in most cases both.
We’re currently living through an era where liberalism+capitalism is really showing its asscracks, but I’d take that over communism. But I can understand why communism may appeal to some who have never managed to get ahead in our current system.
Plenty of people here have talked about potential success or failure, and the economic side, but here’s my take. Despite Marx equating religion to an opiate, and especially despite the “no religion” stance of the USSR, Christianity (probably the other Abrahamic religions as well and maybe Hinduism and its offshoots, I’m not exactly sure please correct me if I’m wrong) should be massively in favor of communism over capitalism. In Christianity, we are called to be stewards of creation for God, we run it and manage it but it’s not ours. This doesn’t work with capitalism, which is focused on the concept of ownership. That’s not to mention the equality side of things, which is very much a Christian concept.
I’ve brought this up with some of my Christian friends, and it’s unfortunately not a popular idea. Probably because of lingering cold war attitudes of “communism is atheist”.
Also to be clear: yes I’m Christian, no I’m not pro theocracy, yes this is based on my knowledge of the Bible and on communist philosophy.
Jesus Christ was a socialist. It’s literally his ideology if you just read the words he says.
deleted by creator
Please go read the Bible lol Every single moral value that Jesus preaches is like a straight up pillar of socialist ideals. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, cloth the naked, etc etc. If you extrapolate these ideals to the rest of society…what do you get? Definitely not capitalism!
deleted by creator
Man I don’t even know where to start with this comment. I’m not sure when we say socialism we are even talking about the same thing first of all.
Second of all of course Jesus was not literally a socialist - that didnt exist when he was alive. But if you extrapolate the underlying vibe of the lessons Jesus taught they are ones of empathy and community.
It’s always y’all religious types that bastardize and twist your texts to match whatever flavor of mental illness you have. Respectfully Jesus would find you to be a charlatan lmao.
deleted by creator
Or maybe when you make right wing chud arguments that are almost incoherent I assume you’re a right wing chud.
You’re out here larping as a bible thumper and think its a gotcha when people think that’s reflective of your world view. Brother I dont know who the fuck you are am I supposed to just assume everyone is out here making disingenuous devils advocate arguments all the time or something?
[Mark 12:17] is clearly about taxes
It is about that in the surface, sure. But when you look at the context, it’s one of many times the pharisees tried to get Jesus to either go against the Roman empire, so they could get him killed for it, or go against God, so they could exile him for it.
taxes are a pretty popular socialist repellant
Clearly one of us is misunderstanding socialist ideals, because I would say socialists tend to be the ones pushing the hardest for the highest taxes. Please explain why socialists, the community focused people who know no one can stand alone, would be against making sure everyone pitches in to help the poorest people.
[Jesus] just cared if people were following God’s orders
You should really actually give the gospels are serious read before making that kind of claim. Not saying you’ve never read any of the Bible, but I am saying that I don’t see a way to have genuinely read the gospels and come to the conclusion of “yeah, Jesus is all about the legalistic religion”.
He never advocated for such systems. In fact, He was for people doing the hard work, not receiving handouts.
So why did he throw the money changers out of the temple then?
Why is it harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the wye of a needle?
And why do you think communism means no work and only handouts?
The money changing was Babylonian money magick, of which was the reason they were thrown out.
For a rich man to enter heaven, he needed to give up all material things, and instead, focus on building spiritual wealth. This was what the verse in reference meant.
As for communism meaning no work and only handouts, why do you think people are being oppressed? They allowed communism to fit in, and the whole point was to accept handouts for those who didn’t work.
the money changing was Babylonian money magick, of which was the reason they were thrown out
A. Where did you hear that it was Babylonian money? Babylon had fallen ~500 years earlier, so I doubt there’d be any of their money left in use. B. Jesus talks about the temple become “a den of robbers”. That doesn’t sound like the only issue was the choice of currency
the whole point was to accept handouts for those who didn’t work
Ignoring for now the fact that that’s far from the point, what’s so bad about “handouts”? Sure, if you refuse to work you shouldn’t expect to be given a mansion or something, but that’s not what anyone is seriously saying. The “handouts” that leftists talk about is stuff like food and basic housing. The idea is that your right to live is based on your value as a person, not your productivity as a worker.
While Babylon fell in 539, the traditions were still kept by the Medo-Persians, Greeks, Romans, and Roman Catholic Church. Babylon is still alive and well, just not the city anymore. The comment on the “den of robbers” has to do with money changing (the Babylonian money magick) being the robbing.
As for your comment on the handouts thing, I’d recommend reading Laws of Life: Ditch the System, Design Your Life by Jack Spirko. You’ll realize how wrong that is.
Are you telling me that all or most people who get help from the government are lazy people who don’t want to work? The socialism policies are implemented to maintain people lives and sanity so they can try to improve their situations
Precisely. That was a choice they made, and now they got themselves stuck. Spirko (who I’ve talked about earlier in this thread) is always one to recommend a skill that can be so valuable, you don’t need debt to do it. Trades are a good way to do that, and it’s never too late to learn one, apply it, and do it professionally.
Tell me you’ve never read the Bible without telling me.
Good in theory, problematic in practice. A goal to strive towards but not achieve.
The main problem is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is so easily corrupted into a regular ol dictatorship. It’s supposed to be a transitional period, but when that much power is in play, it’s hard for people to give it up - and even when they’re willing, they can just get ousted by less scrupulous people.
Making it safely through that passage is like a Great Filter of socio-economics
Makes the problems of capitalism even worse. Instead of the owner class you get an even smaller political class controlling all means of production - the party leadership. It becomes even more prone to corruption than capitalism.
Adding to problems is the planned economy - it always results in misaligned incentives, bad allocation of resources, constant shortages…
Third, possibly the worst, is the constant insistence on ideological purity and severe punishment of “thought crimes”. Or as they like to call it “counterrevolutionary activity”.
Even though it was created out of good intentions, I don’t believe a lot positive aspects can be salvaged.
Lemmy always beating the socialist drum, yet I’ve never once had an answer as to how socialism prevents power and money from being concentrated at the top. Communism is the even worse version.
Does not scale well.
A communist society never existed. The USSR, China,… they are NOT communist. The closest thing to a communist society is the Star Trek era (TNG). I guess it’s nice to live in such a society.
I thought there were some native American tribes that were communist.
Communism is “work as much as you can, use as much as you need.” Society must be technologically advanced to make this possible. Native American tribes were not technologically advanced.
“work as much as you can, use as much as you need.”
You don’t need technological advancement to be sustainable if your population remains relatively small and static. Hunter Gatherers actually follow pretty much exactly the formula you described above and ended up with far more leisure time than their agriculturally “advanced” counterparts.
But that is not sustainable. We cannot all be Hunter Gatherers. Society in the broadest sense should be applicable to almost the entire human population, one state is not enough. For this purpose, technological progress is crucial. Communism is not an ideology or a political system in the context of today’s political systems. It is an inevitable evolution (not a revolution) in human progress.
Why/how “inevitable,” in your view? I find that very hard to believe. It seems to me it could just as easily (maybe more easily) be the Orwell route:
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
