Communism > liberalism

nice joke. Literally every communist country had or has a famine, which means, PEOPLE STARVE

People starve when there is mutual struggle, like we have under capitalism. With mutual aid, under a communistic style of organization, people are all provided for, even during famines, and this has historically successfully prevented tribes from dying of hunger. This was done in a more decentralized fashion whereas states like China and the Soviets tried to expropriate grains from "kulaks", with poor results. Requisitioning food by force does no good, and central planning does not always produce favorable results.

In poor southern Mexico, the libertarian communist Zapatistas are one of the least impoverished and least crime-ridden communities in the region.

We are obviously better off when we are not at a competition for resources, or see ourselves deprived of the commons so the capitalists can control a majority of earth's natural resources.

That’s what the CIA wants you to think.

What? I think for myself. I know (from seeing other countries such as China, North Korea, and Venezuela) communism does not work.

Venezuela never had communism. China is doing better at reducing poverty than we are.

Then what's Venezuela then? China isn't doing a thing for it's people and poverty. Instead, anyone who defies their government is put straight to "jail" or simply put to death. Then China brushes it off and says, 'Oh, we're doing fine."

Venezuela is majority private ownership, still capitalist but Chavez passed some socialist reforms.

China is responsible for all the significant reductions in poverty that the economic elites try to attribute to capitalism. In reality, poverty is rising in the capitalist countries.

Yeah. Those "socialist reforms" are ruining the country tremendously.

If China is reducing poverty, then why are Chinese still trying to flee their country?

And seeing how every country that's tried it is now having their people protest their rights, searching the streets for food, and being banned of freedom of speech makes you second guess communism.

I must have imagined the women’s march all over the U.S. last October. Or the demonstrations against police brutality, strikes against the abuses of capitalism, etc.

Women's marches are just a bunch of women who "think" they have no rights. Those are way different than marches that Chinese or Cubans are demanding their government give them freedom of speech.

Their way of "demonstration against police brutality" isn't any better. They burn cars and buildings like BLM.

There isn't any abuses to capitalism. Those are just lazy people who don't want to work. Even poor people can get up, find a job, and eventually make a living. Instead, they just blame capitalism and want the government to give them money. And if you say, "Jobs aren't paying enough so they have no way of making money", then just know that they are now paying $10-15 an hour anywhere just as a minimum wage.

I’ll go let the striking Kellogg’s workers who were facing pay cuts, forced to work 16 hour days, 80 hour weeks, working more than 100 days without any days off that they only went on strike because they are lazy. I’ll tell the same to the workers that had to work around their co-workers dead body at an assembly line at a Frito-Lay plant.

You’re f**king clueless.

And you think communism is going to help?? You're the clueless one. Instead of employers "oppressing" their employees, the government will do that for them.

Employees would own their labor and workplaces.

Nope. Under communism, it would be the government's property. The government would control everything.

If you’re talking about Marxism-Leninism, yes, if you’re talking about just about anything else, then no, workers practice self-management.

There is no government under communism, which is stateless.

So what would there be then? A dictator.

Nobody has to provide for anyone. Because communism is anarchist, all work and interactions are on a voluntary basis. People will always have to work if we are to guarantee well-being for all, the problem is that under the capitalist system most people find themselves obligated to sell their labor to capitalists, and are becoming even worse off because of it (unable to satisfy or make ends meet).

As I just said, people will need to work if they are to satisfy their basic human needs, hunger, thirst, fortress, healthcare, etc. If we have already arrived at anarcho-communism, it's a pretty safe bet that people are pretty on board with this. The goal is not to end all work, it's to not let work dominate our lives, and to do as much as we need to satisfy ourselves. In fact, people will be more willing to work because well-being for all is a far greater gift than whatever a measly wage can afford. This will turn into less work because many jobs from under the capitalist system will become obsolete, as there is no longer a need to sell and advertise things, and many middlemen jobs can disappear as well. We need only focus on producing for the needs of all.

You're not working "for" anyone, bosses are abolished, workers own their workplaces. The reason the products of labor are socialized is because labor itself is social. One single product took numerous people for its creation, across generations. No one person can claim the products of labor. This is why all public utilities will be collectivized.

Not every communist revolution was trying to accomplish anarchism. They actually establish proletarian dictatorship pretty quickly, because the Marxist-Leninists believe in the power of a vanguard state to shield the revolution from counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries. The Bolsheviks made Russia a one-party state by 1921. That is all by design. There are many communists who reject Leninism and democratic centralism, though.

So you want everyone to collectively right?

Working collectively will not benefit anyone. You are working always working "for" someone. Instead of working for bosses, you're working to provide for everyone, since not even the government will provide for you. No one is perfect, so you have to assume that EVERYONE will have to work, and I can guarantee you that most people will not work if they know someone else is doing it for them. To me, that sounds like more work.

You keep saying "everyone WORKS collectively" (it's all caps for emphasis, not to yell at you). That means way more work for everyone.

There will never be less work ever. Under communism, everyone works harder.

I can't convince you that communism is not the solution since you seem grounded in the idea it works like I am that it doesn't work, but I'm telling you, having a utopian country where people work less is never gonna happen. If you don't work, you don't eat.

Other people thought the same as you, and guess what, when they tried it in their country, their people starved. Tell me one country that thrived on Communism only, no capitalism at all. You're never gonna find one.

I'm not gonna argue amore because it's clear I'll never change your mind, and you'll probably just ignore everything I say.

