Topic: [It's not real communism] or why socialism can still be an answer - page 3. (Read 1098 times)

Hes right... people do ask for Socialism when the economy is bad. That doesn't mean it will make anything better... in fact it is like pouring water on a grease fire.




Don't speak for me. SOCIALISM IS INHERENTLY TOTALITARIAN. END OF STATEMENT.

Yeah lets just gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism resulting every time Socialism and Communism are implemented. Socialists are like a 18 year old with a credit card. They run around buying all kinds of crap they can't pay for, but in their minds it is ok, because they got a credit card to pay for things right?
Things will just "work out". That is not how it works, the chain in your brain is missing a link. Your picture doesn't present any argument against this reality. Very pretty colors though.

Communism alone leads to dictatorship anyway...


Not everyone is interested in politics to rule the country they live, and many of the citizens don't have enough knowledge to say how things must be done in several sectors (economy, security, health, education, etc...), so it's normal to have representants, that have a similar opinion to the voters, but that are better prepared to work for the country, on the front.

There are many people who just want to work daily, earn money and buy stuff to thrive in life, they don't care about politics, ideologies, they just want to live in a confortable society, with the highest quality as possible. And if the person doesn't care about political choices, he/she won't have any idea about it, so it's better he/she won't have any power... Otherwise it can be a disaster.


The same is said about Democracy, all of us have an equal share of power, and actually that doesn't guarantee benefits. If there are 100 corruptible politicians it's because a big parcel of those 50 millions voted for them, so they are somehow in agreement with those practices.

In other words, if the biggest part of the population is corrupt, illiterate, alienated the whole country will suffer, because they are the majority. And the few guys who could raise the country will be smashed because the minority's opinion doesn't matter.

From this perspective, the Communist system you say is similar to the Democracy we have, with the difference there wouldn't be representants. So instead of electing corrupt politicians, the corrupt people would be acting directly, messing everything around...

Hey there, would you mind explaining us what you mean by that? I never heard of liquid democracy.

Completely!

Venezuela in much more complex than just saying "SoCialiSM FaiLLLLs" but that's a good example of power corruption and of how handing everything to the government is NOT a good idea.

But now what if there is no government but everyone rules equally? What if laws are proposed and voted directly by the citizens? What if there is no politician to be corrupted?

Now that's something that might work...

Ok I'm putting TECHSHARE on ignore. He doesn't read people so there is no point trying to discuss with him. Or he reads people and isn't able to make the difference between cause and consequence but that would be sad. Do feel free to feed the troll if you wish though.

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people

Ok, then what is the point of even saying that then if not to cast yourself in a superior light by comparison? If we are both bias then what does it matter? Oh right your bias is the more correct bias. My mind is plenty open. I didn't put any words in your mouth. Maybe you learn how burden of proof works huh, how about it?



Really, it is getting pathetic that you still don't understand what a "no true Scotsman" fallacy is, or circular logic. You are just rephrasing "it wasn't real communism, so lets try it again!". Your argument is anything that distracts from this fact, that you have no facts. You don't even have logic. You have only the ILLUSION of logic.



No, you have conveniently removed it because you have no argument to stand on. You can't even submit a logical premise let alone defend it. Your mental gymnastics, constantly shifting definitions, and logical fallacies do not count.

Yes, I know what you are saying because you do nothing but repeat yourself rather than respond to my criticisms of your lack of logic. Your ideology INHERENTLY LEADS TO TOTALITARIANISM. You can say "oh but my point is not that its this look over here!" all day... Your ideology STILL INHERENTLY LEADS TO TOTALITARIANISM.

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

We definitely need to stop capitalism before it gets to a point of "grease fire". 

The statement in all caps literally denies the existence of the political compass.  You are saying that the left only exists at the very top left corner of the compass.  Literally everyone here is between somewhere near the middle and the very bottom.    This is why all of your arguments against modern leftist ideology are strawmen.  Yes we should gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism when discussing democratic socialism because it isn't relevant.   Instead of arguing with the 20th century, maybe you should argue with the people who are here and living in the 21st century.   

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." 

Oh am I? I suppose that makes you unbiased in comparison? I am absolutely reading and comprehending every word you type. I had an adult level vocabulary in grade school, don't worry I understand big words.

Your point is not Communism works, just that it "COULD work", so lets try it again right? Again, just more of your "no true Scotsman" circular logic, just rearranged to sound like it is something else.



Very convenient that you need not provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of the successes of the ideology you think we should give another go, because your argument is it never really existed. Your entire ideology hinges on you justifying it with itself. Communism never existed, therefore there was no real Communism, therefore lets try it again it could work right? C-I-R-C-U-L-A-R



Riiight... a direct result of it.... nearly every time.... it was ever tried.... You think perhaps there is a correlation with the ideology itself and horrible dumpster fires of failure? Nah it wasn't TRUE Communism, so its ok.




You literally did this. All the names of the horrible leaders of failed Communist states resulting in mass death "don't count as group x" because they are "group y", and "group x" hasn't been tried before.



Again this was literally your original post in the thread. You defined "Dictatorships" as being the "bad" then used that to then juxtapose Communism as not that, and the remaining "good". This is right out of the Hegelian dialectic. This is not logic, this is mind conditioning via fallacy and operant conditioning.




Considering you started off the topic, and support the premise, the burden of proof is on you, not me to provide evidence of any examples of successful implementations of Communism. I have no burden to prove it wrong, even though I can do that all day. See above.



