You banned in doomworld?

first and foremost, communism is incompatible with any restriction of personal freedoms. hence, there simply cannot be any "communist state", or "communist government". nor communists can ask for opression of other people opinions. of course, we can make fun of them, or reject them as wrong, but trying to silence somebody, especially by appeal to state authorities, is a no-no.

i think it is enough to tell communists from people who took the word, but rejected everything it means.

of course, anybody could call themself communist. or a doctor. or a singer. it doesn't mean they are. you aren't a singer if you can't sing. you aren't a doctor if you don't know medicine. you aren't a communist if you don't know and don't follow communist ideas.

and by the way, communists have nothing to do with "leftists". left, right, upside-down — it is all the same, and it's not our game. we don't play this politics anymore.

Ha seems like we had the same idea. Cool beans. Let me know how you want to start.

Tbh we will also have to define leftists, right wingers, etc too. All of these terms are just catch alls.

PS: I've seen people of all shades of thought call themselves 'communists' in the past years. Though, because of their self-branding you can literally court/coralle/astroturf them by just using the word. "Hi, I'm AOC. In order to fight Fascism (I'm a socialist/communist or whatever you like to hear, btw), we need to pack the courts with a uniparty!!!" etc. Apparently a lot of actions can be funneled through the "end justifies the means" framework too, you just have to frame it the right way.

PS2: Sorry, my bad. I'll get out of the way of an otherwise cordial exchange. Some pent up stuff in me got loose. Carry on.

Killer5 Heh. Also no worries as well. I don't actually identify as a communist, per se. Nor do I not identify with it either. I was being somewhat sarcastic (in my first post) towards ketmar's remarks on the word - in the vein of "real communism hasn't been tried before", or "that's not real communism" type claims. I also don't mind ketmar and his brand of "communism", but I do hate the brand itself given that I live in the US like you.

It's also late for me. I am fried at the end of the day, and I'm on a shit ton of weird herbal teas.

I haven't read anything by Marx admittingly (only so much time in the day for me). Should probably do that but it seems to lose me still, and will most likely always lose me, based on world history (I would just never want to try it out again).

So Marx didn't like how the heads of companies ended up wealthy while the workers suffered and couldn't pull themselves out of poverty? I assume this is what you mean based on the definition of proletariat.

I will have to unpack the rest of your post tomorrow however to see if I understand it first heh.

to what?


the community, of course. it's not like people need some kind of authority to tell them what is good.


none. life has no meaning at all, it just happens. communism is about how people interacting, not about some Ultimate Trush About Life and Everything.


we'll just wait, and people will "force" themselves. ;-) it's quite complex topic, which requires a deep understanding of various concepts (economics, anthropology, sociology, zoopsychology, and some other), and cannot be explained in short.


in communist society, that "someone" will be killed right after they try to do something like that.



yep. definitions don't matter. if something doesn't fit the definition, then fuck the definition, The Thing is real, and the definition is wrong. so birds have four legs and no wings, because i said so. i don't care how "birds" are defined elsewhere, definitions are useless.

@wernergoldberg
Yeah agreed with the social oppression thing. Absolutely. We have everything else so the only thing left is to think about stuff which we never had time for in the past.

ketmar
So you say that life has no meaning at all. This is something I simply disagree with so I have nothing else to say about it.

You will need to force people to comply with communism. If something revolutionary were to happen it wouldn't simply be communism overnight. You need to deal with everyone else who happens to be a worker and who also has a different viewpoint. Then after you establish communism you will need to somehow maintain it.

You say that people don't need an authority to tell them what is good. This is incredibly naive and I simply don't buy it. Someone would come along who doesn't believe the same thing as the rest. This person would be killed by your own words because this person might want to make something for himself/herself. You would need to absolutely make sure that everyone falls in line with your train of thought.

