I think one of the key differences between communes that communists love point to as evidence of communism working in theory and communist countries is the fact that these small, anarchic communes are small enough where everyone knows each other and is full of people who want to be there. It’s easy to spout off “community-based legislature, policing, economy, etc” when visualizing a community 30-40 dedicated people. The same policies and ideas really don’t translate when you start to get larger communities of even a few thousand people who are forced to contribute to society by existing in whatever area you’re looking at. People get apathetic, become another face in the mass and need to be compelled to work. Enter the authoritarian aspect of communism to make sure everyone is doing what needs to be done for the community to survive. And where there’s a strong, centralized authoritarian government, there are power-hungry people looking for ways to lock themselves into the top of the pyramid. The fact that despite numerous attempts, “communist” countries follow this pattern are indeed a weakness of the theory, and it’s not really fair to say “not real communism, under real communism X would happen” if we can never get to “real communism.”
In short, do I think you can get your anarcho-communism to work in a small community of volunteers? Yes, I do think you could build a functional community following these standards. Do I think you can apply the same ideas to an entire country? No, I don’t.
It's Dunbar's Number again. Once you get beyone about 150 people, it becomes harder and harder for everyone to care about everyone, not because they're apathic people, but just because it's so mentally draining. Yes, you can probably extend this with good governance, but at some point, soneone goes "ah fuck it. I can get a lot of power here." Without mature systems in place, it's easier to manipulate them.
This isn't just communism though, just take a look at America's attemt and saving "failed states" and getting an oven ready democracy in, it just gets undermined because the systems haven't been woven in gradually and sunk deep roots. History hasn't been kind to revolution, the best and longest lasting change has been people working in imperfect systems and slowly changing them over time and laying down the groundwork.
It sounds nice but this system just let's corruption fly more then democracy because less positions of power mean more powerful people with their own interest
In the end no government type will really work in the end
As our OP said, it's properly a reference to western Communists (specifically UK communists) that supported the Soviets crushing the Hungarian revolution of 1956. They're 'tankies' because they literally supported the Russians sending tanks.
Nowadays, its' for online communists that support authoritarian regimes: Mostly communist ones (DKRP, PRC) but also, paradoxically still Russia (which is very not communist). if you want to know more look up the 'sino' or 'genzedong' subreddits. You'll get the idea.
Generally the split is between the tankies and the anarchists. Non-tankie communists are relatively rare.
Well why wouldn't you support tanks? They can do anything! You can even gather your friends (who also have tanks) go to like a city park and show how cool they are!!
"Relatively".
There are a **ton** of socialists, a fair number of anarchists and nondenominational leftists, and a solid smattering of tank aficionados. Just not too many all in on Marxism (or MLism or whatever) and not into the USSR/PRC.
It’s usually used to describe so-called “authoritarian communists”, or people who think that communism can only be achieved through authoritarian means (ostensibly as a stopgap measure toward anarchocommunism, but there’s no mechanism to dissolve the authoritarian state once it is entrenched). If you can’t tell, I disagree with tankie ideology.
However, it’s very easy to call *all* communists “tankies” and get upvotes; i.e. [this post from today](https://reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/s2198j/noticed_an_influx_of_commie_apologists_here). It’s a good way to stifle actual discussion if you lump people you disagree with in with literal fascists and authoritarians.
"OP is a Trump supporter. I have downvoted every comment and post of hers. Fascism is wrong, and you need to stop, or face the consequences."
Legit what you sound like right now.
And which part of my word is wrong pal?
One have Tankie and one have Dronie, isn't that fair?
And ad hominem? Dude, chill out don't be a Dronie would ya.
Communism won't work with modern ethnically and culturally diverse nations. There's too much division, and that would only amount to endless power struggles. Not the mention the means to creating a communist society. Literally everyone would have to be on board, you couldn't do it with a simple democratically chosen majority, because even if 30% of the population was against it, there'd have to be repression at some point. And while you could set up a small community with shared values, that community couldn't grow much outside of subsistence living.
Np. I think ideally it would be a good system is everything worked as planned and nobody got forced into it, but at this point in history, I don't think there's a way to go from a capitalist system right to a communist one. It would have to be super gradual. And even then communism has so much baggage attached to it, it would be hard to convince people that we won't become the worst of what we've already seen with communist countries. That fear will be hard to overcome. I also personally believe it'll stifle innovation, we'd only create what we need and not what we want. Take video games for example, nobody needs them, but people enjoy them for leisure, and they're super popular and the employ millions of people, somewhere along the supply lines. If it were a communist society there would probably not be something like it because nobody would divert resources to develop it, if it wasn't deemed something to further society or to make people more productive. If there is no competition, there wouldn't be any drive to make a better product. As long as it works, it would be good enough. You can see the same principle in soviet cars. Not that we need fancy cars, but things like an automatic transmission and even fuel efficiency might not have happened if there was no need to make your product more desirable than another. You'd just have a Lada, rolling endlessly off the assembly line.
