Can someone explain communism to me

[orathaic]

Really lucky here that there are only two ways to list prices, ex. vat and (the norm) of including vat.

And across Europe since most prices are listed inclusive of sales tax, you just look at the price. (though it is rather annoying in Ireland when prices are quoted excluding vat, but I think they have to mention that it is the ex. vat price). Still, no county or city tax, and no federation/EU level taxation.

[Fluminator]

What "comeback" are you seeing exactly?

I am a Marxist and will happily talk about communism with you, but I have no idea what you mean by a big comeback, as I am aware of no such thing. What we've been witnessing in recent years is a huge rise in ultra-conservatism and neo-fascism.

To put it simply, communism is all about viewing society as a series of group identities. Who you are as a person is entirely hinging on what racial/gender/sexual/etc. identities make you up. It basically simplifies the world into a series of classes ordering from victim to privileged. Society is to be viewed through the lens of class warfare between all these groups and how much of a victim or privileged you are, individuality be damned.

Growing up I was always taught to treat everyone as an individual and to not care about their identities. In university before this whole shift got really going, I was out with some classmates having a good time. One of them said "You know, I recently moved from Venezuela and if you told me that in a few months I'd be having drinks with a Spanish, Nigerian, Canadian, and Vietnamese person, I'd have called you crazy"
I never even made the mental note at how abnormal and special it was until that moment because it was deeply ingrained in (Alberta/Canada) culture to view people as individuals and not sweat the other stuff. I really took it for granted until then.

But now universities are teaching that you have to always be hyper aware of every identity to ensure social justice can be done for the correct victims.
This whole identity based view of the world (that you'll never transcend beyond what identities you were born with) is making a huge comeback and it's been quite disastrous for unity.

I always believed that viewing the world as a collection of unique individuals is better for unity than viewing the world through the lens of class based warfare.

(I'll read and respond to later posts soon)

[flash2015]

What "comeback" are you seeing exactly?

I am a Marxist and will happily talk about communism with you, but I have no idea what you mean by a big comeback, as I am aware of no such thing. What we've been witnessing in recent years is a huge rise in ultra-conservatism and neo-fascism.

To put it simply, communism is all about viewing society as a series of group identities. Who you are as a person is entirely hinging on what racial/gender/sexual/etc. identities make you up. It basically simplifies the world into a series of classes ordering from victim to privileged. Society is to be viewed through the lens of class warfare between all these groups and how much of a victim or privileged you are, individuality be damned.

Where are you getting this definition from? It appears to be that you are confused about what communism is...because your definition is just wrong.

[Fluminator]

I doubt it's the official definition but it's what I see talking to people who believe in it, and how society is currently going.

[Jamiet99uk]

What "comeback" are you seeing exactly?

I am a Marxist and will happily talk about communism with you, but I have no idea what you mean by a big comeback, as I am aware of no such thing. What we've been witnessing in recent years is a huge rise in ultra-conservatism and neo-fascism.

To put it simply, communism is all about viewing society as a series of group identities. Who you are as a person is entirely hinging on what racial/gender/sexual/etc. identities make you up. It basically simplifies the world into a series of classes ordering from victim to privileged. Society is to be viewed through the lens of class warfare between all these groups and how much of a victim or privileged you are, individuality be damned.

This is nonsense.
You are wrong.
That's not what communism is at all.

At best what you are defining there is "identity politics". That has very little to do with communism. Communism is about common ownership of the means of production.

You need to do some reading.

[orathaic]

@Fulminator: Interesting, so as I stated, Socialism is about a class free society (and how to get there) and thus it is understandable that to figure out how to abolish class you must first identify the privileged classes and extend those privileges to everyone, or take them away (as appropriate - so you extend the positive, like access to high quality education, but abolish the negative, like getting away with rape or other abuse).

Nb: when I say class, I mean in the pure mathematical sense, a classification could be based on gender, ethnicity, race, sexuality etc.

It is exactly about getting to the world where you just judge a person based on the 'content of their character' rather than their class stereotype.

But going in colour blind is not an immediate solution. You can pretend to not see race (for example) and you will not see why people who have been racialised and discriminated against have worse outcomes that those who haven't... I suspect the process of getting to where you want to be will take a few generations at least (Marx was a few generations ago...)

