I read the comments and I think they are all wrong.
Current capitalism is not capitalism at all, it’s oligarchy. Capitalism originally originated from an idea of everyone having the same equal opportunities. Right now it does not capitalism, it is a oligarheism or whatever - a circle jerk to syphon your wealth and make you poor - capitalism aas never designed for this.
Communism is about equality dictated by the government which also implies government for some reason is not equal to basic citizen. And communism doesn’t allow the ability to grow. However, communism on paper really guarantees your social safety in terms of you will not die, you will have food, you will have a house. However, on practice, it didn’t really work well. And current community countries are actually socialism.
Something good is always in the middle. We can have a capitalist-like growth opportunities and regulations from the government and social guarantees. For example, like in most countries in Europe, you have a wealth guarantee, you have a social and job protection. and also strict regulations on terms of companies so they will not abuse their customers and they will not abuse their employees
The current comment section is just a fight for nothing. The problem is not in the system capitalism, socialism or communism. The problem is in a legar case and circlejerk - where even the government is in. So it actually becomes harder and harder to actually have a good thing in common reason in socialism and in capitalism.
Saying today is oligarchy not capitalism is like saying you don’t have cancer you have stage four cancer
Communism is by definition a stateless society, not sure where you are getting those ideas about a communist government. Define “didn’t work well”. Nations such as Cuba have not achieved a communist utopia, but they did significantly improve the lives of their citizens in pretty much every way compared to pre revolutionary Cuba. Those states are obviously not communist and it is debatable to what extent they are socialist and not state capitalist.
Almost all European countries are currently in the process of removing as much of those social guarantees, which is a logically process that pretty inevitably happens as long capitalism exists.
To be fair, the state doesn’t exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as “the administration of things” as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.
Oligarchy is not caused by capitalism. These are different things. I’m not really sure if capitalism really caused it - it could just accelerated it. Bad people would so evil things in any system unless regulated
Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy - which never worked. About utopian communism:
2.1 USSR - failed on the way to the communism due to economic reasons. The system wasn’t able to handle it all, and USSR had huge deficits and poorness.
2.2 China - “a communistic” country. Which is not really anymore. It just masks itself as one to still have a single leader (in their case a single party)
2.3 about Cuba I have no idea, no experience
That is unfortunate. But this social guarantees are being removed by rich and power hungry people that are trying to aggregate more power. And power is money. Imagine money = capitalism = bad. But if we will remove money from the system - bad actors could still abuse their power in different ways (political weight, connections)
Im downoted to hell for a different opinion from lefties, righties and centrists. Cool. I love society. But it is not a reddit and no karma, so it doesnt matter :)
Your thinking of written history, almost all of which was written by slavers and lords to justify them doing nothing and getting all the stuff.
The vast majority of human existence, from when we first diverged from apes until the agricultural revolutions, was organized around anarchic tribes and clans where they shared there resources and the leader “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe.
These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of their social structure was “might makes right”.
Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.
That sort of tyranny won’t last long because there is no real method to monopolize violence before the agricultural revolution.
A tyrant could rule over a village by taking all the surplus, buying weapons and armor for him and his goons, and spending all their time training and specializing in violence to the point where there small group could easily threaten the remaining men in the village to work for them.
Before agriculture there was no surplus, no specialization and no advanced weapons and armor. So the difference between men matters far less and it becomes a numbers game. If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
If all the other men leave, or the tyrant kills the dissenters, then that leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other tribes. So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
Thus the leader in Hunter gatherer society ruled at the discretion of the tribe. If he deviated from the will of majority the threat of rebellion would loom over his head.
This is also why we saw a loosening of hierarchies after the invention of the gun and the loss of the importance of violence specialization and the increase in the importance of man power.
That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.
If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves… If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe’s tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.
Before agriculture there was no surplus,
Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.
So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant’s aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.
Early communalism existed for far longer. I don’t agree with people associating anarchism with it, as anarchism today implies current levels of productive forces and thus a new organization of humanity fundamentally different from early communalism, but they are correct that the bulk of human existence has been without a state and without classes.
