Current Events > Communism: Give a man a home and he will think of how to fill it

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

impeccable credentials
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/3/1/AAOGRhAAE0hz.jpg

andel posted...

russia was not a developing nation, it was a world power before during and after communism.

national development is not mutually exclusive to power or influence, see China

AnsestralRecall posted...

it is naive at best to say that it is capitalism that is the reason for the prosperity.

Not at all.

What is successful capitalism except colonization and exploitation of the colonized people's labor and resources for the benefit of the upper class?

Those top 24 countries have done capitalism right.

...which is sort of the problem.

AnsestralRecall posted...

those nations are only the way they are by exploiting underdeveloped nations.. stealing natural resources, benefiting from hundreds of years of slavery and colonization. it is naive at best to say that it is capitalism that is the reason for the prosperity.

each and every example? bud don't embarrass yourself.

all the things you mentioned were done in modern times by modern communist countries to a much greater extent than in modern capitalist countries at the top of that list. soviet russia/communist china were using slave labor through the mid 20th century and the exploitation and theft of natural resources is something that has continued to happen throughout the communist regimes of those nations through today, where it still happens. capitalism is often exploitative while communism is always exploitative and evil. capitalism at least has a mechanism for public morality to self correct, that just doesn't happen in communist societies.

yes each and every, proven by the fact that you couldn't provide any counter examples at all lol thanks for proving my point

DnDer posted...

Not at all.

What is successful capitalism except colonization and exploitation of the colonized people's labor and resources for the benefit of the upper class?

Those top 24 countries have done capitalism right.

...which is sort of the problem.

in those 24 countries the citizens actually enjoy a broad quality of life greater than any other places on earth...not the upper class, everyone that lives there. the existence of wealth inequality is bad, but it is certainly better in good places to live than it is in any communist society where no one benefits at all aside from the elite class

andel posted...

all the things you mentioned were done in modern times by modern communist countries to a much greater extent than in modern capitalist countries

What? All those things are done today, by capitalists. Yeah, capitalist China is part of this. But who do they supply with electronics? Everyone. Yeah sure, it's really bad in Bangladesh where the water is poisoned and workers are near enslaved. Om behalf of western clothing brands! Capitalism is a global system in effect right now, and the prosperity at the top is explicitly on behalf of the bottom. Yeah, the Soviet Union did it too. That's certainly no excuse for the US and Europe to be world leaders at doing it.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Yall need to read Animal Farm or something smh

Why? Because it's less outlandish than CNN?

flussence posted...

Why? Because it's less outlandish than CNN?

all those topics i made?

ugh, this

scar_the_1 posted...

What? All those things are done today, by capitalists. Yeah, capitalist China is part of this. But who do they supply with electronics? Everyone. Yeah sure, it's really bad in Bangladesh where the water is poisoned and workers are near enslaved. Om behalf of western clothing brands! Capitalism is a global system in effect right now, and the prosperity at the top is explicitly on behalf of the bottom. Yeah, the Soviet Union did it too. That's certainly no excuse for the US and Europe to be world leaders at doing it.

capitalism being flawed doesn't somehow absolve communism, a failed ideology, of being infinitely worse. bangladesh is an emerging economy that is modernizing and is certainly a better place to live than any communist society ever was.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


or a soviet or chinese grain farmer under the actual communist economic system that starved to death to produce grain they couldn't eat so it could be distributed?

it's weird you would hold out hope for communism to succeed at some point when it has wrought nothing but misery and death every single time it has been tried. there is a reason collectivization was always scrapped fairly early on, because it killed millions of people via starvation.

weird you would think we shouldn't judge communism by it's results while somehow judging capitalism despite it actually working to improve the lives of entire nations of people

flussence posted...

Why? Because it's less outlandish than CNN?

you sound like a mindless trump cultist

andel posted...

capitalism being flawed doesn't somehow absolve communism, a failed ideology, of being infinitely worse. bangladesh is an emerging economy that is modernizing and is certainly a better place to live than any communist society ever was.

