Please never stop saying thinking like this. This is the truth and this is why I call myself a communist. For the simple facts. People will try to tell you otherwise.. never listen to them and corrupt your ideals

I always try to explain communism in a way that isn't really even communism. I try to indoctrinate my coworkers, my friends, my wife, random police officers who are beating me and searching my car, librarians, old men and women on a train, people at bus stops. I tell them that if you work 40 hours a week, you deserve the basic necessities of life.. a home, food, water, education for yourself and your children, healthcare, a basic vehicle for transportation.. I say that no one should be allowed to attain wealth so massive that one cannot spend it in a lifetime, ESPECIALLY while families.. WORKING FAMILIES AT THAT.. starve, become sick, experience all types of depravity induced by poverty.. addiction, sick twisted sexual issues..etc. I tell them that the world is sick.. i ask them to imagine a couple of men and women sitting in an apartment, writing on a sheet of paper the foundations of a better world, a reasonable, realistic plan for a perfect situation of living. How much wealth is enough? What negative things happen when wealth is capped? How do we deal with counter revolutionaries? How do we limit useless items, and instead focus on a colorful array of necessities? How, like the windmill in George Orwells ANIMAL FARM, can we poor our collective intelligence to advance AND DIRECT technology to work for all? In order to build limitless homes, grow limitless food, increase efficiency in the rapid development of a singularity of peace and happiness and meaning? How do we remove competition, but increase motivation to innovate at the same time? How do you get the maximum of the population to care about one goal, being the realization and manifestation of a singular best possible endgame scenario for humanity? How do we get to a point where the planets inhabitants are actively choosing a path forward? Where do we want to be in 50 years? 500? 50,000 years? These are some of the least impossible things I can imagine.. I wouldn't have any clue how to build a computer chip, a television, or a cell phone network from scratch.. but I CAN imagine a better world. Violence should be universally seen as a negative.. so what's a positive? In a society, there are rules, in the universe there are rules.. such as.. people need food water and shelter, AND there is an expectation that you should earn your food water and shelter. That's great, but the food water and shelter are already yours. The iron ore is yours. Same with the natural gas and the gold and the steel and the oil.. it's natural resources that we allowed to be OWNED by single interests, to the detriment of ourselves... it's not FREE SHIT when it's the people's resources to begin with.. fuck your business contracts and your investment portfolio.. people are literally suffering.. good, working, people... I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THE IDEAS BEHIND COMMUNISM ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BETTER WORLD. It's why we had to slander it so harshly, with billions of dollars of propaganda, with the continuing violence against it and the anger it brings out of the selfish, and/or uninformed, and/or unimaginative. I love you for being what I call normal and realistic, and what others call crazy and ridiculously utopian. Dream on brother and may your dreams become concrete next time the people have had enough struggling. Peace land and bread for all!

How does one plan to make sure everyone is sharing their wealth, without the use of force or authoritarianism?

Yea, but how would that be enforced? The problem with communism is that, at the end of the day, you would need some sort of state entity to violently enforce it

Why do people pay taxes now? Is this not also a problem of capitalism?

Who said capitalism needs taxes? If anything, taxes are one of the more socialist aspects of our current system.

There are numerous socialist ideologies which have various solutions for this which require no central state i.e. anarcho-syndicalism (which I think might be most compatible with libertarian an-cap type people) but violence will likely be necessary to seize the means of production because when in history has anyone ever willingly ceded power to the people? Democracy was fought for and won with blood.

And all of those anarcho socialist ideologies will still need to find a way to make sure everyone is playing along. A group of people would still need to be making sure everyone is adhering to their guidelines. If that's not a state power than I don't know what is.

I said no central state.

The problem with communism is that, at the end of the day, you would need some sort of state entity to violently enforce it

You said this, but you could literally replace communism with capitalism here and it would still be correct. Capitalism requires violent enforcement of property rights to function, otherwise any group of yahoos with guns can take over your farm/mine/factory/whatever.

