Communism only sounds good on paper

[Caesercel]

I've had that one thrown at me many times. And even though I'm not a communist per se I've always found this one interesting. Because it sounds to me like they are admitting that the logic of communism makes perfect sense and they don't really have a refutation. It's just that it won't work in practice.

Except they won't tell you why it should always fail in practice. If they would, someone can just write it down and it would become plain theory. They would have essentially refuted communism. But the closest thing I have is some sociological theory some guy on 4chan posted about why any collective structure will inevitably lead to heirarchy and class. An argument that is just as applicable to democracy btw. But even that is theory.

 

[VanGobbel]

water

 

[nirvana]

Ben Shapiro once made the case that even on paper socialism is morally wrong and fails.

Honestly, my knowledge about economics is very poor, so I won't argue much about it. All I can say is that no socialist country seemed to work for very long and that capitalism like it works now is very detrimental to society, so both should be avoided.

 

[IWWorkER]

It doesnt sound good on paper either.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means I have to work to feed useless parasites such as niggers and foids.
No thanks, not even in theory.

 

[Caesercel]

Ben Shapiro once made the case that even on paper socialism is morally wrong and fails.

Can you post the video

 

[romanstock]

Why does it have to have a lying ideology attached to it? (equality.. which race and gender immediately disproves, so then they spend all their efforts on denying race and gender differences instead of just trying to create more equal outcomes for workers)

 

[nirvana]

Can you post the video

I think it's this one, but I'm not sure:

View: https://youtu.be/pqiAx5QNWR0?si=TbqdrP7DweGEvsFX


Also, I'm not claiming that he refuted socialism. If socialism truly works, so be it. I'm not a right-wing asshole.

 

[xek000000kk]

You're really retarded, please.
Everyone in my country is tired of communist rule and is trying to escape.

 

[Caesercel]

means I have to work to feed useless parasites such as niggers and foids.

Uh no. That's not what it means. Yes, workers can decide if certain sections of society that isn't working (I guess that's what you mean by "useless") get access to productive output or not and to what extent.

But that shouldn't even be your worry since communism is all about getting rid of what they consider "useless parasites". You know what I'm referring to.

You're really retarded, please.
Everyone in my country is tired of communist rule and is trying to escape.

Everyone in my country is trying to escape too don't know what they are tired of. Which one btw, there are like only 4 openly socialist states.

 

[literallyretarded]

Ben Shapiro once made the case that even on paper socialism is morally wrong and fails.

Honestly, my knowledge about economics is very poor, so I won't argue much about it. All I can say is that no socialist country seemed to work for very long and that capitalism like it works now is very detrimental to society, so both should be avoided.

exactly but they dont tell you about the third way you can go

 

[literallyretarded]

I've had that one thrown at me many times. And even though I'm not a communist per se I've always found this one interesting. Because it sounds to me like they are admitting that the logic of communism makes perfect sense and they don't really have a refutation. It's just that it won't work in practice.

Except they won't tell you why it should always fail in practice. If they would, someone can just write it down and it would become plain theory. They would have essentially refuted communism. But the closest thing I have is some sociological theory some guy on 4chan posted about why any collective structure will inevitably lead to heirarchy and class. An argument that is just as applicable to democracy btw. But even that is theory.

jeet your stupid communism has always failed only people it ever benefited are jews who created it but i know you don't care since you have stated that you wish for the white race to be killed by the jews also you worship bbc kys shitskin scum hows the streets of india bitch.

 

[xek000000kk]

Everyone in my country is trying to escape too don't know what they are tired of. Which one btw, there are like only 4 openly socialist states.

Alright, I'm in Vietnam. That bastard police chief To Lam is in power, and he issues decrees instead of laws. He imposes unreasonable taxes and fines people with all kinds of paperwork you can't possibly have. Everyone is fleeing to work in East Asian countries; no one dares to do business anymore.

 

[MuhDigitalFootprint]

I've had that one thrown at me many times. And even though I'm not a communist per se I've always found this one interesting. Because it sounds to me like they are admitting that the logic of communism makes perfect sense and they don't really have a refutation. It's just that it won't work in practice.

Except they won't tell you why it should always fail in practice. If they would, someone can just write it down and it would become plain theory. They would have essentially refuted communism. But the closest thing I have is some sociological theory some guy on 4chan posted about why any collective structure will inevitably lead to heirarchy and class. An argument that is just as applicable to democracy btw. But even that is theory.

so trve

 

[CADcel]

Ben Shapiro once made the case that even on paper socialism is morally wrong and fails.

Honestly, my knowledge about economics is very poor, so I won't argue much about it. All I can say is that no socialist country seemed to work for very long and that capitalism like it works now is very detrimental to society, so both should be avoided.

“ben shapiro” hahaha

 

[IWWorkER]

That's not what it means.

