Is Communism Good For America?

[Dhrizzle]

That is, precisely, what whataboutery consists of: discredit your interlocutor through uncalled for comparisons. It's a form of toquoque. Typically employed in Soviet propaganda (which is hilarious in this context).

Why do you think those comparisons were uncalled for?

Furthermore the strategy doesn't even attempt to refute any point. And implicitly accepts that the topics discussed are, in fact, bad; demonstrating that you do, in fact, agree that the former subject (communism) is bad in those areas. Even if communism was sunshine and rainbows, you are making a very poor case.

What case do you think I was trying to make? I wasn't trying to say that a communist society would automatically result in sunshine and rainbows for all.

Which ultimately invites a very obvious question: if both are that bad, why change anything at all?
We figured it out a few decades back with mixed economies. Kinda sorta. We'll do better. But the dichotomy has been discredited long ago.

Because I'm not saying "both are bad," I'm saying both are susceptible to flaws and corruptions that can be ultimately harmful. Why do you ask "why change anything at all?" then in the next line say "we'll do better?"

[Kasierith]

How do Russians view the USSR period of their history today? A mix of sorrow and pride?

Greatly varies. For a lot of people who I met in my youth who lived through communism, though, they view the situation as their lot is ultimately the exact same today as it is now, except that the one telling them what to do is wearing a different hat and now they have to worry about losing their job. Quite a few people reminisce over communism because it was, ultimately, much more stable for the everyday working man. I'm fairly limited in my scope since growing up I was quite destitute, so I never really rubbed shoulders with the parts of society that more thoroughly benefited from capitalism, but for the people who communism was supposed to most help it was exchanging one dictator for another in a long line of transitioning dictators.

For the academic community, at least through my brief glimpse of it, it was viewed as a period of sorrow where learning and the humanities were thoroughly oppressed.

If you're curious about how the regular Russian person felt about all the satellite states that the USSR dominated, the answer is.... not much of anything, really. Communism has a highly insular effect. For example, the Ukranian genocide by famine was not something that was circulated throughout Russia. It was found out by the Western world and then disseminated as personal accounts. So for a lot of Russian people, learning about things like that is simply throwing something else bad into the whole sack of horrible things the communists did, rather than anything specific to be upset about.

[Dhrizzle]

They're not presenting a better alternative: they're presenting topics that are comparably terrible, implicitly agreeing that those aspects of comunism are abhorrent.
Again: it doesn't paint communism in any better light.

Communist are a great bunch. Some, like Dhrizzle (and you with that word for word) are pretty bad at presenting it in any positive light.

I'm not exactly trying to paint communisim in a positive light. I'm not trying to justify the actions of current/historic communist regimes, I don't have any ideas how to convert society to communism (other than the slow creep of socialism) or how exactly communism should be implemented (beyond fantastical idealism.)

[Kasierith]

But it's still better than the Tsar, right?

Depends completely on the Tsar.

[Deleted]

Because I'm not saying "both are bad," I'm saying both are susceptible to flaws and corruptions that can be ultimately harmful. Why do you ask "why change anything at all?" then in the next line say "we'll do better?"

And I'm saying that your way to go about it doesn't paint communism in any better light.
These two statements are not contradictory.
That you're presenting a paradigm in an equally bad light necessitates the question.
Thankfully people that are not you make a better case, and don't rely on rhetoric reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

I say well do better, because if I fall within a typical political group it would be socialism. Not squarely, but broadly. And I'd be happy to abolish the alienation that capitalism brings... like... yesterday.
Lofty goals.
Incidentally, I should point out, the phrasing you used to describe communism is typically associated with socialist thought, not communism, which goes well beyond ownership of the means of production.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have any ideas how to convert society to communism

It requires capitalism failing first. Systemically. We're keeping it in questionable life support, and brushing famines under the rug.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

"On the rise" meaning going from "practically nonexistant but constantly used for scaretactics" to "almost nobody has a clue what it is but maybe mentioning it will do as a distraction"?

I agree this only proves communism is shittier than ever, I'm fucking right here and not getting anything, yet this guy claims we're to be getting good stuff.

