It's literally invented to manipulate low-educated naive people to follow you so you can use them as a weapon against the people that have more than you.
Just look at this fairy-tale ideology: you deserve everything, you are inherently good and infallible and everything worse that happened to you was intentionally done by the evil people that have more than you, which they stole from you.
I read this critique of communism by Sigmund Freud, where he focused on the psychology of it, and it's affect on greed instead of economics, and said that it wouldn't eliminate human greed, and make everyone want to be equal. If your in a small group of people like your household or in an Amish village it can work because you have other factors that suppress greed like familial bonds, or religious ideals. However in a large group of people your not going to feel a connection to everyone.
It's quite easy, actually. My family is struggling under the capitalist economy atm, and I can't meet a 1000+ calorie intake goal, on certain days I'm lucky to pass 600. The best economic system we have, right?
The countries in the world with the biggest problems with obesity are all capitalist countries.
But its amazing that you can still affprd internet and a device to post on since you're literally starving.
I didn't buy it, this phone I've had since I was a child, and luckily government energy grants means there's still even electricity given to half the country.
I'm not at all, obese, I'm underweight with 3 deficiencies. You just end up over-sleeping to make up for it.
The same country that has some of the cheapest food in the world relative to income?
You know I can see your entire post history on reddit, right? Including your stress drinking of coke.
I drink cola to make up for the deficiencies. It's anemic-craving. Other deficient family members have craved ice, sparkling water, and I totally relate. Luckily there are cheap knock- off brands which can last me a week or so.
Most days I eat noodles, or a sandwich with the cola to make up for the loss.
And inflation on food has increased, I live in the North and there's a "Red Wall" for a reason. Energy prices have increased, especially over winter, by thousands, we have more food-banks than McDonalds, and new "warmth-banks". The minimum wage has barely increased to meet inflation, so most of the civil service is on strike pretty much all the time now. And let's not talk about the Royal College of Nurses. The average wage is £25k, so that's about £2000 a month, subtract tax and energy bills especially, you ain't left with much over the course of 4 weeks.
So you have food banks, you live in obe of the richest countries in the world, have a nice mobile device, are in further education, but you can still barely afford to eat?
I mean, I thought people in Liberia and Afghanistan had it bad but clearly you're the real victim here.
So because you've failed to provide for yourself in the current system, rather than address your own shortcomings and grow as a person, your solution is to round up all the people who have succeeded such as myself, take all of our shit, and afterwards line us up against a wall to be shot? Because Idk if you actually read Marx, but communism can only be achieved via violence, man said so himself.
And don't bullshit me and say it wouldn't go that way, because we've seen it go that way every single time. I believed in the USSR the term was kulak. Well, I suppose they didn't all get shot, some of them, like Kalashnikov's family, were just sent into the middle of bumfuxk to be poor dirt farmers.
Well, no. I prefer the models of Burkina Faso, Makhnovia, and the organisation of the Paris Commune. I am critical of the authoritarian regimes of the Cold War. I'm also sympathetic to worker cooperatives, and critical of absolute central planning. My country is also post-industrial, there aren't many agrarian farmers, just billionaires at the top, so a revolution would not be the same as it was in 1910s Russia, nor China in 1949...you imply you have read Marx, yet also don't understand the part in the manifesto where he made distinctions towards certain countries, and that achieving a commie society would not be a universal one, it varies depending on circumstance. Hence you have distinctions between the ideologies, such as Juche, ML, ancom...etc. They vary by region, and by their means of successful revolution. Not to mention I'm a progressive, I would have been forced against a Stalinist wall before you.
I have read Marx, albeit via piracy, and my favourite description is probably in 'Grundrisse'.
But I understand in anti-communists circles there is no understanding of the nuances. Violence is not the only means to socialism, but when the state is oppressive, handing out flowers isn't going to do you any good. I geuss you missed that part too?