It obviously is though.

Yes, workers can decide if certain sections of society that isn't working (I guess that's what you mean by "useless") get access to productive output or not and to what extent.

How so ? Doesnt that contradicts Marx's claim that everyone should have their needs met ?

I guess that's what you mean by "useless"

It also includes disable people, what should be done about them in your maxist view ?

But that shouldn't even be your worry since communism is all about getting rid of what they consider "useless parasites". You know what I'm referring to.

2 different groups of people can both be parasites.
Rich people as a group are parasites, so are women, so are niggers, it has been proven more than enough.

 

[nirvana]

“ben shapiro” hahaha

A Jew scum, I know, but he's good on some points. If you say he's 100% wrong on everything just for being who he is, you're extremely biased and missing the point. Even some women have some reasonable opinions about social issues.

 

[Belowthesalt]

Communism also sounds shit on paper

 

[Caesercel]

How so ? Doesnt that contradicts Marx's claim that everyone should have their needs met ?

But none of the groups you have described are really useless. We need women for holes and babies if not anything else. They can also work certain jobs but if you must keep them in the household, they are needed there too.

It also includes disable people, what should be done about them in your maxist view ?

Whatever the people decide. The ethics is upto them.

 

[IWWorkER]

Whatever the people decide. The ethics is upto them

Who are "the people", who is "them".
That's such a confusing part of communism, it supposedly includes everyone, so how can honest people get rid of treacherous elements, as they are seen as equals ?

But none of the groups you have described are really useless. We need women for holes and babies if not anything else. They can also work certain jobs but if you must keep them in the household, they are needed there too.

Fair enough, we need women to make kids (for now), what about niggers though ? What about disable people ?

 

[Caesercel]

I think it's this one, but I'm not sure:

View: https://youtu.be/pqiAx5QNWR0?si=TbqdrP7DweGEvsFX


Also, I'm not claiming that he refuted socialism. If socialism truly works, so be it. I'm not a right-wing asshole.

Ok wow. This is way too many retarded statements made quickly in a short time period.

>Socialism is moral
Lol no. Marx's version is explicitly scientific socialism, which opposes such utopian socialism. (And even then utopian socialism is no more about morality than any other ideology)

>Socialism is equal money
Again no. Marx doesn't advocate for material equality. He says everyone shall get what they need. I mean disagree with that all you want but atleast don't lie through your teeth.

>Wealth contingent on decisions, doesn't fall upon you
Yeah Shapiro, it doesn't fall upon you. Now ask yourself where does it come from? Can you create it out of think air in your head by making decisions. Or do you need people to do labour?


>Capitalism is freedom
Oh you mean the same system where means of production are privately held and hence by definition alienated from society to perform labour on it? Where most people have zero control over the dictatorship of the workplace where they spend half their life in? I guess it's freedom for the property owners alright.

>Socialism is you do not own your labour and work
Holy projection.

 

[Caesercel]

, so how can honest people get rid of treacherous elements,

Treacherous to who? The people themselves? Communism?
The former cannot be true, as you pointed out they are included in the people. The latter would make them aspiring capitalists....I guess?

what about niggers though ?

Labour.

What about disable people ?

I guess some kind of labour? You are missing the point. It's not about why should workers work for non-working disabled people. The point is that it's upto the workers to decide if they wanna do it.

If society, even today irl, decides that disabled people are burden and should be eugenicised. What's stopping us? They'd all be dead by tomorrow evening. But if we decide that maybe it's better to not be complete monsters , then there is indeed a NEED to feed them etc. And that's where the question of capitalism/communism really takes off. Communism does not answer the question of what should be done with disabled people. But if there is a NEED to take care of them then that factors into the "each according to his NEED" part.

 

[Caesercel]

jeet your stupid communism has always failed only people it ever benefited are jews who created it but i know you don't care since you have stated that you wish for the white race to be killed by the jews also you worship bbc kys shitskin scum hows the streets of india bitch.

Fascism has unironically killed more white people.

 

[IWWorkER]

The point is that it's upto the workers to decide if they wanna do it.

But who is "they" ? Does it included non-workers ? Who does it include ? How do "they" decide ?

Treacherous to who?

"Treacherous" here was just a general term for people who refuse to work as much as the others, dishonest would have been better I guess.

Labour

Many niggers in the West don't do any labor.
Well, many people in general, they should all be shot

The point is that it's upto the workers to decide if they wanna do it.

And you still can't tell me who is "they" (as in, who does that include) and how do they take such desicions.
If you tell me they will just vote then there gies your "classless" SOYciety... back to people imposing their will onto others...

