Can someone explain communism to me

by **yavuzovic** » Tue May 04, 2021 8:38 pm

Ah, seems like I subscribed that channel some time ago but forgot about it lol.

I agree wth your opinion about smaller groups, but not only that is good about them. Actually I think the best thing about them is the powerful democratic representation. This matters a lot when the groups contain ethnical or cultural differences. Instead of polarising people in big groups, it could be a better idea to empower federal governments. Also it's much easier for people to form groups with their own mindset if different parts of the same country give different opportunities. I don't have much idea about the advantages of regional representations but smaller democratic groups offer more freedom - you share the power with less people.

by **orathaic** » Tue May 04, 2021 4:36 pm

There is a youtube video by that name, but it is based on a book...

Adapted from the dictator's handbook

See: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

https://youtu.be/ig_qpNfXHIU

I'm think in terms of small states, it is easier to see what the powerful people are doing, and thus hold them accountable (like Iceland taking their president to court for economic mismanagement after the 2008 financial crisis, pop~300k) I don't think we know how to govern large groups of humans without corruption creeping in. Looking at the largest populations, (ie the US, EU, China and India) the each have different subdivisions (states, members, provinces etc) but we don't have a good heuristic of which powers should be devolved, and how far...

Should the US federal govt be doing single payer health care? Or should it be left to the states (for example). I think these questions are important because transparency, and accountability to the demos makes for more efficiency and less corruption. Even to the point of devolving decisionmaking to the individualor household.

Which I'm bringing up partly because I suspect the dictator's handbook may be more true for certain scale of country.

by **yavuzovic** » Tue May 04, 2021 12:56 pm

@orathaic
Is this a book? I haven't heard of it and I also couldn't find it on the Internet.

by **orathaic** » Mon May 03, 2021 11:19 pm

@Yav, I appreciate that reply.

I will also admit, I might be wrong about water. I used think the same way about transport infrastructure. Because there is always a single fastest route between point A and B, whoever owns/runs that (Road) has an automatic monopoly (even if someone else has another monopoly on point A to point C).

But what I failed to see was that there are alternatives, like choosing between modes of transport, say road vs rail vs air for intercity travel, or road vs cycle path vs walking for intracity travel. Each option has different advantages and disadvantages. And you can build in a kind of infrastructural competitiveness... So I think I could be wrong about water.

More generally, I think any system in the extreme is open to abuse. Free Markets with no regulation (of monopolies), oligarchy/communist single party rule,it doesn't matter, once a ruling class exists whose interests are seperate from the majority (the capital owning class in unregulated capitalism) then you have power which is liable to be abused.

I don't think the particular economic system matters, abuse of that system for the advantage of the most powerful is inevitable; so a mixed system which minimises those extremes seems much better.

Have you read/seen the rules for rulers?

by **yavuzovic** » Mon May 03, 2021 8:42 pm

Thanks orathaic. I agree with the danger of monopolies. I use DuckDuckGo for your example, and I try to support smaller establishments just so that we have alternatives. The problem is exactly the lack of alternatives. Youtube increased the ads we have to watch, but people still accept its ads because what you find in YouTube is worth the time you waste with ads. I tried to stop using YouTube but I had to follow something not only for entertainment but also for my life. However I'm not against sector domination, I'm against having only one service. YouTube can't go too far because once people start to migrate to other platforms, they will lose their domination advantage. For example if my school had an account in LBRY, I might have a chance to quit YouTube. These are platforms that people will never lose to monopolies because maintaining an alternative is easy even in the existence of a strong opponent. Food or vital needs can be much more important. I would accept government intervention if it's in order to keep the competition. The positive aspects of the free market come from the competition, not the richness. We need competitive alternatives (which is also why I'm against government activities in the market, which kills the competition). That's also good for the customer, I already gave the example about super cheap watermelons because of the competition between two grocery stores. Also I'm more of a democrat than a liberal. I would understand if people restrict the market for their good, I would support that if I believe that it's good.
Best thing that can happen in a market is to have a competitive environment. Being against the state and supporting monopolies doesn't make sense, both kill the competition, both are bad for the prices.
I'm a bit out of context about the Irish farmers, but I believe that people must defend their rights. I don't know if you are religious but we don't have a divine intervention to apply human rights. We invented and applied human rights. By the power of democracies, we must control the government that rules as. There are oppressed minorities and non-democratic regimes. Unfortunately people have to protect their rights themselves or by helping each other, but when they cannot protect themselves, that's not about the economic system. That's more of a moral problem that we should solve in a different way. It's not a good approach to blame the capitalist system, we have seen as many atrocities in socialist regimes as capitalist ones. That's really not about the economics. Corruption and crimes don't always explain this, so I will add "immoral actions".

