Bitcoin Forum

Hello world.

Have been away for lon and following HellFish advice I'm starting a selfmod thread. Feel free to say whatever you want as long as it's not trolling.

So why starting this thread? Because there is this sentence I hear and read a lot that always triggers me a bit. Right wing people mockingly saying that you have to be a complete retard to be a socialist and that the argument "it's not real communism" is stupid. This argument is just saying that USSR or whatever "communist" country failure isn't a proof of communism failure because... Well it wasn't real communism.

And this argument is... Perfectly valid though a bit short-sighted.

I dare anyone to give an example of a real communism state in our world, present or past. There are none.

There is this HUGE MISTAKE made by tons of people who believe that communism = no private property = everything belongs to the state. Which is a very brutal and stupid interpretation of communism manifest. Communism doesn't mean everything belongs to the state but everything is owned by the people. In particular for Marxists (which are the most common kind of communists) it's not that there should be no private property but that anything being used in the economy (the means of production) should belong to the workers using them. (Which means very VERY limited private property because depending on interpretation pretty much anything can be considered being part of the economy)

But let's simplify all this by saying that, in communism, the means of production are supposed to belong to the people.

The people.

Not the state, the people. That's where lies the "it's not real communism".

Because what are exactly countries like Venezuela or USSR or Cuba or North Korea? They're countries where state is all powerfull, meaning the leaders are all powerfull. What do you call such countries? Dictatorships. And it doesn't matter if the dictatorship calls itself communist or islamic or democratic or whatever. A dictatorship is just a dictatorship, a country where the people are oppressed by a very small group having the power. It's not communism at all! It's the opposite of communism.


So no it wasn't real communism. But why is it a short-sighted answer? Well because it seems that every time a country adopts communism it falls immediately into a dictatorship. So even if those countries aren't communist, if every country trying to adopt communism falls into dictatorship 2 days later... Well it means that even if there is a slight difference, communism leads to dictatorship.

And that's right. At least that WAS right. Communism means that the people own and control everything equally, but that wasn't possible, what was used was that people were represented by a government THEN this government controls everything (hence the dictatorship).

But maybe we have an alternative solution now. Maybe we can do things differently... What if we didn't use the government to control things? What if we did it ourselves directly? With our technologies we no longer have a use for representative politics. Direct democracy is completely possible.


So I can't say anything for sure of course, but it seems to me that we have new possibility. Applying the new technologies (including blockchains) to create a country where everything is directly controlled by the people, which would be real communism this time.

EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0) if you're interested

Actually it is a well known logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman". So no, it is not really a valid argument. I will be back for more don't worry ;)

Please do come back :D

But I believe it would be a no true scotman if I'd say that communism works because the failure weren't true communism. Which is not my point, just saying that the given examples aren't counterexamples but rather indication that communism leads to dictatorship.

No I... Did you read me? ^^

That's not a coincidence at all and I explain that communism leads to dictatorship not because of what communism is but because of how it's implemented. The problem isn't communism/socialism but how we handle it. And my point is that new technologies might allow us to implement it in a different way.

Oh ok so you actually didn't understand my OP at all ^^

I'll try to make it shorter and easier:
-Past "communist countries" were not communist but dictatorship
-They failed to implemant communism and were transformed into dictatorship in the process

No true scotman would be saying "those states aren't proof of communism failure because that was not the right kind of communism"
I'm saying "they tried to implement communism but failed and were transformed into dictatorship on the way"

It's not that they implemented something which is not real communism, it's that when trying to implement it they failed completely and utterly because communism isn't compatible with representative governments. That's my point. Hope it was a bit clearer.

Technocracy with heavy favor towards automation ~= socialism.

Start with government to prove a mostly automated front-end and then expand from there. Automation may be more expensive in the short term, but overall, it's a valuable investment.

The only hitch is the government "automation" probably should be open source so the people can vote on the "changes" in the code of law.

Once we automate government in this way, we can automate industry similar. This way, as an individual, if you want change in a product, you just fork the automation framework to create your own version. :)

So for you "Implementing A" and "Trying to implement A but fail and implement B" is the same?
My point is saying that failure is linked to representative government, not the ideological concept.

It's exactly the same as saying that flying is impossible because you weren't able to fly just by moving your arms. It's not that flying is impossible, it's that you need a different kind of technology and a different approach.


Exactly, excellent comparison ^^

From what I see, most problems from the different economical or ideological systems come from representative government which is just elective dictatorship with extra step. If you can acti directly in the code as you say, then you create something completely different where you can apply your ideology/economic ideas.

