discussion Communism vs Capitalism Jubilee

[Domination]

1 hour ago, AMIT said:

You know what is coercive? Forcing people to work (under someone else's rules no less) or else they starve and go homeless.

Do you think people are not forced to work in planned economies?

[Kassi]

42 minutes ago, Lionceau géorgien said:

Hοw come? Provided that we don't change the definition of Capitalism  or its terms of application, isn't a system that allows for any given thing to be represented on the market in as many gradations and variations imaginable, for the critical consumer to judge ,the best way for pretty much anything( save perhaps medicine and food), especially for abstract things, such as art, ideas, concepts, etc.? Unless Socialism and Communism envision a new class of people––whatever they might be called––that will have a fresh way of assessing the value of things, why is Capitalism ill-fitted for...the only thing that it's actually been good at?

This is a @Communion and @AMIT question. Cause I fully believe in the power and efficiency of the free market capitalist system to facilitate the exchange of value.

 

My best understanding is that using a capitalist market economy to trade ideas is highly inefficient cause in order for the idea to have monetary value, you need to restrict that information only to those who pay for it. And if you restrict access to an idea, then it can never fulfill its maximum utility. Similar to how scientific journals restrict access to academic papers today and impede the development of scientific knowledge. 
 

Good innovations normally build off of the ideas of many other people, and restricting access to ideas would have the effect of slowing down the development of humanity. So, the most efficient way to compensate people for their ideas would not be to charge a price “per copy” of that idea sold, but to do something like provide a reward system for each hour worked, as time would be the only scarce resource we have post-scarcity.
 

Conversely, some might say that the popularity or usefulness of an idea would be its own reward, since people generally want to contribute instead of perform meaningless work. 
 

In that case, people could contribute most effectively to a knowledge economy if they took jobs they are best at and enjoy the most. That’s not possible if people are coerced into taking jobs by the threat of homelessness or hunger. So, work would ideally be optional. 
 

If there was no work that necessarily needs to be done (since knowledge economy labor is driven by interest and not material needs), and food production is fully automated, then the communist mode of production would naturally emerge as egalitarian.

 

Or something like that. It totally doesn’t account for human nature in my view. 

[AMIT]

13 minutes ago, Domination said:

Do you think people are not forced to work in planned economies?

They are. But ''planned economies'' =/= Communism. 

[Aethereal]

As someone who struggles and had struggled even more in the past with finances I get the moral point of communism but most of the state the followed the ideology did not end up well. 

[Asscatchem]

Communism is the dream. But until then I'll support my capitalist faves.

[Dekkan]

On 12/26/2023 at 4:25 AM, Delirious said:

What are they then? Democratic?

The word you are so clearly missing is autocracy. Russia and China are authoritarian states. Communist, they are not.

 

[s-60staliniec]

On 12/26/2023 at 3:06 AM, She-Rah said:

Communism has never worked.

 Thats wrong and  thats Capitalist propaganda comunism more then worked we could go on and on about it but i think its enough to say that ussr a country that just came out of the biggest war in human history that happend largely on its terrytory killed milions of its people and destroyed pretty much all economy was able to after that become such a international super power to be the first country to send a human into space and was able to compete and almost win with US 

[s-60staliniec]

On 12/26/2023 at 3:31 AM, Delirious said:

Can we stop promoting communism please? It's dangerous and it's never going to work. 

 

There'd be no such thing as entertainment or artists making music  (edit: for those of you who are taking my statement literally, think about what I actually mean. e.g. The censoring & control of entertainment etc.)