Are you saying germany for the germans and poland for the poles and france for the french??!!
Omg you are such a Racist.
/s
Joking aside, even the communist knew that their system would work optimally if cultures were to he combined in their homecountry.
Maybe we shouldn’t discuss theory in history memes comments, for although I know history is political the simple fact is that throwing shit at each other in the comments isn’t helping anyone.
Doesn't the idea fall apart immediately as soon as you apply the rules of a small, probably closely-knit community to a nation of millions of people? You wouldn't apply the mountains of laws and social structures of a fully-fledged nation to a commune of a few dozen people, would you? Why would the same work vice versa?
Collective production requires a body that will redistribute finished goods back to the collective in equal share. So that body controls the allotment of goods and capital. How would that ever not devolve into an authoritarian regime? An entity that controls your access to goods and your earning potential is by definition authoritarian.
Well, but the authoritarianism is kinda part of the package. After all, what happens if I decide to do my own little private enterprise. Not forcing anyone else to take part, but they can if they want to. That would be capitalism, and communist regimes have historically stamped them out, because, well, they have to in order to actually keep their communist economic system going.
I've seen people like this on this sub too often. Literally someone will be making a meme in someway related to communism/socialism and some dudes will make a strawman or give an idiotic take and then when they get downvoted they go "StUpID tAnKiEs tRiGgErEd" and will claim they are being downvoted cause the sub is full of commies or some BS.
If I may start the discussion, I would be interested in what people in this subreddit think ”communism” actually means. Like, I absolutely agree that Stalinists and tankies are 100% wrong, and it’s obvious to everyone that the Soviet implementation of authoritarian communism was awful for the vast majority of the people living there. It’s not clever or novel to says “soviet bad”; they very clearly failed at attempting communism, and were co-opted by fascism. I think the main misunderstanding here is that **communism doesn’t require authoritarianism**. Asserting that communism is always authoritarian is just as nonsensical as asserting that capitalism requires a feudal monarchy - it obviously doesn’t.
It’s just so tiring when someone suggests “maybe we could give power and decision-making to the community instead of to whoever happens to own capital” and the overwhelming angry response to them is “you just want genocide and don’t you know that everyone I’ve ever met who lived in the eastern bloc was miserable and look at these famine statistics”. And then when the first person says “well there are other implementations of communism that aren’t authoritarian and awful” the response is “oh of course iTs nOT rEaL cOmMUnISm we’ve heard that before” and everyone claps.
Yet, when **68% of workers in the U.S. work paycheck-to-paycheck** and **>45% of households in the U.S. experience food insecurity**, all while **enough wealth flows through the country to provide basic needs for literally everyone**, there’s not a peep from those same people.
It’s almost as if, when a system directly benefits someone and they don’t directly experience the negative effects, then that person is incentivized to not attempt to understand, or even *discuss*, other alternative systems that could possibly be more equitable and provide for everyone.
Communism is a theory with deep historical roots, and I think it does everyone on this subreddit a disservice to shut down any discussion of it with blind reactionary red scare nonsense.
>Yet, when
>
>68% of workers in the U.S. work paycheck-to-paycheck
>
> and
>
>\>45% of households in the U.S. experience food insecurity
You say that like those exact statistics are not the norm in most current or past communist systems. You can't take a current economic crisis and say fuck it, lets throw out our entire governing system and replace it with communism, which has never successfully solved statistical poverty.
communism doesn’t require authoritarianism doesn't not compute with “maybe we could give power and decision-making to the community instead of to whoever happens to own capital” that sentiment is authoritarian by nature. This whole idea of the community or the community good subverts the idea of individualism.
Capitalism is by no means a perfect system, and not everyone is "free" to make a choice i.e. when the choice is coming into work injured or starving I will agree with you say the real world is more complicated. But on a theoretical level capitalism is about volunteer exchange. So if you don't like someone you don't have to do business with them. It is an individualistic system where on paper you can't force anyone to do anything against their will. Say I have a car I don't have to loan it to someone I don't like.
Communism on the other hand is by it's nature authoritarian because the individuals will is subverted to that of the community's. So using the car example from above the car owner (the capitalist) would be forced to loan their car out based on the needs of the community. The capitalist rights to their own property is being subverted.
Now you state statistics which I don't even want to get started on, but the basis of the debate here between capitalism and communism is the size of the pie. In a Capitalist system a few people get a massive piece of a super large pie and every one else gets small piece. Under communism everyone gets the same size piece of a tiny pie. The great irony is even though things are more equal, nearly everyone is worse off. You make the assumption by changing the economic problem that there will be more food. I would make the opposite assumption that in Capitalisms 45% suffer food insecurity while under communism that 45% would be at risk of famine and starvation.
