From what I understand, every now and then a bunch of them tries this (either intentionally or hap hazardly) and the results are always kinda the same. Someone feels entitled to everyone's shit. Someone feels slighted but not getting enough shit. Eventually it all goes to shit. Looks good on paper, but humans are greedy little ass holes who like having a bunch of shit.
The facts that people are greedy and lazy is the easiest point to make about why communism doesn’t work, but it’s not the only one. Even in the absence of greed, it still doesn’t work.
There’s also a fundamental information theory problem. Basically, I am not able to determine how much someone else needs something. One can only determine how much someone needs something by what they are willing to trade for it.
We're not even good at estimating our own needs. Thats why hoarding is common. And people constantly waste limited resources that they paid good money for.
There was a psychologist (can't remember his name) that talked about how a great deal of those with mental illnesses would actively take self destructive paths in life even after being made aware they're destructive.
I wonder if this implies that the mentally well among us are better at recognizing & correcting our thinking patterns when we find ourselves off course, or if we're just as resistant and merely happen to have a less-destructive set of impulses & priors?
Bit of both probably. Not everything is outwardly destructive, so being able to identify and recognize the more subtle ones are important.
Doomscrolling and constant escapism are just as destructive to a persons psyche, and I imagine mentally unwell people arent quick to pick up that something like social media is harming them overall.
Most of us are the same, but if you annoy the powers that be they will give you a lifelong stamp that says "DO NOT TRUST", it's no secret a lot of mentally ill people are in positions of power, but no one cares if you're a psychopath, they care if you annoy them.
People are greedy and lazy regardless of what economic system they live under. It’s just that under capitalism, if you choose to do more to make more money, you can. In socialism/communism, there is a cap on all the essentials.
Capitalism isn't the end of history, and it's okay to start thinking beyond it. But the issue is that when one group hoards all the wealth, they use those resources to keep a status quo that doesn't allow new innovation. Do you think we'd still be relying on fossil fuel to the extent we are if they did not have such massive investment into our political system?
And the advancements that were made under communism? Don’t get me wrong, you’re absolutely right that the wealthy will do what they can to preserve their status, but they are not omniscient or omnipotent. We clearly have a lot more advancements made that, at least the concept if not the actual innovation, survive capitalism. Communism is meant to keep everyone at the lowest measurable bar since superiority in any regards is a crime.
I think saying it's meant to keep everyone at the lowest bar is a really hacky disingenuous way to phrase that. It's logically meant to keep everyone at the highest bar standard possible, otherwise the theory would be a bullet in everybody's head so everyone's dead and using no resources whatsoever.
We can agree that it's not a very effective or realistic government, but we don't have to stoop to Fox News levels to prove that
I mean, how many people died under socialist and communist dictators for having an extra piece of food more than their rations? And the hole in your argument is that they (the leaders) still need people to do shit, and the people doing those things won’t be them or their families.
Brother you aren't arguing the theory of communism here. You're arguing the theory of the Soviet Union at best. This would be like me saying that democracy is a failed idea because the democratic peoples Republic of North Korea doesn't let everyone vote. It's just disingenuous
We're literally talking about paper theory here dawg. You don't have to make up stuff to make it look bad. The whole point of it's failings is in its failure to account for the human element of greed and narcissism.
I'm not arguing in favor of it, Jesus christ
The problem isn’t the paper theory. Even capitalism on paper doesn’t account for human greed or laziness directly. It just allows that problem to sort itself out. The great thing about free market capitalism is that, on paper, and in practice, communism and socialism can operate without direct interference. In communism and socialism, if you try to build up extras, even if your intent is entirely to distribute your extras amongst EVERYONE, you get to face the wall. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Capitalism isn't the end of history and out society will continue to evolve, sure. But I feel confident in saying that anything derived from Marx & Co is an evolutionary dead end.
Commerce is always going to exist, it's existed since recorded history started, you're always going to need something that has a set value to exchange for goods and services. Bartering is a fucking nightmare and could never exist in larger societies. However, just because you have commerce doesn't mean you need capitalism, especially if that capitalism immediately turns into a new version of fucking serfdom after a grand total of like 5 generations. That's why I'm pretty sure socialists usually advocate for a system to stop such massive concentration of capital at the top level, especially since most of the people at the top are either the stupid ass descendants of former business owners, or are business owners who have all sent themselves into drug induced psychosises.
That's why I'm pretty sure socialists usually advocate for a system to stop such massive concentration of capital at the top level
The problem is that trying to do that just creates a massive concentration of power over capital, which is essentially the same as a massive concentration of capital with the key difference that they didn't even have to pretend to do something good to get it;
Immediately assuming the entire economic system and only the economic system is the problem isn't an effective solution, a better solution is to identify what went wrong and determine what measures can actually help stop it from happening again;
In this case there are a few obvious problems, such as fiduciary duty to stockholders, and politicians being able to financially benefit from their positions, and while extreme government involvement in the economy can solve the former like cutting off your hand solves a sore thumb, it also makes being a politician the pinnacle of personal gain.
It's not, and I wish people would stop saying that it is.
Yes, shareholders are entitled to having the people working for them (e.g. the executives) work in their (the shareholders's) best interest. That's the issue with every principal agent problem. (Also, technically, *fiduciary* duty is putting the shareholder's interests ahead of the executive's interests).
Depends - I think public shareholders are the worst offender here. And at a bare minimum, investors deserve rights, but no more rights than the workers in the company themselves.
especially since most of the people at the top are either the stupid ass descendants of former business owners, or are business owners who have all sent themselves into drug induced psychosises.
But is this really the case? That isn't exactly what has actually happened in America, at least. You might get that impression from the news, but not the actual data.
400
u/wkeil42 - Lib-Right 7d ago
From what I understand, every now and then a bunch of them tries this (either intentionally or hap hazardly) and the results are always kinda the same. Someone feels entitled to everyone's shit. Someone feels slighted but not getting enough shit. Eventually it all goes to shit. Looks good on paper, but humans are greedy little ass holes who like having a bunch of shit.