5d ago

Communism is when capitalism

You're viewing a single thread.

237 comments

Communism is when you get executed for having a different opinion than the great leader.
- Thanks for being a great example of the meme
- Communism is an economic concept not political. Technically it is possible to have a democratic communist country
  
  Politics and Economics are interrelated, and you cannot genuinely separate them. That's even why Marx studied Political Economy, not just Economics.
  Further, Socialist states run by Communists are democratic, just in a very different manner. Here's a diagram of how Soviet elections were handled, as an example:
  
  According to social media, literally everything is politics.
  
  I generally agree.
  
  I never said that they aren't interconnected, i just said that it is possible to have a communist democratic party. If the political system is broken then no matter good how an economic system is it will fail
  
  All Communist parties practice Democratic Centralism, and all AES states run by Communists have some form of socialist democracy. I am not sure what you are trying to say by saying it's "possible," rather than simply being possible, it's by far the established norm. When you say "democracy," do you mean the specific, say, US form of democracy, or the ability for the citizenry to have legitimate control over policy?
  
  Marx literally calls for a genocide in his manifesto. It might not be political in your view, but communism is inherently a genocide.
  
  Please quote that part.
  
  You can read the full manifesto here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf But let's go through it step by step.
  Marx divides all people into classes and then declares that people in a specific class are better than people in other classes. This is covered in his first part called "Bourgeois and Proletarians". Direct quote:
  the proletariat is its special and essential product
  The second part establishes that there are even better representatives of "good people" called "Communists". This whole section is dedicated to dehumanising everyone else and showing that Communists are the superior people to everyone else.
  He then openly calls for violence multiple times finishing with:
  their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
  You can replace "Communists" with "Arians" and "Bourgeoisie" with "Jews" and you'll get Hitler's manifest. Same shit.
  
  Even if this is true (it is not, 1 and 2 are just wrong), it does not show him calling for a genocide.
  And your last line is incredibly stupid, "but what if he had written jews", see just like Hitler. "But what if water was fire", "but what if up was down".
  He didn't. Bourgeoisie != Jew. If you replaced all instances of "Bourgeoisie" with "Jew" it would not make sense, as Marx is talking about classes, and their relation to the MOP not jews and arians or whatever.
  
  Wow, the delusion...
  
  Are you American? You're the third person that has had a very hard time reading, I have heard the american education system is really subpar.
  
  No. As I stated before, I'm from the USSR and I know first hand what communism really is. So stop spreading this delusional bull shit, please.
  
  Even on the slim chance you're telling the truth about being from the USSR, the fact that you have a comically poor understanding of Marxism, and the insistance that fascism can be meaningfully separated from Capitalism without any backing, ultimately undermines everything you have to say. Regardless of your personal anecdotes, your understanding of political theory is comically horrible, and you have never for one second made an argument beyond "because I said so."
  
  You're ignorant and delusional.
  
  I'm not spreading any delusional bullshit. Please re-read the Communist Manifesto, you have completely misunderstood it.
  
  I haven't, you did.
  
  No, he did not.
  
  Yes, yes he did.
  
  No, he did not. I've read it 5-6 times over the years, not once did he call for genocide. You can show what you think is a call for genocide, and I'll explain why that's not the case at all.
  
  I posted a comment below. It's clear as day. Anyone arguing is delusional.
  
  Was the French Revolution a "genocide" against the Monarchy? Further, revolution doesn't necessitate killing every member of the bourgeoisie. Further still, you are likening relations to Capital to immutable characteristics like ethnicity.
  You're deeply unserious.
  
  You're deeply delusional.
  
  I'm not the one pretending business owners are an ethnicity, nor am I the one pretending Marx said to commit genocide on business owners. Marx calls for revolution, not genocide, it's very silly to adopt your position.
  
  It is delusional to support genocide and find reasons why your version of genocide is not genocide.
  
  Marx literally calls for a genocide in his manifesto.
  Others have asked for sources. I know it's not true. If Marx called for genocide, centrists would love him.
  
  I posted a reply.
  
  "He didn't like existing systems of oppression. Therefore literally hitler." is a shit reply.
  
  Just like Nazis thought that Jews were oppressors. A shit reply is defending a genocidal maniac.
  
  Imagine being such a bootlicker that you're comparing the rich to the Jews in 1940s Germany.
  
  The Jews were the rich in Germany in the 1930s. Imagine being so ignorant and delusional...
  
  I guess if you really need to demonize anyone who doesn't love being exploited by capitalism as much as you do, you can pretend that Marx wanted the same thing hitler wanted.
  
  If the strong government is democratically elected and represent the will of the people nothing wrong with that
  
  Power corrupts and corruption leads to authoritarianism. The thing happening in america right now is a perfect example.
  
  That's why any system needs actual checks and balances. Ones that fully come back to the people, not just make more corruptable systems like the US has.
- murica has installed a dictator. They're not on the way. They're there.
  
  That's generally not true. Private Capital Owners lose their political privledge, while the working class gains democratic control. No AES state is a utopian paradise, but they do represent increased democratization for the working class at the expense of the Capitalist class.
  