 

If you don't like DEMOCRATIC capitalistic countries then move to Russia or China 

plain stupid it seems like you derive all your knowlage on comunism from cold war era us propaganda 

first of all enterteinment existed in ussr it was censored but gueess what so was art in the us and almost everywhere else in the world besides comunism censorship isnt tied to comunism ussr' (besides technicly not even being a comunist country but to know that yo would actaul have to know what comunism even stands for and i bet you dont) was besides being a comunist state was also a athoritarian one and thats were the censorship came from 

"If you don't like DEMOCRATIC capitalistic countries then move to Russia or China"- but you know neither of this countrys is a comunist state and wasn't for a long time  and the shity state of this countrys is caused by implementing capitalism whnich was done by the elites to get rich and powerfull. Capitalism ruined both of this countrys 

Comunism is responsible for bringing elctricity outside big citis in this countrys  its responsible for increadible decrese in analfebitism china was always a shithol  because of the population density but it was slowly getting better slowly but surely and russia only became a ******* civiliesed nation thanks to capitalism before ussr russia outisde big cities was just like middle ages like seriosly before the revolution feudalism was still present in russia 

and btw i dont like  ussr i think it was a totalitarian regime BUT i am still a coumunist because despite crimes comited by the goverment comunist reforms where the best thing to happen to middle and eastern europe in a while

[Delirious]

12 hours ago, Dekkan said:

The word you are so clearly missing is autocracy. Russia and China are authoritarian states. Communist, they are not.

 

China is communist lol? Wtf 

 

You don't own land you buy there. You lease it for 70 years max if it's residential and 50 years if it's commercial.

 

50 minutes ago, s-60staliniec said:

plain stupid it seems like you derive all your knowlage on comunism from cold war era us propaganda 

first of all enterteinment existed in ussr it was censored but gueess what so was art in the us and almost everywhere else in the world besides comunism censorship isnt tied to comunism ussr' (besides technicly not even being a comunist country but to know that yo would actaul have to know what comunism even stands for and i bet you dont) was besides being a comunist state was also a athoritarian one and thats were the censorship came from 

"If you don't like DEMOCRATIC capitalistic countries then move to Russia or China"- but you know neither of this countrys is a comunist state and wasn't for a long time  and the shity state of this countrys is caused by implementing capitalism whnich was done by the elites to get rich and powerfull. Capitalism ruined both of this countrys 

Comunism is responsible for bringing elctricity outside big citis in this countrys  its responsible for increadible decrese in analfebitism china was always a shithol  because of the population density but it was slowly getting better slowly but surely and russia only became a ******* civiliesed nation thanks to capitalism before ussr russia outisde big cities was just like middle ages like seriosly before the revolution feudalism was still present in russia 

and btw i dont like  ussr i think it was a totalitarian regime BUT i am still a coumunist because despite crimes comited by the goverment comunist reforms where the best thing to happen to middle and eastern europe in a while

What....?

[Dekkan]

1 hour ago, Delirious said:

China is communist lol? Wtf 

 

You don't own land you buy there. You lease it for 70 years max if it's residential and 50 years if it's commercial.

China is controlled by the so-called Communist Party of China, but China's current political system falls far short of the definition of a communist state. Perhaps the most accurate term would be a one-party authoritarian socialist state. There is no doubt that the authorities are pursuing the construction of a communist society, which is, as far as I'm concerned, even included in China's constitution, but that does not change the fact that it is not a communist state in its current form. One radical regulation, from a Western perspective, does not change that.

 

And to be crystal clear - I'm in no way defending anything this horrible state has been doing, I'm simply pointing out the universally accepted terminology in political science.

[Take Me Apart]

Neither China nor Russia are communist by definition but the fact that their leaders are constantly praising the "golden days" of communism tells me all I need to know about this ideology and its fanatics 

 

Wannabe authoritarian dictators flaunting their need for centralized power 

Edited December 27, 2023 by Take Me Apart

[Lionceau géorgien]

19 hours ago, Kassi said:

In that case, people could contribute most effectively to a knowledge economy if they took jobs they are best at and enjoy the most. That’s not possible if people are coerced into taking jobs by the threat of homelessness or hunger. So, work would ideally be optional. 

