Aug 11, 2020·3 replies
spongebobGot you,
So does it not make sense to a self-proclaimed socialist that they would want to remain in the middle state between capitalism and communism (even though sometimes it doesn't make sense to think things can function this way in any capacity)?
Like is there a big discrepancy between a communist and a socialist? or is socialist just a softer word for the greater public than with how the dialogue around communism has been handled
From an essay I wrote:
"In simplified terms, communism is the antithesis of capitalism. There can never be “a little bit of communism mixed with capitalism”, the same way a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. It’s either one or the other.
Communism is a moneyless, classless society where the state has withered away. Capitalism therefore is a society where money, classes and the state all exist.
The link between these two systems, capitalism and communism, is called socialism. Socialism is a transition stage – it is born out of capitalism and bears its “birthmarks”. The more primitive socialism is, the more it resembles (state) capitalism. The more advanced socialism is, the more it resembles the above-mentioned definition of communism. Socialism is not binary but a spectrum. At its beginning stands capitalism, at its end stands communism.
During this transition period named socialism, the first major goal is for the workers to own the so-called means of production. Means of production are anything needed to produce goods and services: Land on which you can build upon, grow plants upon, and from which you can extract resources; factories in which goods are produced including the machines, robots and tools needed for these tasks; real estate inside which the offices are located; furthermore so-called “intellectual” property such as patents and so on.
In capitalist society, these means of production are owned by the capitalist class, who are in Marxist terms named the bourgeoisie. They make their fortunes living off the means of production, while the actual production is being done by the workers, also called the proletarian class.
The workers do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as so-called petite bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits."
Aug 11, 2020·2 repliesspongebobGot you,
So does it not make sense to a self-proclaimed socialist that they would want to remain in the middle state between capitalism and communism (even though sometimes it doesn't make sense to think things can function this way in any capacity)?
Like is there a big discrepancy between a communist and a socialist? or is socialist just a softer word for the greater public than with how the dialogue around communism has been handled
I think the problem with this is that so long as we have capitalism, especially in the US, people will always resort to ways to exploit it beyond the extent socialism would allow you to. When you create the precedent that certain things are to be funded by the state and others are not, things can get messy. The state can then also implement legal monopolies and when you're dealing with what is basically a corporate state competing with the free market, even if done in good faith, you won't always have good faith actors. As history has shown us the people in positions of power, who just care about power, could care less about the well being of their own people, whether spreading fascism, imperialism, communism, etc...
The question I'm pretty much asking myself is, with the existence of bad faith actors, under which system could they cause the most damage? Whichever results in the least I think should probably be the system we go with.
- Aug 11, 2020ARCADE GOON
From an essay I wrote:
"In simplified terms, communism is the antithesis of capitalism. There can never be “a little bit of communism mixed with capitalism”, the same way a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. It’s either one or the other.
Communism is a moneyless, classless society where the state has withered away. Capitalism therefore is a society where money, classes and the state all exist.
The link between these two systems, capitalism and communism, is called socialism. Socialism is a transition stage – it is born out of capitalism and bears its “birthmarks”. The more primitive socialism is, the more it resembles (state) capitalism. The more advanced socialism is, the more it resembles the above-mentioned definition of communism. Socialism is not binary but a spectrum. At its beginning stands capitalism, at its end stands communism.
During this transition period named socialism, the first major goal is for the workers to own the so-called means of production. Means of production are anything needed to produce goods and services: Land on which you can build upon, grow plants upon, and from which you can extract resources; factories in which goods are produced including the machines, robots and tools needed for these tasks; real estate inside which the offices are located; furthermore so-called “intellectual” property such as patents and so on.
In capitalist society, these means of production are owned by the capitalist class, who are in Marxist terms named the bourgeoisie. They make their fortunes living off the means of production, while the actual production is being done by the workers, also called the proletarian class.
The workers do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as so-called petite bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits."
Goon, Arcade. "Socialism, A Spectrum." 2020. Socialism Thread.
ktt2.com/socialism-thread-702/79 - Aug 11, 2020ARCADE GOON
From an essay I wrote:
"In simplified terms, communism is the antithesis of capitalism. There can never be “a little bit of communism mixed with capitalism”, the same way a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. It’s either one or the other.
Communism is a moneyless, classless society where the state has withered away. Capitalism therefore is a society where money, classes and the state all exist.
The link between these two systems, capitalism and communism, is called socialism. Socialism is a transition stage – it is born out of capitalism and bears its “birthmarks”. The more primitive socialism is, the more it resembles (state) capitalism. The more advanced socialism is, the more it resembles the above-mentioned definition of communism. Socialism is not binary but a spectrum. At its beginning stands capitalism, at its end stands communism.
