Why are modern communists so reluctant to talk about innate differences between people and population groups...

It's a fatal flaw but many Gommies who accept human nature still claim their system is valid because of its supposed moral superiority. They also hold out hope of future technology making it possible to "get round" human nature, perhaps thru eugenics or some kind of Throckmorton Device.

Ideology is not comparable to religion, it is much easier to change your ideology than it is to change your religion.

Im more of the opinion that American Communists are just LARPers who like pretending to believe in something while wearing red.

I think this to to some extent, but I think they also do believe in some of this shit. People keep making the mistake that ANTIFA is just rich college pussy kids, but there is a large portion of them that are these violence street punks who are committed to this shit because they think its their salvation. I think communism has become such a fucking farce that its dead and burried, at least here in america where it never came even remotly close to succeeding.

Because eugenics practiced in the past is a pseudo-science bullshit.

Well, I think many "atheists" still follow a Christian lifestyle. I don't think the ideal of communism, which I shall describe as the ideal of material equality for all, and a decent standard of living for all, would collapse if you abandon Marxism. Communism predates Marxism. Marx just tried to give some sort of philosophical foundation/rationale to communism.

Sure, but the science of intelligence and genetics has come a long way since the late 19th century.

They hate diversity.

Because communism is about trying to lift everybody up, not about eugenics. Doesn't really work in practice, but that's the intent.

Communists are average Joes with such a pessimistic outlook of the current state of affairs that they don't ever dream of "making it" so instead they fight for things like job security, welfare and government benefits because they find that to be the more rational approach.

By contrast, free market fanatics are too full of themselves and think they will definitely "make it" and they don't need anybody's help. They don't need safety nets because their business will never fail. They don't need government benefits because they will never end up unemployed. They don't need healthcare regulation because they will never be sick, anyway. And they don't believe in helping others because they don't believe they will ever need any help themselves.

Both outlooks are flawed.

>the idea of a centrally planned economy with long term sustainability appeals to them.

Centrally planned economies are by their very nature an economic and social disaster. Unless you're an absolute pleb who has never read The Road to Serfdom and has never taken an economics class, you would realize that.

As for eugenics, it's shit unless it's voluntary and consensual. Believe it or not, civil liberties are nice to have. Be thankful that you have never had to know what life is like in their absence.

>Why are modern communists so reluctant to talk about innate differences between people and population groups?
Their ideology is founded upon the idea that class is the most important aspect of a person, and that a Cornish mine worker has more in common with a mine worker from South Africa than his own bosses.

If your whole ideology relies on the idea that all races are equal obviously you're not going to want to talk about race.

Perhaps you're right but I feel that eugenics even practiced today could become totalitarian tools of control.

I don't see how lifting everybody up and practicing eugenics are antithetical.

I've read the Road to Serfdom but it's definitely biased towards the "classical liberal" viewpoint. A great many people in Russia regret soviet times because although they didn't have much, at least they had a government-subsidized apartment, a decent amount of food, etc.

Centrally planning an economy in the early 20th century is indeed economic suicide, but with the rise of computation power I don't find it that absurd that an economy could be planned efficiently. After all, most corporations nowadays use sophisticated mathematical models before taking any decision.

I suppose, but even then I think they're just angsty people with some vague political opinions who got hooked on to an ideology they dont really understand out of fear and the promise of action.

You are half correct. I think in practice most socialism and communism was nationalistic. I don't think the Spanish syndicalists would have put their well being in jeopardy to help African miners.

I thought civil liberties were bourgeois.

Of course, that's a risk.

>Ideology is not comparable to religion, it is much easier to change your ideology than it is to change your religion.

I disagree with this, it typically takes a traumatic event to shift someone from an ideology once they've settled in. People choose ideology over love, in fact I'd argue that ideology is even stronger than religion in the modern world as many are willing to overlook religion but few ideology in relationships.

I think only marxism has this "workers of the world unite" ideology to it, probably a reflection of Marx's lack of ethnic identity due to being a Jew. I don't think internationalism is required for communism.

>I don't think internationalism is required for communism.
I disagree, it precisely because Communism is a moralizing ideology that internationalism becomes inevitable. "Exploitation" doesn't magically cease to be exploitation once you cross some "imaginary" lines on a map. Communists must have international sympathies if they wish to remain ideologically consistent and not hypocrites.

But why, though? Why not care only about equality for your fellow countrymen? Why care about equality with some other guy on the other side of the world?

>Centrally planning an economy in the early 20th century is indeed economic suicide, but with the rise of computation power I don't find it that absurd that an economy could be planned efficiently.

And what is the standard of economic efficiency? How does a central government prioritize its production?

Also
>Soviet Russia
>A decent amount of food

the successful socialists, the fabians and their "globalist" offspring, have zero problem with eugenics and depopulation methods

Why does /pol/ come to another board to post the exact same kinds of questions expecting an echo chamber?

Because then you have to come up with an explanation as to why the workers in your country are exploited, but the workers in another who endure worse conditions are not.

We come here precisely because we wish to avoid an echo chamber. There is no point to missionary work conducted in a land full of devout Christians.