Or do you think the cops side with factory workers when they decide to strike and picket? Do you not think that, in the case of a strike, their function is to prevent the workers from entering and assuming control?

In a free market there would be no incentive to act violently unless you or your property is violated on an individual level, unlike using violence to stop people from owning property or voluntarily exchanging goods and services.

So if your factory owner decides he wants to lock you all in for 12 hour shifts, force you to work in dangerous conditions, etc.? Are you just operating under the Voluntaryist assumption that you can just "go and get a different job"?

Absolutely. There'd be a huge opportunity for someone to open up an identical factory with less aggregious methods of employment. Or, the original factory owner wouldn't use those methods in the first place because if he was smart, he'd realize that a competing factory that treats it's employees with respect would quickly put him out of business.

There'd be a huge incentive for someone to open up an identical factory with less aggregious methods of employment. Or, the original factory owner wouldn't use those methods in the first place because if he was smart, he'd realize that a competing factory that treats it's employees with respect would quickly put him out of business.

Can you just admit that you don't know anything about the history of the labor movement, or like... how reality functions, in general? Go open up your own factory to compete with Foxconn, I fucking double dare you. Tell me how it turns out.

If there ever is a free market, I hope somebody does.

Except for the creation of conditions that make 'free market' were some of the most violent episodes in history. The pattern has been violently clear people from the land, then use force to maintain the system of property rights, and force people to work in this system.

Dude, I can't understand you. Please learn to type appropriately in order to convey your message clearly.

What was confusing?

Man, good luck getting through to this guy. I've tried, I'm done.

The alternative is capitalism, in which if you ask me if just the same shit different pile.

Our system is authoritarian, and it's ruled by oligarchs who hide in the shadow of our "democratic" government.

*totalitarian

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 70764}

Thanks Comrade Bot

I've been to 3 communist countries and the worst is the most communist.

Certainly there is an example of some altruistic individual that created an ideal situation of which you speak that you can use as an example?

Don't you think that tells you something? With many countries and individuals espousing communism in the world and yet you have not one example of it in practice...

There are literally 3 countries in the world which have attempted socialist reform which have not been, ultimately, violently overthrown via CIA interference. I wonder if their comparatively greater authoritarianism was both in reaction to this interference and responsible for "protecting" their regimes? Hmmm...

Yes.

So, where is this one rich guy who did it? No examples? You are telling me that no rich guy decided to share their wealth with all the people around them?

Not one? And you still don't see the problem?

I work 200 hours a month. I don't do it because I like you.

You are telling me that no rich guy decided to share their wealth with all the people around them?

1) This isn't what socialism is.

2) It's fucking retarded to think that any member of any ruling class ever would willingly cede power. Do you think democracy itself was willfully given? Hmmm.

3) It's ridiculous that you just sidestep /u/notjaker44's mention of all these coups, like, you do realize that the sample size of successful socialist states is directly impacted by this, yeah? Maybe as merely one example Chile would have seen a bit more success had we not sanctioned the fuck out of them, funded actual terrorist groups, and poured hundreds of millions of dollars into anti-Allende propaganda i.e. vis a vis El Mercurio?

We literally OKed the assassination of right-wing constitutionalist General Rene Schneider because he insisted on remaining apolitical, as the Chilean military had always been, stating that he would defend the constitution to the death. But yeah, socialism "just doesn't work," yup. If you don't see the Chilean coup for what it was- the United States engaging in imperialism abroad to protect capitalist profits- then there's something deeply wrong with you, especially given that you're here in /r/conspiracy where you're ostensibly one who questions "official" narratives.

I work 200 hours a month

Maybe you do it because your employer pockets 70% of the value of your labor, you pay another 10% in taxes, and the precious little which remains gets eaten up by ever-increasing rent/food/healthcare costs? Hmmm

BTW, here's an example of extremely successful communism, but I already know your "brilliant" retort- that it "works on a small scale, but falls apart when you scale it up," completely fucking ignoring that the CIA actively engages in dismantling every single large scale socialist endeavor.