Why should I reference a question? This is a well documented fact. I will grace you with references later, first I want to hear you deny it a few more times before I prove you wrong to show you are too lazy to even check for yourself in the past or even now. The fact is I probably know your precious ideology better than you do.



Oh, you disagree and you don't see do you? Well then. That is all the proof I need!

Look it is not my job to teach you all of history. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there. Now if you don't want to take the time to actually check for yourself, at least stop pretending like you have.

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

I think he is saying that USSR socialism didn't work because it was authoritarian so maybe we should try libertarian socialism.    I think we all agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea so maybe you should move past that being 100% of your argument against socialism/communism.

I posted this compass because you are only thinking in terms of left vs right.  A one dimensional argument in a two dimensional world.  All of your arguments have been against the top left corner of the compass.  The problem is, as a socialist, I have never met anyone who's ideology is up there.  They exist in history yes, and your arguments are sound against the USSR, but we are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum; in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass where authority comes from individuals via democracy and not from the government. 

No of course I'm probably as biased concerning liberal economy... Just trying to point out you should keep and open mind and stop putting words inside my mouth :/
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. My point is communist countries failure is more linked to representative government than to communism so let's think about it again ><

I've cut it all because you more or less say the same things on the rest of your post "you should provide evidence that communism works before wanting to go again"

But that's not at all my point, I'm not saying let's do communism, I'm saying "hey previous failures are linked to representative government which had a complete and total power which leads to dictatorship. What happens if we put direct democracy instead?"

See?

I wish I had a lot of agricultural land for development purposes. There's so many things you can utilize that land for.

However, besides the inherent value of land itself; the problem there seems the middle-man more than anything. If you were a rice farmer and grew everyone's rice, they'd be happy with you in a simple system; unless your rice was the worst rice ever...

Anyway, what're talking about again? I already think I stated the 'best' solution to the problem; which is technology and development

Communism is only fair when it's anacho-communism or something similar. People need their absolute liberties regardless of the cost to "society"; they exist for explicit purposes of keeping personal freedoms.

Representative democracy used to be effective when a single individual didn't represent literally hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Originally, there was a single congressional member per around 40-60k citizens. Now it's closer to 250k-500k citizens.

It's crazy to think that individuals can be represented by someone that's job is to represent 250-500k other people.

I've proposed implementing a liquid democracy system to replace the house of representatives, and I'll probably be running for my state house on that platform; which the individual voice matters.

No that's not what I said please quote me entirely ><


You don't have a choice of which society you live in because you're born in it that's what I said!

Of course then you have all the choice in the world to try to change it. But you don't chose where you start from which is the main thing that will influence your life.

And I'm sorry if you're shocked by this but the group in which you're born will do whatever it wants to you.. That's already the case and it will always be. A group decides what should and should not be done to its members. Simple example if you're born in Western countries the group decided you must get mandatory first education and can't have sexual relationships before a certain age. Would you be born in an Islamic dictatorship the group would have made very different choices... The kid born has no saying in this

And so you're advocating that the group I was born into can do anything they want with me (or anyone else), as long as some of them agree that it's ok?

Conversation over.

Have fun in your dictatorship, sorry, commune. I hope everyone else chooses to do something nice to you

I'm not sure if this could be what's @OP is trying to say, this video tried to explain the difference between socialism and communism and it says;

"according to Marx, socialism is a precursor to communism and the next logical step after capitalism"

And this was the second time that I've heard of that quote. Can someone who had read or knew about the communist manifesto confirm if Marx really said that? If this were true, I wont make any arguments about socialism and communism.

The idea of Marx is a stateless, moneyless, and classless society, while the idea of socialism is heavily understood as equally shared profits within a "cooperative". Can someone tell me if my view of socialism is right?

So this is how I basically understand communism and socialism, communism is a utopian system that can only be achieved if socialism is put into practice.

If you're looking for a community with the idea of socialism, or the idea of "equally shared profits", the kibbutz from Israel is a good example, IMO. Some said that the kibbutz are enjoying this equally shared profits, but if an outsider would want to join their system, it must pass their exam and is required to donate money.

Imagine if that community became self-sufficient, gathered all the knowledge, built their own vehicles, have their own army and weapons, made their own phones, computers, what will be next? Communism, world domination, or it will eventually collapse? I'm not sure if the word trust is known to them or if their system is entirely a trustless community. But here's the catch, if someone doesn't trust this equally shared profits, or if some member of the kibbutz community will suspect about their profit, a decentralized blockchain can be a good public ledger for them. Let me correct @OP, it must be decentralized/public blockchain and not just blockchain.

This is my basic understanding of capitalism - "follow where the money flows", and my country tried to follow it.

Back then, my country was the number 1 exporter of rice, but my government doesn't believe that agriculture is the first step to industrialization, and now we are importing it. My family, both my mom and dad, were from a family of farmers, but most of them sold their agricultural lands, and their excuse is that money generated from farming is not worthy enough for their hardwork. Too much competition leads to excess of food, the middleman who buys their crop back then said that there is too much rice to consume. Today, the middleman's excuse of buying the crops harvested is still the same. I'm not sure who should I believe, the middleman who says that there is too much rice, or my government who always kept on importing rice just to fill the scarcity.

EDIT: I do own an agricultural land, but it's not income generating, which part of the class should I belong? I'm not basically paying tax, FYI.

That's why most kids, when they grow up, leave the family. Each individual is his own group, so to speak. It's only when individuals agree on being a group that they can become a group. Even Stockholm Syndrome groups of captives are captive by agreement. Why do they agree? Because the alternative is too scary.