Haha, funny way to say “working in the lead mines”, comrade.
Comrade, we all know lead poisoning and the need for safety gear are capitalist propaganda! Now, get back in the mines! Production must increase 50% this year, and your state-appointed union representative says it can!
Tinfoil is absolutely enough protection against radiation, now go out there and stabilize the reactor!
Capital successfully fought to put lead into American’s blood and lungs for a century after it was known to be poison. To this day they’re still fighting to keep it there.
You know, it took until 2003 for Russia to remove leaded gasoline from stations. The Soviets never did it LMFAO
but nice try
You’re right, America did bad thing, clearly this completely overrides the wrongs of other countries
And your point is?
Please do share an example of industrialization that somehow doesn’t include unforseen negative health effects.
Go on now, we’ll wait.
I think the hexbears probably fucked OP irl or something. Guy is going full mental illness mode.
The gold standard are urainum mines. Lead are for those with good behavior.
Tbh I’d rather work in a uranium mine, it’s less toxic than lead in the quantities you’d be exposed to
I too want a post-scarcity luxury space communism utopia. Unfortunately most iterations of communism feel more like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic than actually plugging the hole in the fuselage.
The ship is not sinking, the sea level is simply rising to its rightful place
It’s just human nature in my eyes. Power attracts many people and the less positions of power to fill, the fiercer the competition and the more ruthless the ultimate victor. Communism focusses too much power in too few positions, so ultimately, corrupt people are almost guaranteed to win. Democracy is spreading out that power more. It is still not perfect, corrupt people are still regularly found at the top, but they wield less power individually and they have to do it more in the open.
Communism focusses too much power in too few positions,
marxism would be a better term instead of communism as true communism requires no one having economic or political power over someone else
It would, but communism on a decently large scale needs someone to allocate resources. And that jon comes with a lot of power. Which brings us back to marxism.
We should select leaders by lottery from a pool of those who have passed a civics exam instead of elections. Maybe that would help with the problem of corrupt people seeking positions of power.
And who makes sure that the rules aren’t broken? Who makes sure the lottery wouldn’t be rigged? Your ‘solution’ is defenseless against corruption. It offers no mechanic to deal with the corrupt. The beauty of democracy and capitalism is that it allows for those who want more power, to achieve it within the system. By that, they will stay within the system and be subjected by the accountability it provides. If your solution allows absolutely no way to stack the cards in your favor, then it will be rejected by all who wish to, and it will crumble before long.
Any socialist society needs to be democratic first, socialist second. Many more democracies have gotten closer to socialism than socialist societies have gotten close to democracy.
Which societies are those? Because all the world’s most democratic countries tend to be the most capitalist.
Cuba has an extensive democratic process. Cubans just democratically drafted the country’s newest family code, hammering out the details in over 80,000 citizen councils around the country.
Communism focusses too much power in too few positions
Literally the opposite of communism
The ideal of communism, maybe. Yet every country that called itself communist became authotarian. Why is that? Evil tongues might suggest that the ideal of communism simply fails to prevail when confronted with reality.
In theory yes, and you are going to say all communist countries were not “real communism” now ? The USSR was known for its ruthless and violent political scenes. Leaders condemning their opponents’ families to discredit them for example. North Korea gives all power to the supreme leader (a communist monarchy lmfao). Communist China is the closest to what you might you believe in but it’s insanely violent in the backstage. The closer you are to higher seats of power, the more in danger you are.
On top of that any individual at the top can effectively enact their preferred policies over everyone. Millions died simply because the supreme leader ordered so.
Thats why i personaly believe that we should strive to build an A.I. to replace leadership, be it political and/or economical. Leadership has shown that they are 100% corruptible and that they are willing to sell the lives of the people they are suposed to protect to pretty much the fucking devil, in exchange of the privilege of showing that they have the biggest dick in the room or to get another swimmig pool in their 8th mansion (im mostly refering to global warming and oligarchy but other scenarios still apply). In my book that shows that we as a species can not lead ourselves without genocide and opresion, and even with those they dont really lead people, just protect their own interests and those of their friends. The A.I. wouldnt be corruptible, would exploit resources with sustainable technology in a renewable manner, eventually leading to having the equivalent of infinite resources, and would provide all the needs of the people in a human way, from phisical to psicolgical, and eventually more edonistic needs where possible. Imho the fact that we are not working on something like this is kinda worring since i think is the only way to realistically save ourselves from ourselves.
Thats why i personaly believe that we should strive to build an A.I. to replace leadership, be it political and/or economical.
The problem with that is that the most powerful AI, the one with the most capabilities, is built by, or stewarded by the people in power. The problem is that every human is selfish, at least to some degree. Any AI coming from people will be selfish as well. Chatbot Tay might be a meme now, but I think it shows quite apptly that any alorithm that learns from humans will inevitably display human traits and greed is one of those traits.
End goal; you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy. Also work harder and don’t advance.
No it isn’t. Communism eliminates private property. E.G. Land ownership. (You lease land from the state)
It does not get rid of personal property. You’re still allowed to own things. A phone, a car, books, anything that is movable; pretty much anything except land and maybe buildings.
I’m not even a fan of communism but this is just an ignorant misconception.
Get that shit out of here bub. Everybody knows that communism is when capitalists exploit you and steal all your hard-earned money so you stay poor while they keep raking in record profits.