You have no idea what communism means. It is not anarchy, but mainly due to the difference in the way and not the goal. Saying communism requires a state is like saying water atoms require more than one proton and electron. It is literally the definition of what communism isn’t is.
2.1 The USSR had economic problems, especially near the end, but it also had achieved great economic progress. If you consider the full existence of USSR it’s economy grew equally to that of the West. The USSR however had a way worse start as it inherited a feudal society that had just lost a war and was attacked immediately by capitalist nations such as the USA. Other countries that had similar starting conditions grew significantly less than the West or USSR in the same time period. The USSR saw a significant increase in life expectancy: . It’s economy later declined due to mismanaged and a expenditure for the military that wasn’t feasable, but all in all I don’t think it’s fair to call the USSR a economic failure.
USSR has a different stages. One of stages where was burst growth in almost all the aspects - medicine, science, military and economics - was when Stalin was rule. Lenin was a dumb ruler that stealing food from poor people and he is make people poor starting inner war. After Stalins death USSR have some inertia, not so dumb ruler like Khrushchev and vibe of scientists country that have a flight into the space and so on that now sometimes shows in games or other media when it wants to show strong country. But then USSR with dumbest Brezhnev was finally tasted crude oil selling and thats was needed for its elites to live rich. With the outer long wars like Afganistan its become a break point from where the USSR doesn’t solve his problems but silenced and accumulated them before the end. (in 80th USSR start money printing to prolong its death, but there was too late)
The Soviet economy was slowing down a bit, but it did not collapse. The USSR was dissolved from the top-down in a political coup. As for China, it’s a socialist market economy, the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.
You’re downvoted for being confidently wrong about leftist theory and history in a leftist community.
To be fair, the state doesn’t exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as “the administration of things” as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.
They’re even doubling down to be the enlightened centrist by saying of course being in the middle makes everyone upset not them being completely wrong on everything
Current capitalism is capitalism of its latest stages. The oligarchy was present from the beginning, but it has consolidated as markets do. Capitalism was never “designed,” it was born from feudalism upon the rise of industrial production and wage labor.
Communism has the working classes running administration. Further, socialist systems have absolutely had some of the highest rates of growth and innovation in the world. The fact that socialist countries have not reached communism is not a flaw in communism, but the understanding that communism is constructed during socialism.
European social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund their safety nets and welfare. They exist only by stealing from the global south.
Who would have though that having an opinion that differs from both sides will result in “not” pissing all sides.
Imagine thinking this is why everyone is replying and not reflecting on the terrible arguments or reasoning in the initial comment. Notes from someone watching
I read the comments and I think they are all wrong.
Current capitalism is not capitalism at all, it’s oligarchy. Capitalism originally originated from an idea of everyone having the same equal opportunities. Right now it does not capitalism, it is a oligarheism or whatever - a circle jerk to syphon your wealth and make you poor - capitalism aas never designed for this.
Communism is about equality dictated by the government which also implies government for some reason is not equal to basic citizen. And communism doesn’t allow the ability to grow. However, communism on paper really guarantees your social safety in terms of you will not die, you will have food, you will have a house. However, on practice, it didn’t really work well. And current community countries are actually socialism.
Something good is always in the middle. We can have a capitalist-like growth opportunities and regulations from the government and social guarantees. For example, like in most countries in Europe, you have a wealth guarantee, you have a social and job protection. and also strict regulations on terms of companies so they will not abuse their customers and they will not abuse their employees
The current comment section is just a fight for nothing. The problem is not in the system capitalism, socialism or communism. The problem is in a legar case and circlejerk - where even the government is in. So it actually becomes harder and harder to actually have a good thing in common reason in socialism and in capitalism.