[Dejan0707]

Socialism/communism is the most developed type of society humanity ever developed. Trouble is, humanity invented it too early, as how it is now humans are too flawed for that system to succeed. Long long time in the future when (if) humanity evolve comunisam would be at its prime.

Since I grow up in socialistic(partially communist) society I get to know it from first hand so my opinion is based on that.

It is worth to mention that many scientist consider Inca Empire to be the first government that used tools we consider as communist to govern the nation. It may be that american native nation were capable to create social structure strong enough to battle greatest human flaws.

[yavuzovic]

Excuse me but people work best when they gain the return for their work. I can think of idealistic people who will work regardless the system but a majority of people will be more motivated in an economy where they gain more by working more.
Secondly, in a socialist economy, the government or the society gets to choose services for the people. While this will satisfy the majority of the people, a minority will want something other than what majority wants. In the other hand, capitalism offers more options as long as they can make profit, and you can get what you want but paying for it. This unsatisfied minority can be reduced with smaller governments but it will never offer the complete freedom of choice as long as it considers people as a group. People work best when they work for themselves. See deadweight loss, because I couldn't express it well.
Most of the times, capitalism is criticised for being a system that feeds the rich. Here I will show two arguments: 1. As long as the rich are moral, they deserve what they gained. If you disagree with them, you can boycott and if you hate these people, you can stop using capitalist products. If enough people hate their services, they will lose their earnings. You can forced people without limiting their freedoms. 2. I have to admit that there are people who make their fortunes in immoral ways that shouldn't be acceptable. Here I will blame the humanity itself. Corruption can have different results in different systems but I can say that communism is more likely to be corrupted. Corporations can't just act irresponsibly in a community of responsible people. And for a community of irresponsible people, communism will not change anything.
Socialism highly depends on people's good will. Capitalism depends on people's greed. I guess greed is more common than good will and given how evolution works, competition will require greed.
I know you guys aren't these types of people but there are plenty of people who support these ideas because they're just not able to make as much money as others, and all they want is to work very little, smoke and drink, spend their time hanging around and living with what they will gain from others. My conscience will support people with inevitable problems and I think I would serve the community as the requirements of being a good person but I defend people's right to not serve. I also don't want my efforts to compensate problems that are caused by people's wrong decisions. I don't want to pay for drug addicts, alcoholics and overweights. It's nothing but theft if you force people to pay for something they don't morally feel obligated.

Socialism at some point is good, like for services that cannot be performed by companies.
Communism can work in a community where people think alike, enjoy similar things and aren't lazy.
But damn, I love my freedom.

[Jamiet99uk]

Excuse me but people work best when they gain the return for their work. I can think of idealistic people who will work regardless the system but a majority of people will be more motivated in an economy where they gain more by working more.

Do you therefore think that in a capitalist country, all the wealthy people are talented and hard working, and all the poor people are lazy and stupid?

Secondly, in a socialist economy, the government or the society gets to choose services for the people.

It is interesting that you appear to think "society" and "the people" are two different groups. Could you articulate this point?

Most of the times, capitalism is criticised for being a system that feeds the rich. Here I will show two arguments: 1. As long as the rich are moral, they deserve what they gained. If you disagree with them, you can boycott and if you hate these people, you can stop using capitalist products. If enough people hate their services, they will lose their earnings.

Lots of rich people became rich by inheriting money and land from their parents or grandparents. Donald Trump, for example, was only rich because his father was rich. You seem to assume that most rich people are rich because they have created successful businesses out of nothing, using only their own skill and hard work. This is false.

Socialism highly depends on people's good will. Capitalism depends on people's greed. I guess greed is more common than good will and given how evolution works, competition will require greed.

You just talked about how most rich people are highly moral. Now you admit that they are greedy. Isn't greed immoral? Many capitalists become rich by exploiting the hard work of their workers.

I like to believe that many human beings are kinder and more altruistic than you think. Humans are social creatures and many of us enjoy helping each other. Your outlook is very negative and says we should reward the greedy. I don't agree. Greed should be discouraged and kindness, fellowship, and co-operation should be rewarded.