1) Then why did you reply with the example of Marinaleda? It's only 1200 hectares, certainly there is a communist wealthy enough to donate that much land to their cause?

2) So, this is happening by force? Guess their will be some leaders. Oh shit, "It's fucking retarded to think that any member of any ruling class ever would willingly cede power." Guess we're back to square one.

3) Coups don't prove communism works. Saying, this doesn't work because of A, doesn't mean it works without A. Saying my car doesn't float with the spare in the trunk doesn't mean it will float if you take the spare out.

And what's wrong with small-scale? I think you might have contradicted your only valid point.

1) Then why did you reply with the example of Marinaleda? It's only 1200 hectares, certainly there is a communist wealthy enough to donate that much land to their cause?

Marinaleda expropriated most of their agricultural land, read the article. "Rich guy sharing his wealth" isn't what socialism is, socialism is the communal ownership of the means of production. I used them as an example because you continuously demand "an example where it works" i.e. with your comment here:

With many countries and individuals espousing communism in the world and yet you have not one example of it in practice...

It's an example of it not only in practice, but actually in practice as Marx envisioned rather than with a centralized state bureaucracy such as the USSR's, as well as an example of it being wildly successful (in comparison to neighboring regions).

2) So, this is happening by force? Guess there will be some leaders. Oh shit, "It's fucking retarded to think that any member of any ruling class ever would willingly cede power." Guess we're back to square one.

Do you think the bourgeoisie will allow the working class to elect them out of power? I sure would love for a peaceful exchange of power, but you're kidding yourself if you think tyrants would willingly cede the throne, or that use of violence is somehow an inherent immorality given the obvious necessity for violence in establishing democratic rule in the first place. Would you have fought for the throne in the American Revolution?

3) Coups don't prove communism works. Saying, this doesn't work because of A, doesn't mean it works without A. Saying my car doesn't float with the spare in the trunk doesn't mean it will float if you take the spare out.

This analogy isn't really accurate, it's more akin to you saying internal combustion engines "just don't work" if I were to hire a group of goons to smash up all your prototypes every time you attempted to build one.

And what's wrong with small-scale? I think you might have contradicted your only valid point.

Nothing at all, but "well you can't scale it up!" is an incredibly common response from people like yourself, and it's important to point out that when it is scaled up entities such as the CIA always interfere.

p.s. I really don't understand why you're focused on this "One rich guy can support communism" thing, when it has nothing to do with anything. Would you argue that democracy does not work if there were no kings willing to give up their thrones?

I really don't understand why you're focused on this "One rich guy can support communism" thing, when it has nothing to do with anything.

And here is the crux of the matter. You or like-minded folks could go for it. But you don't want to try it individually. Because communes generally suck. And yet, you tell the world to do it.

You don't look t your wealthier members and say, let's have a go.

You don't try to help Cuba or head over to Vietnam, but you claim the CIA fucks them over (they did, but dumbs you are their support, so all this tells you is that the evil is greater than the good).

You don't seem to get it. You could set up your own positive communist society today and lead by example. But any of you that have enough to do so, doesn't want to give it up to do so.

You or like-minded folks could go for it.

If we had capital.

Because communes generally suck.

Or because it requires capital? Or is there some sort of land-grant system still in place, is the Homesteading act still around? Where's all this arable land that's just waiting to be taken?

You don't look to your wealthier members and say, let's have a go.

I don't understand why you seem to think "rich communists in America" are even a thing.

You don't try to help Cuba or head over to Vietnam

Because it's so easy to leave for and assimilate into a society in which one does not speak the native language. Is it unfathomable that one could wish to improve society rather than walk away? Yes, I guess I could go to Cuba, and leave my fellow Americans to the wolves, to continue to be brainwashed and enslaved...

I mean, would you go back in time to the apex of the labor movement, with all the strikes, riots, and massacres which won (for most) the 8-hour workday, and tell all those involved that they should just pack it up and make their own country?