The Marxist-Leninists started out believing the same thing as you did though.

Name one communist who rejected Leninism. Every person who learned about communism thought the same way as he did, "This will benefit my country." What happened after that? They take complete control and starve the people. Don't you think if someone rose up to put in anarchism, that they'll do the same thing? Some did it right away like Lenin and the Bolsheviks, others in more subtle ways. Lenin, Stalin after him, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Castro, and Kim Il Sung (the one who wanted communism for North Korea) all had the same idea (although Hitler and Mussolini were Fascists, but Fascism and Communism are the same thing with a couple different ways of achieving it). I'm telling you, it'll never work since anarchism and communism want the same thing: No work, more power and control over people. You don't know what you're asking for unless you've studied your history.

Associations of free producers, collectivized workplaces, managed democratically by the workers themselves.

Then you're pretty much relying on the community to put in the work, while you get the reward without any work?

The Pilgrims tried this sort of thing before. They collectively gave everything they had for the community, and they almost ended up dying from the winter. They tried to work for themselves, and they prospered. You know why? It's because they knew if they didn't work, they wouldn't eat. So they forced themselves to work, and they were able to provide for their families instead of providing for everyone else. Workers would have to not only work for their families, but work so that other people could be provided for. Then other people will be like "Yay. We don't have to work because their working for me." What do to think will happen then? No one will want to work anymore since the workers won't want to work anymore because their money goes straight to others instead of themselves, so everyone starves.

Look around you, kid. Are we producing for each other? We’ve got hungry children, homeless people on the streets every night, college students living in their cars, millions uninsured, half the US population not going to the doctor due to costs.

We are producing for capitalists to make their profits. I want everyone to have equal access to the earth’s resources and for us to produce enough for all so that no-one goes without. That is what it means for labor to own what it produces.

Under anarchist or libertarian communism, people have the option to live individually and sustain themselves without cooperation or having to produce for others.

That sounds good on paper, but I don't think you've considered the consequences. Under anarchist or libertarian communism, everyone has to provide for each other right? That's how we would all have "equal access to Earth's resources". You do realize we would still have to work though no matter what since nothing comes for free? But instead of working for our families, we have to work for everyone else. You think that's less work than people who work under capitalism? To me, that sounds like more work. Like I said before, we would have no one working because it'll be "Well, I'm working for this person I don't even know, and I barely get anything for myself since I have to give it away." So now poor people (who can't work according to you) and rich people (who worked for their money, and can mow reap their rewards) won't work as well. No one will be wealthy, and in fact, we'll all starve. Government comes in, says "We'll take care if you!" Next thing they know, you've given them more power, which corrupts them. They take advantage of that power, and now we all starve and have a dictator. This has happened to every country who's ever tried this. I'm telling you, it won't work.

People marched because Roe v Wade is under attack. They also marched to protect healthcare for trans kids.

You mean they marched because they want women to have the right to murder their baby and leave the baby with no choice even though the baby will literally fight for their life in the womb?

That stuff isn't because of capitalism though. Do you really think that if we were communist, that our country would be a "Utopia"? Do you honestly think that the government will give a care to the poor or working class when given the power they could have under communism? Our government (specifically the Democrats) in the US is already corrupt, and I can guarantee you they (the Democrats) don't care about us. They want people to believe that if they are given power to dictate us, they will care for us.

Communism or socialism has never worked and never will because people are corrupt when given too much power. Capitalism makes sure that everyone is given a chance to become wealthy. As long as they work, they will reap their rewards. We also have laws that forbid monopoly, so that's not an excuse.

You're the clueless one thinking that communism is a good thing, not me.

Abortion is a human right, no freakish right-wing Christian f**k has a say over a woman's reproductive cavity. Women do not need to be forced to produce children so you feel good.

This stuff is because of capitalism because it's the product of liberal bourgeois democracy. Capitalism is inherently patriarchal and oppressive toward marginalized people.

I think our country would be far better off and easily more utopian if we strengthened cooperative institutions and owned collectively the product of what we produce, which means everyone is fed, everyone is clothed, has shelter and all their needs met. I don't believe that government cares about the poor or working class, and that is incredibly evident in government policies and practices in the cities to deter and criminalize homeless. The modern state was born to endow a ruling class with social privileges and power, along with agents to maintain their wealth and influence. The state will always be an organ maintaining elite privilege against a dispossessed and subjugated populace. That's why communism should have nothing to do with the state, and everything to do with the organized activity of workers from below.

Politicians of all parties, including socialist politicians, claim they will fight for policies on behalf of the working class to benefit them and generally fail to deliver. There is nothing a voter or a politician can do to abolish class rule, or the capitalist social order.

Communism has worked repeatedly. It is mutual struggle and competition over resources that causes species to decline. This is precisely what capitalism is. Communism, on the other hand, is mutual aid, producing in common and sharing the result to provide for all. This is what kept people from starving in early civilizations. It's why the Zapatista rebel territories are the least impoverished in all of southern Mexico today. Communism isn't about power or privileges, it's the exact opposite. Communism is a classless society, where there are no privileges to maintain.

Capitalism ensures that wealth transfers through generations of privileged families. It does not reward hard work, that is a myth. Most people work harder than CEOs yet make hundreds of times less than a CEO. You have a far better shot at winding up on the streets homeless than you do of becoming a billionaire.

Sheesh, no need to call yourself that.

An asshole