Why do you Want communism?

huh, no, Hitler was batshit crazy with his vision of exterminating jews and essentially, everyone that didn't fit his vision of the ideal human.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
News flash, the Soviets were just as bad, if not worse.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
Last edited by CanHasPants on Mar 6, 2018, 4:09:48 AM
huh, no, Hitler was batshit crazy with his vision of exterminating jews and essentially, everyone that didn't fit his vision of the ideal human.


Real Communism hasn't been tried. What was tried is dictatorship and an appropriation of every resources by the state. I don't consider those "attempts" as communism attempts, just another way of slavery. The methods and the goal were entirely different than what the true idea of communism is. The only part that was similar is the state appropriation of natural resources. It didn't even mimic the goal of sharing those resources with the rest of the population.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
"
CanHasPants wrote:
News flash, the Soviets were just as bad, if not worse.


I don't disagree.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
If your whole point is: Communism doesn't work because governments that called themselves communists failed horribly, then you don't really have a point.
Build of the week #9 - Breaking your face with style http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_EcQDOUN9Y
IGN: Poltun
What is this newfangled flying pig, “real” communism? The fuck do you think happens when you try to replace natural selection with central planning? Incompetence besets the system and people do worse than suffer. There is no alternative outcome here, it can not work. For as long as resources remain finite, you cannot redistribute fairly; you can only earn according to what you contribute and tweak the rules over time to stem exploits.
Devolving Wilds
Land
“T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.”
Last edited by CanHasPants on Mar 6, 2018, 4:24:51 AM
Soviet Union was state corporatism rather than communism. The means of production belonged to the state, NOT the working class according to Marxs' vision. The situation was very similar to Apple Factories/towns in China, just with better social services. Also it is important to mention that pressure from the west and the arms race was a very important factor for Soviet Union's economic problems.

That being said. Why would i want an utopic, idealist communist system similar to what Marx proposed? Because i think it is a crime for even one person to starve to death (and statistically around 5 billion people in the world do not have guaranteed food on the table every day) while a few have billions. It is simple really. I believe that by reducing economic freedom (which i think is not justified in the first place), MORE actual freedom will happen world wide, both on individual and communal level.

And again, that being said, ideal communism on a world wide scale is impossible currently. That's why i gravitate towards the Scandinavic model, the Euro-Sociliasm or rather Regulated Capitalism with quality social services, as more realistic, transitory model.

However i consider aggressive foreign policy, imperialistic politics, war politics for profits, foreign intervationism etc. more pressing problems for the world and humanity. Democrats in the US or the so called left wings, cover up this shit by promoting pseudo liberal agendas like gay and trans rights etc. Not that these things are not VERY important, but you cannot promote a left wing agenda when you are practising far right politics in the rest of the world.

If i was a US citizen i would not hesitate for a second voting for a conservative that would speak openly against imperialism and foreign intervantionism, even if i disagree COMPLETELY with their economic philosophy and the free markets.
"
ScrotieMcB wrote:
I am an advocate of individual sovereignty. As such, I consider communism to be morally unjustifiable.


Completely agree with this.
"In this game you're just a cow being milked, not a human being entertained" - Kiss_Me_Quick
"
faerwin wrote:
"
adghar wrote:
"
faerwin wrote:
We can do far better as a group than as an individual, as such, cooperation is far more useful.
You might have misunderstood the phrase "individual sovereignty." In fact, granting people individual sovereignty very frequently results in cooperation. ScrotieMcB wears his free market economist heart on his sleeve, so if you're unfamiliar with this concept, you just need to look up some basic economics. Introductory economics materials always simplify things (no information asymmetry, no transaction costs, no time dimension, etc.) which end up giving you a free market economist utopia, where it is immediately obvious that people acting in their own best interests results in the best possible outcome for the group.
No, acting in ones best interest is most of the time not the best possible outcome for a group. A good example is drug dealing. Another good example is killing competition to ensure a monopoly and price gouging from being the only possible offer on something in demand. Stealing would also be a good example as it's a very easy and fast way to acquire something but is detrimental to everyone else.
I am emphatically not an anarchist or even a "minarchist." I fully agree that a degree of legal infrastructure is necessary to prevent things like theft and extortion. However, individual sovereignty isn't about the size of government but its means of organization.

There are three main principles I base my political philosophy upon:
1. The fundamental unit of human consciousness is the individual, not the group, because although we can communicate information between individual processors, the data transfer rate doing so is far slower than processor clock speed — in other words, we can think faster than we can talk. As such, individualist systems will naturally harness the full brainpower of mankind better than collectivist systems due to reduced overhead. The most fundamental of individual rights is the right to one's life, both in terms of their present and their past labor — that is, the individual right to property.
2. Peace is a threat. Given a natural state of affairs, the incentive of an individual to use violence to steal from his neighbor is too great, as he who strikes first in combat usually faces little or no retaliation from the struck. However, given a credible threat of overwhelming retaliatory force, even the psychopath is effected by a change in incentives discouraging violence. So long as the fear of consequence outweighs the anger of the potentially violent, violence is avoided and the threat of force remains psychological rather than actual; this saves tremendous amounts of resources. To accomplish this, society benefits from entities wielding the coercive power of credible force against those who would actively engage in violence against others; in other words, government provides a valuable service, without which a power vacuum would emerge and coercive force would be wielded anyway.

The missing link between these two principles is the realization that ownership is the negative right to govern (that is, one may govern what one owns, but need not). This concept confounds so-called anarchocapitalists, because they claim that a law against, say, smoking marijuana is immoral because it violates what they call the non-aggression principle (and also, obviously, that all government is inherently evil). However, if ask them if an individual who owns land is within his rights to create a law against marijuana use on his property and enforce said law by threat of retaliatory force within the jurisdiction of his property, they experience severe cognitive dissonance and respond in a variety of amusing ways. Because anarchocapitalists support individual property rights, and ownership is the negative right to govern, but simultaneously reject the right to govern, their entire political philosophy is a contradiction in terms.

Instead, I advocate individual sovereignty — that is, the recognition of each individual's right to govern themselves, as well as the implicit duty to oversee such governance. As explained before, human nature abhors a power vacuum, and without individuals with the courage to credibly threaten their would-be abusers with force sufficient to disincentivize violence, collectivist governments will inevitably abuse the situation. As such, it's futile to wish to reduce governmental authority, but it's not futile to hope to redistribute it such that it is in the hands of individuals rather than in the hands of increasingly larger, unacceptable, and disinterested groups. This is why I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment.

Naturally, economic specialization applies. I don't expect everyone to sit on their porch brandishing a shotgun all day. Instead, I expect experts in government to provide services to groups of clients. However, in an ideal world all such transactions are voluntary, with the right of the customer to "secede" at will recognized and accepted. I want to see taxation ended and replaced by payment for services rendered, with governments just as subject to free market competition as any other legitimate business.

That said, I'm fully aware we'll never live in an ideal world. The failure of certain businesses to deliver services as promised is inevitable, and government service is no expectation to this. At times the threat of peace will be insufficient and war will break out. Organized crime protection rackets will form, monopolizing government services over a population isolated from alternative options and thus forced to live under tyranny. Such things are bad, but can be beaten back and replaced by individual sovereignty once more. And they inevitably will, because all collectivist protection rackets suffer from a common flaw: they steal more than they produce, and sooner or later run out of things to steal.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
Last edited by ScrotieMcB on Mar 6, 2018, 12:50:05 PM
"
faerwin wrote:
Real Communism hasn't been tried.
When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info