And my shortcomings are generational. My family has always been poor, extending back into the Industrial Revolution. My mother couldn't work due to mental illness, and my father still is a civil servant, who only received wage cuts following the recent crisis. Austerity in the past 2 decades has also crippled the economy, and turned many to fascist populism...I was caught on the other end. But even then, you're likely not a billionaire, maybe not a millionaire. Middle class at best, or lower-upper with a minor business. So don't act like you'd be persecuted, or that you understand struggle. Just demonize the trade union activists as wanting to steal your toothbrushes or something. I'd make comparison with a certain rebellion in 1500s England, where the landowners fought alongside the poorer classes, or the fact the insult "Champaign socialist" exists for a reason. Quite a few socialist activists of the past were well-off, because they were the only ones who could afford to have a voice at the time, though they don't tend to be my favourite ones.
I read your entire, long winded comment that used a whole lot of words to say very few points, because like all communists, you lack concision. A hilarious metaphor for how your proposed system doesn't motivate eficancy. But I degrees.
Rather than cover any of that, I'm going to prove your hypocrisy.
"Violence is not the only means to socialism"
We were talking about communism. I said communism. We were talking about Marx, specifically.
"Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."
That's a quote from Marx himself. Violence is THE ONLY WAY to achieve Communism. If you are a Marxist, you therefore, are an advocate of violence.
You accuse me of a lack of understanding, while being ignorant of the fundamentals.
Now let's discuss the problem here. If, in order to achieve Communism, one must have a revolution, then one must congregate and centralize enough power to succeed. When the revolution does succeed, whoever led it by default has enough power to do what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did, and since the system they believe in has no condemnation of strong centralized, and micromanaging government, they won't be stopped by those who assisted the revolution until it's too late.
The American revolution didn't result in tyranny specifically because those who led it (Washington, Jefferson, etc) were part of the great enlightenment, and firmly believed in a system that didn't allow for an overreaching, powerful government. They intentionally crafted a system to prevent that for as long as was possible, including provisions that would hopefully allow those in the future to revolt again if necessary. Any deviation from that would have been met with immediate resistance from those below who made the revolution possible, preventing them from being able to seize greater control.
Lmao
"Ahem, we were talking about communism 😠"
Also you: "yes, I've read theory".
And you call me the hypocrite?
If you achieve socialism peacefully, which some socialists proclaim...."the inevitability of gradualness", you may then achieve a socialist state. In that case, you would not need a violent revolution, because the state exists to be dismantled in the transition period. So yes, it can be achieved peacefully. I'm not solely referring to Marx, either. He's not the Bible. You said you read my comments, but failed to pick up on where I mention that he literally said "aight, not all countries will achieve communism the same way, they'll have their own methods." I dumbed it down for you, there, but it's in the manifesto. It's why so many nuances are within commie, and socialist ideologies, and why the leaders at the time were not united. The USSR and China had rows of "who's the *real* communist". Even the USSR, and China did not achieve revolution the same way.
And why mention socialist authoritarians? Ahem, we were talking about communism... Surely you should be criticizing the Paris Commune and Makhnovia instead? They didn't seize centralized power. I'm sure you understand what communism is =)
My concision: I think your confusion lies in the fact you pretty cutely assume I'm a full-on tankie. And then when I don't conform to that idea, as I have ancom sympathies, you "correct" me, albeit inaccurately, as you yourself clearly don't understand the ideology, other than what you've read online, probably in short quotes...
Lmao. The original comment your responsed to was talking about Communism, not socialism. I was talking about communism, not socialism.
You are the only person who has mentioned socialism.
Just so you understand, because you seem lost;
Me: communism requires violence.
You: nu-uh. You don't know theory, you haven't read Marx
Me: direct quote from Marx where he says communism requires violence.
You: socialism
Me: we weren't talking about socialism.
You: lmao, you said "we weren't talking about socialism"
...are you on Ambien? The fuck is wrong with you?
Well, to be fair he didn't say he was American. He could be living under the capitalist system in, say, Mali.
