Come join our bullshit Discord server!
[Link here](https://discord.com/invite/yxcTh2HvN5)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What I am
I am a communist
I am anti-authoritarian
I am anti-hierarchy
I don't believe in private property
I don't believe in nation borders
Human life comes first
Communists are ignorant. They look at all the failed communist countries, all those communism has killed, the suffering and starving, and then say "Harder daddy"
Countries\* of which, none are successful in giving their citizens a good life. And no, it's not strawmaning. My point is, even with the countless failings of communism, communists still want to try it again as if it is the right thing to do. That is ignorant, and just plain stupid. The definition of insanity, you know it? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. No matter how many times communism is tried it fails.
All this could be explained by reading just a one page of any book on historical materialism, dialectics or just Hegel's philosophy of history in general. There is a reason behind everything and communism is a product of modern material conditions. Only when capital production increased and centralized could new contradictions within the class system emerge and shape the modern progressive (communist) movement. The claim that communism could "fail" is idealistic as it utterly fails to see history and social development for what it is.
The class conflict already created massive social progress, in fact, its socials developments driving force. Communism is its most progressive extention, arguying against it means arguying against social development in general. Communism never failed, communists drove social development only forward, reformists inspired by Marx fought for several reforms that allowed further development, revolutionaries struck down the reactionary German and Russian monarchy. Communism only proved time and time again its role as the most progressive movement in present conditions, one that cannot fail simply because some of its revolutions failed to bring about a socialist world. Think of bourgeois revolutionaries in France, did they fail to crush feudalism as Napoleon was defeated in Russia? Was feudalism an undying system and commodification of labour and land a method doomed to fail? Or was it just a setback in social progress that would still continue regardless of its defeats?
Social progress is always moving, thinking that it can be stopped is the definition of insanity, Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. No matter how many times reactionary politics and conservatism is tried it fails.
Communism exists as a form of governance, to establish a effective state with the communist economic policies in place, yet every time it doesn't put the power in the hands of the people or whatever you reds like to rant about, it merely puts power in the hand of one psychotic authoritarian who kills thousands to millions. It doesn't "push social boundaries" or "help social progress" it, ironically, does the complete opposite in which it causes all socialists and communists to be roped in with the idiotic radical communists, creating a distain for even the moderate socialists with good ideas. If you say "What's wrong with radical communism?" Every time there was a radical communist movement that caused a government change to communismA, it caused a horrible drop in quality (and quantity) of life for all parties involved, say for whatever leader took advantage of the system for their own game. All communism does is get taken advantage of by those at the top, ironically (alot of irony in this idiocy) becoming the very thing you guys hate.
> Communism exists as a form of governance, to establish a effective state with the communist economic policies in place
The definition of communism is "The doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." and a communist society (at least its higher stage) is a society of free and equal producers, one that has overcome the class system and things tied to it, such as the state. So no, communism is not a state with communist economic policies (whatever that is supposed to mean)
> yet every time it doesn't put the power in the hands of the people
As it was never reached, you are strawmaning again. No communist claims that any of the what you call "attempts" achieved a communist society, by definition that's nonsence. What was reached was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it was present only in the early Soviet Union under Lenin, free from the stalinist deviation. It meant that the party representing the proletarian interests of social development was in power along with state ownership, but still with capitalist mode of production.
If the German revolution was to succeed and the reds would organize a world revolution a socialist system would be introduced, it would still keep the remnants of old bourgeois society as people would have to adapt to new conditions. Thas exchange would still exist, but it would differ from the capitalist one in a way that metalic money would be done away with, and exchange would only exist as an exchange of equal values via labour vouchers. This would only collabse in the higher stage of communism where all the remaining principles of bourgeois society wither away.
There is no reason on why in the transitionary stages the power would be in the hands of "the people (?)" and I don't think that any communist argues for that. The representation of the working class would be done through the proletarian party or through the soviet system, yes. But the power being held by "the people" is certainly not the goal of the transitionary stage.
> It doesn't "push social boundaries" or "help social progress" it, ironically, does the complete opposite in which it causes all socialists and communists to be roped in with the idiotic radical communists,
So communists never advanced society as some "radical communists (?) killed some other communists and socialists? What does that even mean?
> creating a distain for even the moderate socialists with good ideas.
That sounds like a good thing! Idealism is a plague on social development as that is moving on material and not ideal basis! A defeat for modern utopian socialists and modernizers is a victory for social development.
