Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by DepressedSoviet
Raw
OP
Avatar of DepressedSoviet

DepressedSoviet A Sad Communist

Member Seen 7 yrs ago

So, as a Communist browsing the internet, I'm often proposed the question "How do you choose to interpret the various writings of Communism, into what you see as real Communism?". Well, actually the comments are more like "fuk u commie libtard bastard trump4lyfe!!!11!!!ONE", but this is just how I choose to interpret what they're saying.

My views on Communism are rather basic, I suppose. I see Communism as a method of purging unnecessary people and bureaucracy in the means of production of all goods. Basically, Communism to me means abolishing anyone who is not necessary for the production of whatever the company produces, or abolishing businesses or organizations that are not necessary to the industry they are involved in. For example, a factory that produces cars, would not have an "owner" who simply makes a cut of the profits by holding the deed to the building or the land it sits on. Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on. This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them. Eventually, this society would work to abolish any method of currency, with a push towards fully automated production of all goods and services, to create a society free to focus on intellectual pursuits and the arts. The subsequent abolishment of income would reinforce the already classless society, and allow racial prejudices to be worked on to abolish them. The automation of all good and service production would also dissolve the need for nations or the proverbial State, thus providing a society where needs are met for all, and the advancement of humanity as a whole can be focused upon.

The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal. It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible, and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction. Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society.

Teachings of more dictatorial figures who have donned the Communist mantle, such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Kim family line, and others of their ilk, would be abandoned and denounced by this movement, while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement.

Environmentally-Friendly resource management, such as renewable energy sources, organic replacements for petroleum products, and nature conservation, would also be a key stressing of this movement, to ensure that humanity can survive as long as possible on Earth alone, assuming interplanetary development is not possible.

This is just the most basic summary of how I see the Communist movement. Feel free to propose questions, scenarios, insults and whatever else you feel like posting, I mean its not like I can do anything about it.
Hidden 8 yrs ago 8 yrs ago Post by The Nexerus
Raw
Avatar of The Nexerus

The Nexerus Sui generis

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Who paid for the factory to be built? Who manages the factory's employees? Who is liable if the factory goes out of business? Who determines how the factory's profits are reinvested? Who communicates with clients to arrange regular outflow? Who coordinates with suppliers of raw materials to ensure sufficient inflow? Who decides if, when and where a branch plant will be established? Who determines the optimal shipping arrangement? Who acquires the capital to expand the factory to produce more and/or better widgets?

Your entire political ideology seems to be predicated on the premise that the people at the top don't do any """real work""". If the employees make all of the management decisions on a democratic basis, via their commune, when do they have any time to actually do labour? Are you truly under the impression that everyone in the upper management of every company on Earth spends the work day diddling their asshole?
4x Like Like 1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by BrobyDDark
Raw
Avatar of BrobyDDark

BrobyDDark Gentleman Spidey

Member Seen 5 days ago

I like looking at people who talk about Communism, because they always present the """""true""""" form of Communism that is always different from how Communism really is.

Communism in itself is not something that can work on its own. It always has to be shifted to be something else for it to work in every Communists' eyes. It's come to the point that everyone who is a """""Communist""""" is actually just someone who follows a different ideology loosely based on communism.
1x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Vilageidiotx
Raw
Avatar of Vilageidiotx

Vilageidiotx Jacobin of All Trades

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Are you truly under the impression that everyone in the upper management of every company on Earth spends the work day diddling their asshole?


Yes. Kings have job descriptions too, but when you get rid of them society doesn't fall apart.

My views on Communism are rather basic, I suppose. I see Communism as a method of purging unnecessary people and bureaucracy in the means of production of all goods. Basically, Communism to me means abolishing anyone who is not necessary for the production of whatever the company produces, or abolishing businesses or organizations that are not necessary to the industry they are involved in.


That's Utopian. The purpose is to take all of the thing Nexerus says we need a landed aristocracy for and democratizing it. Which is to say the Bureaucracy doesn't disappear, since it is part of the production process.

I like looking at people who talk about Communism, because they always present the """""true""""" form of Communism that is always different from how Communism really is.

Communism in itself is not something that can work on its own. It always has to be shifted to be something else for it to work in every Communists' eyes. It's come to the point that everyone who is a """""Communist""""" is actually just someone who follows a different ideology loosely based on communism.


Marxism/Leninism doesn't work because it is predicated on the belief that democracy doesn't work, and once you've made that decision than you have decided that the people cannot rule themselves, which defeats the purpose of trying to put the people in charge of the economy.