[PC2]

The problem with capitalism isn't that it's impractical, the problem is that it inherently lacks any sense of virtue. It's an entire ideology based on constantly stealing ownership from workers.

Capitalism and communism both lack any sense of virtue. It's apples and oranges though. Communism as implemented is the claim that the state has a socio-economic formula for prosperity. Which has always been bullshit because there is no such formula. Capitalism is more like a blank piece of paper, where society tests out millions of formulas to see which ones work better. Imo, the latter will always be much better for innovation.

- - - Updated - - -

It requires capitalism failing first. Systemically. We're keeping it in questionable life support, and brushing famines under the rug.

Famines? Not in any Western countries.

[Deleted]

Famines? Not in any Western countries.

I think it's brilliant that capitalism has managed to outsource pain and suffering to uninteresting corners of the world.

[PC2]

I think it's brilliant that capitalism has managed to outsource pain and suffering to uninteresting corners of the world.

All those places have been in pain and suffering continuously, long before the West was around. That's the default state.

[Kasierith]

I think it's brilliant that capitalism has managed to outsource pain and suffering to uninteresting corners of the world.

This implies that pain and suffering are not inherent parts of the human condition, and that plenty of places didn't have plentiful amounts of it well before capitalism existed. Hell, famine is the reason why Africa developed the way it did. Lack of stable weather conditions making long term farming impossible for huge, huge chunks of Africa, which discouraged forming agrarian societies and kept them as hunter gatherers, which simply don't progress like agrarian societies do in terms of how we generally think of progress. Not saying that capitalism can't afflict additional problems upon people who were previously better off, but famine in particular is something that happened all the time throughout all of human history, until capitalism because the way capitalism works is by design a very strong bulwark against short term shocks due to an abundance of supply.

[Deleted]

All those places have been in pain and suffering continuously, long before the West was around. That's the default state.

Do you work in the bootstrap industry?

[Deleted]

I think it's brilliant that capitalism has managed to outsource pain and suffering to uninteresting corners of the world.

Even the most uninteresting corners have the right to close their borders, chose their own ideology and flourish - completely oblivious to devious and harmful outside trading attempts.

[Zarc]

Communism is not on the rise in America. (If it was it would not be good.)

Nazism, or National Socialism, is a far-right ideology, you can look it up in any encyclopedia. National Socialism is a name, that doesn't make it socialism. There's a party in Russia called "The Liberal Democratic Party", that doesn't make them Liberal Democrats (they are a right-wing to far-right party). National Socialism is a form of Fascism, itself a form of radical authoritarian Nationalism.

Technically I think Cuba is probobly the sole remaining Communist country now, since they are the only country that still have a Communist regime with a socialist economy. North Korea is the only other country to have a socialist economy, but they don't have a Communist ideology so not a Communist country for that reason. China may be Communist in name but doesn't have a socialist economy, as they have state capitalism, one of many forms of capitalism - with other examples being Rhine capitalism and Nordic capitalism in much of Europe, and Anglo-Saxon capitalism in the United States, etc. So socialism as an economic system is pretty much dead. Of course the right-wing in the United States calls any state intervention (which exist to varying degrees in all capitalist economies that currently exists) in the economy socialism, so much so that even the left in the United States have bought into this propaganda and now doesn't actually know what a socialist economic system actually means (absence of private property). State-run schools and hospitals is not socialism, it is simply state intervention in a capitalist economy. And socialism the political ideology is different from socialism the economy system, and not all forms of socialism the political ideology is in favor of socialism the economic system. Democratic Socialists are in favor, while Social Democrats are not, for example. Many in the United States who think they are Democratic Socialists are actually Social Democrats. And I think it's safe to say that Bernie Sanders, self-proclaimed Democratic Socialists who incorrectly believes the terms to be synonyms and whom political scientists have labeled a populist Social Democrat rather than a Democratic Socialist, have contributed to the rise of Social Democracy in the United States, most whom would probobly label themselves as "progressives" and make a distinction between that and being "liberal", liberal which in the United States of course sometimes is used as being synonymous with "left" but also as a short-hand for Modern American Liberalism, itself a form of Social Liberalism, which is not the same as being socially liberal (even though Social Liberals are).