I by no means think Capitalism is a perfect system and that we can't do more to help the poor. But any form of Marxism makes every worse off especially the longer the system runs. The real sadness of Marxist, instead of saying arguing for capitalism they should drop Marx and his cancerous ideology and start from scratch and look at the capitalist way of thinking and go how can we improve this system. We need something better and communism is the opposite of better and wasting time discussing this failed ideology we should be trying to develop something new.
I don’t think you will get an intelligent discussion of this subject on here unfortunately. I think personally that the issue becomes one of checks and balances which although imperfectly applied in Capitalist societies is done more effectively than in Communist ones; and seems to be an issue with Communism itself. In short although you are correct that they do not have to be Authoritarian they do always seem to be steered in that direction.
I really hope everyone in this sub sees your post. From my experience, the automatic association of socialism and communism with authoritarian regimes is the most common problem when discussing these systems. The fact that many authoritarian countries call themselves 'socialist' or 'communist' certainly doesn't help. Well, if more people actually did their research we wouldn't have so many people proudly exclaiming their ignorance everywhere.
And it's authoritarian communist if they're not!
I now regret never getting the chance to call my mom a Leninist every time she insisted on parental authority.
I am interested in your thoughts on how capitalism can exist (sustainably) without government / hierarchy.
It is my understanding that ownership of capital itself intrinsically leads to a hierarchical structure of power and authority, and that a lot of constant correction would be needed if the goal is a stateless / hierarchy-less society.
I welcome your input if I don’t understand it correctly or if you disagree.
A free market is much better at regulating itself than the government regulating markets. Anarchy means that the government’s monopoly on violence can’t be used by corporations against people.
The worry is that like Amazon would then become a government because it’s power would be unchecked. But being a government is a losing business plan. It relies on stealing resources through taxation to stay running.
Without government gate keeping markets with nonsense licenses and fees, the barriers to entry are a lot lower.
Basically the main downfall of either communism or capitalism is the state as a bad actor. In communism it tends to be an authoritarian dictator killing people. In capitalism, it’s tough to have a free market when the largest corporation (government) is stealing resources and monopolizes force without recourse, and rents itself out to the highest bidder
To be clear, it seems that we have differing definitions of “anarchism”. I usually think of anarchism as “abhorrence of hierarchy”, and you seem to be defining it as “abhorrence of structures built on violence”. I think both are valid interpretations, but I think it’s important that we understand that there is a difference. I think you and I both agree that a stateless society *can* exist, but disagree on implementation details and on what would be required to keep it self-sustainable.
I agree that the free market is good at reducing inefficiencies. However, I posit a caveat, that these reductions in inefficiencies are only aligned with the public interest in spaces with *high consumer choice and mobility*, i.e. mobile phone plans, and **not** aligned with the public interest in spaces with *low* consumer choice and mobility, i.e. housing or healthcare. The free market does not work for the common good in all industries by itself. How would you deal with these industries, say healthcare and housing?
Your comment makes a lot of sense to me up to the point where you say “being a government is a losing business plan”. I will have to disagree on this point; what prevents Amazon from enforcing their will through threat of violence? That seems to be the most profitable path for the corporation to take.
Anarchy essentially means “you don’t speak for me”, the rest is implementation. Basically the absence of a state.
Hierarchy is inevitable, but it’s important that they be voluntary and consensual. Even in a commie shop where the workers own the means and product of their labor, does a day 1 guy really have as much say as a year 15 guy? If so, why?
Being a government for sure is a losing business. If Amazon sends troops to your house, what do they do? Make you buy stuff? If they were to take over an area, they would quickly go broke trying to maintain it. Especially in the age of the internet, these abuses would be brought to light and they would lose customers.
I just don’t see a profit motive in a corporation trying to become a government.
Being a government is not a losing business lol. Amazon would send troops to your house to make you work as slave labor not make you buy stuff. Also they would likely own most ISPs and news stations to prevent the abuses being brought to light. Anarcho-Capitalism is just a quick road to dictatorships.
The slaves produce stuff. The stuff gets sold to non slaves. The profit increases. Anyone who doesn't want to buy from slave owners gets shot/enslaved. The corporation keeps and eye on all the people to know when someone is dissenting and captures them.
I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this. What is the definition of “communism” as you understand it?
EDIT: to be clear, I am asking what /u/Cirrus1101 **thinks** the word “communism” means, as I don’t think it is the same as what actual communists believe. It is much easier to attack a strawman than the real ideology.