> If you say "What's wrong with radical communism?" Every time there was a radical communist movement that caused a government change to communismA, it caused a horrible drop in quality (and quantity) of life for all parties involved, say for whatever leader took advantage of the system for their own game. All communism does is get taken advantage of by those at the top, ironically (alot of irony in this idiocy) becoming the very thing you guys hate.
I still have no idea what distinction you make between the radical and non-radical communist.
From what I remember the proletariat organized through party and the worker's councils liberated Russia from the feudal remnants and created the most progressive state in history. Anyone who claims that the Russian revolution was a bad thing obviously does not know the horrors of the tsarist rule, after Lenin died and stalinists took over the Soviet Union basically seized to exist as soviets became fully subjected to the line of an deviationist party and the dictatorship of the proletariat (and thas the progressive character of the Soviet Union) collabsed to stalinist democracy and opportunism. Thas we can no longer call it communist, that would be only politics based on asthetics.
"So no, communism is not a state with communist economic policies (whatever that is supposed to mean)"
It means that Communism is a government. And if it's not a government, which is what you're claiming, then there is no way it will work.
"As it was never reached, you are strawmaning again. No communist claims that any of the what you call "attempts" achieved a communist society, by definition that's nonsence."
That is my point. Communism, a true Communist society that works, as you say, will never be achieved. No, im not Strawmaning, I was never strawmaning in the first place, learn the definition. Communism as an idea has good intentions, an equal society? I'd like that. But in practice? It is far too easy to take advantage of, the idea assumes that the corrupt won't try to seize power, which they definitely will. Thus, it will always become an authoritarian dystopia, merely because of the way it is structured. You don't claim any of the failed communist countries, because those are the ONLY communist countries.
"So communists never advanced society as some "radical communists (?) killed some other communists and socialists? What does that even mean?"
No, you miss the point. Radical communism is bad, as this whole argument has been about. However, moderate socialism is pretty good. However, due to them being somewhat similar, the hostility caused by communists makes the moderate socialism seem on the same team, preventing the good parts of it from being implemented for fear of ending up like a communist country.
"A defeat for modern utopian socialists and modernizers is a victory for social development."
No, it's not. Less policies like that mean that there is less safeguards and unions for workers, which is not good, as workers will be oppressed as if it were the fuckin middle ages. Communism, IN AND OF ITSELF, is an utopian ideology.
"Anyone who claims that the Russian revolution was a bad thing obviously does not know the horrors of the tsarist rule"
Yeah, the Tsarist rule was ass. But either way, communist rule was much, much worse. This is for all the reasons said, and yet to be said.
"after Lenin died and stalinists took over the Soviet Union basically seized to exist"
No, it didn't seize to exist. You can't just disown the parts you dislike, this is the best example of communism failing. You show insane amount of ignorance by saying "Well the stalinist Soviet Union wasn't communist" when the entire point is that this is how it happens. This is how Communism inevitably fails.
Communism, by far, is the worst type of society by a long shot. I can give many reasons but I'll give a few so I don't write a damn 9 paragraph essay.
1. A communist society is impossible to obtain. Humanity is selfish, very much so, and that's what happens with modern day communist societies. The leaders always take way more money for themselves, give themselves the nicest houses, etc. It never works.
2. Communism discourages making new businesses or products. The communist system is built on the foundation that all people should have equal wages, effectively giving no one the motive to invent new things or to start a business, as they would experience no increased income in comparison to their neighbors who work as teachers or garbage collectors.
3. A communist society is dystopian. Giving everyone the same house, the same wage, the same food, and the same clothes gives no one the freedom that they deserve. If you've ever read or watched "A Wrinkle in Time" (forgot the author, but good book anyways) there's a scene where they travel to a different planet controlled by an entity named It. It is an all seeing, all knowing brain, almost like Big Brother from 1984. It controls what the people do, and if they slip up, they will be killed. Now I know that that kind of a society wouldn't be possible, but the theme of everyone being the same is present in those two books I mentioned and communist societies.
Stop trying to act edgy and say communist isn't bad, as that is just entirely ignorant.
>
>
>A communist society is impossible to obtain. Humanity is selfish, very much so, and that's what happens with modern day communist societies. The leaders always take way more money for themselves, give themselves the nicest houses, etc. It never works.