[yavuzovic]

Jamie do you believe that giving gifts is okay? Imagine inheritance as your parents gift. I don't see anything immoral with inheritance itself. Actually if I knew that I won't be able to leave my properties to my children, I would spend it rather than leaving it to society. This gives people a purpose to build riches, which is good.
You said wealthy people aren't always talented or hardworking. You are right, but the people who make that richness are. I explained the morals of inheritance above, you don't have to agree in morals but it's owners decision to leave it to people who don't deserve it.

It is interesting that you appear to think "society" and "the people" are two different groups. Could you articulate this point?

I meant society in a collective meaning, like the common sense; while the people are individual persons. I don't have to agree with the society and the society can't choose what people want. So the best is to leave everyone decide what they want to do by the advantages of money.
If you enjoy helping, I'm not going to stop you. I actually support activism and non-profit organizations. This is the appropriate way to change something. You shouldn't limit people, you should make them face the results of their faults.

[orathaic]

I don't have to agree with the society and the society can't choose what people want. So the best is to leave everyone decide what they want to do by the advantages of money.

Interesting you say that, I believe it is a good idea and the socialist solution is a universal basic income. The main effect of this would be that no-one would have to work to survive (preventing exploitation by capitalists). I suspect the result would be some people working for free (or for status, like many amateur sports currently, cf: the Olympics) because they want to. That might be for a non-profit or other social good. OR they will be better paid to do shitty jobs that nobody wants to do (eg service industry jobs or garbage collection); the side effect of nobody being forced to do work would be an economic incentive to automate those jobs which nobody wants out of existence, which I don't think is a bad thing.

The question of how basic such an income is really depends.In a state with a lot of social housing,the basic cost of rent would be factored in to the income allowing ppl to choose between social housing options or private rental - with social housing covering some basic standard of living, and providing competition to keep rental costs down.

The state would effectively become the largest landlord, and money brought in would go towards building social houses and improving that basic standard (this contrasts with Ireland today, where the state acts as the largest tenant - paying rent to a landlord class on behalf of unemployed/low income families - and relies on an exploitative group of landlords who increase their prices depending on how much the state pays in...).

I will leave out further economic discussion for now, suffice to say this is about people's nature and how to best provide for their needs. As a socialist, I agree they should simply be given money which they spend on whatever they determine their needs are.

I will only add that the economy was invented by humans to serve our needs. And where it facilities the hoarding of large amounts of economic resources while others suffer in deprivation, it is not a good system.

[yavuzovic]

orathaic I meant something completely different with that and actually I don't think people have the right to live the way they want if its in expense for others work.
I wanted to say something more like, let's go with social housing because you talked about it, the common sense or the government will do different types of services but it will never be my own decision. With limited sources, I might want houses to be supported with a swimming pool but my neighbor disagrees, saying there should be a basketball court but government builds a walking track.
And apart from this, universal basic income will make people a lot lazier. People who will be paid regardless don't feel like working. That's also why I'm against state-run establishments. Here an example: I was playing table tennis with my father last week and he complained about the new mayoralty-built sports complex. It probably works like this: Someone in the mayoralty has an idea to look sweet to the people, they send an engineer or something, get a report, build it. The idea of a sport complex wasn't good, because it failed to attract people during the pandemic, especially when Turkey kept the lockdowns at weekends. Before getting worse, this is enough of a bad idea. Government seems to do something but whatever they do is being wasted on bad ideas. Whomever designs these ideas is paid no matter what so they don't work with economic concerns. Private sector may fail as well, but it won't be a fail on citizens money and work. And the private sector who works with economic concerns is less likely to fail than the government who works with election concerns. Let's move on: Then this sports complex I talked about, was closed until a later time. People abandoned the building and then... it flooded. Private property owners wouldn't let their stuff rot in a puddle but government had made its advertisement, got their votes so they abandoned it. Maybe millions from taxpayers are wasted. It was mostly the fault of whomever is responsible for this in mayorty.
Now you may say, it's people's fault not to track their taxes. Even if this was caught and punished, this explains the problem with socialism. Government can't do stuff as well as private sector. Turkey has a shitty system with gaps that allowed them to get away with this but even in the best system: Fear of laws as a driving force makes you do your job properly but economic concern as a driving force makes you look for a way to do your job better than properly.

