why do people still support communism, Veeky Forums?
it's like the equivalent of getting into abusive relationships one after another and saying "it has done be done differently and correctly next time"
so please tell me why these morons keep shooting their own toes off
cuz landlords charging rent on properitied they didn't lift a finger to build or maintain and farmers burning their crops so they could remain profitable doesn't make sense yo
It appeals to there sense of morality. It sounds more to them how things should be.
That's why arguments to economic reality never work with them, its their flawed morality we need to attack.
Veeky Forums and reddit
>why do people still support communism
Why do people still make this thread?
We may never know.
But, in all seriousness, aside from some fringe movements, pretty much no one holds Marx's dialectic true anymore, and nearly all people who would have been socialist have turned social democrat. So I'm not really sure where you get enough "people who support communism" to warrant making a post about them.
>inb4 sjws are communists
No.
>pretty much no one holds Marx's dialectic true anymore
except for all those people in universities right?
>people in the universities hold Marx's dialectic true
Funny. When we're at that, do you even know what dialectical materialism is? Pretty much every normie unconsciously views history through the great man theory lens, and definitely not theough dialectical materialism. And I could count people who believe communism to be the aim of history on the fingers of a stump of an arm.
Kind of depends on who you're talking about. Westerners who support communism are usually just retards but people who live in communist countries often support it because of poor education and an inability to adapt to capitalism for whatever reason. I read an interesting news article about some defectors from North Korea wanting to go back because they aren't qualified for anything but manual labor. Sort of like how people who work in coal mines should probably stop doing that but won't.
And meanwhile in the west people who are qualified to do more than manual labor are forced into it anyways due to a tiny job market, outsourcing, and a focus on fast profit over things such as employment and stable income.
The real question is why they support insane ideologies like Marxist-Leninism that can only lead to the suffering and authoritarianism that we see throughout history.
And the answer is because they're retarded and think "it'll be different this time, the state will truly represent the worker's this time"
t. anarchist
Not all commies are Marxists, and most socialists who actually support socialism and not gibsmedats aren't going to become socdems.
"Communist" countries don't even call themselves Communist, they call themselves Socialist, and they're neither, they're just state capitalism. Although, they're certainly a good example of what Marxism-Leninism and other statist methods of Socialism/Communism leads to.
Well I can tell you that educated professor can for the most part tell you they are shitty explanation
Care to rephrase that?
>why do people still support communism, Veeky Forums?
Autism
Communism is the "moral" version of Western social democracy. It's what you go for when you're given to social posturing, but still want to maintain beliefs roughly in line with the people around you (whom you think of as inferior anyway).
>t. anarchist
LARPER
A
R
P
E
R
>Not all commies are Marxists, and most socialists who actually support socialism and not gibsmedats aren't going to become socdems.
There's precious little of such socialists, though, and their exposure is so small that people started equating social democracy with socialism. Which makes these threads beating a dead horse.
These threads are just plain and simple circlejerks.
And if we're talking about the remaining socialists,
>The real question is why they support insane ideologies like Marxist-Leninism that can only lead to the suffering and authoritarianism that we see throughout history.
They mostly don't. Liberty is the centre criterion of socialism (they oppose the employer-employee relation as oppressive and unfair, opposed the power-structure of church, state etc.), and among the few socialists I have met or talked with, the USSR was condemned as a 'hijacked revolution'. None of them advocated a powerful state or planned economy. You have to understand that socialism is an ideology with many sub-ideologies proposing differrent things and systems. The Soviet model of socialism is just one of the proposed models, and is today mostly disagreed with, as the State isn't seen as a good representative of the commonners' interests.
>"Communist" countries don't even call themselves Communist, they call themselves Socialist, and they're neither, they're just state capitalism.
Them not calling themselves communist is true and honest - communism is what they are trying to achieve using socialism. But not calling them socialist is simply dishonest. State capitalism is one of the plethora of socialist theories, so those states most certainly represent a strain of socialism.
>t. anarchist
Yuck.
Actually good post
>why do people still support communism, Veeky Forums?
You meant socialism.
>it's like the equivalent of getting into abusive relationships one after another and saying "it has done be done differently and correctly next time"
You meant USSR-style socialism.
Try understanding socialism like this: you know how you have the group called "Abrahamic faiths" that encompasses judaism, christianity and islam because of some similarities, despite them being different and having incompatible beliefs? The same way you have a group called "socialism" which encompasses marxism-leninism, democratic socialism, market socialism, libertarian socialism etc. And as you would not say that "Abrahamic faiths" are wrong because you consider islam wrong, you shouldn't say "socialim" is wrong because the USSR-patent planned economy proved inefficient.
That being said, you can still criticize socialism altoegether by arguing that the employer-employee relation is voluntary and fair, that there is no such thing as exploitation of the workers etc.