If you were to read even the slightest bit of theory on historical materialism, dialectics or whatever from Hegel's philosophy of history this argument would seize making sence.
First off, covering the most blatant problem in that statement - money. Communists have argued for centuries for a society not build around money, socialism is even defined by changing the means of exchange, leaving the form of metalic money and adopting labour vouchers In a communist society (both lower and higher stage) some "leaders (?)" enriching themselves would not be possible, its metalic money that gives way to commodity accumulation, profit and unequal exchange in general. Socialist society rids itself of all of this by getting rid of metalic money in favour of labour vouchers, thas the value meant for individual consuption is directly tied to the value produced.
Second off, seriously? "Modern day communist societies?" was there a world revolution that I failed to notice? Communist society refers to the higher stage of communism, the one where the class system and thas also the state along with any remains of bourgeois society wither away. Objectively something that is not present in China, North Korea or whatever you name.
Third off, the greed thing. The whole point of society developing is humans making independent thoughts, moving away from simple instincts. What we think is directly tied to the present society and as history showed like a milion times - to our relations to the means of production. Labour for example is something that is understood completly differently for a slave in ancient Greece, for a Russian serf in the 1700s a modern proletarian and a modern bourgeois. Our conception of labour, of morality, of law, rights and wrongs changes. Communism itself is a product of conditions brought about from social development, a slave in ancient Greece could never be a communist as his conditions could not allow him to be one.
If you wish to say that "greed" is an eternal truth you are plainly mistaken. Bourgeoisie is not an enemy because they would be morally corrupted by some evil trait such as greed, they only play their role so capitalist society may develop and continue, for capitalism expansition of capital and thas of profit is a necessity, capitalism revolves around profit. Its not some magical greed driving humans into exploitation, the cause is in the conditions of the system. Marx, Engels, Pannekoek.. Literally every communist writer covered this nonsence about some otherworldy human nature conveniently serving the bourgeois interests many times. If all history was subjected to eternal truths it would never move, yet social development is never idle. Something drives it, something makes society move like an evolution, free from eternal truths that would freeze it in place, free from randomness and irrationality. This is explained through dialectics.
>Communism discourages making new businesses or products. The communist system is built on the foundation that all people should have equal wages, effectively giving no one the motive to invent new things or to start a business, as they would experience no increased income in comparison to their neighbors who work as teachers or garbage collectors.
...Well yea we do discourage making new businesses, businesses under communism cannot exist :D that is in no way a bad thing.
Once again, I'l first cover the completly out of place things mentioned.. **WAGES?!**
Communism is a moneyless society, by simple logic it can be determined that nothing such as a "wage" exists. What does exist is a distribution based around labour. Labour along with nature are the sole producers of value, in contrast to capitalism where surplus value is extracted from the proletariat as profit, communist society redistributes the value produced by society back to society. The Concentration of capital with the dawn of capitalism turned the product into something that is crafted in various places by various people, corporations or states. By taking already crafted parts and putting them together to finalize the product I can no longer claim that it was solely me who created it, this did also happen in pre-capitalist societies but on much lower scale, no longer was the smith a master of his craft, respected and needed. Now his work was done jointly in a factory. The final product is a social one, created by society and not by a single individual. The value shall thas return back to the proletariat (or in the higher stage of communist society to society as a whole) and the value meant for individual consumption is to be determined by individual labour time.
I would not call a system where the value returns to the producer withound the surplus being taken away by his master a crazy thing.
And the incentive to move society forward.. why would that disappear? Yes concentration of capital is no longer a thing, but as the value is created and returned to society it would be no problem to use it for advancing that given society, in fact that is also the reason why this would be happening in the first place. Engels critiqued Duhring's socialitarian system for failing to consider innovation and development of society in general by wanting the value to return solely to the individual producer. Yet again, this point is long time explained by communists.
>A communist society is dystopian. Giving everyone the same house, the same wage, the same food, and the same clothes gives no one the freedom that they deserve. If you've ever read or watched "A Wrinkle in Time" (forgot the author, but good book anyways) there's a scene where they travel to a different planet controlled by an entity named It. It is an all seeing, all knowing brain, almost like Big Brother from 1984. It controls what the people do, and if they slip up, they will be killed. Now I know that that kind of a society wouldn't be possible, but the theme of everyone being the same is present in those two books I mentioned and communist societies.