You don't seem to get it. You could set up your own positive communist society today and lead by example. But any of you that have enough to do so, doesn't want to give it up to do so.

Even if every likeminded person were magically transported to an area where there were actually enough land and resources for this to be feasible to do, there are many Marxist schools of thought which argue that single-state Socialism is impossible. This was one of the main reasons for Trotsky's exile, because he argued against Stalin's single-state socialism.

I agree with Trotsky, because there will always be external capitalist forces seeking to take advantage of or privatize the assets of any prospective communist nation. The only way to prevent this would be totally closed borders, which as you can see from history doesn't exactly work out well. If you support free trade, you should understand that economic isolation isn't exactly beneficial to those in isolation.

(they did, but dumbass you are their support, so all this tells you is that the evil is greater than the good).

You're saying I don't get it, but you don't seem to realize that the level of available support differs between the capitalist class which owns almost everything and the working class which owns almost nothing. How am I to provide support greater than that which the CIA can provide?

Don't confuse Communism with a gift economy. Communism is all wealth given to authorities.

Communism is literally, by definition, a stateless, classless, money-less society theorized to follow in the footsteps of socialism. You're confusing communism with stare capitalism (meaning "socialism" where all capital is held by the state, essentially making ranking party members the "new capitalists" i.e. USSR/China pre-economic liberalization).

There are a lot of people who advocate socialized ownership of the means of production but decentralized and democratic government i.e. libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, etc

The Conquest of Bread is frequently recommended reading for alternate perspectives on socialism as iirc Peter Kropotkin was an anarchist.

Communism has almost always been implemented by formerly oppressed people through a violent revolution. That's hardly a stable environment for any new government, but communism in particular is vulnerable to strongmen. Is that an inherent flaw in the system, or just a quirk of history?

I don't think we can write off communism until it gets implemented peacefully and deliberately. Preferably a mostly automated bureaucratic state. Everything else is just aristocracy or lawlessness, so what other goal is there?

I think people who are afraid for their lives and futures are vulnerable to the appeal of strongmen, and the revolutionary/post-revolution period provide the opportunity for these types to take power. Especially when various counter-revolutionary forces seek to terrorize the new state, necessitating the suspension of various rights to protect the nascent socialist state, which in turn facilitates the power grabs by these strong men.

IMO the USSR would have turned out quite differently had Stalin not subsumed the power of the Soviets (worker councils) since they were the real democratic force.

Also a lot of people see the potential for AI/computing to facilitate the management oh a communist economy, and iirc that's one of the things Allende wanted to do in Chile before we Freedom'd the fuck out of them (installing Pinochet in the process) by it would have been very rudimentary compared to what we could do now.

Here's hoping we can somehow enact socialism peacefully, but I don't see the bourgeoisie giving it up without a fight, and the petite bourgeoisie will always muddy the waters like this is about them.

I have to deal with the bourgeoisie five days a week- there's no way they're giving it up without a fight. Greed is a real sickness that makes animals out of us. They don't even know how sick they are, in most cases, only that they need more money to be happy.

And yes, I mostly blame Stalin for the bad name of communism today. I think some form of communism is inevitable if society keeps progressing the way it is. But in the short term, it feels like we're losing. I worry that it's all going to snap like a rubber band and we'll be back to square one on this stuff. But who knows? Maybe things will work out for the best. Keep fighting the good fight, it's always better than slavery. :)

People simply aren't that benevolent.

So why should we trust them to privately own and control everything, rather than socialize and allow for democratic input? If people aren't that benevolent, why should we trust capitalists like they're benevolent philosopher kings? Especially when for every Musk who is seemingly benevolent there's at least one or two Kochs.

This is as much an argument against capitalism as it is anything else.

This problem only exists in capitalism when there is an introduction of state power that is allowed to make these decisions for you because it's 'demorcratic' or whatever...

