None of those things were present or seriously attempted in the Soviet Union or any other "Communist" country.
For people that can predict the future with their knowledge of history, they sure do get the history wrong. Even Marx wrote that communism would happen through a violent state that was the "vanguard of the proletariat". It's funny that people with that kind of power don't want to give it up.
Marx was probably right, tbh. We're likely witnessing the roots of it with automation. Capitalism will hang itself if it can't find a way to get money into people's hands without having them work (because despite what reddit thinks, not everyone can write code or be a nurse, because there aren't enough jobs in either for millions upon millions of people). And I don't see the people who fetishize capitalism (it's a decent enough system, but it's not going to survive the changes coming up. And neither will civilization if we can't find a way to replace it).
People aren't going to just accept not being able to breed, let alone not being able to eat. It's like that line in Rome where the senator tells Marc Antony that 'all the men of quality are with us', and Antony replies that he's fine with that, because his men will be happy to eat those men of quality.
Systems survive only when they have widespread support. Even fuedalism was better than what came before for most folks, because it provided a stable community, the ability to form families and the ability to supply the populace with food. What we're moving into will be far worse for most people. And let's be clear here, we're already knocking on fascisms door right now, and things aren't even that bad from a survivability standpoint.
Every anarchist I've spoken to in the last ten years has told me about their desire for mob rule so they can lynch the capitalists and install a collectivist council.
They hate ancaps because they want the same thing but without the collectivism and the gulags.
We don't live in a capitalist system. We lived in a mixed system. Because capitalism failed horribly in the 1920s, causing the collapse of a number of established societies and leading directly to the worst war that will likely ever take place.
A mixed system is still a capitalist one, private property exists and is the basis of our economies. What we don't have is a free market economy. Regulations dictating what can be sold (banning slavery, for example), regulations on treatment of workers, regulations on who and how many people can immigrate and work, even direct government intervention when it inevitably goes to shit (see 2008). Even the 1920s wasn't a true free market, they still had immigration laws, labour laws, banning of slavery (something seen as so anti-free market that the US fought a civil war over it), ect.
Capitalism describes an economic system in which the means of production and capital are privately owned by individuals. Assuming by "We" you mean the USA, we are a decidedly Capitalist economy.
IF they had an actual uprising, they could very easily. But they'd have to have extremely popular dissatisfaction.
But make no mistake, no army on this earth could actually put down a mass public uprising. Machine guns can only fire for a few minutes before they have to have their entire barrel's replaced. And most Army folk aren't going to shoot their family members.
Civil wars along ideological and racial lines are easy to put down. But a full on French Revolution style uprising isn't one that any nation can survive. Which is the big reason why most nations voluntarily chose democracy.
But make no mistake, no army on this earth could actually put down a mass public uprising.
Yeah but we're talking about anarchists here. If there was so much dissatisfaction that the people would rise up en-mass against the state, then much of the army would break off to support them too. The heavy lifting would be done by trained soldiers with armour, aircraft, and artillery rather than some lanky folks who haven't showered in 3 months and never handled a gun before.
Plus in the case of a successful revolution people tend to be more inclined to fix the problems rather than destroy all hierarchies and devolve everything into a tribal affair. Especially since a disciplined army works much better at reconstruction rather than some kids who can't tell the difference between a Philips and a Robertson screwdriver.
There really isn't any possible world where a massive anarchist revolution could survive. Whether it was the Free Territories, the Paris Commune, or Anarchist Catalonia, the second an organized army enters the picture they end up winning and reestablishing a state.
dumber since they're worshipping a system that has never once been implemented
Want to hear something even more dumber? I've asked why all previous attempts have failed. I literally got banned from /r/askfeminists but here's the response I got
tl;dr, all previous attempts at communism failed because it was only tried in individual countries, one at a time. For it to really work, we need the whole fucking world to be communist.