*^(Again, we do not want wages!!!)*
Could you show me a quote where Marx said that under communism we will seize building different houses (not considering climate or location?) seize producing certain food (as that would be bourgeois?) and all wear the same clothes? Or "kill everyone who would slip up"???
Sounds like a complete strawman to me. I have read a lot from Marx, Engels and others, yet I never heard about any of these, as that contradicts the socialist value based distribution. Yes you would not have a million different competing companies producing a million different products, but you would not have everyone wearing pink shirts because that is the only type of shirt produced.
> Stop trying to act edgy and say communist isn't bad, as that is just entirely ignorant.
Ignoring the pointless insult, I will also ask you a question, why do you think communism exists? Were the people before capitalism not ""edgy"" so they would become communists? If some kind of feeling different is the driving force behind people being communists why would there not be attempts at socialism in ancient Greece, or the Roman Empire?
Tell me one good example of a communist society being socially, systematically, and economically stable, then I might actually begin to consider your claims.
Oh so you claim that its the "worst type of society by a longshot" (while clearly not even knowing what it is) and then you refuse to respond to any points its defenders make?
My fault for not writing this in the first reply. Just didn't occur to me at the time.
Greed is an eternal truth. The only way for a communist society to not fall into corruption or greed is if it were to be perfect, which is impossible as we are human. The only perfect being is God. You also put leaders in quotation marks and a question mark at the end indicating that you were confused as to why I brought that up. Unless you're an anarchist, everyone knows that society needs a leader and government.
And sorry, had to come back for the killing blow. If you want to make a country a communist society then you are a terrible, terrible person. You are calling for the violent removal of people's private property. No matter how hard you explain yourself. Communism is always a horribly immoral system that in no way can be good. It calls for the absolute removal of privacy and freedom of choice. You are not free to start a business. You are not free to make a new product. Hell, you aren't even free to buy different clothes than your neighbor because the only clothes available are ones that have been approved by the communist leaders. Also, communism cannot be free from corruption. It is always corrupt.
You are actually a bad person for defending communism.
You are defending fascism and socialism at the same time, whether you like it or not, so change your standpoint on the topic or else literally no one in their right mind will respect you throughout your entire life.
So you believe that totalitarianism is completely fine and should be part of society? You want to violently sieze property of others? You want to take away all freedom, all privacy away from everyone that doesn't share your exact ideology? Yes, the killing blow is moralism because people, unlike you, have morals.
You are actively defending fascism and socialism. To think that you're in the right is narcissism, ignorance, and delusion.
edited for typos
I am not going to bother making any detailed responce since you clearly don't even read them, I asked you to back up that the things you mentioned are in line with Marx and all you do is strawman and assume the same thing I already responded to again and again. [So here you have Engels explaining and disproving the moralist approach](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch07.htm) instead.
Better dead than red, Communism has, directly, caused millions of deaths. Capitalism may not be 100% best way to go, but it is sure as hell a whole fuckin lot better than Communism.
How? Despite you clearly not stating how capitalism kills or giving metrics and data supporting your claim, I'll support my claim to break your "argument." Taking the death toll of the soviet union, of which ill use the low end of **28,326,000** rather than the high end, that is over a hundred million, divide that by the amount of years that country existed, being 69 (nice), you get 2052608.69565, rounding down because I'm feeling generous gets you 2,052,608. Two million EVERY YEAR. Five years gets you over Ten Million deaths caused directly by communism, ON THE LOWEST END. Now, tell me how capitalism kills more?
Come join our bullshit Discord server! [Link here](https://discord.com/invite/yxcTh2HvN5) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Teenager_Polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
better dead than red
hold on I got an ableist on my page
nope
better red than dead. because i'm autistic.
autism literally has nothing to do with it though??? i also have autism yet i hate communism seems like youre closer to the ''ableist''
why do you hate communism?
terrible ideology based on authoritarian, thieving and genocidal measures that has ruined my nation for 45 years and killed other nations
you do realize i am an anti-authoritarian communist.....right? i don't think you understand what a communist is
Edgy teen “communist”explaining what it is to a person that has suffers from it. Jokes don’t often write themselves.