As I said in another comment, "state power" is the only thing that allows capitalism to exist in the first place. How do you think Occupy Wall Street might have gone down if there weren't a wall of bourgeois cops between protesters and the financiers who ruined their lives?

Um, who do you think allowed those financiers to ruin people's lives? Psst, it's the state.

So, without the state, they would still be ruining people's lives, only they'd be hiring armed thugs with no oversight to squash dissent instead?

No, they would be put out of business or forced to adapt to a market that isn't interested in being taken advantage of. Do your really think all of these unethical giant corporations would still be around if the government wasn't protecting them?

No, they would be put out of business or forced to adapt to a market that isn't interested in being taken advantage of

Hmmmm, unless their actions are profitable, in which case it's almost like there's some sort of incentive for their continuation!

You might want to actually read The Wealth of Nations since you seem to believe in this laissez-faire invisible hand spooky bullshit and Adam Smith doesn't exactly support that idea.

Awesomely true

Communism works great in small groups where everyone is there voluntarily. The problem starts when someone wants something that doesn't meet the agreed plan. Like someone has an idea that is different, or perceives that someone is getting something special, or someone is taking charge and becoming controlling. Human ego always gets in the way. Then you have to have some enforcers to make sure everyone goes with the common plan. Then factions form within the group. Inserection, conflict, power consolidates, the leaders crackdown on those who don't conform. It's an old story.

The idea that socialism = you all have to literally be the same is just propaganda. The only "different" idea that would absolutely cause it to fall apart would be if somebody wanted to bring back capitalism i.e. what almost all counter-revolutionary forces in socialist countries sought to achieve. This is fundamentally the same as if people wanted to go back to feudalism from capitalism, or bringing back the monarchy.

Stalinism forces a great deal of conformity, but there were numerous socialist critics of Stalinism who were still socialist. There's a reason Lenin wanted Stalin out of power before his death, and there's a reason Stalin had everybody aware of this killed or exiled.

For anybody who thinks Stalinism = Communism, try reading The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

That's the problem. Under communism, if I want to grow some vegetables and pay someone an agreeable amount that makes both parties happy(captialism), I'd be seen as an enemy of the state.

pay someone an agreeable amount that makes both parties happy(captialism)

This isn't capitalism, this is trade. Capitalism would be you personally owning the land used to produce these vegetables, likely paying a wage-laborer to do the labor for you as you pocket the profit, only paying the laborer a small portion of the value his work created.

Socialism would involve the communal ownership of this land, with its use to be decided democratically by the community. If there's a plot of land and 99/100 people want to use it for something else, but you want to grow crops, then there would be a problem... but it's not like you're any more free to grow crops on someone else's private property as it is.

Not all forms of socialism are the same as the Stalinist "go here, do this- or choose between gulag and bullet" stuff people tend to think of.

p.s. Two of my favorite Kropotkin quotes from The Conquest of Bread deal with this

"We cry shame on the feudal baron who forbade the peasant to turn a clod of earth unless he surrendered to his lord a fourth of his crop. We called those the barbarous times. But if the forms have changed, the relations have remained the same, and the worker is forced, under the name of free contract, to accept feudal obligations. For, turn where he will, he can find no better conditions. Everything has become private property, and he must accept, or die of hunger."

And

“In virtue of this monstrous system, the son of the worker, on entering life, finds no field which he may till, no machine which he may tend, no mine in which he may dig, without accepting to leave a great part of what he will produce to a master. He must sell his labour for a scant and uncertain wage. His father and his grandfather have toiled to drain this field, to build this mill, to perfect this machine. They gave to the work the full measure of their strength, and what more could they give?”

Ok so it's only slightly less oppressive. Gotcha. So I guess I'll update my scenario: what if I wanted to pay the community an agreeable sum to buy a piece of land myself, so that I can farm it, because I believe my needs aren't sufficiently provided for? I'd be an enemy of the state for wanting to better improve my life through non violent, totally voluntary exchange.