@orathaic, I thank you too, and anyone else participating. Talking about other ideas is really helpful because it allows me to improve myself. An example here: I never thought about the water service and I would say it should be privatised but after talking with you, I realised that multiple companies can't use the same infrastructure and I couldn't find a solution. No system is perfect but the most efficient is probably something between two. Comparing our ideas will improve them.

by **orathaic** » Mon May 03, 2021 7:16 pm

PS: Yav, I appreciate you engaging honestly and intelligently. I do clearly disagree with a lot of what you say. But it is refreshing to have an honest discussion.

by **orathaic** » Mon May 03, 2021 7:15 pm

I entirely disagree. The free market encourages monopolies, it was explicitly warned about in A Smith. Monopolistic behaviour (even just uncompetitive cartel king) is not 'crimes and corruption', but it occurs naturally even without intention.

In modern profitable industries, we have seen Microsoft, and then Google and Facebook, all completely dominating their industry. Google even pays ~400 million USD per year to Mozilla (firefox) in a bid to make them look less monopolistic in the browser market.

For all the positives of market economics (and I hope I have explained above some of the ways I would like to see them used for good) the Soviet Union turned Russia from an agricultural economy into a world super power (after losing the first world war) in just 20 years. And while they did fuck up food production killing millions, capitalist systems have created artificial famines which did the exact same. Except there was food being exported while people starved.

When a million Irish farmers die due to economic failures (ie they don't have enough money to buy the food which is being exported)the defence of 'people are only poor because of crime and corruption' falls flat on its face to me.

Unless 'crime' includes the creation of laws to explicitly exploit people for profit. In that case, the crime of capitalism go pretty far.

by **yavuzovic** » Mon May 03, 2021 7:00 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 11:57 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm

I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.
So, it's clear that you think the majority of poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and the majority of rich people are hard-working, virtuous, and clever.

The world is not actually like that. You are a capitalist fanatic. Your ideology is disgusting. You worship greed and selfishness. Your ideology says that anyone who is weak, disabled, sick or unlucky should be hated, punished, and allowed to suffer.

You are a sick, nasty, horrible person.
Sorry Yav. These words are rather over the top.

Your ideology is wrong. You've fallen for the outdated lassiez-faire capitalist notion of the "undeserving poor", the idea that anyone can make a success of their life, so anyone who is poor must be lazy and contemptible.

However this is not the case in reality. Many people globally are in poverty through no fault of their own.

The poverty in the world comes from the corruption and crimes. I won't take these faults on free market economy. You already know that communism and socialism can be corrupted as well, I don't think you will support the people dying of hunger in communist China or Soviets. Corruption and crime is something I hate, it prevents people to use their full capacity, limits the production and most importantly, it makes people live lifes they don't deserve. It's democracies responsibility to keep good people in power and keep a working justice system. If people fail to control the system, economics matter really little. Communist or capitalist systems both produced terrible environments.

by **yavuzovic** » Mon May 03, 2021 6:54 pm

flash2015 wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 12:49 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm
I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.
Wait, what? What people do you think are poor by choice?

The main group of people I think that are poor "by choice" are Buddhist monks, Catholic brothers and nuns, other religious people etc, i.e. people who take vows of poverty and reject materialism. Are you saying you hate these people?

