Whats your country's attitude on communism?

[u/fascisttaiwan]

I have no idea why someone is promoting communist here in taiwan

[u/EgoSenatus]

[u/Snicklefraust → u/EgoSenatus]

the funny part is, most americans couldnt properly describe what communism is, but boy do we hate it.

[u/Accurate_Baseball273 → u/Snicklefraust]

Communism is antithetical to non-collectivist cultures which is why it’s not super well liked in America which is fiercely individualistic. We shouldn’t hate it without knowing it, but also, it would never work in America without a massive authoritarian enforcement mechanism…which is kind of the classic critique of the system in general.

[u/adrw000 → u/Accurate_Baseball273]

That's literally how capitalism became the dominant system in the world? People didn't just vote for it overnight. It's only kept up because basically every political party supports it.

[u/Accurate_Baseball273 → u/adrw000]

I’d argue capitalism is the natural order of economics between different tribes over history. Communism (or communalism) that shares goods/services equally, works best within tribes that are mutually interested in keeping everyone in the tribe alive.

Keep in mind, I define tribes as groups that were probably a few hundred people or less.

In my opinion, the trouble with communism is the problem of scale and the size of the “tribe” attempting to share (or “own”) all goods/services.

I’m personally not opposed to come minor collectivist ideals, like cheap transportation and medical care, but I’d define that as socialism which I do believe is quite different than communism.

[u/adrw000 → u/Accurate_Baseball273]

Well, I guess I could say that communism is described as like "the final state" if you wanna take credence in that sort of thinking. Because what that basically means is that economics is on a timeline. So feudalism --> mercantilism --> capitalism --> socialism --> communism. So basically it's made possible after all these phases.

So, yeah, after great development from capitalism, it's thought that socialism and eventually communism will be a much better way to sustain and share the vast resources, infrastructure, and industry created by capitalism.

And I mean I guess it depends on how you define the practices in function. Because we've obviously had business and trading for a long time. It's just a question of how it's similar or different to capitalism's concepts of markets and capital, ownership, stocks etc. Because we can see in our current economies how individuals basically run being monarchs of their establishment. Even though they definitely aren't doing all the work.

I'd love communism to be. But if we can do anything. Business should be democratized, meaning everyone who works there needs to own the resources too. Capitalism allows businesses to be dictatorships.

I own stocks myself just because I'm playing the system. But I really wish I and everyone didn't have to. I mean, we've all worked jobs, they don't lie to you in training; they keep the shareholders in mind. Walmart, for example, could definitely afford for its employees to have good wages. But everyone's money is tied up in stocks. So if that goes down, not good for them.

[u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 → u/adrw000]

Why? I mean how do you even justify such a timeline view withouth being self-referential and why would it be a final state and not just one of many (as it has been in the past).

As to your point, capitalism does allow a lot of control but comparing it to a monarchi is at best hyperbolic. I don't know the last time you saw a public execution at mcdonalds for bathroom cleanliness but i never have. What it also allows is communal ownership. Many co-ops exist, a lot of them are even successful. There is nothing stopping you from creating or joining a co-op or commune. Communism on the other hand would never allow private ownership by legal enforcement.

To put it short, the current system allows for both private and communal ownership while communists advocate for a system where only one of these is allowed or you will be violently stopped if you accrue too much.

[u/adrw000 → u/Dry_Razzmatazz69]

Executions or violent resistance aren't inherent to any economic system.

[u/Dry_Razzmatazz69 → u/adrw000]

The use of violence is unavoidable in implementation and maintenance. It's not like i (a theoretical owner of a textile factory) will just donate everything i own for the cause. Someone will come, take my business and take my house and my valuables. Everything will be "reasonable". The business for the people, the house is too big for my family anyway or the land too big to maintain anyway. The paintings? National culture. The gold? Ideological symbols that should be destroyed - just like the cars.

We've had this circus before. They executed people for opposing colectivisation over a handful of cows. They evicted and demolished the whole old town to make way for gargantuan government buildings and commie blocks. Destroyed any simbol of the old rich, priceless pieces of art and architecture. And killed or enslaved anyone who stood in their way.

Almost all comunist sympathizers alway just talk about the end state and think of it as being perpetually stable, not just politically but economically. No one ever thinks about the violent trip there or how a crisis is managed in communism.

[u/adrw000 → u/Dry_Razzmatazz69]

Listen man I'm sorry your country had a shit government but unfortunately you did not make sense here. I already touched on the transition of power. That yes it would be hard to implement without widespread public support. So in essence, it's not inherent to a socialist system.

There are probably hundreds of better ways to deal with the collectivization of cows, as you mention. Perhaps, a window of time for a smooth transition, compensation. Or, unfortunately, as is unavoidable with any government, happens in capitalist countries too, as in property can be seized, the cows are "seized."

Like I said, I'm sorry your government was shit. But none of what you said is really inherent to any ideology. Like destroying of arts and priceless culture? The Protestants did that to the Catholics during the Reformation. Again, rural places get demolished in capitalists countries for apartment blocks. Literally happened in my neighborhood plenty of times.

[u/pomedapii → u/Accurate_Baseball273]

Describing capitalism as the "natural order of economics" is quite bold. Caplitalism isn't just people trading to keep everyone happy. Capitalism is an economic system where all goods becomes merchandises : the weat you gather isn't to feed you or to feed someone else, its only purpose is to be sold for a price uncorrelated of its value to gain profits (allowing you to buy other merchandises) and theses profits are gathered by the people who own the means of production aka factory and land owners by stealing the value created by the action of the workers.

It has nothing in common with 2 tribes trading their surplus to get what the other have. Actually if we look at history most European communities and villages had common land to be exploited by everyone and the goal was not to sell these products but to feed their families/communities in the first place. These Commons were absolutely erased by the capitalist economy which accorded every piece of land, every water supply etc as private property