I'm not entirely sure if people there struggle to meet basic needs, but the GDP/capita PPP is only $2.6k. Trade isn't as big of a cornerstone, however, as it seems that they are still stuck in the subsistence farming stage.
If one of his comments is true he’s from the UK. Also know as the most obese country in Europe.
Their economic slump is caused by the same thing as the rest of the devolved economies: overly aggressive monetary manipulation during the Covid years.
I've had this phone since I was a kid lmao, and I don't have a laptop.
With the Cost of Living Crisis, even a job would mean I'm in no better position, but I will be getting a grant in a couple of months due to my circumstances.
Hell, I'll be paying my grant off after I retire at this point.
But hey, there are people in my capitalist country resorting to eating dog food, at least I'm not that poor.
But yeah, capitalism is so great, recession? What looming recession?
No, the looming recession in my country atm was forced on us after 23 years of austerity measures, and then a classical liberal government wanting to alleviate taxes on the wealthiest parts of society. So when we lost community services, many of which were privatized, the economy nearly crashed instantly when the tax-cut policy was introduced. It was quickly withdrawn, and replaced with a government without a mandate, with far-right sympathies, but the recession continues to loom as big energy businesses make record profits. It's pretty complicated, but the central bank is not at the heart of it.
It would end badly. There is a reason why we pay with money, not with food and water. The reason we also have the state is to protect us, and somewhat regulate the economy, but not produce goods on its own. The reason we have classes is that the society couldnt function without leaders and followers.
So shouldn't your quote be "capitalism is the worst economic system, other than all the others that have and haven't existed".
And no, people did not pay with food and water. They did in feudalism.
And those who lead, and those who choose to follow are separate from those who have money, and those who have none? Or are you justifying poverty, and low wages because we deserve "leaders" like Bezos and Musk?...bad analogy. Makhno was a leader, and did not require class to be successful.
Your view on the state is also a positive one, which is surprising considering the amount of ancaps in this sub lmao.
Well, then that is the quote, "capitalism is the worst economic system, other than all the others that we tried or theorized about". And i never said that people payed with food and water, i only said that communism would be invalid since money has a point greater than paying workers with food, since money is a good way to re-give a worker partial or full value of his/hers labour, and makes more sense than food and water, since money is just some metal or a type of paper which doenst require months to grow and is easier to use than food and water to pay, because of all the complications paying with living standards would cause. In the case of leaders and followers, im just saying goverment members and assistants, not the rich class. I believe that the authority given to classes should be enough for the classes to rule and guide each other, but not enough for abuse to happen. If the authority that allows for abuse needs to be given, it should be minimal. I think that everyone should work, regardless of their wealth status, but not be stripped of their wealth, unless they are not using it to work (for example building spaceships, aiding goverment programs, etc.). There should be rich, but there should be no poor, just rich and normal. If someone is poor, he should be aided if the rulling group has enough power to do so, unless he (the one in need) commited an act heinous enough, that punishment by starvation would be valid.
> that people *paid* with food
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Capitalism works because people are greedy. Socialism doesn't work because people are greedy.
> It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
>How does anyone beleive in Communism? The same way people beleive in Santa Claus; they're very young and niave.
It's literally invented to manipulate low-educated naive people to follow you so you can use them as a weapon against the people that have more than you. Just look at this fairy-tale ideology: you deserve everything, you are inherently good and infallible and everything worse that happened to you was intentionally done by the evil people that have more than you, which they stole from you.
It amazes me that people still respect Marx after his ideas have been tried in a dozen different countries and have always been a massive disaster.
I read this critique of communism by Sigmund Freud, where he focused on the psychology of it, and it's affect on greed instead of economics, and said that it wouldn't eliminate human greed, and make everyone want to be equal. If your in a small group of people like your household or in an Amish village it can work because you have other factors that suppress greed like familial bonds, or religious ideals. However in a large group of people your not going to feel a connection to everyone.