No. Everyone in the world wants to be rich (except those you pointed out) but very few work for this. Very few people focus on their careers and when they can't be as wealthy as those who work, they start to hate the rich. I'm not a rich person myself but I like having the opportunity. Communists hate the rich because they aren't able to take advantage of the opportunity when given anyway.

by **yavuzovic** » Mon May 03, 2021 6:50 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm

jamie the T wrote:

Define "deserves" please?

You really hate poor people don't you?
I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.
So, it's clear that you think the majority of poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and the majority of rich people are hard-working, virtuous, and clever.

The world is not actually like that. You are a capitalist fanatic. Your ideology is disgusting. You worship greed and selfishness. Your ideology says that anyone who is weak, disabled, sick or unlucky should be hated, punished, and allowed to suffer.

You are a sick, nasty, horrible person.

Thank you Jamie, it's very motivating. I won't say that majority of poor people are lazy, immoral and stupid, but I can't see why a talented and hardworking person would be unsuccessful. When I look around myself, I see other students are being lazy and caring their social life more than their career. I might sound like being narcissistic but I study more than 90% of people so I expect to have a better payment than those who enjoyed themselves. I can also say that unskilled and stupid people won't be able to maintain the richness they inherited. You're wrong with saying rich are necessarily bad people: I studied 3 years with scholarship from rich people who support students.

I don't worship greed and selfishness but I would say these are the biggest motivators for the human. Anyone claiming the otherwise doesn't understand the human yet. If you take everything one gains, they will stop gaining. But if you allow them keep most of what they gain, their surplus will also maximise the gain for the poor. Honestly I don't see why I should put extra work in a communist system. Also I'm not exactly a capitalist. I support little government influence for the economy but I also support funding young people with the hand of the government so we make sure everyone has a chance when starting the life. I don't care the people who don't take advantage of the chance given to them.

I don't think you read all of my messages. You said my ideology says anyone who is disabled or sick should be hated, punished and allowed to suffer but I was the one who said it's a moral obligation to help the unlucky. Other than that I don't support the weak indeed. I'm not people's guardian angel so everyone must take care of themselves if they are able to do this. My moral values say I should help who is unlucky, but if you enjoy yourself rather than working and gaining yourself then go die, I don't mind watching you starve to death.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 03, 2021 4:51 pm

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 4:33 pm
In reality a great many people globally are not in poverty as a direct result of outdated capitalism.

You're misinterpreting my words. I am saying the the concept of the "deserving poor" vs the "undeserving poor" is a very Victorian, laissez-faire, and outdated notion.

Octavious wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 4:33 pm
Out of interest, Jamie, do you not meet any "undeserving poor", to use your somewhat outdated terminology? The sort of people who think purely about their short term desires, and dedicate their intellect to petty scams to profit at the expense of others? These people very much do exist, and their mentality can be found amongst the poor and wealthy alike. Amongst the wealthy of their kind, however, the money rapidly decreases more often than not. Amongst the poor, they are largely beyond help unless they have a road to Damascus moment.

Your reference to "petty scams" is a rather odd choice of words. Are you asking me if I'm aware that criminals exist? Well, yes, of course. I believe that criminals exist in all social strata. However I also think that people in poverty will sometimes turn to crime out of desperation. Criminals who arise out of circumstances other than poverty may be encouraged to do so by attitudes such as Yav's which promote greed as a virtue.

by **Octavious** » Mon May 03, 2021 4:33 pm

In reality a great many people globally are not in poverty as a direct result of outdated capitalism.

Out of interest, Jamie, do you not meet any "undeserving poor", to use your somewhat outdated terminology? The sort of people who think purely about their short term desires, and dedicate their intellect to petty scams to profit at the expense of others? These people very much do exist, and their mentality can be found amongst the poor and wealthy alike. Amongst the wealthy of their kind, however, the money rapidly decreases more often than not. Amongst the poor, they are largely beyond help unless they have a road to Damascus moment.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 03, 2021 11:57 am

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm

jamie the T wrote:

Define "deserves" please?