Remember when I said

The only "different" idea that would absolutely cause it to fall apart would be if somebody wanted to bring back capitalism i.e. what almost all counter-revolutionary forces in socialist countries sought to achieve.

That's literally what I'm talking about. You're describing purchasing capital i.e. the land in question (which shouldn't even be "for sale" since the whole point of socialism is the social ownership of the means of production) and allowing you to own and accumulate capital both defeats the purpose of socialism and plants the seed for a counter-revolution. You buy one plot of land, and then another, and then another, and then another, and when you're the largest land-owner in your community... do you not think you would hold any more power than others in your community, who own no land?

If you want to farm for yourself, that's between you and your community. If you want to own the land then you are jeopardizing the entire system.

p.s. Marxist thought distinguishes between private and personal property, so there is a distinction to be made. Are you buying more land than you can use, to potentially hire laborers to work on your behalf? That's private property. Are you temporarily owning land for your own personal use? That's personal property.

Owning a house to rent to others = private property

Owning a house because it's been in your family for generations and you're actively using it as your home = personal property

etc

Why can't I own land? The state gets to own land.

Dude I literally explained that in the comment you responded to, also "the state" as an abstract entity does not "own land," the land is owned by the community and administered via the state (in whatever form that state may be).

So what is stopping the state from taking the land? If you're entrusting the state to administer it, what if they decide not to or decide to administer it where they get more and more and give you less and less?

So what is stopping the state from taking the land?

Democracy?

What's stopping the state from taking land now? Nothing. In fact, they do it all the time for infrastructure projects...

You keep envisioning the same centralized authoritarian state even as I continuously tell you that that need not be the case. I don't know how you can continue to assert that local and direct ownership is somehow more of a central state than our current federal government...

How well has democracy been upholding your values these days?

Hmmm, not well, it's almost like it's been subverted to serve the interests of wealthy capitalists. I wonder if that might have something to do with why private land/property ownership is undesirable, and why your continued desire to privatize community owned assets would see you named an enemy of a socialist state?

Who knows.

so your plan is to not only become a democratic socialist state or whatever you want, but destroy all other state powers and capitalist societies TOO?? that's a bold move right there.

It's almost like we have a century full of examples of capitalist societies i.e. the US actively engaging in the subversion of any and every socialist state abroad in addition to domestically. It's almost like there's an inherent profit motive in the destruction of socialist governments and the privatization of their assets.

vOv

here's what you're not understanding. capitalism threatens the powers that be and their monopolies. they WANT you to return all the power to the 'democratically elected state' so they can ban private property and competition and profit and you being in charge of yourself.

this is the totalitarians wet dream and you're here doing the leg work for them.

But it doesn't have to be that way. Not if you are the state. Side deals in small quantities should be totally fine. Everyone works towards a goal, and gets basic necessities for their work. Extra luxuries are attained through your model of small scale free market micro capitalism. This side capitalism must be capped though so no one can become a king. Everyone should be as rich a single possible

How would someone become a king under free market capitalism? And also, what is closer to the oppressiveness of a king, a large state forcibly seizing the means of production and dispersing it among the people or a free market society where competition and consumer demands dictate living conditions?

a free market society where competition and consumer demands dictate living conditions?

You mean a free market society where fewer than 300 people own, collectively, more than half the world's wealth and assets?

Yeah, those 300 people have no power at all over the way we live our lives. Yup. Their ownership of their assets toooootally does not carry with it intrinsic political power and authority which they leverage over us via the state.

Yup because all of those 300 people weren't given the opportunity to hord all of that wealth under the guise of government granted monopolies and regulations.

That's the fault of the existence of state power, not capitalism.

That's the fault of the existence of state power, not capitalism.

Again, "state power" is a fundamental necessity for the functioning of capitalism as a whole as the power of the bourgeois state protects the property rights of the capitalists.

Yup because all of those 300 people weren't given the opportunity to hord all of that wealth under the guise of government granted monopolies and regulations.

