How can communists call their autism scientific?

How can communists call their autism scientific?

because some faggot decided that humanities are sciences

Well, we first assume a perfectly spherical, homogeneous society...

extend that to "how can economists/political theorists call their autism scientific?"

It is scientific, at a superficial level. Capitalism is imbalanced, "unfair" and exploitative, and socialism makes more sense numerically.

The problem is, human psychology is not predisposed towards "fair" outcomes, and actually values the disequilibrium of markets...it's comparable to how, in general, most people would rather compete for the attentions of the opposite sex, as opposed to everyone being assigned their mate at the age of puberty.

Marx postulated the emergence of a "Communist Man", who would have this high-minded approach of sharing and fairness...so far, he's nowhere to be seen, and over seventy years of Soviet communism failed to create him, to say nothing of China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

>real communism has been tried

Markets are not innate to capitalism you economically illiterate fuck. What sets capitalism apart is capitalization, I.e turning a profit off of work that you did not do and land you did not interact with in a market. Even the USSR experimented with markets. It didn't work because the USSR was an authoritarian shithole. That also viciously repressed later Marx and the free will of the people because of the same autistic "le humans are savages" line of reasoning you just shit out. So the Bolsheviks thought it would be a good idea to make a dictatorship of the proletariat. All the good trys at socialism were forgotten about after that. Look at revolutionary Catalonia. Where peasants created the most successful attempt at communism before being crushed in the great texaco proxy war.
There is market socialism, market anarchism, market communism. What keeps people content with the fundemental unjustice of capitalism is the vicious propaganda that convinces people that capitalism has an ideological monopoly on markets. Kids aren't even taught what capitalism and socialism means here in America.
>inbe4ore hur commie
I'm not a communist.

Evidently, you're not familiar with the early history of the Soviet Union.

Lenin was a devoted and "creative" Marxist, and attempted every trick he could improvise to make socialism function. Towards the end, he actually entertained the notion of introducing limited markets (the "New Economic Policy"), similar to China's policy today, which Stalin tolerated for a while after taking over, before shifting to an authoritarian command economy while the rest of the world "caught up" with their aspirations.

The fact that their was always a "capitalist" black market within the Soviet Union, however, demonstrates the underlying failure of their system...it's similar to how no cooperative workplace has ever beaten a traditional one in output, quality or profits.

The numbers work, but human psychology is not numerically based.

Lennin was a right wing shitbag Marxist that suppressed the later ideas of Marx that did not fit into his ideaology. Who ironically held strikingly similar views to yourself, about people fundementaly not being capable of a communist revolution. Which is why he decided to go and do a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Evidently you're not familiar with the early history of the Soviet Union.

The same way in that economists call their study scientific - it empirical, it follows the scientific method

>make observation
>postulate an idea on how it works
>design an experiment to try and prove that theory wrong, conduct experiment
>collect data, determine if you reject null hypothesis or not
>if no, change theory and repeat
>if yes, change experiment and repeat
>ad infinitum

The part where they may be different is that their "experiments" are usually just more observations of natural phenomena or political / systematic actions than actually "twisting the knob themselves"

While I hate it when commies use this argument (it doesn't hold water imho), it is technically true.

Communism is/was supposed to be the grand absolving of the state, descended from socialism. The idea was, some pragmatic socialist idea (Marxism, Lenin ism, maoism etc) would lead to the state (which was supposed to represent the people) would seize the means of production and operate it. In time, society would do so well and every one would live in such harmony that the state would no longer be necessary, and would absolve - leaving only a society of equal ownership with no direct leadership advancing into the future - similar to how a Commune is run.

The USSR was self proclaimed as communist, but they never even came close. They were stuck in a totalitarian socialist hell where the made too many wheels but not enough motors to build machinery, too many shoes but not enough food to feed the masses.

Tl;dr helicopter rides probably still appropriate for most commies

It's very interesting you mention that. I have an IRL self proclaimed communist friend, and I'm trying to wrap my head around his logic. I've been reading piketty lately, and it's very interesting because he speaks so I'll of capital, but almost positively about markets. I've found myself thinking this quite often, capital is really an accessory to the success of capatilism, really it's the free markets (where they make sense) that drive it. There are still definitely benefits from owning Capital though, and there are distinct advantages to society for having capital that are easily observed today, additionally the ethical dilemma of taking something from some one else, or telling some one "you can't have more" is an issue for me in my mind.

I've really been toying with the idea of finding some sort of transition from neoclassical economics towards some sort of non-egalitarian, meritocratic redistribution of wealth that would allow every individual access to command chunks of capital, and thus allow us to slowly begin shifting our efforts from labor, to producing next levels of things and increasing study and intelligence. It's very difficult to even talk about, because I can't seem to find a way to validate it without unfair redistribution of wealth that would most likely slaughter entrepreneurs and people who are actually contributing to society via the economy

I'm always amused by the apologists who think capitalism is something brutally "imposed" on we clueless citizens.

