Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism in theory vs in practice
You're viewing a single thread.
526 comments
-
If it's not the CIA it will be a coup from some smart ass****e high ranked in the military/party.
Humans are to greedy to live in a socialist peaceful world.
-
That doesn't make any sense, though, greed has a larger impact on Capitalist systems as its the main mover and driver.
-
Yes, exactly! For all the noxious effects of greed, it drives competition which drives evolution.
Even if a utopian communist/anarchist society were able to stabilize on its own, it would inevitably be overcome at some point in the future by a more competitive society that had martially evolved beyond the utopia's understanding.
Whether its right or wrong has no bearing on the entropy of it.
-
Marxists are anything but utopian, and I think you’ve bought into the just-so stories of bourgeois ideologues like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbart, and Greenspan.
-
To the contrary, competition eliminates its own existence, eventually all markets will coalesce into large trusts that can be publicly owned and planned.
-
Well, competition has been going pretty strong for the last four billion years; time will tell.
-
Not exactly, it's increasingly disappearing in favor of monopoly.
-
The health of the current system is undenianly declining, absolutely. But competition is eternal and non-optional, so systems that seek to eliminate it are intrinsically doomed.
-
Competition can't be eternal, otherwise monopoly wouldn't exist.
-
Just because competition can be suppressed temporarily within a discrete system doesn't mean it has ceased to exist. Exactly why ideologies that demand the absence of competition will eventually be outcompeted from the outside.
-
It's not about being temporary, production becomes so complicated and wide-reaching that it must become planned and publicly owned.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Have you considered a world where power is based in social welfare instead of capital?
-
Would be nice, but it just never going to happen.
We've been there already.
-
So no, you haven't.
-
Literally any socialistic country turned in a shitty dictatorship. Do you still need further investigations?
The biggest example is China. They opened to capitalism in order to let the greedy comrades survive in their power and what you have know? Chinese are free to earn tons of money, but not to say what they think.
It's the biggest paradox of the world.
In the biggest socialist country capitalism is tollerated more then free speech.
-
Everything you know about these "shitty dictatorships" has been told to you by a media and a government that has a direct monetary interest in maintaining and legitimizing the current system you live under, who are free to lie to you as long as they make it believable enough.
Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’
Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.
This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.
An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.
They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).
One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.
But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.
-
-
-
-
-
526 comments