You really hate poor people don't you?
I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.
So, it's clear that you think the majority of poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and the majority of rich people are hard-working, virtuous, and clever.

The world is not actually like that. You are a capitalist fanatic. Your ideology is disgusting. You worship greed and selfishness. Your ideology says that anyone who is weak, disabled, sick or unlucky should be hated, punished, and allowed to suffer.

You are a sick, nasty, horrible person.

Sorry Yav. These words are rather over the top.

Your ideology is wrong. You've fallen for the outdated lassiez-faire capitalist notion of the "undeserving poor", the idea that anyone can make a success of their life, so anyone who is poor must be lazy and contemptible.

However this is not the case in reality. Many people globally are in poverty through no fault of their own.

by **flash2015** » Mon May 03, 2021 12:49 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm
I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.

Wait, what? What people do you think are poor by choice?

The main group of people I think that are poor "by choice" are Buddhist monks, Catholic brothers and nuns, other religious people etc, i.e. people who take vows of poverty and reject materialism. Are you saying you hate these people?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Mon May 03, 2021 12:37 am

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm

jamie the T wrote:
yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 8:35 am
I mean, not everyone deserves the opportunity to leave time for art or sports.
Define "deserves" please?

You really hate poor people don't you?
I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.

So, it's clear that you think the majority of poor people are lazy, immoral, and stupid, and the majority of rich people are hard-working, virtuous, and clever.

The world is not actually like that. You are a capitalist fanatic. Your ideology is disgusting. You worship greed and selfishness. Your ideology says that anyone who is weak, disabled, sick or unlucky should be hated, punished, and allowed to suffer.

You are a sick, nasty, horrible person.

by **yavuzovic** » Sun May 02, 2021 4:48 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 10:28 am
Should we simply reduce everyone to a 2.5 day week effectively doubling wages?

I don't think we should bring everyone to this point because over caring the lowest income level will discourage the competition and we will stop increasing the production. At some point people will decide to do what you said but we're far from that point. I will not disagree if people make laws for themselves to work less, but they might shoot their own feet if they do it too early.

by **yavuzovic** » Sun May 02, 2021 4:45 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 9:59 am
You can't have multiple companies put different water into the same pipes and then have the customers pay for different quality of water...

It isn't like other services because A) we need it to live, and B) we only have one set of pipes connecting each residence.

You can have overlapping cell towers commerciallybuilt (even if two companies share the same tower), and electricity production, even if it using the one infrastructure, can offer competition in terms to types of producer...

Water is a fairly unique case, but also vital we get right and fund. I know in rural areas not connected to a grid they usually sink a well. But there is a whole seconds Íde to water use, which is waste water disposal, which is a public health issue.

I can see the problem, actually the current system for water is set well, (without the corruption and lack of funds) it would provide a global water service and those who want higher quality of water are able to install their own systems (I'm not sure if this works everywhere but people who want to buy water can find it somehow).

Still apart from this specific issue. We don't *NEED* burger flippers. Just like we don't need checkout staff. Supermarkets have pushed that labour onto the customer rather effectively. And if people really want to pay for burger flippers, there is no reason not to pay them well (like 40k€ per year?).

I disagree with this. It's not only about flipping burgers, but we will definitely need people to work during the production of food. That's also a vital case. And if everyone demands a very high salary, employers will find this not profitable enough. Production doesn't work only with the workforce, it doesn't work only with the capital either. We need both of them to come together and be balanced. Last year I had to give an important decision for my career so I was visiting different places to see different jobs in action. I went to a transformer factory and observed the engineers. One of them told me "The reason we have so many foreign partners is because minimum wages in Turkey are low. This makes our products cheaper and more preferable than their own products.". Now imagine this in world scale, if the production wasn't as profitable, employers would move to different investments. Which doesn't only make the global income lower (because less sources) but also increase the unemployment. Actually I can't understand why people hate the rich so much. As long as they gain their money legally, they create employment and income for the state. And otherwise, an uncorrupted state would actively fight against their actions, not the rich though, against immoral ways to make money or money laundering.

