you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 day ago* (11 children)

I agree, communism is a nice idea, but it doesn't work because it didn't factor in the greediness of people, so the system isn't protected against people abusing it.

Greediness of people isn't something inate to the human condition but one created and fostered by capitalism and systems of private property. Most of human history before agriculture was lived under a system of primitive communism where resources were shared by the tribe with little to no hierarchy.

Individualistic selfishness was a behavior created by the sectioning of private property for agriculture and the accumulation of surplus. It is a learned behavior, which means it can be unlearned. Unlearning it will require a drastic change in culture and ideals, but it is not impossible.

There are times in history where the people have freed themselves from domination like Barcelona in the Spanish civil war or the paris commune, only to have it snuffed out by authoritarians. The system can work, there's just a group of people with a lot of resources who will do anything to stop it from doing so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Most of human history before agriculture was lived under a system of primitive communism where resources were shared by the tribe with little to no hierarchy.

    Yeah, but those were small and primitive settlements. We don't live in those times anymore, we don't have small settlements but large states with millions of people. We're not the dame as humans back then, so it's comparing apples and pears.

    Communism so far only really worked in small communities where people lived by choice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I think that, the larger/less tightly-coupled the societal unit, the easier it is for people to take advantage of others. Utopian ideologies only work if almost everyone sees the benefits and no one can subvert them, and even then only if there is cultural continuity over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (8 children)

    Private property exists under communism and socialism. I think you mean workers owning the means of production which is something different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

    /- Karl Marx

    Marxists distinguish private property and personal property. Personal property is stuff you own to use, eg. Your home, your car, your phone etc. Private property is stuff you own to make money from the labor of others, eg. Rental homes, factories, stocks, bonds etc.

    Seizing the means of production doesn't fully capture the goals of communism as it would leave other forms of exploitative property, ie. Rental properties, in the hands of the rich.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

    Private property is personal property except in definitions from Marxists. I am not one, but I recognize the concept of the workers controlling the means of production.

    Simply put, using this terminology conflates two different concepts in 90%+ of people heads and is counterproductive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

    I agree in most contexts I wouldn't use it, but this is a meme about communism on lemmy which is 90% socialist / fellow travelers. The level of discussion on this forum is high enough that we can use or introduce people to ideas like Marx's definition of private property. We don't need to dumb down shit for the normies here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

    Trying to indoctrinate other human beings into an philosophy from hundreds of years ago that has been used by brutal dictators to abuse countless people is an interesting goal. Good luck!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 18 hours ago* (3 children)

    The ideas of Marx, such as class conflict, private property etc. , have advanced socialists understanding of society and political economy significantly. To reject all of those ideas because they were co-opted by dictators is myopic.

    Are you going to reject Darwin's theories of evolution because he had some questionable views on eugenics and since his ideas were used to justify Nazi eugenics policies and the Holocaust?

    Are you indoctrinating people into a philosophy from a hundred years ago that has been used by brutal regimes espousing social darwinist ideals to send people to their death when you explain the concept of natural selection?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

    Those are not solely his ideas, he was building off a lot that came before him. He was not even close to the first person to write about class struggle. I am not sure why you feel the need to elevate him onto a pedestal. Probably related to why you feel the need to indoctrinate people.

    If Darwinism was used to brutaly oppress and murder countless people I would seriously question it. Comparing scientific study to philosophy seems pretty suspect though. I wish you good luck on your journey.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago* (1 child)

    What's your objection here then? You don't seem to have a problem with the ideas core to Marxism such as class struggle and the abolition of private property, even if you reject the terminology used to describe it. Do you just reject the attribution of these ideas to Marx or there bundling under the term Marxism? If I rephrased my arguments and quoted bakunin instead of Marx would I still be indoctrinating people?

    If Darwinism was used to brutaly oppress and murder countless people I would seriously question it.

    It has been and I gave examples above which you refuse to address. Darwinism is as core to eugenics as Marxism is to leninism, both take an idea and use it to justify the control and murder of people in the name of progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 17 hours ago

    It isn't his ideas first of all. Second, none of his ideas or predictions have ever came to fruition. Hundreds of years later and still zero socialism. Perhaps you idolize him, well I don't. My study of persuasion and the art of propaganda has taught me one important lesson. Never elevate any human.

    You are truly acting more along the lines of someone who is religious. This is okay, because it is your passion. I am not here to judge you and I support you in your personal beliefs. I don't share them in the same way though.

  • source
  • parent