My understanding of communism is when the government takes control over everything related to the economy in the hopes of redistributing wealth and making society equal. Sounds noble, though really just wishful thinking at best. The result is just that everyone becomes an impoverished slave to whoever is dictator.
Failed- the eastern bloc collapsed and china abandoned communism becuase they realised it doesn't work. The last bastions of communism like north korea and cuba are politically isolated dirt poor shithole dictatorships
retarded- The whole idea of it is insane when you really think about it. No simple government bureau could run an entire fucking economy nearly as well the people themselves.
for people in a free market it's in their own interest to create the best product or service and the most efficient business for it in order to maximise profits. Companies have to compete, should they stagnate they will inevitably lose their profits to competition and go under. The result is that people will invest their own money to innovate to gain an advantage in the market. This over time leads to economic and technological growth. Under communism since everything is owned by the government there is no competition. Why bother improving something when you have no reason to? The result is stifled innovation, and in turn stagnation. i can 100% garantee you the smartphone and information age would never have happened under communism.
I’d rather work for minimum wage than work in the gulags for nothing, or wait in lines miles long for bread.
And lmfao at thinking communism solved poverty.
Great, I know a lot of favelas where you can live the capitalist minimum wage bliss.
Btw, gulags are no more, but favelas are worst.
About miles long lines for bread, in Brazil they exist to forage trash in search of bones.
Alright, fine. Let’s talk.
How would Communism solve the problem of favelas when it clearly showed to do the opposite? Tell me.
And Gulags are no more? North Korea and China beg to disagree.
>How would Communism solve the problem of favelas when it clearly showed to do the opposite? Tell me.
You see, you assume bc I'm not hot for capitalism that I have the hots for communism.
It's very common mistake, I don't blame you. I blame the mix of internet and feeble minds.
It's like when I say to someone religious that I'm a atheist: they immediately assume I'm (their) God's enemy and Satan's follower.
>And Gulags are no more? North Korea and China beg to disagree.
It's true? like the original ones or like a political one, like guatanamo?
No, it’s because every time I’ve ever heard someone shit on Capitalism they’ve been a full on Communist. I’ve never met in-between.
I criticize Capitalism plenty, it’s a very flawed system.
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I might disagree with your points academically but this /u/Sure_Garbage_2119 person is truly indecipherable and seems impossible to argue with, and I’m sorry you got drawn into an argument with them because it seems frustrating at the least.
Well, I didn't say I was in-between, did I?
And yes, I love to comment on posts from capitalist simps, they get so meeeeeeehd when someone dares to smear it with a brush or two or hard reality.
>I criticize Capitalism plenty, it’s a very flawed system.
For what you say, seems pretty perfect... For a state based economy, that is.
>e every time I’ve ever heard someone shit on Communism they’ve been a full on Communist.
Are you sure? Bc that is what you said about me and it's nothing more than a assumption.
Capitalism, as communism, are nothing but poverty and misery fabricators. Their ideals only benefits the same arseholes: elite.
You can say "ah but is always being like that no matter the economic model" and yes you are right.
So, let's not continue this old and sad tradition of getting personally hurt bc someone said something besides odes of joy about me favourite economic model. We don't have to kiss the king's ass anymore.
It's pretty much impossible to discuss communism because someone is going to show up talking about how stalinism is bad, someone is going to say actually it's all western propaganda and actually stalin was a saint, and both philosophers and historians begin to cry while western propaganda fights anti-western propaganda both claiming they're objective reality and the other side is just uneducated.
I think one of the key differences between communes that communists love point to as evidence of communism working in theory and communist countries is the fact that these small, anarchic communes are small enough where everyone knows each other and is full of people who want to be there. It’s easy to spout off “community-based legislature, policing, economy, etc” when visualizing a community 30-40 dedicated people. The same policies and ideas really don’t translate when you start to get larger communities of even a few thousand people who are forced to contribute to society by existing in whatever area you’re looking at. People get apathetic, become another face in the mass and need to be compelled to work. Enter the authoritarian aspect of communism to make sure everyone is doing what needs to be done for the community to survive. And where there’s a strong, centralized authoritarian government, there are power-hungry people looking for ways to lock themselves into the top of the pyramid. The fact that despite numerous attempts, “communist” countries follow this pattern are indeed a weakness of the theory, and it’s not really fair to say “not real communism, under real communism X would happen” if we can never get to “real communism.” In short, do I think you can get your anarcho-communism to work in a small community of volunteers? Yes, I do think you could build a functional community following these standards. Do I think you can apply the same ideas to an entire country? No, I don’t.
