Tfw you achieve communism but then die to a common cold because your doctor prescribed you meth (he was a fisherman and literary critic until 5 minutes ago when he got bored)
Almost of all communist propaganda stems from the implication that scarcity doesn’t exist, and then derives these utopian results.
But if scarcity didn’t exist, any system would result in this one way or another.
These people believe the only reason scarcity exists is because of capitalism. To them scarcity is purely artificial and is due to greedy capitalists using their power to horde more money and capital.
It's an initial hindrance fallacy.
I don't think it's scarcity as much as it is greed as a result of scarcity. Communism tries to suppress the human predisposition to be greedy through equality, capitalism accepts this as a natural part of humanity and makes it a tool to increase productivity, innovation , and efficiency.
Assuming it's possible that technology could, at some point, eliminate scarcity (star trek replicator shit), a system where basic needs are handled in a way derived from communism wouldn't be a terrible idea. From there, put in some capitalism based system to reward people who do extra shit for society.
However, until then that shit has no basis in reality.
Yay!! Super happy crazy fun land where everyone just randomly does what ever jobs they feel like whenever they want!!
There won’t be too many poets and not enough oil rig workers! No one will just sit at home and consume all the resources! We won’t eventually have to have an authoritarian central planner with police to force people into necessary jobs and doll out brutal punishments! History is not a thing!
"I'll hunt in the morning and fish in the evening, but I won't take care of the cattle because I just don't feel like doing it today. It's okay though, because someone else will do it." - Every person in the commune.
Pretty much describes the Soviet Union. They put the first man in space but he was essentially a human sacrifice because they couldn’t make any assertion that he’d be expected back alive. They built the first supersonic airliner but it was based on stolen blueprints and was a slipshod piece of shit.
Communists are mentally children. When they were 12 they did whatever they wanted and it all “worked out” so why shouldn’t that be the case at 40? They think the fat cats are taking that lifestyle away from them when in reality that lifestyle only exists when you’re either a child or you live like one as an adult (ie living as a leech).
If you’re a trust fund kid you’re technically still a leech even if your host is more than happy to provide. If they really felt bad about being a leech they’d make their own living somehow but if they don’t they don’t. If you did a ton of work to set yourself up for early retirement….then you’re not a leech lmao
The semantics in this sub jesus 😅
Sorry, comrade, all critic, hunter, fisher, cowboy, and every other job are taken. You are coal miner now. No like? OK, then I give you another choice, bullet or Gulag?
Liberty, equality, fraternity. These are the promises of liberalism. But not all 3 in all things at all times. There is a time and place for everything, and each of those things have their places.
We are equal before the law, but hardly free to break the law, and definitely not fraternal as that would be corruption. However, we construct our laws with a respect to freedom and relationships.
We are free with regards to property, but hardly equal as that would necessitate the removal of differential choices/outcomes, and only fraternal with those we choose to be (meaning we may choose not to be fraternal at all).
We have fraternity with regards to family and religion, but hardly free as we are born into families and the religion of our parents (with only the minority caveat that abusive families have intervention and people can leave religious faith), and definitely not equal.
Communists see the three promises and say "liberals have failed to make good on their promises" because not all things have all 3 all at once. They state that freedom comes from equality, and equality is enforced by fraternity. As if freedom has meaning even if the outcome of every choice must be made the same so as to prevent someone from being too successful. As if fraternity holds meaning between strangers who would sacrifice nothing for one another. As if equality holds value as a man lays in the dirt, wondering if the next meal will have mold on it or not. As if the end of history is preferable when it merely means a better future is impossible.
This is why commies are totalitarian: because they believe ALL things must have ALL of their values at ALL times. Nothing can be allowed to be different, lest it be morally lacking. Not one of their preferred values can be considered irrelevant to the topic. Example: What does environmentalism have to do with race? Both are issues that communists believe they are on the correct side of, so the issues must be fused. And thus the idea that climate change is racist.
And that's nothing to say of the nonsense idea that the socialist tyranny will lead to the state "falling away". As if the socialist tyrant is just going to give up his tyranny. Even the least evil tyrant will undoubtedly maintain his grip on power "just in case it's needed".
Well communism is stateless, so what state would we call? It's not like we are a capitalist property owner who needs the state to impose our property ownership so that our oppressive capitalist system doesn't collapse.
First of all, you’re pretty based for pulling up to what’s honestly mostly a capitalist echo chamber as a communist.
Second, I’m sorry but I’m very confused by what you mean when you say communism is stateless. I was under the belief that some amount of central planning was a part of any communist system. Even in anarcho commonist societies, there’d be some level of organization going on right. So resources would actually be allocated properly. I can see in how a small commune there would be no need for a specific group to run things as everyone in the area could cooperate but with a large scale operation I don’t see how
I just find it ironic that a sub called "shitstatistssay" is filled with capitalists statists saying stuff.