Thing is, work already is optional. The work that the vast majority of the human populace subjects itself to, at any rate, the kind of work that annihilates any sense of autonomy in a person's life, is absolutely not necessary to pay the bills, to provide for food and water, and even keep some money on the side, because the chances that they'll be facing homelessness or hunger are close to zero, provided that they're willing to work a job that doesn't skin them alive of course, which are plenty . It's only when people want to start a  family, buy something that signifies status, move to a bigger house, or to a fancier part of a city, stan the most popular actor, film, artist, thing, and support them monetarily, etc.—all of these things undoubtedly raise your profile in the eyes of society—that work starts to become all-consuming, but the only reason it does is because a person chooses to. They are at perfect liberty to not pick that life, as long as it's completely up to the person to choose. But they do. Why? Because no one slaves away at work to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, they only do so in order to sustain an image of respectability—so modernity has far, far outgrown the need for money, and people have been consumed with a desire for money for far longer. 

 

So, you could say that we already live in an embryo version of a post-scarcity world, and while humanity may at some point outgrow the need of toiling away at some menial job, will it also outgrow the unquenchable thirst is has for money? Money is a status symbol, and vast majority  people work to make heaps of it, only so they can get to wear it.

 

How can we suppose for society to function if we deprive it the strongest stimulus that propels it to positive action, or really to any action?

 

And if an idea has any societal capital, that means that it also has the ability to alter society, and the single most meaningful way to measure the impact of anything or anyone  is economical. For a thing to not make a mark on the financial side of things, it means that it never has existed, on the market, or anywhere at all. A good idea implicates in and of itself that it possesses the potential of exercising economic leverage.

20 hours ago, Kassi said:

Good innovations normally build off of the ideas of many other people, and restricting access to ideas would have the effect of slowing down the development of humanity. So, the most efficient way to compensate people for their ideas would not be to charge a price “per copy” of that idea sold, but to do something like provide a reward system for each hour worked, as time would be the only scarce resource we have post-scarcity.

But how much could accessing an idea realistically cost? More than a single book? Hardly a fortune. And if we take that ideas constitute the single most valuable commodity, or even the sole commodity in such an order, their price range could be pretty wide–– an idea could cost  as  little or as much as the 'sellers', the originators of  ideas wish to price them, or value them at. Also, the only reason an originator of an idea might be fine with their idea being accessible to anyone, is because they're sure of its success, and the subsequent impact it might have, so the moment the idea takes hold, and gives rise to many projects, it's not unreasonable to expect the originator to at the very least want the prestige of being acknowledged as the source of the progress their idea has provided an impetus to, right?

What happens then? Who gets to claim an idea in such a case? And what if that person also wishes to get a cut out of the revenue their idea has helped generate?

 

The desire for one class of people to differentiate from another class of people that they fancy themselves superior to, and the need to build elaborate castles to stand apart from them, isn't the offspring of Capitalism, so why would it cease even if Capitalism were to go belly-up tomorrow?

 

 

 

[Kassi]

4 hours ago, Lionceau géorgien said:

Thing is, work already is optional. The work that the vast majority of the human populace subjects itself to, at any rate, the kind of work that annihilates any sense of autonomy in a person's life, is absolutely not necessary to pay the bills, to provide for food and water, and even keep some money on the side, because the chances that they'll be facing homelessness or hunger are close to zero, provided that they're willing to work a job that doesn't skin them alive of course, which are plenty . It's only when people want to start a  family, buy something that signifies status, move to a bigger house, or to a fancier part of a city, stan the most popular actor, film, artist, thing, and support them monetarily, etc.—all of these things undoubtedly raise your profile in the eyes of society—that work starts to become all-consuming, but the only reason it does is because a person chooses to. They are at perfect liberty to not pick that life, as long as it's completely up to the person to choose. But they do. Why? Because no one slaves away at work to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, they only do so in order to sustain an image of respectability—so modernity has far, far outgrown the need for money, and people have been consumed with a desire for money for far longer. 

 

So, you could say that we already live in an embryo version of a post-scarcity world, and while humanity may at some point outgrow the need of toiling away at some menial job, will it also outgrow the unquenchable thirst is has for money? Money is a status symbol, and vast majority  people work to make heaps of it, only so they can get to wear it.

 

How can we suppose for society to function if we deprive it the strongest stimulus that propels it to positive action, or really to any action?