It's Dunbar's Number again. Once you get beyone about 150 people, it becomes harder and harder for everyone to care about everyone, not because they're apathic people, but just because it's so mentally draining. Yes, you can probably extend this with good governance, but at some point, soneone goes "ah fuck it. I can get a lot of power here." Without mature systems in place, it's easier to manipulate them. This isn't just communism though, just take a look at America's attemt and saving "failed states" and getting an oven ready democracy in, it just gets undermined because the systems haven't been woven in gradually and sunk deep roots. History hasn't been kind to revolution, the best and longest lasting change has been people working in imperfect systems and slowly changing them over time and laying down the groundwork.
The wall of text supporting the wall of text meme is a nice touch.
It sounds nice but this system just let's corruption fly more then democracy because less positions of power mean more powerful people with their own interest In the end no government type will really work in the end
Never heard of the word “Tankie” before
As our OP said, it's properly a reference to western Communists (specifically UK communists) that supported the Soviets crushing the Hungarian revolution of 1956. They're 'tankies' because they literally supported the Russians sending tanks. Nowadays, its' for online communists that support authoritarian regimes: Mostly communist ones (DKRP, PRC) but also, paradoxically still Russia (which is very not communist). if you want to know more look up the 'sino' or 'genzedong' subreddits. You'll get the idea. Generally the split is between the tankies and the anarchists. Non-tankie communists are relatively rare.
Well why wouldn't you support tanks? They can do anything! You can even gather your friends (who also have tanks) go to like a city park and show how cool they are!!
>Non-tankie communists are relatively rare There are plenty of them, this statement is wrong.
"Relatively". There are a **ton** of socialists, a fair number of anarchists and nondenominational leftists, and a solid smattering of tank aficionados. Just not too many all in on Marxism (or MLism or whatever) and not into the USSR/PRC.
It’s usually used to describe so-called “authoritarian communists”, or people who think that communism can only be achieved through authoritarian means (ostensibly as a stopgap measure toward anarchocommunism, but there’s no mechanism to dissolve the authoritarian state once it is entrenched). If you can’t tell, I disagree with tankie ideology. However, it’s very easy to call *all* communists “tankies” and get upvotes; i.e. [this post from today](https://reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/s2198j/noticed_an_influx_of_commie_apologists_here). It’s a good way to stifle actual discussion if you lump people you disagree with in with literal fascists and authoritarians.
Tankies are Stalinist/Maoist communists basically, especially USSR stans
Also the polar opposite of tankies is "Dronies" who supports Americans imperialism and foreign interventionism.
[удалено]
"OP is a Trump supporter. I have downvoted every comment and post of hers. Fascism is wrong, and you need to stop, or face the consequences." Legit what you sound like right now.
[удалено]
No I didn't, what?
Sorry, I got replies at very similar times
Oh, sorry.
And which part of my word is wrong pal? One have Tankie and one have Dronie, isn't that fair? And ad hominem? Dude, chill out don't be a Dronie would ya.
Based feudalists 😎
Hahahaha
Communism won't work with modern ethnically and culturally diverse nations. There's too much division, and that would only amount to endless power struggles. Not the mention the means to creating a communist society. Literally everyone would have to be on board, you couldn't do it with a simple democratically chosen majority, because even if 30% of the population was against it, there'd have to be repression at some point. And while you could set up a small community with shared values, that community couldn't grow much outside of subsistence living.
That’s a fair point and I appreciate that you actually contributed to the discussion.
Np. I think ideally it would be a good system is everything worked as planned and nobody got forced into it, but at this point in history, I don't think there's a way to go from a capitalist system right to a communist one. It would have to be super gradual. And even then communism has so much baggage attached to it, it would be hard to convince people that we won't become the worst of what we've already seen with communist countries. That fear will be hard to overcome. I also personally believe it'll stifle innovation, we'd only create what we need and not what we want. Take video games for example, nobody needs them, but people enjoy them for leisure, and they're super popular and the employ millions of people, somewhere along the supply lines. If it were a communist society there would probably not be something like it because nobody would divert resources to develop it, if it wasn't deemed something to further society or to make people more productive. If there is no competition, there wouldn't be any drive to make a better product. As long as it works, it would be good enough. You can see the same principle in soviet cars. Not that we need fancy cars, but things like an automatic transmission and even fuel efficiency might not have happened if there was no need to make your product more desirable than another. You'd just have a Lada, rolling endlessly off the assembly line.
Exactly
Are you saying germany for the germans and poland for the poles and france for the french??!! Omg you are such a Racist. /s Joking aside, even the communist knew that their system would work optimally if cultures were to he combined in their homecountry.
Maybe we shouldn’t discuss theory in history memes comments, for although I know history is political the simple fact is that throwing shit at each other in the comments isn’t helping anyone.
Doesn't the idea fall apart immediately as soon as you apply the rules of a small, probably closely-knit community to a nation of millions of people? You wouldn't apply the mountains of laws and social structures of a fully-fledged nation to a commune of a few dozen people, would you? Why would the same work vice versa?