I'm not trying to benchmark against failed "communist" societies. Not only did many of them fail because of active sabotage from the west, they also quite rarely feature the main principle of socialism (i.e., workers controlling production), so they're not really relevant. I don't like the USSR, or China. Both examples of state capitalism btw, where a centralized and totalitarian state controls production, not the workers. What I'm saying is that capitalism, by design, exploits workers. And see if people working in Bangladeshi sweatshops, or the people who live by the previously clean waters now polluted by textile production are happy about the supposed "emerging economy".

andel posted...

yes each and every, proven by the fact that you couldn't provide any counter examples at all lol thanks for proving my point

MAREZ and Rojava are currently active examples.

Give a man a home and he will think of how to fill it.

Like with a lifetime of memories?

sure why not

Nemu posted...

It's always weird when people pretend anything about communism has any sort of validity. There's no doubt there's a better hypothetical system than what we currently have, but it would never be communism in a million years.

Communism has, so far, proved to be the best method of fighting capitalism and capitalists, there's no reason to pretend it's invalid. It's only great downside, so far, is that it hasn't been able to topple the USA and the Europeans powers.

AnsestralRecall posted...

MAREZ and Rojava are currently active examples.

marez is not communist, they are more libertarian socialist and they reject being called communists. the 'not real communism' people definitely can't claim them since they aren't stateless or moneyless and they don't even describe themselves as communist. socialist =/= communist to be clear, as socialism actually has redeeming qualities and a hybrid of socialist/capitalist society is by far the best place to live for the people of a society.

rojava is a capitalist society. they have a market driven economy and also don't identify as communists, they identify as democratic confederalism. if you want to specifically label them it would be more of a survivalist economy considering they are in a war zone and they have some socialist elements incorporated into the economy.

again, socialism is good and any current good liberal democracy (aka the best places to live) have some socialist policy incorporated into their economy. any place that self identifies as a communist country has always been an authoritarian hellhole, that's not really debatable and there isn't a single example to the contrary.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

Communism has, so far, proved to be the best method of fighting capitalism and capitalists, there's no reason to pretend it's invalid. It's only great downside, so far, is that it hasn't been able to topple the USA and the Europeans powers.

by failing and further bonding the capitalist countries? communism has been an unmitigated disaster and the people living under it have suffered infinitely more than people living under capitalism. there isn't an atrocity under capitalism that communists didn't one up.

the best method of fighting capitalism is further incorporating socialist principles into market economies. this makes the lives of the people uniformly better while not descending into an authoritarian hellscape of murder and genocide.

scar_the_1 posted...

I'm not trying to benchmark against failed "communist" societies. Not only did many of them fail because of active sabotage from the west, they also quite rarely feature the main principle of socialism (i.e., workers controlling production), so they're not really relevant. I don't like the USSR, or China. Both examples of state capitalism btw, where a centralized and totalitarian state controls production, not the workers. What I'm saying is that capitalism, by design, exploits workers. And see if people working in Bangladeshi sweatshops, or the people who live by the previously clean waters now polluted by textile production are happy about the supposed "emerging economy".

if your conception of communism is something that has never existed and has no way of existing it is p weird to no true scotsman it. the defining feature of marx envisioned communism is stateless and moneyless society. that can never be a nation or country by definition so it will never include anything more than a small community. marx wasn't a very bright person and his conception of an ideal society wasn't even possible in the mid 19th century, much less in the early 21st. a large society will always need some kind of centralized government to ensure the needs of the many are considered. if we lived in a strictly hunter/gatherer society it would be possible to have a marxist communist society, but barring a nuclear holocaust or other cataclysmic event that won't be happening in this world on a large enough scale to warrant consideration

andel posted...

by failing and further bonding the capitalist countries?

So what's your suggestion? How do we get rid of capitalism and eliminate the capitalists. Because if it isn't communism, it's either even gr ater communism or-

the best method of fighting capitalism is further incorporating socialist principles into market economies

What the fuck

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

What the fuck

Shh, don't tell him.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Yall need to read Animal Farm or something smh

Yes, quite the scathing critique of fascism, wasn't it?

andel posted...

you sound like a mindless trump cultist

And you sound like your only knowledge of the world comes from superman comics. Grow up.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

So what's your suggestion? How do we get rid of capitalism and eliminate the capitalists. Because if it isn't communism, it's either even gr ater communism or-

What the fuck

capitalists are considerably less evil than the 'communists' who have existed in this world and mixed market economies are by far the best places to live

ellis123 posted...

