Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
Buy your amazon goods through FJ's link.
Just click this link and search for any product you want. FJ gets a 6% commission on everything you buy.

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #37 - dashgamer (05/09/2013) [-]
Well, communism is very bad, except in small units of trusted people. What a man works to achieve is taken by the state in the name of the people, businesses are nationalized, and there is a massive redistribution and misappropriation of wealth. The ideals of communism are bounded by the size of the group in which it is practiced, and it doesn't function very well beyond numbers of a hundred or so. In Soviet Russia, atrocities were innumerable, as they have been in most communist states.
At least with capitalism, a man keeps what he earns, can feed his family instead of having his hard work and wages being confiscated by the state, and is not punished or imprisoned for his ingenuity, superior knowledge, or greater wealth.
User avatar #39 to #37 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
A communist society is stateless, moneyless and classless.
What you describe is a socialist one.
User avatar #43 to #39 - dashgamer (05/09/2013) [-]
"Stateless" is anarchy. "Moneyless" is the primordial real goods bartering system, which is not possible for a nation, as virtual and representative money do a hell of a lot more for an infrastructure and cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than the goods that their values represent. "Classless" is already established in capitalism: people are not restrained by an economic class or social class, they rise and fall according to their actions, their ingenuity, and their efficacy in their profession.
Communism is socialism. The distinction between the two is negligible, and what you have described is not practicable.
User avatar #79 to #43 - toastedspikes (05/09/2013) [-]
Stateless is anarchy Yes. And? VERY different from any kind of statism which is what socialism inherently implies.

_ "Moneyless" is the primordial real goods bartering system, which is not possible for a nation, as virtual and representative money do a hell of a lot more for an infrastructure and cost a hell of a lot more to maintain than the goods that their values represent. _

Wrong. Shows you know absolutely nothing about leftism. All it means is an absence of a monetary system, not a currency system. Communism as well as socialism uses forms of currency such as labour notes as well as gift economies.

"Classless" is already established in capitalism: people are not restrained by an economic class or social class, they rise and fall according to their actions, their ingenuity, and their efficacy in their profession.

Yep, that's why the majority of people in Africa are well off. Not because of geographical location, not because of inherited wealth or poverty, not because of political stability, not because of globalisation, not because of monopolisation, not because of inherent exploitation, not because of hierarchal structures in employment. Nah, because "they're just too lazy".
User avatar #46 to #43 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
Are you kidding me?
You can go home with your interpretations, I'm talking definitions here.

"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

The difference between a communist society and a socialist one is not negligible, but as vast as the difference between an anarchist and a totalitarian one; the presence of a state and government.
I'm not saying either makes any sense, because it does not, but those are the definitions in place.
#114 to #46 - tomthehippie (05/09/2013) [-]
Socialism has nothing to do with communism.

Socialism is where the government uses public funds to provide public works and/or services. The form of government does not matter. It can be a constitutional monarchy, it can be a junta.

In America we have a Socialist Republic. We build public roads using tax money. We fund public education using tax money. We fund fire departments, police forces, ect, with tax money. Tax money=public funds.

In the future, please know what you are talking about before you go shootig your mouth off.
User avatar #184 to #114 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
"In the future, please know what you are talking about before you go shootig your mouth off."

Spoonful of your own medicine.
Doctor's orders.
User avatar #48 to #46 - dashgamer (05/09/2013) [-]
So I defined the definitions as implausible, which they are.
User avatar #50 to #48 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
Exactly.
Still the distinction from socialism is clear and important.
#42 to #39 - xxpredatorxx (05/09/2013) [-]
Seriously? Stateless? How the hell do they redistribute resources if it's stateless?
User avatar #45 to #42 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
"Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Still wondering why it never worked?
User avatar #80 to #45 - toastedspikes (05/09/2013) [-]
It did work. Do your homework. Have a look at Catalonia and Aragon in the 30's, Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, and Chiapas, Mexico.
#51 to #45 - xxpredatorxx (05/09/2013) [-]
A system of common ownership doesn't seem possible unless everyone lives and works within walking distance from eachother and everybody involved wants to be involved. I mean, I really can't see any way to do it otherwise.
User avatar #81 to #51 - toastedspikes (05/09/2013) [-]
It works because everyone NEEDS to be involved. It implies you do not have a say in anything unless it affects you in some way. You seem to assume that people cannot possibly, ever, take responsibility for their own survival, wellbeing and luxury.
User avatar #52 to #51 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
Even then it is doomed to fail.
A centralized economy is effectively a planned one, and as soon as that plan deviates from projected reality the slightest bit, a chain reaction of shortages, rationing and resulting economical chaos spreads explosively throughout the entire system until its total collapse and breakdown.
#55 to #52 - xxpredatorxx (05/09/2013) [-]
If the micro-nation is small enough, does it still have to have an economy? If their only form of currency is trust in someone to repay them with their own resources or services it could work because there is no economy to collapse.
User avatar #47 to #45 - dashgamer (05/09/2013) [-]
The means of production is driven by entrepreneurs, not common ownership. I already explained why "classlessness, moneylessness, and statelessness" is not possible. And "social order" is just another form of the heirarchy communism is opposed to. Everything about communism is just plain wrong.
I don't know if you're advocating it or just presenting information, but that oligarchical, deceitful form of government is one of the greatest manifestations of the evil of human stupidity in history.
User avatar #82 to #47 - toastedspikes (05/09/2013) [-]
You didn't explain them as implausible. You merely completely misinterpreted the definition of communism and arbitrarily tossed it aside as ridiculous.
User avatar #49 to #47 - techketzer (05/09/2013) [-]
"I don't know if you're advocating it or just presenting information,"
The latter.

"but that oligarchical, deceitful form of government is one of the greatest manifestations of the evil of human stupidity in history."
Agreed.
User avatar #53 to #49 - dashgamer (05/09/2013) [-]
Thank goodness. I've had a surfeit of arguments with deluded people that advocated that flawed system, and I was hoping I wouldn't have to reiterate them after saying what I said. But if my words can at least help turn people away from those ideals instead of entrenching them further into their own dissolute logic, it would be a gift to me. That's the reason I said something in the first place.
 Friends (0)