No. Communism killed a thousand peoples, that’s a state fact. If people want to try a more equally regime, create another. Communism is pure failure, disaster and genocide. So please, don’t.
Lol. Have fun searching the cosmos for a world where conscious beings only take what they need.
BRB going to take all of the napkins, fire sauce, and salt packets next time I go to Taco Bell because “human nature”
I mean that’s literally why you have to ask for those things from behind the counter now. That literally proves my point.
No, it doesn’t lol. There are still open sauce packets and napkins. People don’t have endless greed for that which they don’t need, especially if their needs are already met by strong safety nets like they are in socialist countries. Even in capitalist hellholes like the US, you still find restaurants with free napkins and plastic utensils, etc, and people don’t generally grab as many as they can.
Been eating at Chik-fil-A exclusively for the past decade or what?
Pretty sure people hate tankies because they defend dictators like Putin and Jinping, not because they want socialism.
When you start denying genocide, it doesn’t matter how good your economic policy is.
Anyway, Slava Ukraini.
Anyway, are you unaware of the fascist origins of “Slava Ukraini,“ or are you using it despite knowing better?
Honestly I don’t see what’s wrong with a mixed market economy
It depends on which aspect is principle, private ownership or public. All economies are “mixed,” even the DPRK has instances of private ownership in their special economic zones like Rason, but we can tell if a country is capitalist or socialist by which controls the commanding heights of industry in that country.
The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue. Capitalism itself is unsustainable.
The PRC is socialist, on the other hand. Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results. Where the Nordics are declining, the PRC is rising rapidly.
We can’t perpetuate private ownership forever. It trends towards monopoly and enshittification. Even if it’s handy at low levels of development for rapid industrialization, it quickly loses steam and then monopolist mechanics come into play, at which point public ownership is far more effective. Socialism allows us to control this development, prevent its worst excesses, and harness that growth while smoothly transitioning it into a part of the planned economy.
This is an incredibly well written response and I apologize in advance if my response comes across as overly cynical or perhaps dismissive.
My main concern with the complete abolition of private property is that unfortunately I don’t have enough trust in most governments to fairly distribute resources. Therefore I think a mixed market economy with a strong social welfare system is the most feasible method. Through this, we can gradually work towards socialist principles without completely alienating a large section of the populace. I don’t think a direct transition would be sustainable in the long term unfortunately.
Private ownership, directed for the purposes of profit, is inherently “unfair.” Markets have utility in finding demand at low levels of development, but in terms of accountability and fairness, directing production for the purposes of profit rather than the satisfaction of needs will always inherently trend towards conflict between workers and owners. Even the most benign “owner” is still going to be producing for profit, trying to maximize production and consumption, all in an incredibly inefficient manner in order to line their pockets.
Collectivized production can be more transparent and directly accountable. Full abolition of private property into collectivized production and distribution is a gradual process, but it’s one that marches on as development continues. Since all markets are “mixed” right now, it remains important that we identify where the power lies in the system and ensure that’s in the hands of the working classes.
inb4 libs come to smugly tell us we are murderous fascists.
Erm akshutally how is it possible to care for human life without maximizing shareholder profit, in this 10,000,000 page peer reviewed study (sponsored by megacorp™) I will prove that you are wrong and I am good
It wasn’t by megacorp, it was by a think tank sponsored by a consultancy hired by megacorp to do exactly that. Stop blaming megacorp for everything. You people are so fucking conspiratorial.
Oh sorry, I will stop asking questions and keep consooming product™ from megacorp™
erhm i’ll let you know that the soviet onion killed six hundred million bajillion stalinnion people so ☝️🤓
Carl Mark keel 10,000 Marxillion people venevuala no iphone north corea
I love that you misspelled Marx but then wrote Marxillion, I live for shitposts like this lmao
So, we just ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under communism?
Communists acknowledge that excess deaths have occured under socialist systems governed by communist parties. It’s reality, after all. However, we also acknowledge that these excess deaths pale in comparison to the systemic murders and genocides propogated by capitalism, as well as the fact that socialist systems have been responsible for doubling life expectancy in many cases such as Russia and China, along with huge material gains in quality of life.
It’s true that excess deaths occured, but it’s even more true that socialism has been responsible for preventing far more deaths than it has ever caused. Deaths due to unintentional famines were common in early socialism, and systemically ended by socialists when they used to be prevalent under previous semi-feudal conditions. Communists have consistently been the ones most responsible for uplifting living standards and metrics in the last century.
authorian regime kills its citizen
“guys working together just does not work” ^^ this guy
Socialist states have had excesses, but they pale in comparison to the killings systemic to capitalism, and moreover socialist states have been responsible for the largest uplifting in living standards in history.
My point was more like that authoriatarianism and socialism/ communism does not habe to be connected
Compared to the shitload of capitalism only this year?
Anybody have any meme community recommendations that are funny and not just communist propaganda
Sorry, only fun communist memes here.
How do you force people to give according to their ability? What if they don’t want to?