>There is no point to missionary work conducted in a land full of devout Christians.

that's an interesting way to put it... rather coming here to familiarize yourself with a variety of opinions/viewpoints and through that gradually deepening your understanding of the past, you assume you already have all the answers. i think that might be the key to why i find /pol/ posters so insufferable, they're propaganda bots with a singular purpose

t. leftypol

fuck off faggot, this isnt your safe space either

Don't underestimate the sophistication of /pol/ posters, it's a far older board than Veeky Forums with a much older tradition of debate and you can't assume an understanding of the intellectual journey that brought an user through /pol/ to Veeky Forums.

Obviously there are idiots and shitposters of course, but there are idiots and shitposters who hail from every board.

But why would you care about workers in another country?

sure, /pol/ was my first board on here before i soured completely on the ideas being propagated, so i'm willing to concede: Not All /Pol/ Boarders --- but coming to another board just to "spread the message" in the manner of a religious zealot is an unfortunate way to go about things

This. I'm a loser, and I'm considering converting into Communism just because I want this world burn :3

You took me too literally in my missionary comparison. I just mean nobody of intellectual vigor wants to spend their days arguing with people who are only pretending to disagree.

If you genuinely enjoy arguing you're going to seek out opposing viewpoints to pick fights with. Which means /pol/lacks will inevitably swagger around Veeky Forums with a metaphorical chip on their shoulder daring cucks to knock it off.

>probably a reflection of Marx's lack of ethnic identity due to being a Jew
you know I never considered this

why did you come to a thread you were interested in, see that the majority of people so far in the thread were against your view, and bitch about /pol/ when the OP is in no way shape or form a /pol/ one

Marx was a selfhating jew

>waah waah /pol/
That didn't take very long

more Leftycringe

...

didn't catgirls cause a shitstorm between leftypol and some lefty subreddit(s) because it was sexist?

lol

...

...

commies like furries and traps

Did some quick searching in the archives and this came up
/r/SubredditDrama/comments/5nnkka/rsocialism_bans_3_year_contributor_and_artist_who/
>/r/Socialism bans 3 year contributor and artist who drew their banner, after learning she has drawn sfw pictures of girls with cat ears. people infuriated. Orwell weeps.
>Update : Furry communists and other users demand Answers! will this thread remain?
Can't make this shit up

the classcucks really came out to play today

>implying all marxists are jewish

It is very clear this thread was by and for /pol/fags coz there is literal no arguement made, only Socratic questioning about what they think communism is

>t. Ancom cuck

...

>using tankie memes

Eugenics should not be used because it is a surrender and blind trust to science. Historically in the Soviet Union there were some eugenic programs under Stalin, but were abandoned afterwards due to the absurdity of the Lamarckian supposition that the union of two overperforming individuals, will inevitably produce overperforming children.

Nowadays eugenics means genetic tampering, which I think should be used only to treat preventable diseases.

I believe the inherent differences you talk about OP, have less to do with one's value in society and more with acquired characteristics over generations. So far example whether someone is tall, black or white,smart or dumb, muscular or lithe etc.

For Socialism it is not these inherent differences that matter, but how one can build a cooperative society by accounting for those differences. If we had just a society of ubermensch, there would be no way to address a myriad of social issues. So for example not killing a sick or disabled person because he is seemingly useless , gives society incentives to promote the general welfare, not of just that person, but also of the old, children, pregnant women etc. But the reverse side, of using eugenics to destroy all of mankind's weakness leave us in a chaotic social Darwinist universe, where there is no cohesion or harmony.

>Nowadays eugenics means genetic tampering, which I think should be used only to treat preventable diseases.
What do you think eugenics is, lad...

That is a cute mascot to be perfectly honest.

I praise Stalin, defiler of krauts, bane of faggots and scourge of liberals and kulaks

While its use is not widespread , the idea of "designer babies" goes much further than treating preventable diseases.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby#Regulation_of_Preimplantation_Genetic_Diagnosis

Sure but this is not obvious to most people and certainly wasn't obvious in the 19th century, when the Modernist meme was still going strong, with its worship of progress and its fanciful notion of the perfectibility of society thru "scientific management".

We actually have managed to hit on the ideal voluntary eugenic program in the form of free on-demand abortions.

The Soviet economy nosedived in the 1980's but before then it was poor but relatively efficient. Certainly during the Soviet Golden Age of the 50's and 60's it had plenty of food and looked like it was going to over-take moribund Western economies.

>>implying all marxists are jewish

He didn't imply that at all you retarded illiterate faggot.

>golden age is two decades of post-war prosperity

Problem? Most golden ages only last a generation.

>I don't think internationalism is required for communism.
Will there ever be a thread about people shitting on Marx's ideas who actually understand them?

Because your ideology decrees they are the same as you.

surely the expansion post-war helped them out a little in your mind instead of the centrally planned economy just coincidentally shining forth in those two decades
I'm not educated to a degree that I could safely debate the subject of the immediate post-war Soviet Union economy but wouldn't their de facto Eastern European territories and the spread of their ideology in the far east have contributed to their prosperity

What does any of that babble have to do with the fact that they had a golden age when I claimed they did?
>HURR it doesn't count because they didn't achieve it thru magic!