If you think all monopolies (and, indeed, all massive accumulations of wealth- since you seem to imply this) are a result of government regulations, then you have literally no idea what you're talking about.

As long as there is one government granting one monopoly or instituting one regulation, opportunity for actual free trade is cut off, allowing unethical and inefficient companies to stay more profitable than they should. So my amswer to your question is yes, directly or indirectly.

Fucking lmao you think capitalism incentivizes ethical actions

I guess I'm done engaging you since you've made it clear you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Cool, I don't mind as long as it's voluntary!

(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞

Voluntaryism.jpeg

p.s. getting in the boat = being born into a society where everything is private property

If you had no regulations all you would have is monopolies, I swear some people just want a Weyland-Yutani Corporation to rule over us all.

The state doesn't seize the means of production. Workers do. You physically take ownership of the factory you work in

"But it doesn't have to be that way."

But it is and always be. Stop dreaming and instead use your energy to focus on actual solutions.

Maybe my wording is bad. Not "be the same", but go along with the program. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. So, if your perceived need or ability differs from the "states " perception of your need or ability, then conflict exists and punishment ensues. This is the reality, not the theory espoused by groups that support the concept.

This is the reality,

Maybe in the USSR/China, where material circumstances led to the sort of central state authoritarianism you're describing, but like I said, that isn't necessarily what socialism must be. Everything could be managed and owned democratically, which isn't perfect (since people aren't perfect) but it's not like you can go against the wishes of your community (breaking laws) as it is under capitalism. The bourgeois state makes the rules, and if you don't like it you can deal with the cops.

There are current examples of socialism functioning very well, i.e. Marinaleda, Spain, so it's not like it's impossible. I know that there are many more examples of its failure, but I would like to point out that almost universally the CIA has had a great deal of involvement with these failures (i.e. Guatemala in 1953, Iran in 1954, Chile in 1973, Nicaragua with the Sandinistas, etc. I would even argue that the USSR and China might have turned out differently had there been global cooperation rather than an arms race between belligerents).

I don't care whether there are examples of socialism working, that's fine. I just disagree with it. If I were living there and wanted to open up a different farm with better conditions and payment, or if I thought I should be paid more for doing more work, etc. I would an enemy. I don't like that.

I think you might want to actually read Marxist literature for yourself, because I think you misunderstand some of the fundamental concepts here and I am not certain of my ability to explain them properly.

If I were living there and wanted to open up a different farm with better conditions and payment

If you wanted to "open up a farm," you could do so- you would just need democratic support from your community. And why shouldn't you? It's not your land, it is everyone's land.

Please re-read and think about those Kropotkin quotes in my other posts, and envision a world where everything is private property (it shouldn't be hard- it's our world). You're no more free to do as you please under capitalism, because you would still need to labor for another (giving up the majority of the value of your work!) for a wage to save to accrue capital to buy your land. Is this not fundamentally identical to indentured servitude? You, with no capital, must labor for those who possess it in order to maybe buy your freedom.

or if I thought I should be paid more for doing more work, etc.

The whole idea is that under capitalism you are not paid what your labor is worth. If you were, then your employer would receive no profit, defeating the whole point of the system. If your labor creates, in a day, $200 of value, and you're paid only 80 (and must pay taxes on that 80!) then you are obviously not receiving your due compensation.

Why is it that everyone thinks that just because you vote on something democratically, that makes whatever it is ok?

Some of us take umbrage with the idea that few should hold power over many? Nobody said "democratic actions are always correct," but democracy is, you know, a little more open and egalitarian than a fucking monarchy.

This post is really ironic in light of your "how does capitalism create new kings?" post. It's like, the perfect example of your willful blindness and reluctance to apply analytical thought to examining the capitalist system beyond holding an almost mystical, religious reverence for "true free market capitalism."