[Deleted]

Not saying that capitalism can't afflict additional problems upon people who were previously better off, but famine in particular is something that happened all the time throughout all of human history, until capitalism because the way capitalism works is by design a very strong bulwark against short term shocks due to an abundance of supply.

Precisely. It can, and it sporadically does.
I'm flippantly referring to the Bengal famine, which arguably was not caused by capitalism, but saw capitalist-driven strategies create a black market and worsen it. I switched to pain and suffering as a less frivolous take on it.

It's fascinating when the crises capitalist societies endure are a byproduct of overproduction: bubbles and such.

[Kasierith]

Precisely. It can, and it often does.
I'm flippantly referring to the Bengal famine, which arguably was not caused by capitalism, but saw capitalist-driven strategies create a black market and worsen it. I switched to pain and suffering as a less frivolous take on it.

But if you look deeper, you can see that that is not a capitalist problem. Before capitalism, European imperialists were doing that. Before that, vassal states were implemented such as the Turkish control over Eastern European countries. Before those, Mongols and other powerful empires set up systems where countries could decide to pay taxes or die. Before that, incorporation. These problems are less about capitalism, and more about one country being far, far more powerful and influential than the other and exploiting the differential for personal gain. Capitalism didn't so much as innovate this process as much as require new groundwork for how one goes about doing it.

[Theodarzna]

Maybe the USA can get a halfway decent national anthem if it goes Red.

[PC2]

Do you work in the bootstrap industry?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. All countries have to bootstrap from internal resources. Most countries are slowly progressing, only a few countries likes Bangladesh are probably doomed from overpopulation.

[Deleted]

Even the most uninteresting corners have the right to close their borders, chose their own ideology and flourish - completely oblivious to devious and harmful outside trading attempts.

heh. I know. But they want a piece of whatever miserable cake it is they're getting from crafting our clothing and toys.
Though, I suspect, they'll eventually figure that it's more efficient to migrate towards more prosperous lands. Or illegally jump some fence to test how much said regions are willing to spend to stop them.

But bear with me: what I want abolished is the alienation capitalism brings. If we end up with profit driven economies... well... I'm ok with that. The question then becomes if it's actually sustainable in the long(er) run. Globalization will probably last us a century or so.
But back to alienation. These trade practices happen at every level of development. We see it when people in underdeveloped countries struggle to be fed. But we also see it when southern Europe complains about the single market being engineered for Germany to profit more than them. Or when your neighbor has a job she doesn't enjoy in exchange for mindless cable tv, spending her entire life climbing whatever ladder hoping to find something fulfilling at the end of it, to finally realize her best years are gone. Or when middle America finds itself without a factory or a coal mine and decides to throw the baby with the bathwater.

What ever happened with the promises of the industrial revolution?. We'll work less, they said. We'll have more food, they said. Back then a single man worked to feed a family; today we have couples struggling to make ends meet. We doubled the work we do in exchange for an endless stream of advertising. Under the constant pressure to "increase productivity", to the point that some people are so productive they ask for 0 wages in exchange for the possibility to start climbing the ladder.

We're living in a system that explicitly promotes inequality as the, supposed, driver of innovation and better things. One set up to grow unbounded. We have it better than the people in those corners of the world, but eventually we'll be in a similar position as they are: wanting some unattainable miserable cake in exchange for our entire commitment to the system. Alienation will get us all.

[PC2]

We're living in a system that explicitly promotes inequality as the, supposed, driver of innovation and better things. One set up to grow unbounded.

Innovation is largely unbounded.

We have it better than the people in those corners of the world, but eventually we'll be in a similar position as they are: wanting some unattainable miserable cake in exchange for our entire commitment to the system. Alienation will get us all.

This idea that one society will be in a similar position implies that there is some sort of inevitable cycle. There is no such cyclical rule though.

[Mormolyce]

I mean no, but if it makes our resident fascists mad I'll say yes?

Both communism and ignorance is on the rise in America.

One of those is true lol.

Apparently there's a fair bit of ignorance in Sweden too, or so certain posters on here would lead you to believe.