I don't understand why you don't want some people to have big sums of money as long as that's justified.

[Jamiet99uk]

Jamie do you believe that giving gifts is okay? Imagine inheritance as your parents gift. I don't see anything immoral with inheritance itself.

I fundamentally and forcefully disagree. Giving a small gift like a box of chocolates or a book is not remotely the same as allowing someone to inherit an estate covering many square miles of land, or a skyscraper, or a billion dollars.

Inheritance is the mechanism by which the unjust profits of the capitalists of the past, the slave-owners, the robber-barons, the warmongers, are allowed to remain concentrated in the hands of an ultra rich, ultra powerful minority.

You want that to remain. I don't.

[Octavious]

Possibly the greatest motivation for human achievement in the history of humanity is the biological need to provide for your children and give them an advantage in life. Inheritance is one of the primary levers for meeting this this need, and maintaining the family unit, and because of that is vital to a stable society. Trying to take that away is an attack on the family and society, and the families and society will fight back against this theft and threat to their existence with all the effort they can muster.

You want to attack society and the family. I don't.

[Jamiet99uk]

Possibly the greatest motivation for human achievement in the history of humanity is the biological need to provide for your children and give them an advantage in life. Inheritance is one of the primary levers for meeting this this need, and maintaining the family unit, and because of that is vital to a stable society. Trying to take that away is an attack on the family and society, and the families and society will fight back against this theft and threat to their existence with all the effort they can muster.

You want to attack society and the family. I don't.

"Providing for our children" and "ensuring the children of a tiny minority are millionaires the moment they are born" are not the same things.

The first is sensible and reasonable. The second is the source of great injustice in the world.

[Jamiet99uk]

Perpetuating a system that allows a small minority to sequester and hoard vast wealth at the expense of the majority is not the best way to ensure all of society's children are provided for. Yet that is what you advocate.

[Octavious]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you in favour of inheritance then?

[Jamiet99uk]

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you in favour of inheritance then?

Absolutely not, no.

[flash2015]

I think the discussion of inheritance is either moral or immoral is kind of a distraction. This is off topic a little but when I was taught about morality as a Catholic in Australia, I had understood that caring about family was a given. You aren't some wonderfully good person if you care about your relatives. That is a given. What made you a good person was being able to care for other people (e.g. the good Samaritan idea). This obsession on family alone (which seems to central to modern conservative thought at least in the US) almost exclusively is an extraordinarily low bar. I of course not claiming to rise above that low bar often.

Anyway, I think the goals which we are concerned with as a society are the following:
(1) Minimizing/eliminating poverty - as a society we should be able to support the least of us.
(2) Equality of opportunity/social mobility - Where you end up shouldn't largely be depending on where you started. What opportunities you have shouldn't be determined by what you father did, your grandfather did or even your great grandfather. Studies have shown that social mobility is decreasing like this one:

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/1/251

You can argue the social mobility issue from the left or the right. From the left it is an issue of fairness. From the capitalist perspective, it is an issue of efficient allocation of resources. Without equal opportunity we aren't able to best take advantage of our labour resources...effectively reducing the total output of the economy.

(3) Social cohesion - if people don't believe they have opportunity, there is no reason for them to buy into the system. Why would you? This leads to crime and other social ills.

The issue of inheritance is a trade-off. We have to give people an incentive to better themselves and to create wealth to better their families (which also improves the overall economy, Adam Smith and all that)...but I believe as well we shouldn't be letting wealth become more and more concentrated without at least some redistribution otherwise we can't achieve (1), (2) and (3).

[yavuzovic]

Perpetuating a system that allows a small minority to sequester and hoard vast wealth at the expense of the majority is not the best way to ensure all of society's children are provided for. Yet that is what you advocate.

I agreed with your earlier post about people who made their fortunes on immoral ways to gain money but you don't support clean money to be inherited as well. Sorry but I would rather burn my money than leave it to society if I can't keep anything for my family or those I love.