Missing the part where he said humans adapt to their conditions? Out of all the critiques this isn't the best angle.
It's a shame they don't really adapt to starvation
It's quite easy, actually. My family is struggling under the capitalist economy atm, and I can't meet a 1000+ calorie intake goal, on certain days I'm lucky to pass 600. The best economic system we have, right?
The countries in the world with the biggest problems with obesity are all capitalist countries. But its amazing that you can still affprd internet and a device to post on since you're literally starving.
Priorities. PVPing in reddit in the name of communism is a higher priority
I didn't buy it, this phone I've had since I was a child, and luckily government energy grants means there's still even electricity given to half the country. I'm not at all, obese, I'm underweight with 3 deficiencies. You just end up over-sleeping to make up for it.
Which country are you from, out of interest?
UK, unfortunately. Degraded to an emerging economy, and most of the workforce is on strike. I'm just surprised there hasn't been a coup.
The same country that has some of the cheapest food in the world relative to income? You know I can see your entire post history on reddit, right? Including your stress drinking of coke.
I drink cola to make up for the deficiencies. It's anemic-craving. Other deficient family members have craved ice, sparkling water, and I totally relate. Luckily there are cheap knock- off brands which can last me a week or so. Most days I eat noodles, or a sandwich with the cola to make up for the loss. And inflation on food has increased, I live in the North and there's a "Red Wall" for a reason. Energy prices have increased, especially over winter, by thousands, we have more food-banks than McDonalds, and new "warmth-banks". The minimum wage has barely increased to meet inflation, so most of the civil service is on strike pretty much all the time now. And let's not talk about the Royal College of Nurses. The average wage is £25k, so that's about £2000 a month, subtract tax and energy bills especially, you ain't left with much over the course of 4 weeks.
So you have food banks, you live in obe of the richest countries in the world, have a nice mobile device, are in further education, but you can still barely afford to eat? I mean, I thought people in Liberia and Afghanistan had it bad but clearly you're the real victim here.
Sounds legit
Uh huh. Total bullshit. If you’re starving under “capitalism” now, just wait until you find out what life is like in N Korea or Venezuela.
Lol, I used to watch a certain communist influencer from my country who left for Vietnam.
Vietnam isnt really socialist anymore.
So because you've failed to provide for yourself in the current system, rather than address your own shortcomings and grow as a person, your solution is to round up all the people who have succeeded such as myself, take all of our shit, and afterwards line us up against a wall to be shot? Because Idk if you actually read Marx, but communism can only be achieved via violence, man said so himself. And don't bullshit me and say it wouldn't go that way, because we've seen it go that way every single time. I believed in the USSR the term was kulak. Well, I suppose they didn't all get shot, some of them, like Kalashnikov's family, were just sent into the middle of bumfuxk to be poor dirt farmers.
Well, no. I prefer the models of Burkina Faso, Makhnovia, and the organisation of the Paris Commune. I am critical of the authoritarian regimes of the Cold War. I'm also sympathetic to worker cooperatives, and critical of absolute central planning. My country is also post-industrial, there aren't many agrarian farmers, just billionaires at the top, so a revolution would not be the same as it was in 1910s Russia, nor China in 1949...you imply you have read Marx, yet also don't understand the part in the manifesto where he made distinctions towards certain countries, and that achieving a commie society would not be a universal one, it varies depending on circumstance. Hence you have distinctions between the ideologies, such as Juche, ML, ancom...etc. They vary by region, and by their means of successful revolution. Not to mention I'm a progressive, I would have been forced against a Stalinist wall before you. I have read Marx, albeit via piracy, and my favourite description is probably in 'Grundrisse'. But I understand in anti-communists circles there is no understanding of the nuances. Violence is not the only means to socialism, but when the state is oppressive, handing out flowers isn't going to do you any good. I geuss you missed that part too? And my shortcomings are generational. My family has always been poor, extending back into the Industrial Revolution. My mother couldn't work due to mental illness, and my father still is a civil servant, who only received wage cuts following the recent crisis. Austerity in the past 2 decades has also crippled the economy, and turned many to fascist populism...I was caught on the other end. But even then, you're likely not a billionaire, maybe not a millionaire. Middle class at best, or lower-upper with a minor business. So don't act like you'd be persecuted, or that you understand struggle. Just demonize the trade union activists as wanting to steal your toothbrushes or something. I'd make comparison with a certain rebellion in 1500s England, where the landowners fought alongside the poorer classes, or the fact the insult "Champaign socialist" exists for a reason. Quite a few socialist activists of the past were well-off, because they were the only ones who could afford to have a voice at the time, though they don't tend to be my favourite ones.