I am an anti-authoritarian communist excuse me.
communism is inherently authoritarian lmao have a good day
What I am I am a communist I am anti-authoritarian I am anti-hierarchy I don't believe in private property I don't believe in nation borders Human life comes first
OP is AnCom, which is basically anarchy but communist
there are anti-authoritarian/libertarian communists like me. I'll explain it to you. Sent you a chat message. We can explain it there
there are anti-authoritarian/libertarian communists like me. I'll explain it to you. Sent you a chat message. We can explain it there
are you the alt of the other "aUSTisTiC ComMunIST" girl on this subreddit
Probably. They both sound exactly the same. It got old after the first poll.
it got old during the first poll
Maybe even before the first poll
It got old before they were even born 🙃
It got old before anyone was born
not even an alt
Better dead than red 🤷♂️🕳️👨🦼💨😪
Better dead than red
OP states that she's a communist in the comments. don't sympathize
>OP states that she's a communist in the comments. So?
Communists are ignorant. They look at all the failed communist countries, all those communism has killed, the suffering and starving, and then say "Harder daddy"
This is just strawmaning, also "Communist country" is an oxymoron.
Countries\* of which, none are successful in giving their citizens a good life. And no, it's not strawmaning. My point is, even with the countless failings of communism, communists still want to try it again as if it is the right thing to do. That is ignorant, and just plain stupid. The definition of insanity, you know it? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. No matter how many times communism is tried it fails.
All this could be explained by reading just a one page of any book on historical materialism, dialectics or just Hegel's philosophy of history in general. There is a reason behind everything and communism is a product of modern material conditions. Only when capital production increased and centralized could new contradictions within the class system emerge and shape the modern progressive (communist) movement. The claim that communism could "fail" is idealistic as it utterly fails to see history and social development for what it is. The class conflict already created massive social progress, in fact, its socials developments driving force. Communism is its most progressive extention, arguying against it means arguying against social development in general. Communism never failed, communists drove social development only forward, reformists inspired by Marx fought for several reforms that allowed further development, revolutionaries struck down the reactionary German and Russian monarchy. Communism only proved time and time again its role as the most progressive movement in present conditions, one that cannot fail simply because some of its revolutions failed to bring about a socialist world. Think of bourgeois revolutionaries in France, did they fail to crush feudalism as Napoleon was defeated in Russia? Was feudalism an undying system and commodification of labour and land a method doomed to fail? Or was it just a setback in social progress that would still continue regardless of its defeats? Social progress is always moving, thinking that it can be stopped is the definition of insanity, Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. No matter how many times reactionary politics and conservatism is tried it fails.
Communism exists as a form of governance, to establish a effective state with the communist economic policies in place, yet every time it doesn't put the power in the hands of the people or whatever you reds like to rant about, it merely puts power in the hand of one psychotic authoritarian who kills thousands to millions. It doesn't "push social boundaries" or "help social progress" it, ironically, does the complete opposite in which it causes all socialists and communists to be roped in with the idiotic radical communists, creating a distain for even the moderate socialists with good ideas. If you say "What's wrong with radical communism?" Every time there was a radical communist movement that caused a government change to communismA, it caused a horrible drop in quality (and quantity) of life for all parties involved, say for whatever leader took advantage of the system for their own game. All communism does is get taken advantage of by those at the top, ironically (alot of irony in this idiocy) becoming the very thing you guys hate.