During this transition period named socialism, the first major goal is for the workers to own the so-called means of production. Means of production are anything needed to produce goods and services: Land on which you can build upon, grow plants upon, and from which you can extract resources; factories in which goods are produced including the machines, robots and tools needed for these tasks; real estate inside which the offices are located; furthermore so-called “intellectual” property such as patents and so on.
In capitalist society, these means of production are owned by the capitalist class, who are in Marxist terms named the bourgeoisie. They make their fortunes living off the means of production, while the actual production is being done by the workers, also called the proletarian class.
The workers do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as so-called petite bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits."
all facts as far as I'm concerned I fw it - Aug 11, 2020·1 replyARCADE GOON
From an essay I wrote:
"In simplified terms, communism is the antithesis of capitalism. There can never be “a little bit of communism mixed with capitalism”, the same way a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. It’s either one or the other.
Communism is a moneyless, classless society where the state has withered away. Capitalism therefore is a society where money, classes and the state all exist.
The link between these two systems, capitalism and communism, is called socialism. Socialism is a transition stage – it is born out of capitalism and bears its “birthmarks”. The more primitive socialism is, the more it resembles (state) capitalism. The more advanced socialism is, the more it resembles the above-mentioned definition of communism. Socialism is not binary but a spectrum. At its beginning stands capitalism, at its end stands communism.
During this transition period named socialism, the first major goal is for the workers to own the so-called means of production. Means of production are anything needed to produce goods and services: Land on which you can build upon, grow plants upon, and from which you can extract resources; factories in which goods are produced including the machines, robots and tools needed for these tasks; real estate inside which the offices are located; furthermore so-called “intellectual” property such as patents and so on.
In capitalist society, these means of production are owned by the capitalist class, who are in Marxist terms named the bourgeoisie. They make their fortunes living off the means of production, while the actual production is being done by the workers, also called the proletarian class.
The workers do not own the means of production. The only things they own beyond some personal property are their own bodies and minds – this is their labor power. In capitalist society, they have to sell their labor power on an open market, hopefully to the highest bidder. They give themselves and numerous hours of their lifetime away to the bourgeoisie, or alternatively, try to become bourgeois themselves, mostly ending up as so-called petite bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie on the other hand simply organizes and manages the proletarian labor with the intent of maximizing profits."
This is beautifully written. I think the biggest flaw is your basis for capitalism itself requiring a state.
Most libertarians believe a state is necessary but want the state to have nothing to do with capitalism. Free market trade itself is inherently anti-state.
- Aug 11, 2020·2 repliesKOLLAPS
I think the problem with this is that so long as we have capitalism, especially in the US, people will always resort to ways to exploit it beyond the extent socialism would allow you to. When you create the precedent that certain things are to be funded by the state and others are not, things can get messy. The state can then also implement legal monopolies and when you're dealing with what is basically a corporate state competing with the free market, even if done in good faith, you won't always have good faith actors. As history has shown us the people in positions of power, who just care about power, could care less about the well being of their own people, whether spreading fascism, imperialism, communism, etc...
The question I'm pretty much asking myself is, with the existence of bad faith actors, under which system could they cause the most damage? Whichever results in the least I think should probably be the system we go with.
Yeah that's what I'm saying like... When someone is so anti-socialism and pro-capitalism it is telling, like why aren't you willing to recognize this system has flaws?
It's like such indoctrination and brainwash to where any mention of non-capitalism is the "boogeyman" or some s***. And it's heavily anti-intellectual for that to be the case.
- Aug 11, 2020·1 reply
Yo I wanna shout out the people ITT for allowing me to open my eyes and understand that communism isn't this evil red demon that America taught me it was.
Although by no means do I consider myself a socialist, I definitely take the theory very seriously now and actually appreciate the cause Marx was championing, even though to this point I still disagree with the means to his end.
- Aug 11, 2020·edited·1 replyKOLLAPS
This is beautifully written. I think the biggest flaw is your basis for capitalism itself requiring a state.
Most libertarians believe a state is necessary but want the state to have nothing to do with capitalism. Free market trade itself is inherently anti-state.
A state is necessary for capitalism. Any lawyer can tell you that - I'm in law too. How else will contracts be enforced, debts be settled, houses be foreclosured on and so on? You need the legal system for capitalism to function, and you need state violence for the legal system to exist - courts, police, tax authorities, debt collectors. Didn't you talk about bad faith actors? It's the same idea of stopping those within the confines of a legal system.
Not to mention things such as printing money and other monetary and fiscal policies.
What right-wing libertarians want is minimal regulations, but there are very few "anarcho-capitalists" and that ideology basically only exists on the Internet. Modern capitalism definitely requires a state, as minimal as it may be.
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyspongebob
Yeah that's what I'm saying like... When someone is so anti-socialism and pro-capitalism it is telling, like why aren't you willing to recognize this system has flaws?