If society, even today irl, decides that disabled people are burden and should be eugenicised. What's stopping us? They'd all be dead by tomorrow evening. But if we decide that maybe it's better to not be complete monsters , then there is indeed a NEED to feed them etc. And that's where the question of capitalism/communism really takes off. Communism does not answer the question of what should be done with disabled people. But if there is a NEED to take care of them then that factors into the "each according to his NEED" part.

I understand that part but it just seems like cope to avoid answering.

"People should have their needs met" oh wow, why didn't someone think of it before!

 

[kevkon]

I've had that one thrown at me many times. And even though I'm not a communist per se I've always found this one interesting. Because it sounds to me like they are admitting that the logic of communism makes perfect sense and they don't really have a refutation. It's just that it won't work in practice.

Except they won't tell you why it should always fail in practice. If they would, someone can just write it down and it would become plain theory. They would have essentially refuted communism. But the closest thing I have is some sociological theory some guy on 4chan posted about why any collective structure will inevitably lead to heirarchy and class. An argument that is just as applicable to democracy btw. But even that is theory.

It doesn’t work in practice because communism assumes that every human is a perfect moral agent, it functions on a massive honor system but the truth is most humans are greedy immoral fucks, that’s why every “communist” system ends with people or person having totalitarian dictatorial power even though it’s defined as being a “stateless” classless society. The idea of a hierarchy not existing is just pie in the sky for me. I don’t believe humans are designed to function without some type of hierarchy. Communism also assumes there’s no differences between race and gender which also couldn’t be further from the truth. You can’t treat all humans as equal and identical blank slates to be used as economic units.

 

[kevkon]

Ben Shapiro once made the case that even on paper socialism is morally wrong and fails.

Honestly, my knowledge about economics is very poor, so I won't argue much about it. All I can say is that no socialist country seemed to work for very long and that capitalism like it works now is very detrimental to society, so both should be avoided.

This. Both capitalism and communism are terrible systems. If only there was a third option…

 

[kevkon]

Fascism has unironically killed more white people.

No? Stalin and pol pot alone killed more than every fascist state combined. Directly or indirectly.

 

[retardfuel30]

No? Stalin and pol pot alone killed more than every fascist state combined. Directly or indirectly.

Not true

 

[kevkon]

Not true

Pol pot killed off a quarter of his country. Not many fascist countries with that ratio. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. Name a fascist state that has killed more than that.

 

[DogTeeth]

We live in a world of finite resources. If this wasn't an issue, then communism could work

 

[DogTeeth]

Also, better dead than red. Fuck commies

 

[retardfuel30]

Pol pot killed off a quarter of his country. Not many fascist countries with that ratio. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. Name a fascist state that has killed more than that.

You’re literally pulling random numbers out of your ass. Where did you get 20 million from?

 

[retardfuel30]

Pol pot killed off a quarter of his country. Not many fascist countries with that ratio. Stalin is responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. Name a fascist state that has killed more than that.

And you do realize hitler was only in power for 12 years. In those years he killed between 11 to 17 million ppl. Imagine how many he would’ve killed if he won the war

 

[kevkon]

You’re literally pulling random numbers out of your ass. Where did you get 20 million from?

• Famine: 8M
• Purges: 1.5M
• Gulag: 3M
• Deportations: 2M
• War-related repression: 5M

I can further elaborate and explain the contexts and how the numbers were reached if you wish but this is indeed an estimate made by scholars

 

[retardfuel30]

• Famine: 8M
• Purges: 1.5M
• Gulag: 3M
• Deportations: 2M
• War-related repression: 5M

I can further elaborate and explain the contexts and how the numbers were reached if you wish but this is indeed an estimate made by scholars

Fake nummers

 

[Rapistcel]

I've had that one thrown at me many times. And even though I'm not a communist per se I've always found this one interesting. Because it sounds to me like they are admitting that the logic of communism makes perfect sense and they don't really have a refutation. It's just that it won't work in practice.

Except they won't tell you why it should always fail in practice. If they would, someone can just write it down and it would become plain theory. They would have essentially refuted communism. But the closest thing I have is some sociological theory some guy on 4chan posted about why any collective structure will inevitably lead to heirarchy and class. An argument that is just as applicable to democracy btw. But even that is theory.

I thought you were a commie

 

[Caesercel]

But who is "they" ? Does it included non-workers ? Who does it include ? How do "they" decide ?

Dude the word "worker" is right there in the sentence you quoted. And in case you think that's some highly exclusive group, think again. Work is fundamental aspect of human life and the VAST majority of them work. Might as well use the term "people" at the point.

"Treacherous" here was just a general term for people who refuse to work as much as the others, dishonest would have been better I guess.

In my understanding, in pure Marxism "refusing to work as much as others" should not even be a common thing because alienation is a big part of why people don't want to work. (According to Marx that is, I can't vouch for this)

.
If you tell me they will just vote then there gies your "classless" SOYciety...