I personally believe that aristocrats throughout history have been frauds. I think the historical pattern where aristocrats continue to leach power from their civilization until they take too much and their civilization stagnates and either goes through revolution, collapses, or becomes undefendable, is telling. I think the United States is currently entering that stagnation process.

My main beef with the far left is the sectarian nature of it. I think most of those beliefs are endangered because they are always too worried about the rules, like someone holding up the game to read the rulebook until everyone gets annoyed.

I also think the far left throughout history usually fails. Aristocrats are frauds, but they are really good frauds. So if I had to put money on it, I wouldn't bet that the left will win and we'll enter some Star Trek future, rather I'd bet that our civilization is going to stagnate and fall apart. What that'll look like in the modern world is hard to tell. I'm just reaaallly hoping that it waits until I die before any of the really hairy shit happens. Let me be the last generation of the waning civilization, not the first generation of the First Intermediate Period of the Anglo-Saxon civilization.
3x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago 8 yrs ago Post by The Nexerus
Raw
Avatar of The Nexerus

The Nexerus Sui generis

Member Seen 2 yrs ago

Yes.


They don't. They spend their day managing the company, performing all of the tasks that I outlined previously and more that I didn't bother to add to the list. Industrialists are not noblemen by another name; their wealth is not derived by divine right. The purchasing power of an individual is derived from their contribution to society. If you perform the task for which there is the greatest demand, you are given the greatest compensation. That's meritocracy, not neo-feudalism. It's all about supplying society's demands.

You're correct that we don't need a landed aristoracy, and that's why we don't have one.

2x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by ClocktowerEchos
Raw
Avatar of ClocktowerEchos

ClocktowerEchos Come Fly With Me!

Member Seen 20 days ago

tbh we should remove all modern forms of government and economic systems and go bad to the good old days.
Feudalism, Chiefdoms and Bartering are clearly the best ways. If u disagree then u a cuck.
Hidden 8 yrs ago 8 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

Basically, Communism to me means abolishing anyone who is not necessary for the production of whatever the company produces, or abolishing businesses or organizations that are not necessary to the industry they are involved in.


Farewell to the disabled, I suppose.

For example, a factory that produces cars, would not have an "owner" who simply makes a cut of the profits by holding the deed to the building or the land it sits on. Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on. This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them.


It will be the best car with the best tires and the best muffler and the best seatbelts and the best airbags and the best radio knob and the best company break room to never be built ever.

Eventually, this society would work to abolish any method of currency, with a push towards fully automated production of all goods and services, to create a society free to focus on intellectual pursuits and the arts.


Just think, the entire society will be as useful as millennials' college degrees.

The subsequent abolishment of income would reinforce the already classless society, and allow racial prejudices to be worked on to abolish them.


Because before the US Dollar, nobody ever hated anybody.

The automation of all good and service production would also dissolve the need for nations or the proverbial State, thus providing a society where needs are met for all, and the advancement of humanity as a whole can be focused upon.


'focused upon' by precisely nobody -- we're too busy waiting in line for the new DPRChevrolet.

The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal.


So democracy, but only if you agree with me.

It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible


So no violence, except when we're doing violence.

and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction.


Beating those who politically oppose you doesn't strike me as bigoted in the least.

Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society.


NO HONKIES ALLOWED

Teachings of more dictatorial figures who have donned the Communist mantle, such as Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Kim family line, and others of their ilk, would be abandoned and denounced by this movement, while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement.


"Democratic" and "free" need asterisks here.

Environmentally-Friendly resource management, such as renewable energy sources, organic replacements for petroleum products, and nature conservation, would also be a key stressing of this movement, to ensure that humanity can survive as long as possible on Earth alone, assuming interplanetary development is not possible.


The goal is to trigger this new society once capitalism figures out renewable energy, but before capitalism figures out interplanetary travel. Then and only then can the great Communist Amish Nation take root. Commish? Am-unism?

This is just the most basic summary of how I see the Communist movement.


"Basic" is one word.

Feel free to propose questions, scenarios, insults and whatever else you feel like posting, I mean its not like I can do anything about it.


Will I be beaten for it in the glorious revolution?
2x Like Like 1x Thank Thank
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by DepressedSoviet>

Farewell to the disabled, I suppose.

<Snipped quote>

It will be the best car with the best tires and the best muffler and the best seatbelts and the best airbags and the best radio knob and the best company break room to never be built ever.

<Snipped quote>

Just think, the entire society will be as useful as millennials' college degrees.

<Snipped quote>

Because before the US Dollar, nobody ever hated anybody.

<Snipped quote>

'focused upon' by precisely nobody -- we're too busy waiting in line for the new DPRChevrolet.