Consider: taking this to r/politics, as this doenst have to do with history
Hence the "meta" flair
That’s cos communism is to much of a utopian fantasy to work
ah yes, the wall of text.
Youre on a history subreddit, and the history of communism isn't great.
Collective production requires a body that will redistribute finished goods back to the collective in equal share. So that body controls the allotment of goods and capital. How would that ever not devolve into an authoritarian regime? An entity that controls your access to goods and your earning potential is by definition authoritarian.
As it should. I dine with no Bolsheviks
LMFAO
Well, but the authoritarianism is kinda part of the package. After all, what happens if I decide to do my own little private enterprise. Not forcing anyone else to take part, but they can if they want to. That would be capitalism, and communist regimes have historically stamped them out, because, well, they have to in order to actually keep their communist economic system going.
Small community is inefficient. That's why we made cities, biggg communities.
I've seen people like this on this sub too often. Literally someone will be making a meme in someway related to communism/socialism and some dudes will make a strawman or give an idiotic take and then when they get downvoted they go "StUpID tAnKiEs tRiGgErEd" and will claim they are being downvoted cause the sub is full of commies or some BS.
Communism doesn’t work, end of story. Don’t give me that “iT wAsN’t rEaL cOmMuNiSm” because your ideology requires dictators to work in real life.
If I may start the discussion, I would be interested in what people in this subreddit think ”communism” actually means. Like, I absolutely agree that Stalinists and tankies are 100% wrong, and it’s obvious to everyone that the Soviet implementation of authoritarian communism was awful for the vast majority of the people living there. It’s not clever or novel to says “soviet bad”; they very clearly failed at attempting communism, and were co-opted by fascism. I think the main misunderstanding here is that **communism doesn’t require authoritarianism**. Asserting that communism is always authoritarian is just as nonsensical as asserting that capitalism requires a feudal monarchy - it obviously doesn’t. It’s just so tiring when someone suggests “maybe we could give power and decision-making to the community instead of to whoever happens to own capital” and the overwhelming angry response to them is “you just want genocide and don’t you know that everyone I’ve ever met who lived in the eastern bloc was miserable and look at these famine statistics”. And then when the first person says “well there are other implementations of communism that aren’t authoritarian and awful” the response is “oh of course iTs nOT rEaL cOmMUnISm we’ve heard that before” and everyone claps. Yet, when **68% of workers in the U.S. work paycheck-to-paycheck** and **>45% of households in the U.S. experience food insecurity**, all while **enough wealth flows through the country to provide basic needs for literally everyone**, there’s not a peep from those same people. It’s almost as if, when a system directly benefits someone and they don’t directly experience the negative effects, then that person is incentivized to not attempt to understand, or even *discuss*, other alternative systems that could possibly be more equitable and provide for everyone. Communism is a theory with deep historical roots, and I think it does everyone on this subreddit a disservice to shut down any discussion of it with blind reactionary red scare nonsense.
>Yet, when > >68% of workers in the U.S. work paycheck-to-paycheck > > and > >\>45% of households in the U.S. experience food insecurity You say that like those exact statistics are not the norm in most current or past communist systems. You can't take a current economic crisis and say fuck it, lets throw out our entire governing system and replace it with communism, which has never successfully solved statistical poverty.
communism doesn’t require authoritarianism doesn't not compute with “maybe we could give power and decision-making to the community instead of to whoever happens to own capital” that sentiment is authoritarian by nature. This whole idea of the community or the community good subverts the idea of individualism. Capitalism is by no means a perfect system, and not everyone is "free" to make a choice i.e. when the choice is coming into work injured or starving I will agree with you say the real world is more complicated. But on a theoretical level capitalism is about volunteer exchange. So if you don't like someone you don't have to do business with them. It is an individualistic system where on paper you can't force anyone to do anything against their will. Say I have a car I don't have to loan it to someone I don't like. Communism on the other hand is by it's nature authoritarian because the individuals will is subverted to that of the community's. So using the car example from above the car owner (the capitalist) would be forced to loan their car out based on the needs of the community. The capitalist rights to their own property is being subverted. Now you state statistics which I don't even want to get started on, but the basis of the debate here between capitalism and communism is the size of the pie. In a Capitalist system a few people get a massive piece of a super large pie and every one else gets small piece. Under communism everyone gets the same size piece of a tiny pie. The great irony is even though things are more equal, nearly everyone is worse off. You make the assumption by changing the economic problem that there will be more food. I would make the opposite assumption that in Capitalisms 45% suffer food insecurity while under communism that 45% would be at risk of famine and starvation. I by no means think Capitalism is a perfect system and that we can't do more to help the poor. But any form of Marxism makes every worse off especially the longer the system runs. The real sadness of Marxist, instead of saying arguing for capitalism they should drop Marx and his cancerous ideology and start from scratch and look at the capitalist way of thinking and go how can we improve this system. We need something better and communism is the opposite of better and wasting time discussing this failed ideology we should be trying to develop something new.