Saying today is oligarchy not capitalism is like saying you don’t have cancer you have stage four cancer
Communism is by definition a stateless society, not sure where you are getting those ideas about a communist government. Define “didn’t work well”. Nations such as Cuba have not achieved a communist utopia, but they did significantly improve the lives of their citizens in pretty much every way compared to pre revolutionary Cuba. Those states are obviously not communist and it is debatable to what extent they are socialist and not state capitalist.
Almost all European countries are currently in the process of removing as much of those social guarantees, which is a logically process that pretty inevitably happens as long capitalism exists.
To be fair, the state doesn’t exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as “the administration of things” as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.
Oligarchy is not caused by capitalism. These are different things. I’m not really sure if capitalism really caused it - it could just accelerated it. Bad people would so evil things in any system unless regulated
Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy - which never worked. About utopian communism: 2.1 USSR - failed on the way to the communism due to economic reasons. The system wasn’t able to handle it all, and USSR had huge deficits and poorness. 2.2 China - “a communistic” country. Which is not really anymore. It just masks itself as one to still have a single leader (in their case a single party) 2.3 about Cuba I have no idea, no experience
That is unfortunate. But this social guarantees are being removed by rich and power hungry people that are trying to aggregate more power. And power is money. Imagine money = capitalism = bad. But if we will remove money from the system - bad actors could still abuse their power in different ways (political weight, connections)
Im downoted to hell for a different opinion from lefties, righties and centrists. Cool. I love society. But it is not a reddit and no karma, so it doesnt matter :)
Anarchy never worked except for the vast majority of human existence.
The vast majority of human existence: slavery and feudalism
You young earth creationists get wilder all the time. Now the Earth is younger than bronze?
Your thinking of written history, almost all of which was written by slavers and lords to justify them doing nothing and getting all the stuff.
The vast majority of human existence, from when we first diverged from apes until the agricultural revolutions, was organized around anarchic tribes and clans where they shared there resources and the leader “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe.
These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of their social structure was “might makes right”.
Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.
That sort of tyranny won’t last long because there is no real method to monopolize violence before the agricultural revolution.
A tyrant could rule over a village by taking all the surplus, buying weapons and armor for him and his goons, and spending all their time training and specializing in violence to the point where there small group could easily threaten the remaining men in the village to work for them.
Before agriculture there was no surplus, no specialization and no advanced weapons and armor. So the difference between men matters far less and it becomes a numbers game. If one guy tries to monopolize the women and resources of the tribe then the rest of the men would rebel and easily take him and his goons.
Also pre agricultural society was nomadic, so if a tyranny ever came the oppressed could just leave.
If all the other men leave, or the tyrant kills the dissenters, then that leaves them vulnerable to attacks from other tribes. So naturally these tribes filled with strife and tyranny would die out while tribes that were able to keep consensus and coherence among the men would prevail.
Thus the leader in Hunter gatherer society ruled at the discretion of the tribe. If he deviated from the will of majority the threat of rebellion would loom over his head.
This is also why we saw a loosening of hierarchies after the invention of the gun and the loss of the importance of violence specialization and the increase in the importance of man power.
That sort of tyranny is the defining characteristic of these primitive, tribal social structures.
Gorillas, elephant seals, wolves… If you look hard enough, you can find similar social structure even in invertebrates. If the tyrant is ever overthrown, he is always replaced by those overthrowing him, and the tyranny continues. This structure was successful because a tribe’s tyrant was a bigger threat to neighboring tribes than his own.
What really happened was that the departing group posed a competitive threat to those who remained, so they group collectively turned on the rebels. If a rebellion was ever actually successful, it quickly established the same structure with new players.
Tyranny thrives with surplus, scarcity, or anything in between.
The lesson that arises from this is submission. Submit to the tyrant of your tribe, or the tyrants of other tribes will be coming for you. If any in your tribe would turn against your tyrant, you owe a duty to your tyrant to eliminate them, and come to your tyrant’s aid. Your tribe will die out, unless you keep consensus and coherence in support of your own tyrant. You become a supporting member of the tyranny long before you ever pick up a shovel or hoe. The pinnacle of anarchy is submission to the nearest tyrant.