 

And if an idea has any societal capital, that means that it also has the ability to alter society, and the single most meaningful way to measure the impact of anything or anyone  is economical. For a thing to not make a mark on the financial side of things, it means that it never has existed, on the market, or anywhere at all. A good idea implicates in and of itself that it possesses the potential of exercising economic leverage.

But how much could accessing an idea realistically cost? More than a single book? Hardly a fortune. And if we take that ideas constitute the single most valuable commodity, or even the sole commodity in such an order, their price range could be pretty wide–– an idea could cost  as  little or as much as the 'sellers', the originators of  ideas wish to price them, or value them at. Also, the only reason an originator of an idea might be fine with their idea being accessible to anyone, is because they're sure of its success, and the subsequent impact it might have, so the moment the idea takes hold, and gives rise to many projects, it's not unreasonable to expect the originator to at the very least want the prestige of being acknowledged as the source of the progress their idea has provided an impetus to, right?

What happens then? Who gets to claim an idea in such a case? And what if that person also wishes to get a cut out of the revenue their idea has helped generate?

 

The desire for one class of people to differentiate from another class of people that they fancy themselves superior to, and the need to build elaborate castles to stand apart from them, isn't the offspring of Capitalism, so why would it cease even if Capitalism were to go belly-up tomorrow?

 

 

 

 

I think you’re exactly right. I’ve also had this same persistent difficulty in reconciling the high-minded principles of communism with the tangible aspects of human nature and motivation.
 

When I’ve pointed to society’s tendency towards excessive consumption of non-essentials, self-proclaimed Marxists and communists have argued that well “poor people deserve nice things too”. Which raises a fundamental question: what constitutes an acceptable level of luxury?

 

Further, even if we set aside material possessions and ideas, there remains inherent disparities within the realm of sexual economics. In this context, female sexuality, pivotal in reproduction, is often perceived as inherently valuable, whereas male sexuality is not attributed similar intrinsic worth. This perspective posits that women essentially 'own' sexual interactions (i.e. the means of RE-production ), exercising control over their occurrence, participants, motivations, and methods. Men, in contrast, are seen as bringing other resources to these interactions, such as financial assets, personality, care, or physical attractiveness, in the hope of gaining sexual access. These resources, whether tangible or intangible, play a role in a transactional view of sexuality. This imbalance implies that sexual activity, a fundamental biological urge, will never be equitably distributed.

 

In gay relations, this disparity might manifest in an outsized preference for men who embody traditional masculine ideals, overshadowing, and even marginalizing, those who do not fit these criteria. 
 

Given these observations, I am highly skeptical of any societal framework that emphasizes equality of OUTCOME as its central tenet. Everyone should be afforded equal opportunity and then we can let the market and money dictate the flow of “value”. 

[Elusive Chanteuse]

On 12/25/2023 at 10:29 PM, She-Rah said:

Also, the older I get the more my views have been moving to the right. I recently changed my party affiliation from D to independent because the Democratic Party doesn’t represent me anymore. 
 

has that happened to any of you? Things I used to agree with liberals and socialists in my younger years I now roll my eyes at and find them silly. 
 

Same but still a left leaning moderate. 

[VOSS]

I think the issue is incentives. Under capitalism you're motivated to create a better life for yourself and your family through hard work, innovation, etc. I don't think that same drive is there under communism where you're working for the state and the collective good. Would the Industrial Revolution have been possible under communism? It seems like people would have little reason to innovate, and big new ideas would get stomped out by the bureaucracy for being too disruptive. Working to reduce exploitation and rent-seeking is a much better option than overthrowing capitalism, whatever form that would look like.

 

Communism is clearly appealing in a zero-sum situation, but the world is not zero-sum. People everywhere have an undeniably and massively better quality of life than a couple hundred years ago. The success of one group doesn't need to come at the expense of another.

[s-60staliniec]

17 hours ago, Delirious said:

China is communist lol? Wtf 

 

You don't own land you buy there. You lease it for 70 years max if it's residential and 50 years if it's commercial.

 

What....?

Do you know what comunism means? like do yo actualy know ?