Shh, don't tell him.

no one will 'tell me' because you have nothing to tell and no viable argument for communism

Communism is just a red herring.

andel posted...

or a soviet or chinese grain farmer under the actual communist economic system that starved to death to produce grain they couldn't eat so it could be distributed?

it's weird you would hold out hope for communism to succeed at some point when it has wrought nothing but misery and death every single time it has been tried. there is a reason collectivization was always scrapped fairly early on, because it killed millions of people via starvation.

weird you would think we shouldn't judge communism by it's results while somehow judging capitalism despite it actually working to improve the lives of entire nations of people

You're gonna have to explain how grain supply varies so much that populations magically thrive or starve depending on economic system, if the population and crop yield is held the same. Seems like you're missing some steps

Rexdragon125 posted...

You're gonna have to explain how grain supply varies so much that populations magically thrive or starve depending on economic system, if the population and crop yield is held the same. Seems like you're missing some steps

the supplies always depended on yearly harvests which fluctuated depending on weather and other conditions. the thing that caused mass starvation was the soviet policy of demanding quotas of grain regardless of external conditions and enforcing these quotas even when it's citizens were starving to death in low yield harvest years.

chinese famines under mao happened and were exacerbated in similar circumstances, by the government forcing many of the farmers to make useless backyard steel and enforcing quotas on the ones still made to farm. regardless of the harvest you have the government taking certain amounts of grain, even when the local population is left to starve to death.

this is all very well documented stuff. both countries were willing to sacrifice millions (and tens of millions) to build a modern industrial society on the bones of the starving masses. in china you even had 'revolutionary cannibalism' perpetuated by the local party leaders in a show of who could demonstrate the most ideologically pure communist traits, and this was known and ignored and suppressed by the central party leaders.

edit: the revolutionary cannibalism happened during the cultural revolution despite there being no famine at the time. it was strictly purity test bullshit drummed up by mao to consolidate power that he let get way out of control and made no effort to stop

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre

Rexdragon125 posted...

You're gonna have to explain how grain supply varies so much that populations magically thrive or starve depending on economic system, if the population and crop yield is held the same. Seems like you're missing some steps

If youre describing a situation like the native American tribes that were the only real example of a functioning socialist economy;

Because the modern world completely eradicated the environment that had sustained the native population for tens of thousands of years.

And so without any suitable hunting grounds left and being hunted to extinction their way of life became unworkable.

If youre describing a situation with totalitarian communist regimes;

Thats not actually capitalism.

divot1338 posted...

Communism is just a red herring.

one of the greatest movies of all time lol.

Col. Mustard is a scholar and a gentleman

andel posted...

Once again shitty government policies and poor yields aren't exclusive to any economic policy

The deaths from the Irish potato famine were exacerbated by rich sheltered capitalists exporting grain to England for profit which could have fed the Irish people

https://ireland-calling.com/irish-famine-ireland-exported-food-as-thousands-starved/?expand_article=1

divot1338 posted...

Because the modern world completely eradicated the environment that had sustained the native population for tens of thousands of years.

And so without any suitable hunting grounds left and being hunted to extinction their way of life became unworkable.

Yeah, capitalism has been causing ecological collapse for a while. Things are gonna get REAL spicy in a few decades.

andel posted...

socialist =/= communist to be clear

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/9/AADRr2AADR61.jpg

Zeeak4444 posted...

one of the greatest movies of all time lol.

Col. Mustard is a scholar and a gentleman

No lie Ive probably seen that movie 150 times.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Once again shitty government policies and poor yields aren't exclusive to any economic policy

The deaths from the Irish potato famine were exacerbated by rich sheltered capitalists exporting grain to England for profit which could have fed the Irish people

those types of things tend to be a rule in communism rather than an exception though. of course terrible policy 'can' happen in any economic system, but capitalist nations largely tend to be liberal democracies that tend to abhor that kind of result instead of actively encouraging it, especially in modern times. let's take the number of capitalist nations and compare how common that kind of outcome is against how common it has been in communist nations and you start to understand why one is clearly better than the other.