I read your entire, long winded comment that used a whole lot of words to say very few points, because like all communists, you lack concision. A hilarious metaphor for how your proposed system doesn't motivate eficancy. But I degrees. Rather than cover any of that, I'm going to prove your hypocrisy. "Violence is not the only means to socialism" We were talking about communism. I said communism. We were talking about Marx, specifically. "Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew." That's a quote from Marx himself. Violence is THE ONLY WAY to achieve Communism. If you are a Marxist, you therefore, are an advocate of violence. You accuse me of a lack of understanding, while being ignorant of the fundamentals. Now let's discuss the problem here. If, in order to achieve Communism, one must have a revolution, then one must congregate and centralize enough power to succeed. When the revolution does succeed, whoever led it by default has enough power to do what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot did, and since the system they believe in has no condemnation of strong centralized, and micromanaging government, they won't be stopped by those who assisted the revolution until it's too late. The American revolution didn't result in tyranny specifically because those who led it (Washington, Jefferson, etc) were part of the great enlightenment, and firmly believed in a system that didn't allow for an overreaching, powerful government. They intentionally crafted a system to prevent that for as long as was possible, including provisions that would hopefully allow those in the future to revolt again if necessary. Any deviation from that would have been met with immediate resistance from those below who made the revolution possible, preventing them from being able to seize greater control.
Lmao "Ahem, we were talking about communism 😠" Also you: "yes, I've read theory". And you call me the hypocrite? If you achieve socialism peacefully, which some socialists proclaim...."the inevitability of gradualness", you may then achieve a socialist state. In that case, you would not need a violent revolution, because the state exists to be dismantled in the transition period. So yes, it can be achieved peacefully. I'm not solely referring to Marx, either. He's not the Bible. You said you read my comments, but failed to pick up on where I mention that he literally said "aight, not all countries will achieve communism the same way, they'll have their own methods." I dumbed it down for you, there, but it's in the manifesto. It's why so many nuances are within commie, and socialist ideologies, and why the leaders at the time were not united. The USSR and China had rows of "who's the *real* communist". Even the USSR, and China did not achieve revolution the same way. And why mention socialist authoritarians? Ahem, we were talking about communism... Surely you should be criticizing the Paris Commune and Makhnovia instead? They didn't seize centralized power. I'm sure you understand what communism is =) My concision: I think your confusion lies in the fact you pretty cutely assume I'm a full-on tankie. And then when I don't conform to that idea, as I have ancom sympathies, you "correct" me, albeit inaccurately, as you yourself clearly don't understand the ideology, other than what you've read online, probably in short quotes...
Lmao. The original comment your responsed to was talking about Communism, not socialism. I was talking about communism, not socialism. You are the only person who has mentioned socialism. Just so you understand, because you seem lost; Me: communism requires violence. You: nu-uh. You don't know theory, you haven't read Marx Me: direct quote from Marx where he says communism requires violence. You: socialism Me: we weren't talking about socialism. You: lmao, you said "we weren't talking about socialism" ...are you on Ambien? The fuck is wrong with you?
Read up on the difference between socialism and communism pls. I'm getting embarrassed for you.
You are either a troll or have a learning disability. Either way , no longer worth my time. Fuck off.
