Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism in theory vs in practice
You're viewing a single thread.
-
It doesn’t matter what ideology. If the people running it are rotten, any system can be corrupted.
-
So then the solution is to decentralize so everyone is running it.
-
Communism by any other name would smell as sweet
-
A co-operative ?
-
And likewise, oligarchy calling itself communism smells just as rancid.
-
-
And have a way for it to be trustless as well
-
It's simple: teach everyone to make everything they need for themselves, so they can't be expoited
-
Sure bro lemme teach my aunt to make her insulin, her own needles, her own glucose test strips and all that cheers
-
Maybe we should all specialize, and pay each other with our own goods, or better yet, a sort of representation of goods we all agree is valuable, so you can get one persons goods with anothers.
-
Kinda seems unfair that somebody's aunt should have to purchase insulin she needs to survive, like she shouldn't have to work harder to have the same lifestyle as someone without a disability. Maybe we should just give her the insulin she needs to survive, and compensate the people who make it out of some sort of common pool of resources everyone is required to contribute to, in order to distribute the costs more fairly.
-
When I was younger, I tried to design an universal constructor.
Unfortunatelly, I was using Roblox studio to do this.
How's that for insanity?
I also carved a log with a knife, hacking off pieces in an attempt to make a 3D printer
-
It's not insane! 3D printing is making huge strides. You were just a little ahead of your time.
If we can run Doom on 16 billion crabs, then you can carve a 3D printer.
-
-
-
-
There is a group actively working to open source Insulin manufacturing to make it practical to self produce.
-
That's good work for a lot of reasons, but there's a world of difference between "open source and theoretically DIY" and it being anywhere near realistic for everyone to actually do it themselves.
It's good that I have access to advanced technology without having to have learned how to build it from the ground up. That's the whole point of civilization -- doing more together than we could do apart.
-
-
-
ah yes let me just manufacture my own toilet paper on my 50m2 apartment
-
Something something darwin
-
What does Darwin have to do with enslavement of the human species?
-
-
Like how people were gifted ability to have more knowledge at their hands than previous generations and rapid communication, and then came to the conclusion that the earth is flat, vaccines are poision, and facism is holy?
Humans are dumb fucks. They will inevitably fuck up even the most perfect utopia they arrive in short of some mass hive mind brain washing Equilibrium style. i don't hold that high an opinion of human society.
Leave the world to the animals. Humans are a failed experiment and a virus to the world.
-
Start from yourself
-
This is some eco-fascist ass rethoric. You're not taking into account how all the issues you listed are only possible to exist in a capitalist society, where misinformation and anti-intelectualism is accepted and allowed to grow instead of directly addressed.
-
Environmental issues did in fact exist before capitalism. Human arrival coincided with mass extinction in the Americas and in Australia. That’s certainly not to say these issues are unavoidable or that socialism isn’t the solution (because it 100% is) but we should see environmental issues as transcending others so I disagree that I would place this in an eco-fascist lens. Rejection of science certainly occurred in feudal societies as well
-
You're right, I should have been more specific in saying that current anti-intelectualism is deeply linked to capitalism and not that it is something that happens only in capitalism, my bad.
Also, I wasn't referring to that as the eco-fascist rethoric, but rather to the commenters last phrase about how humans are a "failed experiment and a virus to the world".
-
-
-
-
-
-
Deeply anti-materialist take.
-
Can you explain how you disagree? Is it about incentives to be corrupt (or against) depending on the system?
-
If you believe in great man theory™ and think that all political developments happen because one person can magically steer entire countries and the world, in geo-political terms, or idealists in thinking that if you have the correct ideas, you can magically steer the entire rest of the world to whatever you think, by having the correct thoughts. Then your theories of political developments are non-materialist, like this comment is objecting to. The system sets the conditions of who is going to be empowered or rewarded for their actions and positions.
-
People in this context appears to be plural, thus I don't see how Montreal_Metro's take is Great Man Theory.
The system sets the conditions of who is going to be empowered or rewarded for their actions and positions.
Ultimately, any system is operated by mere mortals who will arbitrarily reward and punish people based on their own bias, morals and desires. Systems only work so long as the people manning them follow the rules. Systems only last if the people running it punish rule breakers.
According to all of history, corruption, apathy, and pure human greed and ingenuity will gradually eat away any system, economic and political, until it collapses. Only for the failing system to be replaced by a "better" system, which begins the cycle again.
-
The fact that it is attributed to a very few actors and not a literal, singular actor does not negate great man theory.
The issue is that this is arbitrarily flattening of the actual material conditions. You can point out that nearly all political systems, on a long enough timeline lead to some form of collapse (Joseph Tainter is a good reference on this). But all of these things are dependent, not independent, of the systems and conditions they find themselves in. The timescales and forms can vary drastically depending on the material conditions actors find themselves in.
-
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
Did the system that created the conditions people find themselves in come first. Or did the people running the system create the conditions that they find themselves in?
-
It is not that there isn't some flow both ways, but that the material conditions is much more dominant than people coming up with ideas and mechanations moving things in ways contradicting the conditions. The system setting the conditions is in fact dominant. The way corruption and self-dealing manifests is different between where you can just create a private corporation and lobby for a government contract to justify being given a 500 million dollars of tax payer money, versus trying to massage Gosplan to syphon off several million Rubles of excess spending, versus tricking a sovereign wealth fund to hand over several billion dollars for some supposed innovative building company to create innovations for Neom.
-
Thank you for the answers! That makes sense to me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I am not that person, but I guess you wouldn't like the ambassadors of fascism to be efficient and competent.
-
They didn't seem to express an argument or value judgment in their comment regardless of their actual opinion.
Don't feed the troll.
-
-
-