Notice: Welcome to Minichan, an account has automatically been created and assigned to you, you don't have to register or log in to use the board, but don't clear your cookies unless you have set a memorable name and password. Alternatively, you can restore your ID.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 week ago#137,402
I don't understand how historical figures could have genuinely believed in communist ideals and a future of peace and prosperity when humanity's nature is constantly on full display and it's the face of a lazy, selfish, hateful group of people. Where the fuck did they see the hope? Where were they looking?
> I don't understand how historical figures could have genuinely believed in communist ideals and a future of peace and prosperity when humanity's nature is constantly on full display and it's the face of a lazy, selfish, hateful group of people. Where the fuck did they see the hope? Where were they looking?
Communism never delivered anything except mayhem, murder, expropriation, and turning entire nations into prisons. It’s a utopian system and those always seem to resort to murder.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc joined in and replied with this 1 week ago, 22 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,500
@previous (B)
The first man in space, the first woman in space, the first satellite in orbit, the first country to land a probe on the moon, the first and only country to ever land a probe on the surface of Venus. Yeah communism didn’t contribute anything to humanity (sarcasm).
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc double-posted this 1 week ago, 6 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,504
@OP
I think one of the things people don’t really think about when they think about capitalism vs communism is capitalism isn’t really an ideology that was invented. It happened on its own in Europe when Europe industrialized, the former peasants became workers in factories (who were poor and treated terribly by today’s standards). Yet they experienced comparative freedom relative to their feudal ancestors and there was at least some hope of social mobility. Capitalism isn’t an idea somebody had, it was a description of what they observed was going on at the time. Adam Smith for example, noticed the benefits associated with the changes that were occurring in society and came up with a theory based on free markets. The issue however is that, the system wasn’t actually perfect, and the theories about how it worked weren’t necessarily 100% accurate. Marx simply noticed that there was inequality between the factory owners and the factory workers and theorized that history was a struggle between the working class and the wealthy, and that inevitably the working class would develop class consciousness and overthrow the ruling class. However, he wasn’t completely wrong that sometimes that does happen, for example, it happened in Russia. But the reason why it happened in Russia is because under the Tsar Russia had incredible inequality and the average Russian was extremely poor. In modern capitalist societies with so many conveniences it breaks the logic that the masses will revolt against the ruling class because they’re too comfortable and have too much to lose by doing so. I wouldn’t say that Marx exactly had faith in humanity, it was more he assumed people were self interested and would identify their collective struggle, but not inherently that they would behave morally because communism calls for the violent uprise of the working class.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc triple-posted this 1 week ago, 56 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,505
I think one of the issue is he didn’t account for automation. However, automation can create inequality. I don’t really have an opinion about that I haven’t thought about it long enough.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quadruple-posted this 1 week ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,506
Although hypothetically, in an economy, if you did have a situation where AI could automate 100% of jobs (regardless of if we believe in that just as a thought experiment), the way the economy works is your salary is paid by somebody else’s consumer spending which is paid for by their salary. So the economy is a cycle, if you thing about it, money cycles through the economy between firms and households. But if you cut all the salaries, you cut the loop, and people assume that increases GDP, but maybe it doesn’t do that.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc quintuple-posted this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,507
@1,455,504 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc)
And actually, this is the reason why the word capitalism doesn’t appear in the American constitution. It’s not an ideology that was invented by anyone, and the founding fathers weren’t necessarily trying to create a capitalist system, they just ended up creating one without explicitly considering others because it’s just kinda what people were doing anyway.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade !0JqexkOGBc sextuple-posted this 1 week ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,455,508
Although, fundamentally the issue with Marxism is that there’s this idea that equality comes first, which is wrong. Poor countries are more likely to become communist, but poor countries don’t have any wealth to distribute in the first place so distributing the wealth doesn’t do any good for them. Inequality can lead to economic growth. It would make much more sense to distribute wealth in an economy that’s already wealthy. China and Vietnam claim that’s what they’re doing (which is probably bs). I mean I don’t believe it.