But I guess this is the fundamental difference we have. I don't care whether people want to work or not. It should be a choice. Being able to work doesn't change their value as a person to me.

Looking after people who aren't able to work is a moral obligation. But yeah, I would say I shouldn't be expected to pay for anyone who refuses to work although who can. I won't support people who get the opportunity but didn't want. I will give another example from Turkey. Around in 2006, they made it very easy to open a university. They were actively trying to enter the EU and Turkey's education level was much lower than the average so they tried to increase the population graduated from universites. Only in a few years, unemployment drastically increased. This was because the new generation was almost completely graduated from universities and they were demanding better jobs. Finally we came to a point where the worker in the factory has a degree, the man cleaning the street has a degree, literally anyone (that's mostly for the younger generations.) We can raise the wages, but it should raise the same rate the production increases. The capital is as important as the workers, without one of them, production is impossible.

Everyone deserves a basic I come to survive. We produce more surplus now than at any time in history. We can collect energy directly from the sun, the wind, and the rain. We have built thinking machines to displace mental labour (beyond the physical labour saving devices of the industrial revolution), most jobs will see further automation in the coming decades.

I would say you are right, and the people should demand equally more income. Only important thing is to keep the balance, production must be profitable for the investor and the worker wage should be high enough to keep the work. Actually more rich people produce, the more we will get from them. In a truly balanced system, the poor would support the rich. Problem is not the morals of capitalism but the corruption in the government. As long as you make sure that the production is profitable, human greed will be the biggest drive, not only for making big sums of money but also producing for the entire society.

by **yavuzovic** » Sun May 02, 2021 4:02 pm

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 12:12 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 8:35 am
About the water infrastructure, I want to give an example: The man complaining here was talking about a very small amount of money, something like €10 but it's worth to compare. A few weeks ago I took the bus, I get on in the first stop so there was nobody else, and the driver must be bored so we started to speak. He was complaining about having to reset his subscription to tap water service. It's provided by the state here, and it doesn't have an alternative unless you buy bottled water. The driver was complaining, because he had to pay a small fee for resetting his subscription after moving his house. And he said: "Phone services don't demand a fee and they even give opportunities upon subscription, because they have an alternative."
I don't understand this example. My phone is not free, I have to pay to use it. Where do you live, where the phone service doesn't cost any money to use?

Phone service isn't free but resetting your subscription is free. They even offer opportunities when you choose a service. That's because there are multiple companies and all of them want you to be their customer.
Water service, in the other hand, is a state monopoly and you're charged fees for procedures. Because there are no alternatives, you are their customer anyway.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 12:11 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 8:35 am
I mean, not everyone deserves the opportunity to leave time for art or sports.
Define "deserves" please?

You really hate poor people don't you?

I hate people who are poor by choice. That's why, I want the system to allow everyone a chance, but also encourage people to gain more.

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 02, 2021 12:12 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 8:35 am
About the water infrastructure, I want to give an example: The man complaining here was talking about a very small amount of money, something like €10 but it's worth to compare. A few weeks ago I took the bus, I get on in the first stop so there was nobody else, and the driver must be bored so we started to speak. He was complaining about having to reset his subscription to tap water service. It's provided by the state here, and it doesn't have an alternative unless you buy bottled water. The driver was complaining, because he had to pay a small fee for resetting his subscription after moving his house. And he said: "Phone services don't demand a fee and they even give opportunities upon subscription, because they have an alternative."

I don't understand this example. My phone is not free, I have to pay to use it. Where do you live, where the phone service doesn't cost any money to use?

by **Jamiet99uk** » Sun May 02, 2021 12:11 pm

yavuzovic wrote: ↑
Sun May 02, 2021 8:35 am
I mean, not everyone deserves the opportunity to leave time for art or sports.

Define "deserves" please?

You really hate poor people don't you?

Can someone explain communism to me

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me

Re: Can someone explain communism to me