<Snipped quote>

So democracy, but only if you agree with me.

<Snipped quote>

So no violence, except when we're doing violence.

<Snipped quote>

Beating those who politically oppose you doesn't strike me as bigoted in the least.

<Snipped quote>

NO HONKIES ALLOWED

<Snipped quote>

"Democratic" and "free" need asterisks here.

<Snipped quote>

The goal is to trigger this new society once capitalism figures out renewable energy, but before capitalism figures out interplanetary travel. Then and only then can the great Communist Amish Nation take root. Commish? Am-unism?

<Snipped quote>

"Basic" is one word.

<Snipped quote>

Will I be beaten for it in the glorious revolution?


and as per usual, no productive reply, just logical extremes, buzzwords, and memes
2x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

and as per usual, no productive reply, just logical extremes, buzzwords, and memes


I'm supposed to..... what, take this seriously? Venezuela would like a word.
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 7 days ago

Seize the means of production before they're fully automated so that the community controls the fully automated means of production and not Jared Kushner and friends. Then fully automate them.

There.
1x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 7 days ago

My main beef with the far left is the sectarian nature of it.


1x Like Like
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by Doivid>

I'm supposed to..... what, take this seriously? Venezuela would like a word.


no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses.

whether you disagree or not with him, Villageidiotx made a thoughtful reply, and you just mock it because you have no real rebuttal.
1x Like Like 1x Thank Thank
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 7 days ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses.

whether you disagree or not with him, Villageidiotx made a thoughtful reply, and you just mock it because you have no real rebuttal.


Doivid, if I told you I had the Necronomicon and I said we can bring Robespierre back into this world would you take me up on conducting the ritual to bring up the greatest world revolution to ever meet this side of the universal divide?
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Kratesis
Raw
Avatar of Kratesis

Kratesis Spiritus Mundi

Member Seen 9 mos ago

<Snipped quote by DepressedSoviet>

Farewell to the disabled, I suppose.

<Snipped quote>

It will be the best car with the best tires and the best muffler and the best seatbelts and the best airbags and the best radio knob and the best company break room to never be built ever.

<Snipped quote>

Just think, the entire society will be as useful as millennials' college degrees.

<Snipped quote>

Because before the US Dollar, nobody ever hated anybody.

<Snipped quote>

'focused upon' by precisely nobody -- we're too busy waiting in line for the new DPRChevrolet.

<Snipped quote>

So democracy, but only if you agree with me.

<Snipped quote>

So no violence, except when we're doing violence.

<Snipped quote>

Beating those who politically oppose you doesn't strike me as bigoted in the least.

<Snipped quote>

NO HONKIES ALLOWED

<Snipped quote>

"Democratic" and "free" need asterisks here.

<Snipped quote>

The goal is to trigger this new society once capitalism figures out renewable energy, but before capitalism figures out interplanetary travel. Then and only then can the great Communist Amish Nation take root. Commish? Am-unism?

<Snipped quote>

"Basic" is one word.

<Snipped quote>

Will I be beaten for it in the glorious revolution?


1x Like Like 1x Thank Thank
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by Doivid>

Doivid, if I told you I had the Necronomicon and I said we can bring Robespierre back into this world would you take me up on conducting the ritual to bring up the greatest world revolution to ever meet this side of the universal divide?


yeah why not, I'm not busy atm.
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by mdk
Raw

mdk 3/4

Member Seen 6 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses.


No no no. I post clever, incisive counterpoints, then relentlessly mash F5 as I wait for chuckles and attention.
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Dinh AaronMk
Raw
Avatar of Dinh AaronMk

Dinh AaronMk my beloved (french coded)

Member Seen 7 days ago

<Snipped quote by Dinh AaronMk>

yeah why not, I'm not busy atm.


Excellent. First we'll need to obtain some raw French revolutionary solidarity, a seven nation army worth of enemies, and a guillotine made from the purest revolutionary iron bathed in blueblood blood to make the guillotine blade.

We'll then need to draw in white chalk a Tree of Liberty in any town square, preferably in as many as possible.
Hidden 8 yrs ago 8 yrs ago Post by Nytem4re
Raw
Avatar of Nytem4re

Nytem4re

Member Seen 2 mos ago

<Snipped quote by mdk>

no you're not supposed to take it seriously, because you don't discuss anything seriously or actually want to change your viewpoint. you post b8 then mock actual productive responses.

whether you disagree or not with him, Villageidiotx made a thoughtful reply, and you just mock it because you have no real rebuttal.


I mean he brings up valid points still, even if he is shitposting.

Anyways I'll bring up some points I found contradictory/improbable.