Sounds like you want a totalitarian society where everyone must share resources without someone determining someone else needs more stuff than others (this would be inevitable because there are jobs you simply need more stuff to perform - who determines that)? Some people will end up with certain jobs over others. Some people would need to work in the fields while other people deal with infrastructure and have cushy office jobs. Unless you mean everyone just lives in poor small villages or something (although imo this sounds inevitable). How would you even end up determining who does what anyways.. I bet people would just argue and kill each other until someone remains and decides what everyone else will do.

It seems like an incredibly idealistic and naive viewpoint and far darker than can be summed up in a few words. It sounds like you talk about how great it would be but don't think about the shit you would need to wade through to get there and then maintain it. IMO people would just not trust anyone and would also be resentful of everyone else. This is especially true because some people work harder than others but these people would still have the same as everyone else - so the only response by disgruntled workers would be something like those stupid quiet quitters in today's society who just pretend to work but hardly actually do anything. I have first hand experience dealing with these people and it absolutely sucks, but at least in our society I can just work somewhere else or move horizontally in the company.

'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (except everyone is miserable)' imo. I don't mean to sound rude but it just sounds like arrogance to me.

oh, really? now, for something to be a "communist state", there should be a social system called "communism", as far as i know, even so-called "communist states" never claimed that. so by this logic i can declare any state as "communist state", because hey, definitions don't matter.

yes, i am slightly agressive, because i'm tired of people talking literal bullshit straight into my face, pretending that they know what is communism, and i don't. as if it is i never read any works of communists, and they learned them for decades, not vice versa.

I am going to stick to my guns then if that is all you've got.

Abolishing private property. Which definitely won't happen without drastic change caused by a radical minority. If your plan is to just wait for something to happen and then pick up the pieces 'people will force themselves' then it won't happen without a tragedy being repeated. And even then I don't buy it because it is naive to say that people will simply fall in line with a common good imo. It will be your common good - the arrogant minority willing to try this experiment again (totalitarian society)..

I did some digging into what Marx thought about this. Apparently my stuff want far off. I am happy to not live in his so called palaces.

Going to have to agree to disagree.

Funny thing is, Marx did his Starbucks blogging during the (end of the?) Industrial Revolution, a very discretely item oriented period according to my pea-brain understanding of the time. The dude thought each factory owner was holding back a pile (or potential pile) of surplus goods that their respective factories would make, and did so as if it were a conspiracy or something.

Story: Scrooge McPaper, sitting on his mountain of toilet paper (or potentially materializable toilet paper, per his factory's output potential) says, "Nyu-huh-huh... after all this month's sales, we still have all this excess toilet paper for only myself and other factory owners to enjoy, muahahah. All of this slack we can keep from the poor, leaving their barely clean asses always needing for more." And then Scrooge McPaper meets up with the car piston maker, and they start handing toilet paper and car pistons back and forth amongst themselves like a juggling act. They exchange their hoarded wealth back and forth, over and over again, increasing their GDPs incrementally to disproportionate degrees each time, making the poor even more and more disproportionately poor. And the more they do this, the closer and closer they get to orgasm each time. And finally, with the industry tycoons each grabbing a car piston firmly in hand, they ram them up into each others' asses, slipping and shlurping up into there in one final motion while building up to one climactic capitalistic moan: "Fuck... THE... POOOOoOOOR!~ ... ...". "Ahh. ahh. ahh... Wow, Mr. McPaper, good thing we have all this surplus toilet paper."

Anyways, Microeconomic's Supply and Demand concepts is actually a cool model tbh. It's oversimplified out of the box; it's somewhat time-agnostic in a world that obviously has time; it kinda ignores the scope and context for each Demand and Supply, like what components of Demand and Supply are even in the first place good, bad, ugly, contextual, pathological, or etc. But it's at least more cohesive than the pile of ad-hoc stringy bullshit I hear often regarding distribution of wealth (and power more so, tbh). Especially from the problematic-trons. I will never get over 40oz's "Beer is a conspiracy (whether incidental or on purpose) to keep people down and content, man!" and alike.