I've yet to see a police raid on a food bank for giving free bread to hobos and addicts who refuse to conform to the dominant economic philosophy...

>Which is why he decided to go and do a dictatorship of the proletariat.

You apparently don't even understand what that term means..."dictatorship of the proletariat" was a conceptual flourish by Marx to balance against the existing "dictatorship of the bourgeois" they were opposed to.

I want some monarchist opposition then. I am an imperialist scum and want to see a new sovereign establish an empire of pure reason, honor and transcendence. Someone should finish what Hitler could not.

fuck are you on about, Hitler was a socialist

yeah, just like antifa aren't fascists
NSDAP was corporatist

Go try to live on fallow land that is """""""private property""""""""" and get back to me.
Organized welfare is only necessary under authoritarian economic conditions. If those homeless had the liberty to freely work on even an acre of land without "paying" asshole bankers, barrons and the nanny state to do so. They wouldn't need to have hand outs, because they would have agency.but no. They have to get there food from some corporation that controls tens of thousands of acres, the profits from which only see about 60 people in the supposed "corporation"
>rational truth is apologist
Marx didn't invent the concept and I was talking about vanguardism. Which is lennins thing, and an actual dictatorship

>they have to get their***** food from some corporation that controls tens of thousands of acres

Yeah, so they can buy a 5 lb bag of rice for 2 dollars, roughly equivalent to 1/4 of a man hour labor, instead of toiling in a swamp themselves for hundreds of man hours to produce a few 5 lb bags of rice.

Not allowing corporations to implement economies of scale in production for simple goods like food is incredibly irresponsible, and with current populations doing so would either completely trash the planet or starve 1/3 of the global population.

There are inherent positives to corporations and competition in free markets, and capital DOES have a place in there. It may be overstated and may be causing fiduciary instability, but it shouldn't be eradicated.

>anti-communism propaganda thread on Veeky Forums
fuck off /pol/tard

Because the arts and humanities are actually scientific. If they weren't, why would it be called STEAM?

You need to study more my child. It was not called a Reich without a reason.

Im going to say ide rather have the discussion here personally. I really enjoy taking topics such as political science and economics seriously but it can't be done anywhere else on Veeky Forums. I've spent lots of time reading and on stack exchange, but ive.mostly exhausted the latter and the former is better when you can try to critically evaluate ideas, then bounce that off of other people, and restructure your thoughts over and over to sort of "sharpen the argument" so to speak

you fascism fascinated retards belong to

You need to shut your whore mouth and learn what S in NDSAP meant and what nazis had as their domestic policy, bucko.

Ad hominem attacks and ignoring a persons points is what belongs on /pol/

You belong on /pol/, you have more in common with them.

>What sets capitalism apart is capitalization, I.e turning a profit off of work that you did not do and land you did not interact with in a market.
That is bullshit. Capitalization is simply market trade of capital. If capitalization does not involve labor then neither does buying and reselling commodities. So what you want is not a working market at all, since you place labor on a pedestal. Exchange does not produce growth in your system, since essentially only labor can be traded for labor. That's fine if you live in a tiny community in which everyone has agreed to live at a certain meager level forever. But the masses cannot ignore the direction of human progress and demand more.

Wew lad
>free markets
>capital
Pick one
How can a market be free if you have to be obscenely wealthy to be an agent?
>Not allowing corporations to implement economies of scale in production for simple goods like food is incredibly irresponsible, and with current populations doing so would either completely trash the planet or starve 1/3 of the global population.
>industrial agriculture
>not already completley trashing the planet
>not already starving 1/3 the worlds population(soon to be 9/10)
Picture related.
No man would be working in a field all by themselves, unless they just wanted to. Humans are cooperative animals. Without capitalism we would see desuburbanization and the re emergence of human ecological systems in the "devolped world" Decentralized coops would be more economically benifical for more people involved. Getting paid for your work instead of the bare minimum your boss can get away with. As an ecosystem scientist I will testify that it is by far more ecologically sound than industrial agriculture.
>capital has a role
Strongly disagree

And the D in DPRK really means just that

Not really user. National socialism is not a system you can keep post war and Hitler knew it. It is only a tool for something greater that will rise from within.

>hurrrr communism is our worst enemy guise
Literally hitler said that

>Capitalization is simply market trade of capital.
Capital being the fruits of other people's labour from land an absentee "owns".
>Exchange does not produce growth in your system, since essentially only labor can be traded for labor.
>(((economic growth)))
Fuck off CATO
That's because the economy isn't what is growing. In anarchist markets economies do not substitute for ecologies. Markets are just a means to trade goods and services, like they should be. Not the connective tissue that holds society together as in capitalsit markets. People are free innovate and cooperate to reach higher levels of fulfillment, as is innate to humanity.