Could elves successfully do communism with their alien and non-human mindset?

It depends whether they are good or not.
Chaotic good elves could very well be anarcho-communist.

Elves would be suitable anarchists, Dwarves make good fascists, and humans are good at Oligarchical Republicanism.

No they cannot. They are too much like Aryans. It’s common knowledge that aryans adore communist penis to the point of insanity. Imagine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany But 24/7 and an entire country.

This is what capitalism does to your brain.

You really mean to tell me that you've never seen the suffering in the world, suffering we could solve, and feel that something is wrong?

>suffering we could solve
And there is your problem right there. Some of it has no solution and a lot of it humans are the direct cause and solving it would be to simply stop and yet we won't. What empathy exists for problems with no solutions? What empathy is found by the creators of those problems?

I don't see the elves doing it well but possibly some dwarven kingdom might get the shit right since they seem a bit more organized, but communism is shit anyway.

This.
In D&D terms:

Politics (Lawful - Chaotic):
Chaotic = Anarchy
Neutral = Hybrid systems like republics or constitutional monarchies
Lawful = Fascism

Economy (Good - Evil):
Good = Communism (aka humans are inherently good and altruistic)
Neutral = Hybrid systems like interventionism, market socialism or state capitalism
Evil = Laissez-faire-capitalism (aka humans are like the Homo economicus and follow their self-interest)

It's like the political compass.

no, elves are inherently about superiority and smuggness- something that is more attuned to capitalism

Capitalist systems give starving people food.

Communist systems take it away.

Citations: the Holodomor, the Great Leap Forward.

This does not mean laissez-faire-capitalism is evil. It means that capitalism makes sense, if you think that humans are inherently evil.

It also means that communism only makes sense if you think that humans are inherently good. Not that communism is good in itself.

Aren't elves already communists? They don't do shit. Look at how little they've progressed.

Is ending suffering the ultimate goal in life? Either way, no, it's not possible to end suffering and even if it were it'd probably be a bad thing. For example, people suffer when they stick their face in hot coals. I don't want that to end. You should suffer for that, it's what stops you from doing it again and again.

Capitalism is just people exploiting one another's skills to achieve the most progress possible. This means worthless people only really get bread crumbs, but thanks to the advancements in progress, those bread crumbs rapidly turn into full loaves of breads and TVs and shit. In fact, capitalism is "ending" suffering as we speak. In the past 20 years, capitalism has pulled more people out of severe poverty than has ever been done before. We'll probably see a complete end to severe poverty (except among tribes that don't want intervention) within our lifetimes. Thanks to commies? No. Commies just break things.

We had the ability to end suffering in Africa half a century ago. We could've fed and sterilized them. That way, they got to live their lives, being completely worthless, but fed and satiated, with the condition that they wouldn't create more hungry bellies. But then libshits cried that was inhumane, so we dumped money on them, and now their population has quintupled and they're fleeing to European welfare states for more free stuff.

You're going to now explain how we did the right thing.

...

>You really mean to tell me that you've never seen the suffering in the world,
I have

>suffering we could solve
eventually

>and felt something is wrong
yes

what I didnt do is think "I want an oppressive totalitarian shithole", nor did I delude myself into thinking we can ever "fix" the world so that all unfairness and misery is gone

The thread is about politics, though. It's about whether elves could "achieve communism."

t. bourgeois

t. reductionist

While I agree with you that communism is not great: Your argument is shit, because it's the typical "take an example and generalize from there".

I could also say that democracies are warmongers and cite some wars. It doesn't make Switzerland into a warmonger either.

Politics belong on /pol/. Veeky Forums has proven time and time again that it is 100% unable to discuss politics

What the Fates demand will be. It is beyond our power to stop.

Does this whole thread belong there, then? The point of the thread is whether elves could achieve something that most rational people don't think is something that can be or is good to achieve, so people are going to respond that way.

>the veil of ignorance

Rawls limited his model to social status.

Technology has a significantly greater effect than local social position - a peasant today has amenities (and medical care and knowledge) a king 600 years ago did not.

Consequently, from behind the veil (hijab?), it is rational to choose the system which produces the fastest technological advances.

>worthless

And now you've stated that human life has no inherent worth, which implies there is no immortal soul and no divine plan, because those things imply an inherent worth in human life. Meaning the world's biggest religions now all have common cause against you.

wow, what shitty elves you play with!

>Is ending suffering the ultimate goal in life?
No, my friend, it's the ultimate goal in death.