This is the old - but it wasn't real communism argument. Even if what you are dreaming about was implemented human nature would soon kick in. Why should person A who is working very hard get the same as person B who is sitting on his butt? The people in charge would very quickly become corrupt because they would have the means to get more than everyone else and then in order to keep their extra wealth they're going to need to stomp on rest. This is why it has never worked and will never work. People are not altruistic.

human nature would soon kick in

Oh man! We forgot about human nature! Quick, to the Marxophone, we must spread the word!

What's insane, is the new breed of pseudo right wing rural conspiracy theorists, who conflate communism with "Obama" and "liberals" and have no grasp of what it means, and how amazing of a system it would be ESPECIALLY FOR THEM. It's literally made for them and they are so wildly uninformed that they advocate against it violently. Communism must be the most widely used term, in the wrong way.

Haha, yeah, Obama the communist/left-wing Hitler/judeo-bolshevism, ugh, I would die happy if I could successfully educate people enough that this shit dies out.

Every time I hear someone seriously call a neoliberal a socialist it causes me physical pain.

the concept of communism is broken from the start. the workers should NOT directly control the means of production. some people are more able than others. some people want more than others and are willing to do more to get it.

Here is an example that i just made up...

Say Jimmy invents a machine to stamp license plates better and more effeciently than any other that exists with the simple push of a button, it takes 10 years of his life and a million dollars to build the prototype and start producing them.

A different guy, Billy has a unique business plan and the skills required to implement it, and decided to go into the licence plate stamping business. He takes out a 5 million dollar loan to get the business going, buys 3 of Jimmy's machines (at say $500k each) and a building to run the business from.

he hires workers to push the buttons on the super easy to use machines, his business plan works out great and he is the most successful licence plate stamper in the world.

explain to me what the workers did to earn as much (or more cumulatively) than Jimmy or Billy. They both invested huge chunks of money, and chunks of their lives to make the thing happen. the workers pushed buttons.

p.s. there is no such thing as a "fair share" because someone will always have to dictate what is fair to those who believe that they earned more. Every system needs a force to dictate who gets what. It is better to have a central authority do it, or the power of the market (i.e all of the workers collectively spending their money)?

Considering the word has been vilified and bastardized over the decades it is no wonder people fear it... or what it has come to be identified with.

The Soviets had summer homes for politicians and hickey players. No commie. China...? Plenty of perks for the rich... the rich... not commie.

There was a movie in the 80s Jon Cryer Hiding Out where he goes back to high school to hide from the mob. In his socials class the teacher wrote on the board "communism vs democracy."

Fitting. They are not mutually exclusive and a true ideal communist state would have to be completely democratic. On the other side of the coin a complete capitalistic state would not be democratic. Oligarchies never end well.

To quote a dicumentary i sae on royalty and religion once: True power is mandated by the masses!

Here we go again with the "it just ain't been done by the right people" BS again. Look, any time you hand over that much power to a central government the central government will be infiltrated by "the wrong people" again. The real goal is provide the individual with as much Liberty and autonomy as possible and create a government devoted to those ends. Communism and socialism are both completely at odds with the individual and therefore are inherently suspect.

Modern tribalism

All the -isms have been distorted over time to serve power and support particular historical narratives. For example, fascism used to be 'corporate government' and now it's 'an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government'

I think people who are afraid for their lives and futures are vulnerable to the appeal of strongmen, and the revolutionary/post-revolution period provide the opportunity for these types to take power. Especially when various counter-revolutionary forces seek to terrorize the new state, necessitating the suspension of various rights to protect the nascent socialist state, which in turn facilitates the power grabs by these strong men.

IMO the USSR would have turned out quite differently had Stalin not subsumed the power of the Soviets (worker councils) since they were the real democratic force.

Also a lot of people see the potential for AI/computing to facilitate the management oh a communist economy, and iirc that's one of the things Allende wanted to do in Chile before we Freedom'd the fuck out of them (installing Pinochet in the process) by it would have been very rudimentary compared to what we could do now.

Here's hoping we can somehow enact socialism peacefully, but I don't see the bourgeoisie giving it up without a fight, and the petite bourgeoisie will always muddy the waters like this is about them.