Communism is when gubberment do a fing
AND WHO OWNS THE GOVERNMENT UNDER COMMUNISM HMM? HMMMMMM?
The "Ruling Class" you see! And all my homies hate the "Ruling Class".
I'm not sure that's the best argument as no one owns a capitalist government or a communist government. "The people" own the governments of both systems. The ultra rich influence the government, but no one owns any government.
I do tend to agree with the comment about "people who are power hungry seek positions of power." No matter what system you have you're going to have positions of leadership that have to exert some form of "power" over others and the worst people of any society are going to gravitate to those positions.
I suppose It's really a people problem more than a system problem though. :/
I suppose It's really a people problem more than a system problem though. :/
No, it's a system problem. The worst abuses of power under communist regimes pale in comparison to the atrocities capitalist powers commit on a regular basis. Even if you took the Black Book of Communism at face value and assumed every bad thing that happened in the USSR or the PRC was the direct, intended result of the government it would not hold a candle to the British rule of India, the European colonization of the Americas, or the austerity-driven debt slavery of the global south under neocolonialism.
A few government officials taking bribes is not morally or logistically comparable to systematic chattel slavery or stealing the surplus labor value of billions.
it helps if your system isnt built from the ground up to reward the most psychopatic monsters that can be found...
perhaps putting people before private property in the ideology of your government might also help mitigate this "human nature" problem you bring up.
It's a matter of what benefits can be obtained by the position of power, it doesn't have to specifically be private property. If there is any voting to be done to choose who obtains those positions of power then it's just a popularity contest for the most skillful at hiding their intentions, those most entertaining and narcissistic that end up winning.
I don't exactly know the solution to that problem. Maybe the Romans has a slightly good idea with a random lottery lol we all have mandatory government service if called on, but that brings its own issues like supremely moronic/ignorant people in positions of power.
If there is any voting to be done to choose who obtains those positions of power then it's just a popularity contest for the most skillful at hiding their intentions, those most entertaining and narcissistic that end up winning.
This happens in the west because we're so far detached from power. Millions of us vote on who will occupy a single position near the top of the pile, with no way to actually know our representative. In places like China and North Korea you vote for your direct representative, literally the person directly above you in the heirarchy, meaning you can actually know what they're like as a person, because they are a peer that you work with, not a member of the ruling party(/parties) that's been parachuted in to a seat representing millions who will never know them.
I need to do this bc my business partner is on this beat right now
As a citizen of capitalism no brother we the people do not own shit.
I do tend to agree with the comment about "people who are power hungry seek positions of power." No matter what system you have you're going to have positions of leadership that have to exert some form of "power" over others and the worst people of any society are going to gravitate to those positions.
Well yes. That’s just natural. But I imagine it can minimized when you have a society that doesn’t promote being parasites and screwing over other people as part of the national dream.
There is absolutely a difference in who exerts power and who it's exerted in service of between capitalist and communist governments. Just in the same way there is a difference between democracy and a monarchy.
In no way is a capitalist government owned by the people. Anything that claims that is just lip service. The entire structure of a capitalist government (and therefore society) exists to empower ultra wealthy imperialists. Communist governments do not, they have checks and balances to prevent that. Laws and regulations shape our society. In the same way you can't take out a loan if your financial credit score is too low, government can be structured with laws and regulations in place to prevent corruption amd power hungry individuals from taking hold.
Ah you say the Soviet Union was democratic? Have you considered that 8% of Americans are millionaires, and they're mostly car lot owners, landlords, or play the stock market? You see, America is great because we afford millions of people access to ruling class democracy by virtue of their con artistry skills. The Soviet Union merely had a regional party structure using councils made of local workers and their representatives. And that's just not right. What we need is a society where I can own my dad's factory when I turn 18.
Also, a lot of those 8% are millionaires on paper, and it's only because they own a home that they bought when it was $200,000. They're not buying yachts and eating gold foil caviar and whispering into politicians' ears or whatever. The ultra wealthy are as concentrated as ever.