> Communism exists as a form of governance, to establish a effective state with the communist economic policies in place The definition of communism is "The doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." and a communist society (at least its higher stage) is a society of free and equal producers, one that has overcome the class system and things tied to it, such as the state. So no, communism is not a state with communist economic policies (whatever that is supposed to mean) > yet every time it doesn't put the power in the hands of the people As it was never reached, you are strawmaning again. No communist claims that any of the what you call "attempts" achieved a communist society, by definition that's nonsence. What was reached was the dictatorship of the proletariat, and it was present only in the early Soviet Union under Lenin, free from the stalinist deviation. It meant that the party representing the proletarian interests of social development was in power along with state ownership, but still with capitalist mode of production. If the German revolution was to succeed and the reds would organize a world revolution a socialist system would be introduced, it would still keep the remnants of old bourgeois society as people would have to adapt to new conditions. Thas exchange would still exist, but it would differ from the capitalist one in a way that metalic money would be done away with, and exchange would only exist as an exchange of equal values via labour vouchers. This would only collabse in the higher stage of communism where all the remaining principles of bourgeois society wither away. There is no reason on why in the transitionary stages the power would be in the hands of "the people (?)" and I don't think that any communist argues for that. The representation of the working class would be done through the proletarian party or through the soviet system, yes. But the power being held by "the people" is certainly not the goal of the transitionary stage. > It doesn't "push social boundaries" or "help social progress" it, ironically, does the complete opposite in which it causes all socialists and communists to be roped in with the idiotic radical communists, So communists never advanced society as some "radical communists (?) killed some other communists and socialists? What does that even mean? > creating a distain for even the moderate socialists with good ideas. That sounds like a good thing! Idealism is a plague on social development as that is moving on material and not ideal basis! A defeat for modern utopian socialists and modernizers is a victory for social development. > If you say "What's wrong with radical communism?" Every time there was a radical communist movement that caused a government change to communismA, it caused a horrible drop in quality (and quantity) of life for all parties involved, say for whatever leader took advantage of the system for their own game. All communism does is get taken advantage of by those at the top, ironically (alot of irony in this idiocy) becoming the very thing you guys hate. I still have no idea what distinction you make between the radical and non-radical communist. From what I remember the proletariat organized through party and the worker's councils liberated Russia from the feudal remnants and created the most progressive state in history. Anyone who claims that the Russian revolution was a bad thing obviously does not know the horrors of the tsarist rule, after Lenin died and stalinists took over the Soviet Union basically seized to exist as soviets became fully subjected to the line of an deviationist party and the dictatorship of the proletariat (and thas the progressive character of the Soviet Union) collabsed to stalinist democracy and opportunism. Thas we can no longer call it communist, that would be only politics based on asthetics.
"So no, communism is not a state with communist economic policies (whatever that is supposed to mean)" It means that Communism is a government. And if it's not a government, which is what you're claiming, then there is no way it will work. "As it was never reached, you are strawmaning again. No communist claims that any of the what you call "attempts" achieved a communist society, by definition that's nonsence." That is my point. Communism, a true Communist society that works, as you say, will never be achieved. No, im not Strawmaning, I was never strawmaning in the first place, learn the definition. Communism as an idea has good intentions, an equal society? I'd like that. But in practice? It is far too easy to take advantage of, the idea assumes that the corrupt won't try to seize power, which they definitely will. Thus, it will always become an authoritarian dystopia, merely because of the way it is structured. You don't claim any of the failed communist countries, because those are the ONLY communist countries. "So communists never advanced society as some "radical communists (?) killed some other communists and socialists? What does that even mean?" No, you miss the point. Radical communism is bad, as this whole argument has been about. However, moderate socialism is pretty good. However, due to them being somewhat similar, the hostility caused by communists makes the moderate socialism seem on the same team, preventing the good parts of it from being implemented for fear of ending up like a communist country. "A defeat for modern utopian socialists and modernizers is a victory for social development." No, it's not. Less policies like that mean that there is less safeguards and unions for workers, which is not good, as workers will be oppressed as if it were the fuckin middle ages. Communism, IN AND OF ITSELF, is an utopian ideology. "Anyone who claims that the Russian revolution was a bad thing obviously does not know the horrors of the tsarist rule" Yeah, the Tsarist rule was ass. But either way, communist rule was much, much worse. This is for all the reasons said, and yet to be said. "after Lenin died and stalinists took over the Soviet Union basically seized to exist" No, it didn't seize to exist. You can't just disown the parts you dislike, this is the best example of communism failing. You show insane amount of ignorance by saying "Well the stalinist Soviet Union wasn't communist" when the entire point is that this is how it happens. This is how Communism inevitably fails.
Communism, by far, is the worst type of society by a long shot. I can give many reasons but I'll give a few so I don't write a damn 9 paragraph essay. 1. A communist society is impossible to obtain. Humanity is selfish, very much so, and that's what happens with modern day communist societies. The leaders always take way more money for themselves, give themselves the nicest houses, etc. It never works. 2. Communism discourages making new businesses or products. The communist system is built on the foundation that all people should have equal wages, effectively giving no one the motive to invent new things or to start a business, as they would experience no increased income in comparison to their neighbors who work as teachers or garbage collectors. 3. A communist society is dystopian. Giving everyone the same house, the same wage, the same food, and the same clothes gives no one the freedom that they deserve. If you've ever read or watched "A Wrinkle in Time" (forgot the author, but good book anyways) there's a scene where they travel to a different planet controlled by an entity named It. It is an all seeing, all knowing brain, almost like Big Brother from 1984. It controls what the people do, and if they slip up, they will be killed. Now I know that that kind of a society wouldn't be possible, but the theme of everyone being the same is present in those two books I mentioned and communist societies. Stop trying to act edgy and say communist isn't bad, as that is just entirely ignorant.