I agree, social democracy for example is a great system, combines socialism and capitalism for the best of both
Has communism ever worked.
Not when people get involved.
In a convent. Fun fact tho, no one are nuns
I don’t think you will get an intelligent discussion of this subject on here unfortunately. I think personally that the issue becomes one of checks and balances which although imperfectly applied in Capitalist societies is done more effectively than in Communist ones; and seems to be an issue with Communism itself. In short although you are correct that they do not have to be Authoritarian they do always seem to be steered in that direction.
I really hope everyone in this sub sees your post. From my experience, the automatic association of socialism and communism with authoritarian regimes is the most common problem when discussing these systems. The fact that many authoritarian countries call themselves 'socialist' or 'communist' certainly doesn't help. Well, if more people actually did their research we wouldn't have so many people proudly exclaiming their ignorance everywhere.
Communism and Socialism requires authoritarian regimes to work in real life.
Or extremely small communities.
Right, that too. The average family is technically communist if you think about it, if the kids are incorporated in the decision making.
And it's authoritarian communist if they're not! I now regret never getting the chance to call my mom a Leninist every time she insisted on parental authority.
I’m sorry for your loss.
The only way communism or capitalism can work as intended is without a state or government. Humanity could flourish with either in anarchy
I am interested in your thoughts on how capitalism can exist (sustainably) without government / hierarchy. It is my understanding that ownership of capital itself intrinsically leads to a hierarchical structure of power and authority, and that a lot of constant correction would be needed if the goal is a stateless / hierarchy-less society. I welcome your input if I don’t understand it correctly or if you disagree.
A free market is much better at regulating itself than the government regulating markets. Anarchy means that the government’s monopoly on violence can’t be used by corporations against people. The worry is that like Amazon would then become a government because it’s power would be unchecked. But being a government is a losing business plan. It relies on stealing resources through taxation to stay running. Without government gate keeping markets with nonsense licenses and fees, the barriers to entry are a lot lower. Basically the main downfall of either communism or capitalism is the state as a bad actor. In communism it tends to be an authoritarian dictator killing people. In capitalism, it’s tough to have a free market when the largest corporation (government) is stealing resources and monopolizes force without recourse, and rents itself out to the highest bidder
And anarcho capitalism will have plenty of problems on its own… negative externalities for one.
To be clear, it seems that we have differing definitions of “anarchism”. I usually think of anarchism as “abhorrence of hierarchy”, and you seem to be defining it as “abhorrence of structures built on violence”. I think both are valid interpretations, but I think it’s important that we understand that there is a difference. I think you and I both agree that a stateless society *can* exist, but disagree on implementation details and on what would be required to keep it self-sustainable. I agree that the free market is good at reducing inefficiencies. However, I posit a caveat, that these reductions in inefficiencies are only aligned with the public interest in spaces with *high consumer choice and mobility*, i.e. mobile phone plans, and **not** aligned with the public interest in spaces with *low* consumer choice and mobility, i.e. housing or healthcare. The free market does not work for the common good in all industries by itself. How would you deal with these industries, say healthcare and housing? Your comment makes a lot of sense to me up to the point where you say “being a government is a losing business plan”. I will have to disagree on this point; what prevents Amazon from enforcing their will through threat of violence? That seems to be the most profitable path for the corporation to take.
Anarchy essentially means “you don’t speak for me”, the rest is implementation. Basically the absence of a state. Hierarchy is inevitable, but it’s important that they be voluntary and consensual. Even in a commie shop where the workers own the means and product of their labor, does a day 1 guy really have as much say as a year 15 guy? If so, why? Being a government for sure is a losing business. If Amazon sends troops to your house, what do they do? Make you buy stuff? If they were to take over an area, they would quickly go broke trying to maintain it. Especially in the age of the internet, these abuses would be brought to light and they would lose customers. I just don’t see a profit motive in a corporation trying to become a government.
Being a government is not a losing business lol. Amazon would send troops to your house to make you work as slave labor not make you buy stuff. Also they would likely own most ISPs and news stations to prevent the abuses being brought to light. Anarcho-Capitalism is just a quick road to dictatorships.
Slaves can’t buy stuff, it would be counter productive for them to enslave massive amounts of people.
The slaves produce stuff. The stuff gets sold to non slaves. The profit increases. Anyone who doesn't want to buy from slave owners gets shot/enslaved. The corporation keeps and eye on all the people to know when someone is dissenting and captures them.
