2d ago

Communism is when you can only buy one share of a stock

99 comments

If you describe communism to these morons without ever saying “communism” then they salivate over what you have just described to them
- A system where there is no central authority and everyone has an equal share of both responsibility and power? Somehow I don't think they'd find that particularly enthralling.
  
  That's anarchism, communism can have a central authority, it's just the resources are distributed equitably.
  
  Thats socialism, which is meant to lead eventually to communism. The end goal is to have no state.
  If my understanding is correct, that is.
  
  yeah, Lenin even stated this was the end-goal.
  
  I don't think it's possible for a state to give up power.
  
  it's one of those things a lot of thought's been put into and commies themselves argue about. i feel it's great to conceptualize (and with it the differing definitions of "the state" as well) but i'm not a scholar anyway, this ain't the place, and it's moot since socialism needs to be achieved first anyway, after we beat this whole fascism thing. no point in worrying to much about it eh?
  
  To be fair 🤓 since it's mostly theoretical, any definition of communism is going to be in flux as it has not achieved a shelf-stable real life application yet.
  
  It's shelf stable in the same way as a clay pigeon.
  
  Anarchism, as a whole concept, doesn't put equality first. It can divide power and resources equally, but it doesn't have to.
  With Communism there is a specific emphasis on power (and resources) and responsibility being equally shared amongst the populace.
  These concepts often have overlap, they do not exist in vacuums unto themselves.
  
  Communism describes a stateless, classless, moneyless society. A communist society with a central authority definitionally cannot exist
  
  Someone working towards communism is a communist. A state that is working towards communism is a communist state.
  Whether the state is actually trying to make itself obsolete is a different thing.
  But that of course isn't what they said even if might be what they meant. A communist society implies it has achieved communism because language is fun.
  
  I would argue that a state can't make that transition, as it is contrary to the structural organization and power dynamics of the state. So much so, that its effectively useless to label a state "moving towards communism" as communist. The closest a state ever got to actually doing that was Yugoslavia and that ended the minute Tito died. The term "communism" has been muddied by western propaganda and state capitalists co-opting the term. I think making the distinction is worthwhile and provides mutual understanding when people are communicating about something that has become so obfuscated
  
  Since states aren't real things with wills of their own and there are only people and their social constructs, you're effectively arguing that it is impossible for anyone to act honestly or for altruistic purposes.
  No system can withstand the people who make it up acting in bad faith. That does not mean that is impossible for systems to have integrity on the whole.
  
  Have you met people? The largest size a communist society as defined in this thread could be is one.
  
  I always find it fascinating how often trash tells on itself
  
  The state and capitalism are a set of intertwined manmade abstractions that we live under and within. They provide a set of incentives for certain behaviors (competition, "hard work", the nuclear family, etc), and discourage others with the threat of violence (organizing, cooperation, diversity). Under capitalism and the modern nation, the people at the bottom are given just enough to keep the majority of us from revolting, in tandem with the threat of becoming "less than human" (eg the homeless). Those in the middle/management class are given slightly more to reinforce the myths of the system while ensuring the loyalty of this group to the status quo. Those at the top live lavishly and reap the benefits of everyone below them, they own the means and they call the shots. It is a disadvantage for those at the top to have compassion or empathy for those below them.
  The system was built to simultaneously select for selfishness and corruption, and instills those values in people who don't already possess them as they progress up the chain. I'm not saying that it's impossible for people in positions of power to act altruistically, I'm saying it's not really built with that in mind and it encourages behaviors contrary to altruism. That nuance is important. Hierarchical systems are fragile, and we're witnessing the system breaking in real time. Why should we reinstate a system that will inevitably wind up putting everyone in a similar situation again? Shouldn't we be looking for alternatives to the state and capitalism?
  
  Ehhhhhh Communism is a stateless, moneyless society. Really a form of anarchism however states which aspire to move to this eventually often use central planning as a transitional step.
  
  States don't aspire to Communism, people do. States aspire to use a watered down form of Communism to trick populations into giving them power.
  
  Not the actual republicans that are rich cunts, no, but their useful idiots who are dirt poor and fucking dumb, yes
- Really? I doubt it. Calling them morons doesn't really help your case either
  
  You’re right, they’re pea-brained fuck stumps

99 comments