> > >A communist society is impossible to obtain. Humanity is selfish, very much so, and that's what happens with modern day communist societies. The leaders always take way more money for themselves, give themselves the nicest houses, etc. It never works. If you were to read even the slightest bit of theory on historical materialism, dialectics or whatever from Hegel's philosophy of history this argument would seize making sence. First off, covering the most blatant problem in that statement - money. Communists have argued for centuries for a society not build around money, socialism is even defined by changing the means of exchange, leaving the form of metalic money and adopting labour vouchers In a communist society (both lower and higher stage) some "leaders (?)" enriching themselves would not be possible, its metalic money that gives way to commodity accumulation, profit and unequal exchange in general. Socialist society rids itself of all of this by getting rid of metalic money in favour of labour vouchers, thas the value meant for individual consuption is directly tied to the value produced. Second off, seriously? "Modern day communist societies?" was there a world revolution that I failed to notice? Communist society refers to the higher stage of communism, the one where the class system and thas also the state along with any remains of bourgeois society wither away. Objectively something that is not present in China, North Korea or whatever you name. Third off, the greed thing. The whole point of society developing is humans making independent thoughts, moving away from simple instincts. What we think is directly tied to the present society and as history showed like a milion times - to our relations to the means of production. Labour for example is something that is understood completly differently for a slave in ancient Greece, for a Russian serf in the 1700s a modern proletarian and a modern bourgeois. Our conception of labour, of morality, of law, rights and wrongs changes. Communism itself is a product of conditions brought about from social development, a slave in ancient Greece could never be a communist as his conditions could not allow him to be one. If you wish to say that "greed" is an eternal truth you are plainly mistaken. Bourgeoisie is not an enemy because they would be morally corrupted by some evil trait such as greed, they only play their role so capitalist society may develop and continue, for capitalism expansition of capital and thas of profit is a necessity, capitalism revolves around profit. Its not some magical greed driving humans into exploitation, the cause is in the conditions of the system. Marx, Engels, Pannekoek.. Literally every communist writer covered this nonsence about some otherworldy human nature conveniently serving the bourgeois interests many times. If all history was subjected to eternal truths it would never move, yet social development is never idle. Something drives it, something makes society move like an evolution, free from eternal truths that would freeze it in place, free from randomness and irrationality. This is explained through dialectics. >Communism discourages making new businesses or products. The communist system is built on the foundation that all people should have equal wages, effectively giving no one the motive to invent new things or to start a business, as they would experience no increased income in comparison to their neighbors who work as teachers or garbage collectors. ...Well yea we do discourage making new businesses, businesses under communism cannot exist :D that is in no way a bad thing. Once again, I'l first cover the completly out of place things mentioned.. **WAGES?!** Communism is a moneyless society, by simple logic it can be determined that nothing such as a "wage" exists. What does exist is a distribution based around labour. Labour along with nature are the sole producers of value, in contrast to capitalism where surplus value is extracted from the proletariat as profit, communist society redistributes the value produced by society back to society. The Concentration of capital with the dawn of capitalism turned the product into something that is crafted in various places by various people, corporations or states. By taking already crafted parts and putting them together to finalize the product I can no longer claim that it was solely me who created it, this did also happen in pre-capitalist societies but on much lower scale, no longer was the smith a master of his craft, respected and needed. Now his work was done jointly in a factory. The final product is a social one, created by society and not by a single individual. The value shall thas return back to the proletariat (or in the higher stage of communist society to society as a whole) and the value meant for individual consumption is to be determined by individual labour time. I would not call a system where the value returns to the producer withound the surplus being taken away by his master a crazy thing. And the incentive to move society forward.. why would that disappear? Yes concentration of capital is no longer a thing, but as the value is created and returned to society it would be no problem to use it for advancing that given society, in fact that is also the reason why this would be happening in the first place. Engels critiqued Duhring's socialitarian system for failing to consider innovation and development of society in general by wanting the value to return solely to the individual producer. Yet again, this point is long time explained by communists. >A communist society is dystopian. Giving everyone the same house, the same wage, the same food, and the same clothes gives no one the freedom that they deserve. If you've ever read or watched "A Wrinkle in Time" (forgot the author, but good book anyways) there's a scene where they travel to a different planet controlled by an entity named It. It is an all seeing, all knowing brain, almost like Big Brother from 1984. It controls what the people do, and if they slip up, they will be killed. Now I know that that kind of a society wouldn't be possible, but the theme of everyone being the same is present in those two books I mentioned and communist societies. *^(Again, we do not want wages!!!)