It's like such indoctrination and brainwash to where any mention of non-capitalism is the "boogeyman" or some s***. And it's heavily anti-intellectual for that to be the case.
Yeah I used to be like this and just spew "Cuba Venezuela Russia China" like I even knew what the f*** I was talking about.
I've been trying to learn more about everything but it's really hard to find sufficient information as a person who doesn't like to read a lot. There are no extensive documentaries on this subject.
Like I'm not trynna read an entire book on Karl Marx's upbringing or the Soviet congress but f*** I might have to.
- Aug 11, 2020·edited·1 replyKOLLAPS
I think the problem with this is that so long as we have capitalism, especially in the US, people will always resort to ways to exploit it beyond the extent socialism would allow you to. When you create the precedent that certain things are to be funded by the state and others are not, things can get messy. The state can then also implement legal monopolies and when you're dealing with what is basically a corporate state competing with the free market, even if done in good faith, you won't always have good faith actors. As history has shown us the people in positions of power, who just care about power, could care less about the well being of their own people, whether spreading fascism, imperialism, communism, etc...
The question I'm pretty much asking myself is, with the existence of bad faith actors, under which system could they cause the most damage? Whichever results in the least I think should probably be the system we go with.
That's why at this point I think a "Democratic socialism" roughly would be an improvement upon the current system the US has at least at the moment,
If humans existed as stateless, and less i stopped typing this paragraph and have no clue what the f*** i was saying
It's just made confusing about the concept of humans ruling over each other since the beginning of recorded history in some way shape or form and with the said "absence of state" as is suggested is the goal of communism, what is controlling any of this? a worldwide collective consensus to not start chaining people up?
I know that there are examples of microcosms of things happening like this or more autonomous societies but as far as a broader implementation of communism as a way of life, it seems very distant as we are entrenched in materialism
idk i tire my brain typing these out
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyspongebob
Yeah that's what I'm saying like... When someone is so anti-socialism and pro-capitalism it is telling, like why aren't you willing to recognize this system has flaws?
It's like such indoctrination and brainwash to where any mention of non-capitalism is the "boogeyman" or some s***. And it's heavily anti-intellectual for that to be the case.
stay woke
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyKOLLAPS
Yo I wanna shout out the people ITT for allowing me to open my eyes and understand that communism isn't this evil red demon that America taught me it was.
Although by no means do I consider myself a socialist, I definitely take the theory very seriously now and actually appreciate the cause Marx was championing, even though to this point I still disagree with the means to his end.
sometimes socialism/communism be lookin at me like this:
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyARCADE GOON
stay woke
ok dis hard as a thousand bricks under the court building
- Aug 11, 2020·2 repliesKOLLAPS
Yeah I used to be like this and just spew "Cuba Venezuela Russia China" like I even knew what the f*** I was talking about.
I've been trying to learn more about everything but it's really hard to find sufficient information as a person who doesn't like to read a lot. There are no extensive documentaries on this subject.
Like I'm not trynna read an entire book on Karl Marx's upbringing or the Soviet congress but f*** I might have to.
yoo the communist manifesto is definitely interesting to read, i just turn on the audiobook every now and then like im letting an album rock
- Aug 11, 2020·3 repliesARCADE GOON
A state is necessary for capitalism. Any lawyer can tell you that - I'm in law too. How else will contracts be enforced, debts be settled, houses be foreclosured on and so on? You need the legal system for capitalism to function, and you need state violence for the legal system to exist - courts, police, tax authorities, debt collectors. Didn't you talk about bad faith actors? It's the same idea of stopping those within the confines of a legal system.
Not to mention things such as printing money and other monetary and fiscal policies.
What right-wing libertarians want is minimal regulations, but there are very few "anarcho-capitalists" and that ideology basically only exists on the Internet. Modern capitalism definitely requires a state, as minimal as it may be.
Nah my g. A lot of libertarians propose a stateless society in which the market dictates/funds/and becomes the laws and services.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
I haven't studied this theory nearly at all but one of my friends is really into it.
I'm not saying that today capitalism doesn't rely heavy on the state, but in reality most capitalists see the state as a hinderance and want it to have virtually no effect on the free market. This is why Republicans are so anti-regulation, and why Libertarians tend to be Republicans in the booths.
Like think about big tech right now, you think all them CEOs and shareholders are big fans of the state right now?
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyspongebob
ok dis hard as a thousand bricks under the court building
take it slow and educate yourself openly. you might end up on the right wing, a social democrat, a socialist, an anarchist, a centrist, a liberal, a progressive...whatever. but take the first step and just read some things here and there. this thread might be good resource. no harm in gaining knowledge. i know a lot about right wing stuff too despite being left wing because i had to educate myself
- Aug 11, 2020ARCADE GOON
take it slow and educate yourself openly. you might end up on the right wing, a social democrat, a socialist, an anarchist, a centrist, a liberal, a progressive...whatever. but take the first step and just read some things here and there. this thread might be good resource. no harm in gaining knowledge. i know a lot about right wing stuff too despite being left wing because i had to educate myself
Power is intoxicating I can't argue that,
the chance at such power by stepping upon others
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyKOLLAPS
Nah my g. A lot of libertarians propose a stateless society in which the market dictates/funds/and becomes the laws and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
I haven't studied this theory nearly at all but one of my friends is really into it.