"This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them."

Right, and who is going to enforce this? Someone with... more power? I don't see how giving everyone percieved power will fix power structures because eventually somewhere down the line the guy in charge of the military would be able to do whatever, since, well, he has the power.

"Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on."

The problem with this is that the person making the tires is going to be more knowledgable about making tires than the person who cleans the toliet. It would be more productive to let the person making the tires decide how tires should be made/process since he has more technical knowledge. If the guy cleaning the shitter says tires dont need rubber who's going to stop him? Of course, you might say everyone else, but humans can choose the wrong thing to do at times. Who's to say that the toilet guy didn't convince everyone tires should be made of toliet seat covers? Everyone has a "say" in this situation. Your factories would be terribly inefficient. I would assume everything would need to come down to a group decision. Which means little would get done.

And group decisions sound more democratic imo, not communist.

"The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal. "

Sounds more like democratic socialism than actual communism.

"It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible, and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction."

Uh, would the disabled count? because if they can't produce anything due to a disability, then are they not unneeded in processes of production? Maybe this is bad wording more than actual malice, but still.

" Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society."

I feel like you're torn between being democratic and being communist. You say that you want to make it as democratic as possible, but does this not imply you will crack down on anyone who does not support your society? The entire point of democracy is the free expression of ideas. Hardly seems democratic when you're going to make them disappear or exile them or whatever you plan to do.

"while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement."

It isn't exactly "free" when the only choice they have is support the government or die/get beaten up/forcibly removed.

You seem more like a democratic socalist than an actual communist, but maybe that's just me.

Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by Doivid>

No no no. I post clever, incisive counterpoints, then relentlessly mash F5 as I wait for chuckles and attention.


you're yahoo news comments tier at best.
1x Laugh Laugh
Hidden 8 yrs ago Post by Doivid
Raw
Avatar of Doivid

Doivid

Member Seen 3 yrs ago

<Snipped quote by Doivid>

I mean he brings up valid points still, even if he is shitposting.

Anyways I'll bring up some points I found contradictory/improbable.

"This method, applied to all industries providing goods or services, would eliminate any semblance of Bourgeois elements in society, with all methods of production being owned collectively by the workers who operate them."

Right, and who is going to enforce this? Someone with... more power? I don't see how giving everyone percieved power will fix power structures because eventually somewhere down the line the guy in charge of the military would be able to do whatever, since, well, he has the power.

"Only people absolutely necessary to the operation of the factory would make money from the factory, and all would make the same money, but all would also have the same say in how the factory conducts business, how and what it produces, and so on. The person who puts tires on the cars would have as much say as the person who maintains the machines, as the person who cleans the toilets, and so on."

The problem with this is that the person making the tires is going to be more knowledgable about making tires than the person who cleans the toliet. It would be more productive to let the person making the tires decide how tires should be made/process since he has more technical knowledge. If the guy cleaning the shitter says tires dont need rubber who's going to stop him? Of course, you might say everyone else, but humans can choose the wrong thing to do at times. Who's to say that the toilet guy didn't convince everyone tires should be made of toliet seat covers? Everyone has a "say" in this situation. Your factories would be terribly inefficient. I would assume everything would need to come down to a group decision. Which means little would get done.

Which sounds more democratic imo, not communist.

"The process of building this society, in my eyes, would be as democratic as possible, while still making sure to advance towards the end goal. "

Sounds more like democratic socialism than actual communism.

"It would also try to avoid violence as much as possible, and if violence were to be necessary, would only target those deemed unneeded in the processes of production in industries, and would not be racially or nationally motivated, nor would it have any basis in bigotry or unwarranted destruction."

Uh, would the disabled count? because if they can't produce anything due to a disability, then are they not unneeded in processes of production? Maybe this is bad wording more than actual malice, but still.

" Those of all races, religions, colors, creeds, nationalities, sexualities, genders, and anything else would be welcome, so long as their mission was the eventual establishment of this society."

I feel like you're torn between being democratic and being communist. You say that you want to make it as democratic as possible, but does this not imply you will crack down on anyone who does not support your society? The entire point of democracy is the free expression of ideas. Hardly seems democratic when you're going to make them disappear or exile them or whatever you plan to do.

"while it would adapt the teachings of the more open Communists of the past to a more democratic and free movement."

It isn't exactly "free" when the only choice they have is support the government or die/get beaten up/forcibly removed.

You seem more like a democratic socalist than an actual communist, but maybe that's just me.


Haven't read all this, but that sounds like someone actually considering it, even if they disagree. nice.
1x Like Like
↑ Top
© 2007-2024
BBCode Cheatsheet