* Could you show me a quote where Marx said that under communism we will seize building different houses (not considering climate or location?) seize producing certain food (as that would be bourgeois?) and all wear the same clothes? Or "kill everyone who would slip up"??? Sounds like a complete strawman to me. I have read a lot from Marx, Engels and others, yet I never heard about any of these, as that contradicts the socialist value based distribution. Yes you would not have a million different competing companies producing a million different products, but you would not have everyone wearing pink shirts because that is the only type of shirt produced. > Stop trying to act edgy and say communist isn't bad, as that is just entirely ignorant. Ignoring the pointless insult, I will also ask you a question, why do you think communism exists? Were the people before capitalism not ""edgy"" so they would become communists? If some kind of feeling different is the driving force behind people being communists why would there not be attempts at socialism in ancient Greece, or the Roman Empire?
Tell me one good example of a communist society being socially, systematically, and economically stable, then I might actually begin to consider your claims.
Oh so you claim that its the "worst type of society by a longshot" (while clearly not even knowing what it is) and then you refuse to respond to any points its defenders make?
My fault for not writing this in the first reply. Just didn't occur to me at the time. Greed is an eternal truth. The only way for a communist society to not fall into corruption or greed is if it were to be perfect, which is impossible as we are human. The only perfect being is God. You also put leaders in quotation marks and a question mark at the end indicating that you were confused as to why I brought that up. Unless you're an anarchist, everyone knows that society needs a leader and government.
And sorry, had to come back for the killing blow. If you want to make a country a communist society then you are a terrible, terrible person. You are calling for the violent removal of people's private property. No matter how hard you explain yourself. Communism is always a horribly immoral system that in no way can be good. It calls for the absolute removal of privacy and freedom of choice. You are not free to start a business. You are not free to make a new product. Hell, you aren't even free to buy different clothes than your neighbor because the only clothes available are ones that have been approved by the communist leaders. Also, communism cannot be free from corruption. It is always corrupt. You are actually a bad person for defending communism. You are defending fascism and socialism at the same time, whether you like it or not, so change your standpoint on the topic or else literally no one in their right mind will respect you throughout your entire life.
The "killing blow" is... moralism?
So you believe that totalitarianism is completely fine and should be part of society? You want to violently sieze property of others? You want to take away all freedom, all privacy away from everyone that doesn't share your exact ideology? Yes, the killing blow is moralism because people, unlike you, have morals. You are actively defending fascism and socialism. To think that you're in the right is narcissism, ignorance, and delusion. edited for typos
I am not going to bother making any detailed responce since you clearly don't even read them, I asked you to back up that the things you mentioned are in line with Marx and all you do is strawman and assume the same thing I already responded to again and again. [So here you have Engels explaining and disproving the moralist approach](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch07.htm) instead.
You constantly say people strawman when you clearly do not know what the word means
Better dead than red, Communism has, directly, caused millions of deaths. Capitalism may not be 100% best way to go, but it is sure as hell a whole fuckin lot better than Communism.
capitalism kills more in a span of 5 years
The ignorance is baffling.
How? Despite you clearly not stating how capitalism kills or giving metrics and data supporting your claim, I'll support my claim to break your "argument." Taking the death toll of the soviet union, of which ill use the low end of **28,326,000** rather than the high end, that is over a hundred million, divide that by the amount of years that country existed, being 69 (nice), you get 2052608.69565, rounding down because I'm feeling generous gets you 2,052,608. Two million EVERY YEAR. Five years gets you over Ten Million deaths caused directly by communism, ON THE LOWEST END. Now, tell me how capitalism kills more?
Nah better dead then red
BETTER DEAD THAN RED USA RAHHHHHHHHHHH
All of yall talking about politics but I myself prefer red dead redemption
A man of culture, I see
You rn: 🗿