Communism and fascism as they were post 1920 were directly retaliatory to the Industrial Revolution and the psychotic nature of WW1. Without a war that gives rise to "the elites made us all suffer" or "those backstabbing shits at home made us lose" they'd end up in radically different systems of government than us.

Mind you Elves in most settings haven't even moved past a very simplistic monarchy. Furthermore, they don't really have the population sustainable to support a/another Civil War. By the time their society would need to face the dilemma of industrialization and modernization they'd be extinct or irrelevant.

I assume the reason in most setting Elves are so politically stable is because politics back and forth are something they've grown distant from in their long lifespans, and their limited populations make political upheaval extremely hard to get going because it entails bloody conflict and waste of life.

I was being hyperbolic, but I don't mind if religious people hate me. Some people have the capacity to put men on the moon. Some people have the capacity to survive in a jungle. I don't live in a jungle, user, I'll take the moon men.

>it is rational to choose the system which produces the fastest technological advances

That would actually mean two or more different systems in some sort of cold war. It constantly forces both sides to keep researching and push the limits.

The struggle of ideologies in the 20th century boosted tech immensely. Just take the space race for example. Or the advances during WW2.

>suffering we could solve
Come up with a solution and I'm all ears.

Cambodia. Venezuela.

Some democracies start wars, some don't.
Communism applied beyond the commune scale is not a sometimes warmonger, it's a nearly universal starvation machine.

The bourgeoisie will do alright in any system, democratic or royalist - they are simply the people capable of competence and responsibility.

The success of communism is mass production of political loyalty by rewarding people who could not attain that support on their own merits. It's democracy taken to an extreme.

This is why it wouldn't work for elves: they're stereotyped as self-sufficient. Anarchy would make sense, especially in a tribal society; communism is right out.

But what about anarcho-communism, Mr. opinionated?

Well, Norway is socialist as fuck. They just do not advertise this by sticking red stars anywhere.
They would not starve even without their oil.

Unless you explicitly mean marxist style state communism. In this case, I fully agree with you. It sucks.

Yeah, anarchists and communists love each other these days. It's kinda' like when you yell at your parents that you're not going to do something just because they tell you to, but then you ask them what's for dinner.

You saw how it worked out for Trotsky.

Fair enough. I just don't see how you're supposed to get any believers on board, regardless of any temporal benefits. I mean, who are they going to listen to? The guy who promises them a Mars colony where they might live 50 years, or the one who promises them Heaven, which is posited to be absolutely eternal?

No. Communism is such an idiotic ideology that even in fantasy it wouldn't work.

Eh, I'd say dwarves would do it better. Communism tends to fail because it assumes that humans won't be humans. Dwarves are generally seen as incredibly industrious and enjoy work for the sake of doing a good job, which would really help with a money-free economy where you want everyone to still do their best.

I feel like elves could probably succeed at being communists among themselves, but I highly doubt that joint elf-human communism would ever work.

What does it mean to be capable of competence and responsibility, and what defines these things? I can read and write well enough (for my college at least), but put me in the desert and I die in less than a day. Take a man who lives there and put him in my place, and even assuming he's illiterate, he's not a pile of bleached bones in the sand.

It is possible I am overthinking this, I will admit.

Other user here, but I agree with him:
Religious people hope for some kind of heaven as a way out of a shitty world. Tech people try to better the world so it is less shitty. At least they do something.

The only way to change something is to try to do it. It may not always be perfect and it certainly won't be some kind of eternaly perfect heaven. But at least it will be better. Just like we live better lives today than our ancestors ever did.

The people who landed on the moon were mostly Christians, and all white males raised inside a Christianity-dominated and shaped cultural tradition.

Belief systems that enable long-term views and contribution to society tend to advance faster than everyone-backstabbing-everyone CE places.

Point taken. I still don't think they'd be willing to go with sacrificing a large portion of the populace for temporal gains, but I may be overestimating how much any given culture obeys its own religious stipulations.

You got this all wrong. Dwarves are the anarchists. Elves are libertarians. Humans are republics.

>Religious people hope for some kind of heaven as a way out of a shitty world. Tech people try to better the world so it is less shitty. At least they do something.

Ah yes, charity and development never come from religious people.

This.

Long life spans means active memories of horrible wars and social trauma. As such, people will mellow the fuck out.

>basic operations on a single variable
>advanced math

Why don't you?

That appears to be the joke.

They are civilisationally defined to the demands of a particular ecology.
Markets intrinsically recognize it as monetary use-value, tribal systems do it with coming of age rituals; but it boils down to being able to contribute value.