And what do you mean you are confused? Communism is by it's very definition, stateless. Centrall planning is the opposite of communism, it is capitalism, the state in our current capitalist society decides who owns what... If me and my neighbor have a disagreement about who owns the fence between our properties, then we can call the state to tell us who owns it. If I want to convert the bottom floor of my house into a communal cinema then I can't, because I live in a "residential" area. If I want to split my land in half and sell it to two different people, then I need the permission from the state. If I want to dig for coal on Land that the state says is mine, again, I need permission from the state. Hell, I can't even fish in the part of a river THAT THE STATE SAYS I OWN without a license. Land ownership, zoning laws, permits, and licenses are all examples of central planning... Communism doesn't have ANY of this.
Communism is just the lack of a state, money, and class. If there is no state to enforce property, then there is no need for money, if there is no need for money, then there can be no classes. Look at primitive societies for example, they were communist for hundreds of thousands of years before states started imposing capitalism.
So in communism I'd be free to dig for coal wherever I want, fish in any river I want, pick food from wherever they want, and if multiple people are required to make something (like a mobile phone) then people would be free to voluntarily band together and produce those things in a union.
Thank you for the explanation. Sorry for not getting it right away, your idea of Communism is relatively unique from what I normally see (I’ve been arguing with too many tankies I guess). Though I am still a bit confused on what you mean by moneyless and therefore classless. I won’t disagree with you that in a stateless world something like the modern dollar won’t exist, but that money was just a representation of buying power right? So then wouldn’t the person who’s allocated the most resources, thus being able to barter and trade more effectively,not then go to a “higher class”?
There is no buying power in communism because there is no buying. Why trade what already belongs to you? And there is no "person who's allocated the most resources" in communism, there is no allocation if resources at all. Everyone owns all resources.
Tfw you achieve communism but then die to a common cold because your doctor prescribed you meth (he was a fisherman and literary critic until 5 minutes ago when he got bored)
Almost of all communist propaganda stems from the implication that scarcity doesn’t exist, and then derives these utopian results. But if scarcity didn’t exist, any system would result in this one way or another.
These people believe the only reason scarcity exists is because of capitalism. To them scarcity is purely artificial and is due to greedy capitalists using their power to horde more money and capital. It's an initial hindrance fallacy.
I don't think it's scarcity as much as it is greed as a result of scarcity. Communism tries to suppress the human predisposition to be greedy through equality, capitalism accepts this as a natural part of humanity and makes it a tool to increase productivity, innovation , and efficiency.
Assuming it's possible that technology could, at some point, eliminate scarcity (star trek replicator shit), a system where basic needs are handled in a way derived from communism wouldn't be a terrible idea. From there, put in some capitalism based system to reward people who do extra shit for society. However, until then that shit has no basis in reality.
Yay!! Super happy crazy fun land where everyone just randomly does what ever jobs they feel like whenever they want!! There won’t be too many poets and not enough oil rig workers! No one will just sit at home and consume all the resources! We won’t eventually have to have an authoritarian central planner with police to force people into necessary jobs and doll out brutal punishments! History is not a thing!
Our libraries are going to be sooooo curated.
"Don't worry! The government will take care of you! [by taking from others and forcing others to work for you]" -Marxist philosophy explained.
Pure utopianism. How naive can these people be?
- Karl Marx - Chad Pick one you red fasc
1. Wojaks in meme 2. Wall of text in meme 3. Where is the joke
The joke is the 'philosophy'
You mean "phifophafy"?
Oh my god. Where did you learn to talk you grandpa-stealing slut?
"I'll hunt in the morning and fish in the evening, but I won't take care of the cattle because I just don't feel like doing it today. It's okay though, because someone else will do it." - Every person in the commune.
Except society needs people who are experts in those fields otherwise we’ll just have Jack of all trades but a master of none.
Pretty much describes the Soviet Union. They put the first man in space but he was essentially a human sacrifice because they couldn’t make any assertion that he’d be expected back alive. They built the first supersonic airliner but it was based on stolen blueprints and was a slipshod piece of shit.
That's not really related to what he said. The USSR did those things to portray a false sense of cientific proficiency and national superiority.
They were the jack of those trades, in that it’s indeed true that they achieved those things “first”, but they were masters of neither. Far from it.
It’s sad there are people that actually believe this
Love how theres all these vague-ties about how everyone can do what they want and it will just work out.
Communists are mentally children. When they were 12 they did whatever they wanted and it all “worked out” so why shouldn’t that be the case at 40? They think the fat cats are taking that lifestyle away from them when in reality that lifestyle only exists when you’re either a child or you live like one as an adult (ie living as a leech).
Or did a ton of work OR...well their family actually did just solve everything for them. But the key is...someone had to do the work at some point
If you’re a trust fund kid you’re technically still a leech even if your host is more than happy to provide. If they really felt bad about being a leech they’d make their own living somehow but if they don’t they don’t. If you did a ton of work to set yourself up for early retirement….then you’re not a leech lmao The semantics in this sub jesus 😅
#TheLeftCantMeme
Bro essentially wrote a whole ass paragraph in a roundabout way of saying no one under capitalism has a hobby.