  Capitalist countries don't "mostly turn out fine." The ones in the EU, US, etc are Imperialist, and thus export their brutal suffering to the Global South and reap the spoils. Communist countries do not "end up mass murdering and doing terrible things afterwards" either, the Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of Communism" to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.
  
  Define authoritarianism, please. All states exert the will of one class over others, thus all governments are "authoritarian." What makes something unacceptably authoritarian in your eyes, and which level is acceptable?
  
  I’m not disagreeing with you. Just noting the us isn’t immune to it either
  
  China has markets, but that doesn't mean it has "Capitalist rules." The economy of the PRC is driven by Marxist principles, the overwhelming majority of large firms and key industries are in the public sector, while the private is dominated by small firms, cooperatives, and sole proprietorships.
  Further, China is democratic. It doesn't have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.
  By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?
  
  Saying "no" is not an argument, and I already explained why, but I'll go more in-depth here.
  The PRC's economy is classically Marxist, as Marx didn't think you could abolish private property by making it illegal, but by developing out of it. Socialism and Communism, for Marx, were about analyzing and harnessing the natural laws of economics moving towards centralization, so as to democratize it and produce in the interests of all. This wasn't about decentralization, but centralization.
  Markets themselves are not Capitalism, just like public ownership itself is not Socialist. The US is not Socialist just because it has a post-office, just like the PRC is not Capitalist just because it has some degree of private ownership. Rather, Marx believed you can't just make private property illegal, but must develop out of it, as markets create large firms, and large firms work best with central planning:
  The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i. e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
  I want you to look at the bolded word. Why did Marx say by degree? Did he think on day 1, businesses named A-C are nationalized, day 2 businesses D-E, etc etc? No. Marx believed that it is through nationalizing of the large firms that would be done immediately, and gradually as the small firms develop, they too can be folded into the public sector. The path to eliminated Private Property isn't to make it illegal, but to develop out of it.
  The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital;[43] the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
  This is why, in the previous paragraph, Marx described public seizure in degrees, but raising the level of the productive forces as rapidly as possible.
  China does have Billionaires, but these billionaires do not control key industries, nor vast megacorps. The number of billionaires is actually shrinking in the last few years. Instead, large firms and key industries are publicly owned, and small firms are privately owned. This is Marxism.
  SOEs and publicly run companies absolutely eclipse the influence of Huawei (itself a worker-owned cooperative), Alibaba, and Tencent, and further those companies are under the dominion of the CPC as you already said.
  Further, multi-party electoralism is not the only form of democracy. If a bunch of people vote to turn left vs a bunch voting to turn right, must these decisions be attached to different parties? This is a fundamental confusion of what democracy actually means, and the people of China overwhelmingly support their electoral system as shown in my previous sources (while Western democracies see far lower rates of approval).
  Your only counter, that the only reason Chinese people support the CPC is that they "vanish" if they don't support the CPC, goes directly against polling results I already linked:
  Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
  The fact that satisfaction and approval most coincides with material improvements, and not fear, is further cemented by polling showing improvements over time:
  If having well-sourced information and arguments that extend beyond "no" is considered "bullshit," then I don't know what to say. You even tack on a personal attack in the end, calling me "disgusting," meaning it was more worth your effort to attack me than it was to attack my arguments.
  
  You can just stop arguing, because all you've done thus far is make me appear more correct thanks to you dodging my arguments and personally insulting me. Seriously, if you want to delegitimize me, just downvote me and don't engage, I have consistently provided more sources and demonstrated more knowledge of what we are talking about, so every time you avoid that, it rhetorically strengthens my own arguments. I'm only telling you this because pointing it out makes it even more apparent for onlookers, especially when you call me a "mongrel."
  To start, your argument is self-defeating. I explained how Public Ownership is the principle aspect of the PRC's economy, and showed how large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector. You contradict Marx and call that "Capitalism," which I already showcased earlier as well, with the quotes on gradually appropriating property in the hands of the State.
  Next, your opinion on markets contradicts Marx's. Your argument is about the PRC not following Marx, not whether or not they follow your opinion. Your only source on the CPC's lack of dedication to continuing the same process of increasing the productive forces and maintaining public ownership of large firms and key industries? Your word. That's it, really, just your vibe.
  Next, you make the unbacked claim that the CPC is a "small elite" that makes a fuck ton of money. Also false, you can check the sources I included earlier, as well as trying to describe a party with 96 million members as "a small elite." Quite silly, considering the number of billionaires in the PRC is shrinking as the economy grows and purchasing power of the working class is steadily rising.
  Next, you just say not approving of the CPC will get you shot. This is silly, and not backed by the Harvard study I linked earlier:
  Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
  Or the graphics proving this to be the case:
  The western pollsters freely admited that propaganda exists within China, but found most importantly that public opinion was shaped most by the fact that China keeps improving their conditions. It's that simple. Nazi Germany dramatically repressed the people and brutally lowered conditions. This isn't a serious argument.
  I do find it funny that you admit that I'm well-sourced, but provide none of your own and then personally insult me, rather than address my arguments. More legitimacy for my own arguments for free, I guess? Thanks!
  Sorry to inform you, but the Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of Communism" to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.
  More personal insults, more free legitimacy. No, I'll keep this going for as long as you help me show others here why anticommunism is founded on a rejection of facts and an adherance to the almighty "because I said so."

237 comments