Communism is unique in rejecting the concept of he who shall not work, shall not eat.

I agree. Dwarf Fortress is pretty much a Ideal Communism simulator.

>when you smugpost about your intelligence but you don't get the joke

>capitalism precludes altruism and goodwill
>communism is the only way to resolve human suffering
>communists has ever exhibited basic human empathy once in power

Potentially, it depends on how you work it. I mean if elves live for hundreds of years or forever communism seems pretty feasible. After all your town mayor is 1000 years old and 80% of the town is directly descended from him, the other 20% is descended from at least one of his siblings. When everyone shares a common ancestor and that common ancestor is in charge equal division of resources becomes much more feasible.

You could also say that due to magic and superior empathy elves have no problem giving up stuff for other elves.

Good people will do good things even without religion.
Evil people will do evil things even without religion.

Religion has the power to make evil people good and good people evil. It is a REALLY powerful tool for either goal.

You need faith to organize the people who are to evil to do good without it. It's a reward system: Be evil and go to hell, be good and go to heaven. Evil people work only for their own benefit and shit on others. But if their reward for being good is heaven, they will do good things out of a selfish motive.

The same goes for the other side of things. Good people want to help others. If they believe that they are actually making the world a better place by slaughtering infidels, they will do so, even if the act itself is evil.

The end justifiy the means. And religion provides powerful ends.

>the joke
>your head

I do. It's called charity and volunteering. But so far all the proposed solutions for helping the issues on a global scale have failed, so when someone comes to me with a utopian vision then unless they have a decent plan I don't support it.

The joke doesn't work because the implication is that the operation is meant to look complicated, but it isn't complicated at all. It's not a funny joke.

>Communism is unique in rejecting the concept of he who shall not work, shall not eat.

Well, that and many religions. What with all the stories people are supposed to emulate of giving to beggers.

solid post

99% of the people I know would be absolutely boggled by this formula because it's been years since they've had to use even 25% of the operations the symbols here apply.

You'd be surprised how many people go through their lives not even using trigonometry on a regular basis, because whatever they do for a living doesn't require them to be good at it.

Socialism is great! When it's Nationalist. The only way forward is voluntarily segregated eugenicist neo-tribalism.

No. Western religions [I'm skipping Hinduism/Buddhism, I don't know about their theology] promulgated charity as inherently distinct from the economic system - an early form of separation of church and the secular state.

Hence earlier user's perception of religious bros and tech bros in opposition, despite religious people being the dominant historical leaders of scientific advancement. Communism, developing alongside materialism, could not completely destroy the spiritual impulse. Instead, it fused a crude and debased form with itself as a mass will, typically represented as technological advancement.

Trotsky was never an anarcho-communist. The closest to Anarcho-Communism was probably the Ukrainian Black Army.

So, as scientific advances removed much of the authenticity from religion, the set of people isolated from tradition and not smart or dumb enough to stick with it or give up entirely (the average 115-100 IQ urbanite midwit) fell back on the crude materialist analogue.

Unable to control their emotional incontinence, they chase after the only form of religion they are mentally capable of accessing: mass spectacle and tech worship.

Thus, we see the social volume described by black science man and fuck yeah science memes - almost universally populated by people without post-doctoral credentials, practical engineering experience, or substantial STEM skills.

I got the feeling user was also dropping vague references to the "sterilize the unproductive" bits that people would actually object to.

>Thus, we see the social volume described by black science man and fuck yeah science memes - almost universally populated by people without post-doctoral credentials, practical engineering experience, or substantial STEM skills.

I mean, that applies to more or less anything. Very rarely when you see people passionate for something do they personally have deep experience with it. Very few people in political arguments are politicians for example.

Communism doesn't solve suffering though.
It more often than not causes and perpetuates it because of its radical attempts to reach an unrealistic, unsustainable society which has the goal of eroding the very concept of individual itself, trying to replace it with communes.

Communes which physically can never be equal in resources, wealth or expertise, somehow existing in a stateless form of existence without any of the communes ever acting in self-interest in order to preserve this perpetual state of harmony despite being in the position to exploit an opportunity to become more than just a commune.
And they somehow never get tempted to result to violence or exploit their advantages over others.

Sure, that sounds achievable and not at all like it's gonna collapse on itself.

Wrong. It just means capitalism, which is a loose term by the way, tends to be a lot better system since it's more robust.

Communism countries with centrally planned economy need only the planners to fail to make a widespread disaster.

In case of Capitalism, both private AND public sector need to fail to cause an equivalent disaster.

It's got nothing to do with morality.