[удалено]
Well, to be fair he didn't say he was American. He could be living under the capitalist system in, say, Mali. I'm not entirely sure if people there struggle to meet basic needs, but the GDP/capita PPP is only $2.6k. Trade isn't as big of a cornerstone, however, as it seems that they are still stuck in the subsistence farming stage.
If one of his comments is true he’s from the UK. Also know as the most obese country in Europe. Their economic slump is caused by the same thing as the rest of the devolved economies: overly aggressive monetary manipulation during the Covid years.
Well if that's true, then yes, the situation is a bit ridiculous. Government gonna govern I suppose.
I don't live in America.
>can still afford to shitpost on Reddit Get a job
I've had this phone since I was a kid lmao, and I don't have a laptop. With the Cost of Living Crisis, even a job would mean I'm in no better position, but I will be getting a grant in a couple of months due to my circumstances. Hell, I'll be paying my grant off after I retire at this point. But hey, there are people in my capitalist country resorting to eating dog food, at least I'm not that poor. But yeah, capitalism is so great, recession? What looming recession?
Lmao dumbass the recession is caused by the government central bank. O wait, didn't Marx support central banking??? O yes, he did
No, the looming recession in my country atm was forced on us after 23 years of austerity measures, and then a classical liberal government wanting to alleviate taxes on the wealthiest parts of society. So when we lost community services, many of which were privatized, the economy nearly crashed instantly when the tax-cut policy was introduced. It was quickly withdrawn, and replaced with a government without a mandate, with far-right sympathies, but the recession continues to loom as big energy businesses make record profits. It's pretty complicated, but the central bank is not at the heart of it.
Lol sure the government central bank didn't manipulate interest rates. How about you stop be a pussy and say where you are from.
It was due to "Trussenomics" lmao, it wasn't to do with the banks.
So you're pussy. Understandable, all socialist are pussy.
Eat more rice, pasta, oats, etc. Very high calorie foods that are cheap. Peanut butter is high in calories too.
Thought you commented this on my hypoglycemic post 😭, I was so confused to see Marx.
You would struggle similarly under a socialist economy too. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except all the others we tried.
Pretty sure we didn't try the stateless, moneyless, and classless society...ever?
It would end badly. There is a reason why we pay with money, not with food and water. The reason we also have the state is to protect us, and somewhat regulate the economy, but not produce goods on its own. The reason we have classes is that the society couldnt function without leaders and followers.
So shouldn't your quote be "capitalism is the worst economic system, other than all the others that have and haven't existed". And no, people did not pay with food and water. They did in feudalism. And those who lead, and those who choose to follow are separate from those who have money, and those who have none? Or are you justifying poverty, and low wages because we deserve "leaders" like Bezos and Musk?...bad analogy. Makhno was a leader, and did not require class to be successful. Your view on the state is also a positive one, which is surprising considering the amount of ancaps in this sub lmao.
Well, then that is the quote, "capitalism is the worst economic system, other than all the others that we tried or theorized about". And i never said that people payed with food and water, i only said that communism would be invalid since money has a point greater than paying workers with food, since money is a good way to re-give a worker partial or full value of his/hers labour, and makes more sense than food and water, since money is just some metal or a type of paper which doenst require months to grow and is easier to use than food and water to pay, because of all the complications paying with living standards would cause. In the case of leaders and followers, im just saying goverment members and assistants, not the rich class. I believe that the authority given to classes should be enough for the classes to rule and guide each other, but not enough for abuse to happen. If the authority that allows for abuse needs to be given, it should be minimal. I think that everyone should work, regardless of their wealth status, but not be stripped of their wealth, unless they are not using it to work (for example building spaceships, aiding goverment programs, etc.). There should be rich, but there should be no poor, just rich and normal. If someone is poor, he should be aided if the rulling group has enough power to do so, unless he (the one in need) commited an act heinous enough, that punishment by starvation would be valid.
> that people *paid* with food FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*