Yeah, capitalism has been causing ecological collapse for a while. Things are gonna get REAL spicy in a few decades.

probably the absolute worst outcome of capitalist policy has been the don't give a shit about the environment attitude that festers when there aren't enough controls on the capitalist class. you will hear no argument from me there. nominally communist nations like china or the soviet union certainly aren't and werent better in that regard either though. climate change is the main crisis the world faces right now and no one is doing anywhere near enough to combat it, even the non capitalists don't seem concerned

uncontrolled capitalism is awful and an abomination as we saw in the gilded age and are seeing more of now in the us since protections and controls are being destroyed by republicans and a few democrats. we need strong federal policy to reign in the capitalists and ensure worker protections and environmental protections since the capitalist class will never concede these things. a randian capitalist utopia would be a gilded age hellhole that only the ignorant or idiotic would want to go back to, but a market economy seems to be the only livable kind of economy that works in the current world

andel posted...

capitalists are considerably less evil than the 'communists' who have existed in this world

The opposite of this is the case.

and mixed market economies are by far the best places to live

"Mixed market" economies are just capitalism (that thing we should get rid of) with a few pithy legislations to keep the proletariat from trying to kill the bourgeoisie.

I've read Animal Farm and was ridiculed by my right-wing brother for asking for a copy last Christmas.

While the political analogies may be beyond my ken, I did finally understand some references in other things I saw and read beforehand.

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

The opposite of this is the case.

"Mixed market" economies are just capitalism (that thing we should get rid of) with a few pithy legislations to keep the proletariat from trying to kill the bourgeoisie.

your entire argument seems to boil down to 'nuh uh' without actually being able to defend you supposed position itt

if you want to engage i will be happy to defend my position on any statement or expound as needed, but otherwise i will just tag you as a tankie and laugh and move on

AnsestralRecall posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/9/AADRr2AADR61.jpg

the guy has so many people on the hooks it's unbelievable. truly nothing going on in his head besides how to troll as many people at once as humanly possible

AnsestralRecall posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/2/9/AADRr2AADR61.jpg

if you think it's wise to look up to a guy who was a loser in the mid 19th century for economic advice in the 21st century that is a choice i guess but not a wise one

andel posted...

if you think it's wise to look up to a guy who was a loser in the mid 19th century for economic advice in the 21st century that is a choice i guess but not a wise one

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/8/4/AAYVThAAEU8w.jpg

andel posted...

marx wasn't a very bright person

All legitimate criticisms of his economic models and ideas aside, this is... a really hot take coming from a message board rando on a site where the primary topic of discussion is video games.

I know you and your history from 261. It's not like you're a bad posted. But, Jesus, dude. What kind of credentialing do you have to call one of the major names in 20th century social and economic commentary "not very bright?"

andel posted...

capitalists are considerably less evil than the 'communists' who have existed in this world and mixed market economies are by far the best places to live

Mixed markets are the best place to live, per our standards of living right now. I'll grant you that.

The conditions in South America as a result of American capitalist interests for over a century says a lot about their evil. Or the trans-atlantic slave trade. Or gunning down union workers. Or letting garment factory workers burn to death because having unlocked doors means maybe a minute less work out of them. Or just landlording, where people who produce no labor or capital demand others provide theirs to pay for their land.

That's just capitalism 101. It's not an authoritarian abuse of the system (like the USSR). It's not a failure of central planning and scale (like China and the farmer examples you cited). These are features of the system of capitalism, turnkey, before you even get to add on the worse stuff about no care for the environment.

At the very least, communists want everyone to have a house. Capitalism doesn't.

Communist bread lines, as shitty as they were, were designed to get everyone some bread. American bread lines required you to still pay for the bread even during a time when no one had money.