You can call socialism "incorrect". But you cannot say that it "failed", as the system that you consider failed was just one branch of socialism.
Go away Bookchin
>There's precious little of such socialists, though, and their exposure is so small that people started equating social democracy with socialism. Which makes these threads beating a dead horse.
That's definitely true in popular culture, but I'm not sure genuine political radicals believe that.
>They mostly don't.
I don't know what the majority do or don't believe, it's just that when people make these threads and talk about Communism, they're specifically talking about Marxism-Leninism, which some people still follow and should be criticized for for thinking "this time it'll work".
>But not calling them socialist is simply dishonest.
Of course it's not. Just because they say they represent the workers so them owning and managing the workplaces means it's Socialism, doesn't mean it's actually true; it's just propaganda, the same propaganda "democracies" use to pretend they actually represent the people.
>State capitalism is one of the plethora of socialist theories
>Capitalism
>Socialism
????
>Yuck.
At least my revolutions don't backfire with me being put against the wall for being counter-revolutionaries because I criticized the party :^)
I think you're missing the point by calling it "hijacked". There is simply no way to peacefully transfer the means of production. There is not. At some point people will have their things taken from them authoritatively. There are other ways to weaken bourgeois power, lik and unionizing. That's why most soc go to demsoc
Seeing as how Marxism is irrelevant today, I'm guessing you think global healthcare and societal safety nets are communism?
>I don't know what the majority do or don't believe, it's just that when people make these threads and talk about Communism, they're specifically talking about Marxism-Leninism
That stems from an ignorance on the subject of socialism and communism. You should correct those people instead of using the same incorrect terminology they use.
>which some people still follow and should be criticized for for thinking "this time it'll work".
True enough. Vanguard party was never a good concept, and planned economy has proven inefficient.
>Of course it's not. Just because they say they represent the workers so them owning and managing the workplaces means it's Socialism, doesn't mean it's actually true; it's just propaganda, the same propaganda "democracies" use to pretend they actually represent the people.
This is a question of semantics, and is altogether not that important. The state was imagined as representative of the workers, just as a republic is imagined as representative of its citizens. But how to represent workers/citizens? Soviets implemented the worst possible representative system - the vanguard party - by arguing that workers are ignorant of their needs, and so need to be lead. So, the vanguard party was imagined as representative of the workers' needs (instead of wills, as it would be in a democracy), making the system - theoretically - socialist. I'm ready, though, to agree with you that in practice it wasn't, but I will keep calling the USSR socialist because not calling it such for not living up to the theory would be like not calling someone christian for failing to discard all earthly and purge his heart of sin.
>capitalism
>socialism
>???
The state was theoretically representative of the workers' needs, and it was believed that "communism is just a week away" with that economic system, so it was theoretically socialism. Saying that it's not compatible because it has "capitalism" in its name is silly.
Hijacked as in hijacked by the private interests of people forming the vanguard party, and as such not representative of the workers' wills or needs.
Also, >At least my revolutions don't backfire with me being put against the wall for being counter-revolutionaries because I criticized the party :^)
I am not socialist. I am just here because these threads irritate me with their ignorance, dishonesty and shit-flinging. And frequency.
I hate anarchism, though.
>t. anarchist
You need to be 18 or over to post on this website.
>That stems from an ignorance on the subject of socialism and communism. You should correct those people instead of using the same incorrect terminology they use.
Which I did so. My first line of my first post was clarifying that OP was really referring to MLs, not Communism in general.
>but I will keep calling the USSR socialist because not calling it such for not living up to the theory would be like not calling someone christian for failing to discard all earthly and purge his heart of sin.
The difference is that socialism has a pretty clear definition, and since the USSR didn't meet that definition, they can't be called socialist; the party members might still be socialist, but the system they created definitely wasn't.
>The state was theoretically representative of the workers' needs, and it was believed that "communism is just a week away" with that economic system, so it was theoretically socialism. Saying that it's not compatible because it has "capitalism" in its name is silly.
It's not that it was statist, even though that was definitely the reason it devolved into that, it's because it was truly capitalism, just instead of multiple individuals who own the means of production and profits from the workers' surplus labor it's the state who owns the means of production and the party members who profit.
>I hate anarchism, though.
Why? Because of edgy kids rioting thinking they're revolutionaries?
>:^)
>>>/reddit/
You pissed me off now. Expect my legion of script kiddy friends to DDOS your IP and hack your BIOS
>and planned economy has proven inefficient.
I'm a socialist and pretty anti-USSR but Russia went from a poor, semi-feudal, agrarian shithole to the worlds second most powerful country in a very short time. In that sense, Stalin's 5 year plans weren't inefficient.
>Which I did so. My first line of my first post was clarifying that OP was really referring to MLs, not Communism in general.
In that case, mea culpa, domine.
>The difference is that socialism has a pretty clear definition, and since the USSR didn't meet that definition, they can't be called socialist; the party members might still be socialist, but the system they created definitely wasn't.