Show me your proof, liberal. And no… reruns of The Walking Dead doesn’t count.
Early communalism existed for far longer. I don’t agree with people associating anarchism with it, as anarchism today implies current levels of productive forces and thus a new organization of humanity fundamentally different from early communalism, but they are correct that the bulk of human existence has been without a state and without classes.
That shit happened after agriculture.
agrarianism isn’t universal, and humans who eschewed it are just as capable as people who embraced it. it’s not before or after.
Exactly
2.1 The USSR had economic problems, especially near the end, but it also had achieved great economic progress. If you consider the full existence of USSR it’s economy grew equally to that of the West. The USSR however had a way worse start as it inherited a feudal society that had just lost a war and was attacked immediately by capitalist nations such as the USA. Other countries that had similar starting conditions grew significantly less than the West or USSR in the same time period. The USSR saw a significant increase in life expectancy:
. It’s economy later declined due to mismanaged and a expenditure for the military that wasn’t feasable, but all in all I don’t think it’s fair to call the USSR a economic failure.
USSR has a different stages. One of stages where was burst growth in almost all the aspects - medicine, science, military and economics - was when Stalin was rule. Lenin was a dumb ruler that stealing food from poor people and he is make people poor starting inner war. After Stalins death USSR have some inertia, not so dumb ruler like Khrushchev and vibe of scientists country that have a flight into the space and so on that now sometimes shows in games or other media when it wants to show strong country. But then USSR with dumbest Brezhnev was finally tasted crude oil selling and thats was needed for its elites to live rich. With the outer long wars like Afganistan its become a break point from where the USSR doesn’t solve his problems but silenced and accumulated them before the end. (in 80th USSR start money printing to prolong its death, but there was too late)
The Soviet economy was slowing down a bit, but it did not collapse. The USSR was dissolved from the top-down in a political coup. As for China, it’s a socialist market economy, the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy.
You’re downvoted for being confidently wrong about leftist theory and history in a leftist community.
So is anarcho-communism an oxymoron for you then?
Gee… nothing oligarchical about a system where the rich hold all the power, eh?
Nothing at all, brightspark?
Really, brightspark? Nothing at all about a stateless, classless and moneyless society, eh?
Have you ever tried not eating paint flakes?
To be fair, the state doesn’t exist in communism, but administrative functions we would associate with the government absolutely will. This goes back to Marx. Engels referred to it as “the administration of things” as a way to distinguish it from the state, but from the outside this does look like a government, even without classes.
I don’t know how did you get all 3 points so wrong
.world accounts usually do. I’ve given up trying to argue with them. 🤷♀️
It’s not like Lenin didn’t write about this same thing 100 years ago…
Lenin after revolution, when people tried to do communism:
Ok…
They’re even doubling down to be the enlightened centrist by saying of course being in the middle makes everyone upset not them being completely wrong on everything
Ehrm… The current system has caused the sixth mass extinction on the planet. Capitalism will inevitable collapse because it incentivizes ecocide.
Current capitalism is capitalism of its latest stages. The oligarchy was present from the beginning, but it has consolidated as markets do. Capitalism was never “designed,” it was born from feudalism upon the rise of industrial production and wage labor.
Communism has the working classes running administration. Further, socialist systems have absolutely had some of the highest rates of growth and innovation in the world. The fact that socialist countries have not reached communism is not a flaw in communism, but the understanding that communism is constructed during socialism.
European social democracies rely on imperialism and neocolonialism to fund their safety nets and welfare. They exist only by stealing from the global south.
Most intelligent liberal.
Oh my, I would have never though that this comment will actually cause this explosive reaction.
But of course it is the internet. Who would have though that having an opinion that differs from both sides will result in “not” pissing all sides.
Internet is awesome.
Imagine thinking this is why everyone is replying and not reflecting on the terrible arguments or reasoning in the initial comment. Notes from someone watching
there is a cure for political illiteracy
Nuclear-level dumbassery tends to get that kind of response, yes.