Yeah that too. Eyes Wide Shut continues to be correct. Some random dentist with a $2 million property has an unreasonable amount of sway in American society, and yet even that amount of influence is dwarfed by the ultra bourgeoisie. The rest of us have no influence at all.
using my advanced technique i estimate that as every apartment in russia costs more than 1 million rubles [1] , everyone was a millionaire in ussr
[1] (i made it the fuck up)
Russians literally all got rich after they embraced capitalism [2]
[2] It was revealed to me in a dream
It is! Looks like there are recipes available, and that it is easy to make. I don't know how homemade ones taste though; the store-bought has soft and even texture
Yeah just look how prosperous the average Russian got after the fall of the USSR. It was just smooth sailing for them!
I’m technically aware that a majority of people in imperial core countries think this, but it truly seems mystifying to me how that’s the case because it’s just so self-evidently wrong. Red scare propaganda really did a hell of a lot of work.
edit: rereading this and realizing it feels pretty self-righteous “i’m better than you” and going to self-crit on that. I believed the propaganda once too and was able to change my mind. it does nothing to give up on people who bought into the propaganda like all of us once did.
Saying that communism is bad because the wealth isn't all concentrated in the topn10% and somehow that makes it more authoritarian is the kind of mental gymnastics that really makes you lose hope the people were trying to talk to even have the capacity to understand anything.
Teaching is more art than science, you can't get these people to our side by simply pointing out that we are objectively correct. You have to appeal to their material conditions and navigate a lot of psychological entrapments too.
no no no you don't understand it is extremely important for the omelas children to be suffering even if that's the vast majority of humanity.
Those communist leaders having absurd extravagant privileges like benefits totaling a small cost multiple compared to the general population. Disgusting inequality! They nearly rose to the level enjoyed by middle managers here!
it's a good thing "government" and "economic structures" aren't two aspects of the same thing (we could call it political economy) or else all of this would be idiotic drivel!
[1]: Infographic about cows I saw at some point
[2]: ibid
[3]: ibid
etc.Capitalism is a system where private individuals are allowed to own land…
Hmm, tell that to Blackstone kiddo.
Whenever someone uses socialism and communism interchangeably, you know they don't know what either means.
Marx and Engels had the advantage of having lived and died before the terms were fully clarified. Said clarification was in part by them.
Hell, Engels "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" explains almost everything, contextually "Socialism" being the movement of socialists, with "Communism" and communists being a sub-movement. With Lenin later putting in the final bit providing socialism as another term for the lower phase of communism. In this context Communism refers to the stage of development, as does Socialism.
Ergo: Both Socialism and Communism have two clearly defined meanings, depending on the context. Their definitions make them non-interchangeable. In the context of stages of development they refer to two different things. In the context of philosophical movements, one is a subgroup of the other. While every communist is a socialist, not every socialist is a communist. c -> s is true, but not the reverse. Thus logically excluding interchangeability
Nerd rant over.
While every communist is a socialist, not every socialist is a communist. c -> s is true, but not the reverse. Thus logically excluding interchangeability
Logically if someone is a socialist but not a communist than most likely they're not much of a socialist to begin with (like being a doctor who wants to treat the symptoms but not the disease), at that point the differentiation is meaningless and very likely an example of anti-communist angst, Marx and Engels had it right in the beginning, there's no point in concealing our aims or glorifying half measures
Lenin's stage theory was very useful in a world dominated by Imperial European empires with no opposition or concept of restraint, so much of Lenin's writing was constrained by his awareness Tsarist censors could clap him at anytime
Now conditions have changed and a century of liberal opportunists and appropriation has made the differentiation toxic and useless to socialist/communist movements
As names of political movements or affiliations, they are usually interchangeable in the sense that what is true of "corvids" is usually true of "jackdaws". Not always, and circumstances might make just one the relevant term to talk about, but in common usage it's just being annoying to police the use of the word "socialist" when the person in question is a communist (and therefore also a socialist).
I'd never police someone about that. But sometimes it is really confusing trying to get what someone is saying if they switch the terms around all the time.
Erm, quod erat demonstrandum, burden of proof, your move, my good sir 