Communism--attempted and failed implementations of it, anyway--has outright sucked. Nobody is doing it right. But back to the earlier point: capitalism, where you're made to justify receiving basic human needs and rights like food and housing as part of the core philosophy, is a whole lot more evil than a philosophy that says "everyone gets a house, even if it's a shitty house."

DnDer posted...

All legitimate criticisms of his economic models and ideas aside, this is... a really hot take coming from a message board rando on a site where the primary topic of discussion is video games.

I know you and your history from 261. It's not like you're a bad posted. But, Jesus, dude. What kind of credentialing do you have to call one of the major names in 20th century social and economic commentary "not very bright?"

Mixed markets are the best place to live, per our standards of living right now. I'll grant you that.

The conditions in South America as a result of American capitalist interests for over a century says a lot about their evil. Or the trans-atlantic slave trade. Or gunning down union workers. Or letting garment factory workers burn to death because having unlocked doors means maybe a minute less work out of them. Or just landlording, where people who produce no labor or capital demand others provide theirs to pay for their land.

That's just capitalism 101. It's not an authoritarian abuse of the system (like the USSR). It's not a failure of central planning and scale (like China and the farmer examples you cited). These are features of the system of capitalism, turnkey, before you even get to add on the worse stuff about no care for the environment.

At the very least, communists want everyone to have a house. Capitalism doesn't.

Communist bread lines, as shitty as they were, were designed to get everyone some bread. American bread lines required you to still pay for the bread even during a time when no one had money.

Communism--attempted and failed implementations of it, anyway--has outright sucked. Nobody is doing it right. But back to the earlier point: capitalism, where you're made to justify receiving basic human needs and rights like food and housing as part of the core philosophy, is a whole lot more evil than a philosophy that says "everyone gets a house, even if it's a shitty house."

i look at marx much like ayn rand or any libertarian, which is hopelessly naive at best. a stateless and moneyless world society is nothing more than a pipedream, even if we somehow got go a truly post scarcity world where resources were unlimited

capitalism has tons of flaws, but the evolution of capitalist societies (liberal democracies) have at least made an effort to move towards a more equitable future for their citizens. current america is piss poor representation of this obviously, but even in america the lives of the poorest people are much better than their counterparts in any communist nations have been. a much better representation of functioning mixed market economies would be like the ones in northern europe where they have a very strong social safety net and progressive taxation. if a state actually makes a good faith effort to take care of all its citizens it is certainly a possibility, and they can do so without brutal suppression of fundamental rights.

every person should have housing and healthcare and education and a reasonable standard of living. those are noble goals we can all work towards and we certainly don't need communism to get there. we can put strong controls and regulation on business and the wealthy without going full nutjob

also, in general it is not good to have pure ideologues leading nations. a good leader is someone that is steadfast in their beliefs while also being pragmatic to an extent. you need issues you are not willing to negotiate on and are ready to go to the mattress for, but you also have to be capable of bending to ensure the best possible outcome in any given situation. the worst monsters throughout history have largely been the extremist true believers in a given ideology. hitler/stalin/mao/jefferson davis/ect all have wildly different and often conflicting ideologies, but they were all extremist true believers who could justify any atrocity for a step towards their goals. the best leaders are the lincoln/fdr types who had strong convictions but were willing to compromise on smaller issues to achieve the big goals longterm. radical extremism seems to always lead down a dark path.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Sucks brah lol. That's why I'm about to have a degree in Economics

FL81 posted...

impeccable credentials

I wish I was him >_>

tag

i am guessing the pro communist users can't defend that ideology? tankies have a lot in common with trumpers tbf

andel posted...

i am guessing the pro communist users can't defend that ideology? tankies have a lot in common with trumpers tbf

Tankie is not synonymous with communist, just so you know.

FunWithAFryPan posted...

Tankie is not synonymous with communist, just so you know.

anyone that defends soviet/chinese style communism is a tankie. that's what i_shall_runamok did itt

andel posted...

anyone that defends soviet/chinese style communism is a tankie. that's what i_shall_runamok did itt

Neither of those systems are socialist, and tankies arent the only people pro communism. I just wanted that to be clear.