So just let that sink in. There's this thing you keep trying, and every time you try it, it results in brutal dictatorships that kill millions of people (and not only deliberately kills people, but also kills them through pure incompetence) and brings all social and economic progress to a complete halt (so that before communism, you had poor people - that sucks - but then after communism you have MORE POOR PEOPLE)
...every time it's tried, that's how it goes. Now imaging being so fucking stupid that you look at this and think, "what we need to do is go all in so that there are no alternatives, then it'll work!"
Like if someone told you that drinking used motor oil would make your dick bigger. So you try it, and you throw up and then you get deathly sick for several weeks. So you try it again. Same thing. Try it again, same thing. Then you decide that the problem isn't the fucking motor oil, it's that you also drank water and ate regular food, so what you really need to do is cut all that other shit out, and go on a 100% motor oil diet. That makes perfect sense, right?
All ideologies fail because all of them will encounter problems they are ideologically incapable of handling.
Communism relies on those in power acting in the best interests of the many, and any such system will inevitably fall. Capitalism will fail when the system cannot provide the rewards necessary to harness human impulses. Which is why free trade was a terrible idea. Men work to be useful, and because of pride (because women will reward higher status and income). It will fail very quickly when work no longer provides a path to mating, or when it cannot actually provide enough jobs to keep men employed (like it or not, women simply need society more than men do, because they are more concerned with personal safety than autonomy, and as such, their other interests can be safely ignored so long as that safety is largely provided for). Men need the carrot of mating and a family to feel that society is worth the autonomy they give up for it.
This system is dangerously close to a failure point, and nobody really seems to notice or care.
All ideologies fail because all of them will encounter problems they are ideologically incapable of handling.
What about an ideology based on acceptance of human nature and evolved behavioral preferences and patterns? Note: acceptance, not prescription for or proscription against deviations. Merely acceptance, which is something we currently lack because we label everything a "construct" and decide it is therefore necessarily oppressive.
So for example:
Men need the carrot of mating and a family to feel that society is worth the autonomy they give up for it.
an ideology that recognizes that and supports it rather than labeling it an oppressive gender norm and patriarchy and literally hitler.
If it wasn't communism, it would be some other fool idea.
Say what you want about capitalism. It never tries to make people into better people, which is what primarily leads the atrocities of other systems.
Except recently, as it has embraced feminism to (I think) divide the lower classes at a time of economic difficulty. This is a massive error, as it will leave men feeling attacked at a time when they are already insecure, and will likely exacerbate the underlying issue. But the elite are not used to dealing with this problem. Jobs were, except for a few very short timeframes (all of which did, or nearly did, lead to complete disaster). And the causes for this were easily remedied once the ideologues of the 1920s were thrown overboard.
But automation is intractable at this point. There are almost no jobs a machine or algorithm couldn't do. Algorithms will be writing code within a decade, and then those fancy STEM degrees become all but worthless.
Marx was right about one thing: the pursuit of endless increases in productivity will be the rope that capitalism hangs itself with.
I think the phenomenon of saying the USSR wasn't Socialist comes from a misguided attempt to disown its atrocities so that they aren't associated with Socialism.
34 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-04-23
Error in fetchQuote() line 4 character 0: 400 AUTHENTICATION_ERROR - could not connect to server
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a ucstruct 2017-04-23
For people that can predict the future with their knowledge of history, they sure do get the history wrong. Even Marx wrote that communism would happen through a violent state that was the "vanguard of the proletariat". It's funny that people with that kind of power don't want to give it up.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-04-23
Marx was probably right, tbh. We're likely witnessing the roots of it with automation. Capitalism will hang itself if it can't find a way to get money into people's hands without having them work (because despite what reddit thinks, not everyone can write code or be a nurse, because there aren't enough jobs in either for millions upon millions of people). And I don't see the people who fetishize capitalism (it's a decent enough system, but it's not going to survive the changes coming up. And neither will civilization if we can't find a way to replace it).
People aren't going to just accept not being able to breed, let alone not being able to eat. It's like that line in Rome where the senator tells Marc Antony that 'all the men of quality are with us', and Antony replies that he's fine with that, because his men will be happy to eat those men of quality.