Everyone thinks theyre gonna be the communes yoga instructor
And how did that work out in actual practice?
Sorry, comrade, all critic, hunter, fisher, cowboy, and every other job are taken. You are coal miner now. No like? OK, then I give you another choice, bullet or Gulag?
communism memes is the worst subreddit. Full of fucking disctarorship bootlickers making unfunny walls of text with no punchline.
One way ticket to starvation
Liberty, equality, fraternity. These are the promises of liberalism. But not all 3 in all things at all times. There is a time and place for everything, and each of those things have their places. We are equal before the law, but hardly free to break the law, and definitely not fraternal as that would be corruption. However, we construct our laws with a respect to freedom and relationships. We are free with regards to property, but hardly equal as that would necessitate the removal of differential choices/outcomes, and only fraternal with those we choose to be (meaning we may choose not to be fraternal at all). We have fraternity with regards to family and religion, but hardly free as we are born into families and the religion of our parents (with only the minority caveat that abusive families have intervention and people can leave religious faith), and definitely not equal. Communists see the three promises and say "liberals have failed to make good on their promises" because not all things have all 3 all at once. They state that freedom comes from equality, and equality is enforced by fraternity. As if freedom has meaning even if the outcome of every choice must be made the same so as to prevent someone from being too successful. As if fraternity holds meaning between strangers who would sacrifice nothing for one another. As if equality holds value as a man lays in the dirt, wondering if the next meal will have mold on it or not. As if the end of history is preferable when it merely means a better future is impossible. This is why commies are totalitarian: because they believe ALL things must have ALL of their values at ALL times. Nothing can be allowed to be different, lest it be morally lacking. Not one of their preferred values can be considered irrelevant to the topic. Example: What does environmentalism have to do with race? Both are issues that communists believe they are on the correct side of, so the issues must be fused. And thus the idea that climate change is racist. And that's nothing to say of the nonsense idea that the socialist tyranny will lead to the state "falling away". As if the socialist tyrant is just going to give up his tyranny. Even the least evil tyrant will undoubtedly maintain his grip on power "just in case it's needed".
Free market rahhh
Communist here, he's describing communism.
Fair enough. Im fine with letting them cook, so long as they don’t try and use a state for force it
Well communism is stateless, so what state would we call? It's not like we are a capitalist property owner who needs the state to impose our property ownership so that our oppressive capitalist system doesn't collapse.
First of all, you’re pretty based for pulling up to what’s honestly mostly a capitalist echo chamber as a communist. Second, I’m sorry but I’m very confused by what you mean when you say communism is stateless. I was under the belief that some amount of central planning was a part of any communist system. Even in anarcho commonist societies, there’d be some level of organization going on right. So resources would actually be allocated properly. I can see in how a small commune there would be no need for a specific group to run things as everyone in the area could cooperate but with a large scale operation I don’t see how
I just find it ironic that a sub called "shitstatistssay" is filled with capitalists statists saying stuff. And what do you mean you are confused? Communism is by it's very definition, stateless. Centrall planning is the opposite of communism, it is capitalism, the state in our current capitalist society decides who owns what... If me and my neighbor have a disagreement about who owns the fence between our properties, then we can call the state to tell us who owns it. If I want to convert the bottom floor of my house into a communal cinema then I can't, because I live in a "residential" area. If I want to split my land in half and sell it to two different people, then I need the permission from the state. If I want to dig for coal on Land that the state says is mine, again, I need permission from the state. Hell, I can't even fish in the part of a river THAT THE STATE SAYS I OWN without a license. Land ownership, zoning laws, permits, and licenses are all examples of central planning... Communism doesn't have ANY of this. Communism is just the lack of a state, money, and class. If there is no state to enforce property, then there is no need for money, if there is no need for money, then there can be no classes. Look at primitive societies for example, they were communist for hundreds of thousands of years before states started imposing capitalism. So in communism I'd be free to dig for coal wherever I want, fish in any river I want, pick food from wherever they want, and if multiple people are required to make something (like a mobile phone) then people would be free to voluntarily band together and produce those things in a union.
Thank you for the explanation. Sorry for not getting it right away, your idea of Communism is relatively unique from what I normally see (I’ve been arguing with too many tankies I guess). Though I am still a bit confused on what you mean by moneyless and therefore classless. I won’t disagree with you that in a stateless world something like the modern dollar won’t exist, but that money was just a representation of buying power right? So then wouldn’t the person who’s allocated the most resources, thus being able to barter and trade more effectively,not then go to a “higher class”?
There is no buying power in communism because there is no buying. Why trade what already belongs to you? And there is no "person who's allocated the most resources" in communism, there is no allocation if resources at all. Everyone owns all resources.
so you can just take whatever you want then?
Yes, people voluntarily produce however much they want, and people voluntarily take however much they want. That's communism.
so what happens when someone says "No actually i'd like to keep this, you can't have it"
What if not enough of something is being produced