A majority is not a class

.

"People should have their needs met" oh wow, why didn't someone think of it before!

I mean.... isn't that what all of this is about to some extent.

 

[Caesercel]

I thought you were a commie

I'm not politically active or anything.

It doesn’t work in practice because communism assumes that every human is a perfect moral agent, it functions on a massive honor system but the truth is most humans are greedy immoral fucks, that’s why every “communist” system ends with people or person having totalitarian dictatorial power even though it’s defined as being a “stateless” classless society. The idea of a hierarchy not existing is just pie in the sky for me. I don’t believe humans are designed to function without some type of hierarchy. Communism also assumes there’s no differences between race and gender which also couldn’t be further from the truth. You can’t treat all humans as equal and identical blank slates to be used as economic units.

I think the greedy immoral fucks part is not necessary. The morals themselves come from us too. The heirarchy part could be correct. And capitalism does a great job of treating humans as blank slate numbers

We live in a world of finite resources. If this wasn't an issue, then communism could work

I don't see how that is relevant.

 

[DogTeeth]

I'm not politically active or anything.


I think the greedy immoral fucks part is not necessary. The morals themselves come from us too. The heirarchy part could be correct. And capitalism does a great job of treating humans as blank slate numbers

I don't see how that is relevant.

Lots of people needing resources & services. Not enough of those available so it keeps falling apart. Throw in the general issue of corruption & stupid people being bad at resource managing & it only makes it worse. It simply can't be supported long term with large populations as we are now.

 

[Shark]

It doesnt sound good on paper either.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means I have to work to feed useless parasites such as niggers and foids.
No thanks, not even in theory.

 

[IWWorkER]

alienation is a big part of why people don't want to work

That's a big claim for sure.

 

[Caesercel]

That's a big claim for sure.

I mean think about it. Saying that people don't want to work is kind of like saying eagles don't want to fly and hunt mice or cows don't want to look for green grass. This is what Marx meant by his idea of species-being.

You can have some people who don't want to work at all or others who don't want to be overworked. But those can only be exceptions and not the general rule of the species.

 

[kevkon]

I think the greedy immoral fucks part is not necessary. The morals themselves come from us too. The heirarchy part could be correct. And capitalism does a great job of treating humans as blank slate numbers

I never said capitalism doesn’t do this. Capitalism sucks too and has numerous flaws, usually pertaining to people abusing or taking advantage of the system which means there’s a problem with the system itself

 

[IWWorkER]

You can have some people who don't want to work at all or others who don't want to be overworked. But those can only be exceptions and not the general rule of the species.

Or they can parasite others, as Marx and many before and after him pointed out

 

[literallyretarded]

Fascism has unironically killed more white people.

communism has killed more people than fascism also you know there's a difference between fascism and national socialism right.

 

[Caesercel]

Or they can parasite others, as Marx and many before and after him pointed out

I don't even think in terms of parasitism anymore. It's all a labour imbalance to me.

One can debate and disagree with the economic applications of labour theory of value as a price theory all they want, but it gave me good insight on how to "think" about things. Marx placed labour as the fundamental unit of social value.

Now I don't think in terms of wealth/money, who is rich and who is poor. These are just numbers on a screen and pieces of paper. Instead I think of all the labour that is being executed daily. Who is doing that labour, what is being produced and who is ultimately benefitting from it. Are there people who are doing their required labour but are not having enough done for them? Are there people who are getting magnitudes of more labour poured into their lives than they put out?

These imbalances are found between individuals, classes, races, ethnicities or even nations and form the root of class division. Engels says that in any class system across history the main cause for labour imbalance comes down to control of means of production. So it can just be easily applied to feudal lords and peasants.

 

[Pikacel]

Just follow a religion instead tbh

 

[Caesercel]

Just follow a religion instead tbh

lmao no

 

[Pikacel]

lmao no

Drop these utopian ideologies and find other copes

 

[Caesercel]

Drop these utopian ideologies and find other copes

New profound ideas are a good cope.

 

[Pikacel]

I'm not politically active or anything.


I think the greedy immoral fucks part is not necessary. The morals themselves come from us too. The heirarchy part could be correct. And capitalism does a great job of treating humans as blank slate numbers

I don't see how that is relevant.

Capitalism is evil on paper but works IRL

Alienation and individualism prevents excessive tribalism and nepotism

Slavery/debt force people to work hard to pay off debt which leads to higher productivity. Greed motivates people to undercut other businesses and sell at cheaper prices = material wealth

This material wealth means you can access all kinds of resources and amenities

State intervention through welfare state and preventing Great Depression tier crisis is enough. NEETbux feeds into businesses, intervention is like crony capitalism and helps certain corporations stay afloat

Capitalism takes advantage of human greed to do good while communism and socialism try to do good only to succumb to human greed