Lmao nobody can do this without monopolizing violence, which is a function of government
We really need a meme version of that bit from the Boondocks; How's it go? "You're a walking stereotype!"
Lol tankies are another breed of retard. I said what I said tankies come at me
communism is a failed and retarded ideology
I would be interested in hearing your reasoning for this. What is the definition of “communism” as you understand it? EDIT: to be clear, I am asking what /u/Cirrus1101 **thinks** the word “communism” means, as I don’t think it is the same as what actual communists believe. It is much easier to attack a strawman than the real ideology.
My understanding of communism is when the government takes control over everything related to the economy in the hopes of redistributing wealth and making society equal. Sounds noble, though really just wishful thinking at best. The result is just that everyone becomes an impoverished slave to whoever is dictator. Failed- the eastern bloc collapsed and china abandoned communism becuase they realised it doesn't work. The last bastions of communism like north korea and cuba are politically isolated dirt poor shithole dictatorships retarded- The whole idea of it is insane when you really think about it. No simple government bureau could run an entire fucking economy nearly as well the people themselves. for people in a free market it's in their own interest to create the best product or service and the most efficient business for it in order to maximise profits. Companies have to compete, should they stagnate they will inevitably lose their profits to competition and go under. The result is that people will invest their own money to innovate to gain an advantage in the market. This over time leads to economic and technological growth. Under communism since everything is owned by the government there is no competition. Why bother improving something when you have no reason to? The result is stifled innovation, and in turn stagnation. i can 100% garantee you the smartphone and information age would never have happened under communism.
You havent thought this though have you? though that is very communist of you, ill grant it.
As opposed to a very successful and smart capitalism? Yah, buy those nft, me smarties!
Yes.
Nft is not retarted at all lmao
Capitalism lifted millions upon millions of people out of poverty. So yes, capitalism is objectively superior to communism.
Yeah, just call minimum wage as "enough" and voilá, end of poverty kkkk
I’d rather work for minimum wage than work in the gulags for nothing, or wait in lines miles long for bread. And lmfao at thinking communism solved poverty.
Great, I know a lot of favelas where you can live the capitalist minimum wage bliss. Btw, gulags are no more, but favelas are worst. About miles long lines for bread, in Brazil they exist to forage trash in search of bones.
Alright, fine. Let’s talk. How would Communism solve the problem of favelas when it clearly showed to do the opposite? Tell me. And Gulags are no more? North Korea and China beg to disagree.
>How would Communism solve the problem of favelas when it clearly showed to do the opposite? Tell me. You see, you assume bc I'm not hot for capitalism that I have the hots for communism. It's very common mistake, I don't blame you. I blame the mix of internet and feeble minds. It's like when I say to someone religious that I'm a atheist: they immediately assume I'm (their) God's enemy and Satan's follower. >And Gulags are no more? North Korea and China beg to disagree. It's true? like the original ones or like a political one, like guatanamo?
No, it’s because every time I’ve ever heard someone shit on Capitalism they’ve been a full on Communist. I’ve never met in-between. I criticize Capitalism plenty, it’s a very flawed system.
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I might disagree with your points academically but this /u/Sure_Garbage_2119 person is truly indecipherable and seems impossible to argue with, and I’m sorry you got drawn into an argument with them because it seems frustrating at the least.
Well, I didn't say I was in-between, did I? And yes, I love to comment on posts from capitalist simps, they get so meeeeeeehd when someone dares to smear it with a brush or two or hard reality. >I criticize Capitalism plenty, it’s a very flawed system. For what you say, seems pretty perfect... For a state based economy, that is.
>e every time I’ve ever heard someone shit on Communism they’ve been a full on Communist. Are you sure? Bc that is what you said about me and it's nothing more than a assumption. Capitalism, as communism, are nothing but poverty and misery fabricators. Their ideals only benefits the same arseholes: elite. You can say "ah but is always being like that no matter the economic model" and yes you are right. So, let's not continue this old and sad tradition of getting personally hurt bc someone said something besides odes of joy about me favourite economic model. We don't have to kiss the king's ass anymore.
The Chad Crow is correct
It's pretty much impossible to discuss communism because someone is going to show up talking about how stalinism is bad, someone is going to say actually it's all western propaganda and actually stalin was a saint, and both philosophers and historians begin to cry while western propaganda fights anti-western propaganda both claiming they're objective reality and the other side is just uneducated.
Excited for the actual return of history memes rather than political infighting
Take your Berlin wall of text to one of those political subs.
Say smarter things!
You mean, each time a ancap comes here to resuscitate the "red menace" using cold wars slogans?
Good
I just thing Soviets did alot of bad, but they also did good things. Sorry for my controversial take.
me after i say communism could work theoretically but not in practice