Systems survive only when they have widespread support. Even fuedalism was better than what came before for most folks, because it provided a stable community, the ability to form families and the ability to supply the populace with food. What we're moving into will be far worse for most people. And let's be clear here, we're already knocking on fascisms door right now, and things aren't even that bad from a survivability standpoint.
n/a acctforbrowsing 2017-04-23
lol
n/a headasplodes 2017-04-23
The whole not real communism actually just makes it dumber since they're worshipping a system that has never once been implemented
n/a Minimum_T-Giraff 2017-04-23
Oh man you should see anarchist more delusional than the commies.
n/a TheCodexx 2017-04-23
Every anarchist I've spoken to in the last ten years has told me about their desire for mob rule so they can lynch the capitalists and install a collectivist council.
They hate ancaps because they want the same thing but without the collectivism and the gulags.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-04-23
Tbh everyone hates ancaps
n/a Thhueros 2017-04-23
http://i.imgur.com/9yVfbIN.png
n/a Vendetta55 2017-04-23
Relevant thread
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-04-23
I think everyone on here is a child.
We don't live in a capitalist system. We lived in a mixed system. Because capitalism failed horribly in the 1920s, causing the collapse of a number of established societies and leading directly to the worst war that will likely ever take place.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-04-23
A mixed system is still a capitalist one, private property exists and is the basis of our economies. What we don't have is a free market economy. Regulations dictating what can be sold (banning slavery, for example), regulations on treatment of workers, regulations on who and how many people can immigrate and work, even direct government intervention when it inevitably goes to shit (see 2008). Even the 1920s wasn't a true free market, they still had immigration laws, labour laws, banning of slavery (something seen as so anti-free market that the US fought a civil war over it), ect.
n/a StingAuer 2017-04-23
Capitalism describes an economic system in which the means of production and capital are privately owned by individuals. Assuming by "We" you mean the USA, we are a decidedly Capitalist economy.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-23
The best part of anarchists is how they think that their untrained upper middle class militia will be able to overthrow the military and police.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-04-23
IF they had an actual uprising, they could very easily. But they'd have to have extremely popular dissatisfaction.
But make no mistake, no army on this earth could actually put down a mass public uprising. Machine guns can only fire for a few minutes before they have to have their entire barrel's replaced. And most Army folk aren't going to shoot their family members.
Civil wars along ideological and racial lines are easy to put down. But a full on French Revolution style uprising isn't one that any nation can survive. Which is the big reason why most nations voluntarily chose democracy.
n/a MegaSeedsInYourBum 2017-04-23
Yeah but we're talking about anarchists here. If there was so much dissatisfaction that the people would rise up en-mass against the state, then much of the army would break off to support them too. The heavy lifting would be done by trained soldiers with armour, aircraft, and artillery rather than some lanky folks who haven't showered in 3 months and never handled a gun before.
Plus in the case of a successful revolution people tend to be more inclined to fix the problems rather than destroy all hierarchies and devolve everything into a tribal affair. Especially since a disciplined army works much better at reconstruction rather than some kids who can't tell the difference between a Philips and a Robertson screwdriver.
There really isn't any possible world where a massive anarchist revolution could survive. Whether it was the Free Territories, the Paris Commune, or Anarchist Catalonia, the second an organized army enters the picture they end up winning and reestablishing a state.
n/a thedevguy 2017-04-23
Want to hear something even more dumber? I've asked why all previous attempts have failed. I literally got banned from /r/askfeminists but here's the response I got
tl;dr, all previous attempts at communism failed because it was only tried in individual countries, one at a time. For it to really work, we need the whole fucking world to be communist.
So just let that sink in. There's this thing you keep trying, and every time you try it, it results in brutal dictatorships that kill millions of people (and not only deliberately kills people, but also kills them through pure incompetence) and brings all social and economic progress to a complete halt (so that before communism, you had poor people - that sucks - but then after communism you have MORE POOR PEOPLE)
...every time it's tried, that's how it goes. Now imaging being so fucking stupid that you look at this and think, "what we need to do is go all in so that there are no alternatives, then it'll work!"