That’s not what people mean by saying “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” There’s no Robin Hood figure robbing people at gunpoint. What it means is that all of production and distribution is collectivized and run according to a common plan in order to satisfy everyone’s needs.
That’s a pretty rose tinted view. It is, generally speaking, “collectivized” at gunpoint.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
I don’t think promoting these sentiments does anything but propagandise an “us vs them” mentality that is fundamentally toxic to the idea of communism.
“Four legs good, two legs bad” is all, I am gonna say.
Class struggle is intrinsic to communism, it’s important to show the working classes that our collective enemy isn’t each other, but the capitalists and the capitalist state. We need to align the working classes against our shared class enemy, not try to ally with those who support the systems supporting our class enemies.
Thanks for proving my point. Your “us vs them” thinking caused you to confuse “propagandised individuals” with “capitalist” and ignore the big difference between both.
“Capitalist” is a class that in communism doesn’t exist. So consequently, after the implementation of communism there is no enemy of the class “capitalist” anymore. So again, communism would serve all people.
“Propagandised individuals” wouldn’t disappear after the implementation of communism. They can be discriminate against.
I’m referring to communism as the movement, not as communism the mode of production. In the far future where communism is achieved, there wouldn’t be individuals propagandized against communism, the lengthy process of getting there is through socialism by which point those contradictions are worked out.
In the present day, capitalists are the enemy of the working classes. Trying to unite the working classes against them and their enablers, ie the GOP, DNC, etc, is a progressive struggle.
As if the rhetoric of today has no influence on the rhetoric of tomorrow.
But even in this very short sighted context, the conflation of “propagandised individuals” and “capitalist” is obviously toxic to the aim of archiving communism.
I will take a wild guess that you have many friends who are raised in capitalistic environments and who have been exposed to anti communism propaganda. Some of that propaganda probably worked on them and consequently they are propagandised individuals. But I doubt you would call them capitalist and enemy. Ofc, you wouldn’t as you would special plead for them, while happily supporting conflating propagandised individuals with capitalists and the enemy.
The problem is not the communist utopia, is how the means to build it will always end up in a totlitarian police state. Because we can’t have nice things.
This is just a red scare caricature of socialist societies from the perspective of capitalists. For the working classes, socialism has brought dramatic increases in freedom and democratization.
So I will admit that I am ignorant of a method of attaining Communism that isn’t at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature (and fully accept that, to a degree, Capitalism is also at the end of a gun, but typically less overt, or often directed without instead of within). The only nations I’ve seen flying the red flag have appeared highly authoritarian (and I’m not going to get drawn into a “USSR and PRC aren’t/weren’t authoritarian, and DPRK is actually a utopia!” discussion, so if that’s the direction this is going, let me know and I’ll politely see my way out).
I’ve seen in the lower comments that Socialism would be used as a gateway to Communism, but I am unclear about the transition from “everybody’s basic needs are met via taxation and distribution” to “personal property is abolished” (as I understand Communism to mean, please correct me if I’m wrong). Plenty of European countries have had (for the west), strong seemingly socialist systems, but they don’t seem to be deliberately angling toward Communism, for example.
So I’m curious what this peaceful Capitalist to Communist timeline would look like.
at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature
Abolishing slavery was authoritarian by nature, says local liberal.
They would have preferred to continue the institution to this day, while making unconvincing noises about “incrementally stepping away from an unpaid workforce based economy” while profiting from it and calling the US the best system in the world.
The transition from capitalism to socialism will nearly always be through revolution. It simply isn’t feasible to ask the ruling class to give up the very system that entitles them to their plunder, elections are carefully controlled so as to not allow genuine socialist or communist victory. Even when communists like Allende won in countries like Chile, they are couped, just like the US is attempting against Maduro. Revolution is authoritarian, it’s the forceful will of the majority against the minority. As Engels put it:
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Historically, revolution has unfolded the same way, as the majority enforcing its will upon the minority. The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Korean, etc have all been such examples. They have been enormously liberating for the working classes, and terribly authoritarian towards capitalists, landlords, fascists, colonizers, etc. I’m not going to erase that that violence happened, but I’m not going to minimize that these were and are popular movements supported by the broad majority either. None of these countries are utopias, but all are real, with real working class victories.
Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy. The western European countries don’t have socialism, they have social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism. They fund these safety nets with the spoils of imperialism, ie international plunder of the global south, not through their own labor. The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, etc are socialist, not western Europe, and moreover do not depend on imperialism for their safety nets. Western Europe is not moving onto communism because it isn’t even socialist yet, and is under the dictatorship of capitalists.
Communism is a mode of production where all of production and distribution has been collectivized and run according to a common plan. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. It is post-socialist in that socialism is where production and distribution are gradually collectivized, erasing the basis for class, and the basis of the state as a consequence. Personal property remains, ie you can keep your toothbrush, but production and distribution are collectivized.
If you want a good introduction to Marxist theory, I wrote an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list. Feel free to check it out!
looks around in the usa