[Lionceau géorgien]

12 hours ago, Kassi said:

Given these observations, I am highly skeptical of any societal framework that emphasizes equality of OUTCOME as its central tenet. Everyone should be afforded equal opportunity and then we can let the market and money dictate the flow of “value”.

Period.

 

12 hours ago, Kassi said:

Further, even if we set aside material possessions and ideas, there remains inherent disparities within the realm of sexual economics. In this context, female sexuality, pivotal in reproduction, is often perceived as inherently valuable, whereas male sexuality is not attributed similar intrinsic worth. This perspective posits that women essentially 'own' sexual interactions (i.e. the means of RE-production ), exercising control over their occurrence, participants, motivations, and methods. Men, in contrast, are seen as bringing other resources to these interactions, such as financial assets, personality, care, or physical attractiveness, in the hope of gaining sexual access. These resources, whether tangible or intangible, play a role in a transactional view of sexuality. This imbalance implies that sexual activity, a fundamental biological urge, will never be equitably distributed.

Truth is, that for a woman to be a vessel for reproduction, she must face an imposition of a scale, that the common, healthy man will never have to suffer under, in any capacity, at any point throughout his life. Pregnancy is a massive physical, bodily imposition on a woman, and it completely alters her relationship with everyone and everything––her standing with men is forever altered, she is forever changed to immediate, and overall, society. Having the potential to thoroughly transform and redefine a woman's identity, it makes sense that women would feel entitled to holding the reins of an aspect of life that has the ability to compromise their sense of authority over their own lives. This act of taking the reins just merely gives emphasis to the overall tendency of the past couple of decades, which is that of the ever-growing gap between male and female sexual interests, tastes, and dynamics. 

 

Inequality is an inherent element of heterosexual relationships, it's the prerequisite for the heterosexual act itself. Men inclined to forming bonds with other men, and the various forms they might develop into, have never, and will never have to face such a predicament. Sex will never not be unnegotiable between women and men, for as long as both women and men have equal standing in society, and neither's rights are compromised in order to uphold  the other's, which, in fact  forms a central mission of conservatively inclined reactionary politics, that is growingly at odds not just with established notions of human rights, but with science itself, and oblivious to where it's been headed for a while now.

 

Sex's current role and status in society will be forever changed the minute humanity moves beyond the need for it. And what will remain of it? I would argue that the current gender crisis, if we could call it that, and the influx of new sexual identities points to the overall trend of the youngest generations' growing disillusionment with sex itself.

 

I think this topic warrants a separate thread.

 

 

[Horizon Flame]

On 12/26/2023 at 11:29 PM, Dekkan said:

The word you are so clearly missing is autocracy. Russia and China are authoritarian states. Communist, they are not.

 

Communism leads to that, babe. It doesn’t work. 

[Dekkan]

7 hours ago, Horizon Flame said:

Communism leads to that, babe. It doesn’t work. 

Huh? I never stated otherwise

[St. Charles]

I hate having this convo because many people believe that certain things (corruption, consumerism, regulation) are things that will magically come and go just because the economy is managed differently. So we start lumping in a bunch of other things with capitalism / communism that really have nothing to do with either.

[BrokenMachine]

The vidor in OP doesn't is not showing in my phone. But seeing Delirious being delirious made the thread for me 

[tost1]

The only thing I know is that I DESPISE capitalism

[superben]

On 12/26/2023 at 10:10 AM, Taylena said:

I guess me being a C-Pop (Chinese Pop) and V-Pop (Vietnamese Pop) fan is all just a figment of my imagination since you claim Communist countries don't have any form of entertainment. 

 

Please tell me anyone in the current Russian government who calls themselves Communist. 

VN is not a fully communistic country. The leading party is the Communist party, but the economy / market works like capitalistic model.

[Solar]

The center is the future 

[Infinity]

Communism has never worked, not even once, it always leads to the same thing: millions dead, millions starving, no rights for individuals, etc. 

 

Western communists think that in the communist utopia, they will either not work or will work as poets, artists, authors, etc.   In communist society, they’ll be forced to do hard labour, most communists I meet don’t want to work, which has never been a an option in communist societies.