Protip moron: There is ALWAYS an external reason why a society undergoes a golden age.

because the discussion is about the merits of a centrally planned economy, not prosperity induced by factors not related to that and gommunism, you big down syndrome

I repeat: You are a moron. Literally every olden age is predicated on """unfair""" external factors. You cannot judge an economic system in a vacuum, and FOR WHATEVER REASON, the Soviet economy did okay for several decades after the war, so much so that there was real fear in the West that the Soviet model was going to surpass them.

But using immediate post war Soviet economy as a positive model for centrally planned economies is inaccurate because of the benefits induced by their victory. A series of benevolent monarchs producing what could be called a golden age for a kingdom is hardly on the same level of "external" as a massive war that allows a country to expand its borders and surround itself with countries injected with similar ideologies.

So? What metric do you suggest people should use to judge something, if not the empirical facts?

>HURR people should just magically know stuff!
>DURR why bother looking at facts, just, like, guess lmao!

I thought a big draw of gommunism and centrally planned economies was that it wasn't reliant on expansion of markets (through conquest among other methods) like capitalism, but it's okay here apparently.

Yes, the rejection of capitalism is a big draw of the ideology. So? Does that mean people are supposed to have known how it would all pan out BEFORE they ever tried it? Fuck me, you are one dopey cunt.

The rejection of capitalism's need to expand into new markets constantly is what is rejected but at the same time you're using for a model of a centrally planned economy, an antithesis to capitalism, post war Soviet Union after it expanded and then became prosperous as a result. That's not a positive model for a centrally planned economy, it's lauding the benefits of conquering your enemies and expanding your territory.

>Does that mean people are supposed to have known how it would all pan out BEFORE they ever tried it?
Not sure what you're implying with this.

>Fuck me, you are one dopey cunt.
Mad you've come to this conclusion after the amount of spastic bollocks you've typed but mindlessly throwing around ad homs in all your posts thus far is getting you nowhere towards saying anything worthwhile. Cop on faggot.

>Not sure what you're implying with this.

I'm not implying anything, I'm stating it openly. People judge economic systems the same way they judge everything: By the results. The results of Soviet planned economies seemed, during the 50's and 60's, to be outpacing Western capitalism. What part of this is too hard for you to understand? Actually don't bother telling me, I'm done repeating myself to a literal halfwit. Go fuck yourself, retard.

>The results of Soviet planned economies
But it's actually the result of their victory in the second world war. You're just lying to yourself if you think it was because of the centrally planned economy that everything was handy dandy right after the war, unless you can prove to me it was because the economy was centrally planned that the CCCP prospered.
I don't know if you're angry at your own inability to do so or perhaps because I've brought up something you hadn't thought of and you're annoyed at your ideology being challenged in any way shape or form like a little babby.

>HURR
>DURR
>HERP
>DERP

Great talking to you moron. Go play in traffic.

glad you've finally stopped grasping desperately
you mimic a man struggling for air in your attempts to explain yourself, babby boy brainlet, good bye

>HURRR

Too dumb to be believed.

That's entirely incorrect, OP. We are in full agreement that you ought to be sterilized.

>Markets=capitalism

This is your brain with leftism

The real question is, why didn't past marxist fall for the same egalitarian bullshit?
Haldan for example was a huge proponent of eugenics AND a socialist.

And now alt-left and alt right are flagging each other cancer channels in youtube.

Not that retarded subhuman faggot but he's correct when he says that one of the draws of Gommunism is its claim that capitalism requires constant expansion into new markets whereas Gommunism doesn't.

This isn't actually /true/, of course, capitalism can CREATE new markets, it doesn't rely solely on exploitation, and Gommunism (or any planned economic system) is as reliant on new markets as anything else, but this idea that capitalists are insatiable while Gommies are autarchic is absolutely one of the ideology's major selling points.

>retarded subhuman faggot
why the rudeness fám what did I ever do to you

escusé you're the one who never made an argument gay boy

>We come here precisely because we wish to avoid an echo chamber.
Be honest m8, you came here looking for the exact same strawman responses you got in the first ~10 replies.
Oh look more strawman.

>HURR I can read minds!
>DURR accurately describing my views is a strawman!

youtube.com/watch?v=4KK6wFfaLKs

Because they believe giving all the power to the workers will naturally fix everything, therefore there's no use contemplating a bourgeois invention. Their words, not mine.

>Communism just works, it's human nature.

That picture should be the other way around, and our native /pol/ isn't even behind it :^)

Honestly I have so fucking little patience for """communists""". Just the weakest ideology on the market, absolutely anachronistic, hopelessly divided, mythically ineffective. It's not edgy, it's not interesting, and it's certainly not even fucking intellectually rigorous. 99% still can't fucking differentiate a metaphysical model from a practical economic model.
And fuck me, if at least, just fucking once one of them could provide some sort of empirical evidence of the Labor Theory of Value. Just fucking once.

If you're going to espouse an anachronistic contrarian ideology, at least pick something fucking cool, like Jacobitism. Or something future oriented, like accelerationism or climate-eschatology.