Like if someone told you that drinking used motor oil would make your dick bigger. So you try it, and you throw up and then you get deathly sick for several weeks. So you try it again. Same thing. Try it again, same thing. Then you decide that the problem isn't the fucking motor oil, it's that you also drank water and ate regular food, so what you really need to do is cut all that other shit out, and go on a 100% motor oil diet. That makes perfect sense, right?
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-04-23
All ideologies fail because all of them will encounter problems they are ideologically incapable of handling.
Communism relies on those in power acting in the best interests of the many, and any such system will inevitably fall. Capitalism will fail when the system cannot provide the rewards necessary to harness human impulses. Which is why free trade was a terrible idea. Men work to be useful, and because of pride (because women will reward higher status and income). It will fail very quickly when work no longer provides a path to mating, or when it cannot actually provide enough jobs to keep men employed (like it or not, women simply need society more than men do, because they are more concerned with personal safety than autonomy, and as such, their other interests can be safely ignored so long as that safety is largely provided for). Men need the carrot of mating and a family to feel that society is worth the autonomy they give up for it.
This system is dangerously close to a failure point, and nobody really seems to notice or care.
n/a thedevguy 2017-04-23
What about an ideology based on acceptance of human nature and evolved behavioral preferences and patterns? Note: acceptance, not prescription for or proscription against deviations. Merely acceptance, which is something we currently lack because we label everything a "construct" and decide it is therefore necessarily oppressive.
So for example:
an ideology that recognizes that and supports it rather than labeling it an oppressive gender norm and patriarchy and literally hitler.
n/a Michaelphelpsisquick 2017-04-23
Communists should all be sent to the gulag
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-04-23
If it wasn't communism, it would be some other fool idea.
Say what you want about capitalism. It never tries to make people into better people, which is what primarily leads the atrocities of other systems.
Except recently, as it has embraced feminism to (I think) divide the lower classes at a time of economic difficulty. This is a massive error, as it will leave men feeling attacked at a time when they are already insecure, and will likely exacerbate the underlying issue. But the elite are not used to dealing with this problem. Jobs were, except for a few very short timeframes (all of which did, or nearly did, lead to complete disaster). And the causes for this were easily remedied once the ideologues of the 1920s were thrown overboard.
But automation is intractable at this point. There are almost no jobs a machine or algorithm couldn't do. Algorithms will be writing code within a decade, and then those fancy STEM degrees become all but worthless.
Marx was right about one thing: the pursuit of endless increases in productivity will be the rope that capitalism hangs itself with.
n/a darth_stroyer 2017-04-23
BOMB THE COMM
n/a jPaolo 2017-04-23
McCarthy didn't do his job properly.
n/a i_lick_fedoras 2017-04-23
"If we define communism in a completely retarded and unachievable way then nobody can ever say it doesn't work because it's never been tried!"
n/a Mexagon 2017-04-23
They complain about "muh brigades' so hard but only a faggot NEET like a communist would have the actual time to brigade other subs. Kys
n/a 1989Batman 2017-04-23
Communists are the most entertaining type of drama, tbh. They should know better and be self-aware but they just can't do it.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-04-23
North Korea isn't communist because it's a fucking hereditary monarchy. That's almost the farthest you can get from communism.
n/a gay_mayo_pride 2017-04-23
I agree, but the discussion devolved into communists defending their shitty ideology once russia was brought up.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-04-23
gdi russia
n/a StingAuer 2017-04-23
I think the phenomenon of saying the USSR wasn't Socialist comes from a misguided attempt to disown its atrocities so that they aren't associated with Socialism.
n/a SovietWarfare 2017-04-23
How? The leaders are elected.
n/a PhysicsIsMyMistress 2017-04-23
"elected"
n/a throwaway03022017 2017-04-23
Erected
n/a SovietWarfare 2017-04-23
Stupid commies think real communism hasn't been tried. Oi vey.