I'm not saying that today capitalism doesn't rely heavy on the state, but in reality most capitalists see the state as a hinderance and want it to have virtually no effect on the free market. This is why Republicans are so anti-regulation, and why Libertarians tend to be Republicans in the booths.
Like think about big tech right now, you think all them CEOs and shareholders are big fans of the state right now?
the state giving tax cuts to those corporations and the CEOs getting multimillion dollar bonuses while furloughing/firing employees? yeah they ain't too upset
Aug 11, 2020KOLLAPSNah my g. A lot of libertarians propose a stateless society in which the market dictates/funds/and becomes the laws and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
I haven't studied this theory nearly at all but one of my friends is really into it.
I'm not saying that today capitalism doesn't rely heavy on the state, but in reality most capitalists see the state as a hinderance and want it to have virtually no effect on the free market. This is why Republicans are so anti-regulation, and why Libertarians tend to be Republicans in the booths.
Like think about big tech right now, you think all them CEOs and shareholders are big fans of the state right now?
but yeah like he's saying this ideology only exists on the internet and so many of hte ppl who subscribe to it hold contradictory views to the point you know its just a meme.
- Aug 11, 2020·1 replyKOLLAPS
Nah my g. A lot of libertarians propose a stateless society in which the market dictates/funds/and becomes the laws and services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
I haven't studied this theory nearly at all but one of my friends is really into it.
I'm not saying that today capitalism doesn't rely heavy on the state, but in reality most capitalists see the state as a hinderance and want it to have virtually no effect on the free market. This is why Republicans are so anti-regulation, and why Libertarians tend to be Republicans in the booths.
Like think about big tech right now, you think all them CEOs and shareholders are big fans of the state right now?
my man. CEOs are definitely fans of the state, since the USA gave them the biggest wealth transfer in history due to COVID, trillions of US dollars.
anarcho-capitalism is really an internet meme ideology. like ok communism is not widespread either in some countries but there are several million people on earth who identify as it, including a significant portion of the largest country on earth, and many intellectuals who write or have written about it. anarcho-capitalism basically only exists online.
you are right that they don want REGULATIONS to harm their businesses. that's right. but they do want a functioning court system, just so they can settle claims, hold intellectual property, hold patents, collect debts, enforce contracts and so on. and how is this system carried out? through "state violence" - the idea of, when you don't do the things the courts (= the state) tell you to do, they can take away your property and/or throw you in jail. for this, you definitely need some sort of state. i'm not saying you need environmental regulations or labor regulations, but you need the basis of what every state is built upon, including any socialist state: institutional violence, i.e. courts and police.
- Aug 11, 2020spongebob
That's why at this point I think a "Democratic socialism" roughly would be an improvement upon the current system the US has at least at the moment,
If humans existed as stateless, and less i stopped typing this paragraph and have no clue what the f*** i was saying
It's just made confusing about the concept of humans ruling over each other since the beginning of recorded history in some way shape or form and with the said "absence of state" as is suggested is the goal of communism, what is controlling any of this? a worldwide collective consensus to not start chaining people up?
I know that there are examples of microcosms of things happening like this or more autonomous societies but as far as a broader implementation of communism as a way of life, it seems very distant as we are entrenched in materialism
idk i tire my brain typing these out
Nah I feel you this is why today in 2020 I cannot say I support communism because I do not think a stateless society is a viable option although I really wish it would be.
- Aug 11, 2020spongebob
sometimes socialism/communism be lookin at me like this:
- Aug 11, 2020spongebob
yoo the communist manifesto is definitely interesting to read, i just turn on the audiobook every now and then like im letting an album rock
Bet you just reminded me of audiobooks Ima try to dig for some
- Aug 11, 2020·edited·2 repliesspongebob
yoo the communist manifesto is definitely interesting to read, i just turn on the audiobook every now and then like im letting an album rock
keep in mind that it's a pamphlet, that marx was still young when he wrote it, and that it is more a historical document than a manifesto for today's movement. but no harm in knowing some history
- Aug 11, 2020·2 repliesspongebob
the state giving tax cuts to those corporations and the CEOs getting multimillion dollar bonuses while furloughing/firing employees? yeah they ain't too upset
They'd pay 0 tax regardless if there wasn't a state though. And they usually receive those tax cuts in returns for compromises which they wouldn't need to do without a state.