I’ve never understood how this is supposed to be some big own to communism. You’d still refer to it as “my farm,” even as I refer to the community where I live as “my city” and the jobs I’ve worked to benefit some capitalist bozo as “my job.” This is even worse than Ben Shapiro popping out of a well. In many ways, I think I’d feel more ownership as part of a community vs. the facade of “private property.”
This particular thing was actually tried by the Soviets. Farms were considered excesses of kulaks. Kolhos (collective “farm”) was the replacement.
And yes, it was possible to say “my kolhoz” like people say “my city”, good point. Even if “our kolhoz” was a lot more accepted, since it emphasizes how collective it is.
It is also possible to feel personal affinity to collectively owned space.
The difference between usually implied individual “my farm” and collective “my farm” is of course in the governance.
Collective ownership may end up being governed by ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible “people representatives”. E.g. deciding that genetics is a capitalist plot, and planting corn everywhere is the solution to all problems (both cases actually happened on a massive scale).
The result is not very different from what ineffective unaccountable and irresponsible large capitalist landowners do.
Both systems disenfranchise the disadvantaged ones, since decisions can practically never be completely unanimous.
So it’s good if you agree with the party line, but if not - violent suppression comes, no teaching on the farm.
That’s where the feeling of “my farm” breaks down. On a private farm you have a lot more options before you are lost.
I get the challenges with governance in capitalism-turining-feodalism which we have now in many cases.
But I do not get it why people imagine that full collective ownership is a good and sustainable alternative.
None of this is a critique of ideologies like syndicalism and anarcho-communism, so it’s still a pretty ignorant meme that conflates Soviet communism with all forms of communism.
None of this disproves what people like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman were writing about, whose worldviews do not disenfranchise such groups.
I also heartily disagree with your take about private farms. The options you think you have with “private property” are a scam.
Most early Bolshevik policies were more situational than ideological. The main priorities were to repel threats and industrialize as quickly as possible. They expected to be crushed by industrialized capitalist powers unless they reached parity.
When you own the means of production it’s literally yours. I don’t understand the issue.
You’re mistaken, the state is a collection of proletariat meaning you are a part of the state. You may not be the whole state but it is your land as it is everyone elses
Atleast as far as I understand it
I’ve heard same said about liberal democracy too. “State is made up of us voting citizens” etc etc. Feels as hollow
That’s false. There’s no state in communism. See Karl Marx or any Communist writer on this.
That’s correct, but I’m not sure what you understand those terms to mean, because neither really supports taking all ownership away from people. I’m just gonna leave this blorb here, because I feel like this is where it fits best.
Communism in the style of Marx and Engels means that the workers own the means of production. They would have been completely in favor of a person owning their own farm (or jointly owning it if multiple people worked it). They didn’t really envision much of a state to interfere, much less own property.
That the Soviet Union (and later the PRC, fuck them btw) claimed to be building the worker’s paradise under communism was mostly propaganda after Lenin died. There hasn’t been any state that has implemented actual communism as established by theory.
Socialism (as I understand it, but I’m not well-read on it) means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules, with bans of exploitative practices. There are some countries trying to implement a light version of this across Europe, to varying success (mostly failing where capitalism is left unchecked).
The issue is that the US started propagandizing like mad during the cold war, and “communism” was just catchier to say than “supportive of a country that is really just a state-owned monopoly”. Soon everything that was critical of capitalism also became “communism”, which eventually turned into a label for everything McCarthy labelled “un-american”. This is also the time they started equating the terms communism and socialism. A significant portion of the US population hasn’t moved past that yet, because it fits well into the propaganda of the US being the best country in the world, the American Dream, all that bs. The boogeyman of “the state will take away the stuff you own” turned out pretty effective in a very materialistic society. Although I’m very glad to see more and more USAians get properly educated on the matter and standing up for their rights rather than letting themselves be exploited.
Fuck the PRC because… They have state-owned enterprise instead of actual communism? Interesting take.
Your definition of socialism is more akin to a definition of social democracy, which is… maybe a form of socialism, depending on who you ask – it is historically contentious and generally accepted that social democrats aren’t socialists.
Socialism can have all of the things that you described, but it is decidedly anti-capitalist. It reorients how workers relate to the means of production. Under capitalism, the means of production are owned by the bourgeois class, while under socialism, they are collectively owned by the workers.
Holy shit, this is exactly how the whole big picture of comunism is.
Not even self proclaimed communist understeand this and seems that they think communism is the same thing America propagandises against, so they end up being apologists for tyranical regimes that are the contrary of what comunism and even socialism should be, and end up making an ass of themselves and fitting more with the tankie description. And yes fuck the CPSU/КПСС and the CCP.
You are ultra mega based.
Socialism means the state has social support networks, but largely works under capitalist rules
What you’re describing is “social democracy” — capitalism with safety nets, where production is still controlled by owners rather than workers. “Socialism” explicitly implies worker control of production. “Nordic socialism” could more accurately be called “Nordic social democracy.”
“Communism” refers to a classless, stateless society where everyone has what they need, no one is exploited or coerced, and there are no wars. It’s an aspirational vision for the future, not something you can do right after a revolution when capitalism still rules the world.
But you can’t own anything in socialism and communism. YOU are owned instead.