Yeah, I agreed that it definitely wasn't socialist in its practice. And that its theory was... let's be kind and call it shoddy with its premise that a party of non-workers will represent workers' interests better than workers themselves and will in no way think of their own interests over the workers' interests despite the workers not being able to hold it accountable. Eh, if we're talking practice, I guess it would be dishonest to call it socialist.
>It's not that it was statist, even though that was definitely the reason it devolved into that, it's because it was truly capitalism, just instead of multiple individuals who own the means of production and profits from the workers' surplus labor it's the state who owns the means of production and the party members who profit.
Well, the state was supposed, as representative, to use the surplus on behalf of the workers. and help [build communism]. I mean on the one hand, that is the "theft" of surplus value Marx criticized, but on the other hand, that would in any socialist system still need to be done through taxes (either on property or on production) as the state still has functions it needs to mantain - education, order, security etc., which cost money. So there can be no socialism where a part of the workers' wage is not alienated by the state (except AnCom, but that's just as much of a meme as AnCap). And, again, if state represents workers, state-owned property is the same as collective-owned property. In practice it was different, because the vanguard party didn't represent workers, but we're talking about [cont.]
...
...state capitalism as a proposed economic policy - therefore, on the theoretical level - which would make it socialist.
>Why? Because of edgy kids rioting thinking they're revolutionaries?
Partly, yes. Partly because it presents a false way of looking at the state-citizen relationship as inherently antagonistic and because it dishonestly disregards the importance of the state for not only the existence and well-being of the citizen, but for the formation of his very 'self'. I could talk of this for hours - once did - but I have neither the will nor the time. Let's just say that I'm a fascist, though that would be somewhat inaccurate. As for the capitalism-socialism debate, I won't take part until I learn enough about economics.
The growth rates for late Imperial Russia were higher IIRC.
t 1st worlder born to an upper middle-class family
communism fails for one exact reason: man always wants more than his fellow man. You can't scratch that out with ideologies. it's hardwired into our physiology.
You have all these peasants in their huts working their fingers to the bone and living on bread while Stalin lived in the lap of luxury and never once joined his lessers in the fields. He wanted more and he got it.
By simply installing communist rule you immediately prove how imperfect it is because you're guaranteed to have others do all the hardwork while you reap the rewards.
>Stalin lived in the lap of luxury and never once joined his lessers in the fields
what a load of shit! Stalin was modest. Especially compared to the kleptocrats the capitalist regimes like to install, and of course the Romanov family.
The second part of your statement is stupid.
Did JFK, Hitler, Frederick the Great, Bismark, Julius Caeser, Churchill. Or any other world leader
>join his lessers in the fields
If anything communist leaders tend to be the ones who might continue such mundane activities after they to keep in touch with the people, or at the very least had real life experience in them. Tito was a machinist.
>i was born to a capitalist society in a time when there's capitalist supremacy
>therefore whatever stuff i believe (not related to my uprsing ofc haha) should be thought as an universal analysis of mankind and men that applies to all of history
>i literally believe that genetics explain all of our behaviour
(You)
because capitalism is shit when you're on the receiving end of it and more and more people are starting to suffer from it.
look how quickly the GOP's base welcomed Trump's muh trillion dollar infrastructure spending when small gubmen and free trade lead to all of their kids working at Walmart for $15k a year
autism
>the importance of the state for not only the existente and well-being of the citizen, but for the formation of his very 'self'.
Wow, this is the spookiest thing I've ever read on this board.
*sigh* please, please read the book before stirnerposting. The statement deals with effects and influences which, as they are experienced and determinal to the 'self', can by no means be any more of a spook than the 'self' itself.
This post deserves some applause.
I only support communism for the state eventually. No reason to think it'll work right now.
>not being post-left
You'll never make it
>why do people still support communism, Veeky Forums?
They don't, at least not in relevant numbers
its necessary after we build the utopian post scarcity world.
now that's what I call revisionism
> man always wants more than his fellow man
Look, if you're going to make a claim like this you must substantiate it.
>it's hardwired into our physiology
It's clearly not, because hunter-gatherer societies and a few early agricultural societies were perfectly fine with cooperation even in times of scarcity.
There is no set human nature. Human behavior is shaped by the material conditions they live in and are surrounded by.
>state capitalism as a proposed economic policy - therefore, on the theoretical level - which would make it socialist.
Well no, not all forms of state capitalism would be socialist.
State capitalism is only socialism when the state represents the proletariat. In a state completely run by the working class, if the state owns the means of production it is equivalent to public ownership.
Fascism, corporatism, and Soviet "Socialism" often include state capitalism to varying degrees and these are certainly not socialist. This is because the working class does not control the means of production, either a state run by the capitalist class does or a state run by the bureaucrat class does.
>free from nig nogs
why can't i have communism?