I'm doing this step by step because you're so biased that you don't seem to actually read me. My point is not saying that communism works but that previous communist countries failed because of the representative government system. So that it's worth thinking about a communist direct democracy. Thinking about it, not saying it's the solution. There is a "can" in the title you know? :)

Why so? I never said communism works that's absolutely not my point... Please re-read me because I never wrote that and will never because I don't believe so. That's not the point of this OP.
Agreed. That's more the point of this OP which is to say that those deaths are linked to the dictatorship, which is a consequence of how communism was implemented.
I'm taking your link as a reference:

1"During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group."
Didn't do this

2"Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group."
Didn't do this

It's not a No True Scotsman because I'm not saying at all that communism works or is good or whatever.
Then as you love to say, if you bring a new argument please provide evidences to back it up.
Don't see the link with the argument... And until you bring any proof of that you just sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me ^^


I disagree strongly with the last part, first I don't see how what you describe is historically accurate because it just never happened anywhere. Second because the "opposition cycle" you talk about is much more linked to inequalities cycles for me. But that's a whole different argument you're discussing here ^^

Everytime, everywhere in the world, someone tried to implement a socialist economy the results wereonly poverty, massacre, millions of deads, hungers... But no, that was not the true socialism. Let's try again and killmore people and make more governments rich.

Liberalism, on the other hand, always made the people have better lives, with more freedom and real development in all areas (culture, technology...)

All poor countries in the world are not really capitalists, but socialists.
I live in one of them: Brazil. We have a socialist economy now. We are fucked.

Take a look at https://www.heritage.org/index/

It's an index of economic freedom. All good countries in the world are living liberalism economies, while bad countries are living socialist economies.

I bet you live in a rich country.

Answer is in your sentence, problem is linked to the government not the economic idea
Where would you rather live? USA or Norway?
Cause if you look at the hapiness rankings of countries, top ones are definitely socialist countries.
What?? No not at all. Africa is the poorest continent and is more or less a capitalist paradise...
No you don't have a socialist economy, you're just in an elective dictatorship :/

Some thoughts.

Socialism is a difficult thing for fairness. The reason is that all people are different, and they all have different needs to operate efficiently. The best people who can tell what the needs of a person are, is the person himself or the people near him. This means that socialism can only be applied to the general basics of people... food, water, clothing, basic housing, etc.

People thrive on some kind of desire to better themselves and their possessions/conditions. In other words, if the particular form of socialism takes away opportunities to be better - make more "money" - it will only produce a mediocre society.

Generally speaking, when people work together in a socialistic way, and when they are positive about the socialism they are working in, nature provides an abundance of property and advancements for the people. To be fair, the benefits of this advancement, whether it be in property or science or "money" or living conditions, needs to be applied for all people... not simply stored up, nor used the ways a "dictator" might use it, except by the formal agreement of all the people of the society.

There are many writings about how to apply socialism correctly. Most people have their own form of socialism in their own family. Good socialism must allow freedom in such a way that unfair advantage can never be taken against any of societies members. This has to include a form of socialism where people can remove themselves and their property from the society if they want... but at least themselves if they had formerly agreed to pool their property, making it theirs no longer.

Blockchain technology is something that can help with all this. But the whole idea of socialism is extremely complex. Many of the writings by popular socialism thinkers are not realistic, but have elements in them that allow socialism to become a dictatorship... or the next most dangerous thing, a democracy.

8)

It's incredible but I actually globally agree with what you wrote. First time ever I believe.
That would be ideal but... Very complex to put in practice. I mean the problem is not to put the person away of this society but to find another society accepting this person. And more, it's a bit unfair because all "new persons" by that I mean all persons born in this society won't be given the choice.

What the hell it means that I more or less agree with a full BADecker post? Omg what's happening?  ;D

That's true. Communism was promised many times, and autocratic dictatorial tyranny was delivered instead.



Right. Voluntarism, liberalism, libertarianism and anarchism all say that too. People should own everything, not the state.



So that's where the problem with Marxist influenced communism starts.

To change a situation where big infrastructure (including manufacturing) is owned socially, there's no way to do it without overwhelming force. For that, you need organisation too, so a government was always there to say "you can own an equal part of everything, if you give us the power we need to enforce it". Enough people accepted that, then the government stole mostly everything, and used groupthink and propaganda to cover it up.

And that happened every single time communism was implemented (well, attempted).



"Scientific" or "algorithmic" communism isn't realistic either. Someone needs to writes the rules for the algorithms and design the scientific models. If everyone were equal participants writing the rules, no rules would ever emerge from the ensuing arguments. The temptation for very smart, but very selfish, people to corrupt such a technocratic system is too great, the concentration of power will inevitably attract corruption, just like any government.


The real answer is for people to use powerful tools to make themselves more powerful, and to form strong groups that people can leave if they choose.

We're probably arguing more or less for the same thing, except I want to choose which group I belong to, and how much of my stuff is owned by others in the group. I'm likely to lean towards "not much", and people like you (who want "real communism") will have to accept that, or become the new tyranny. And how respectful I am, to give you such a choice! :)

Exactly, which leads to the question "is it possible to get one without the other?". Which is the whole point of this OP. I'm glad someone got it cause I had a feeling of hitting a wall with TECSHARE xD
I disagree here :D

To take something we all know (even if I'm convinced possibilites are more or less infitine and the best solution is yet to be created) let's take the constitution/laws system that is currently used. The rules aren't the laws but the constitution, because laws can be changed easily while constitution is supposed to structure society. If you change constitution you change society in a redical way.

So you're saying not everyone can participate to writing the rules? Why not? Of course not everyone can agree on something, that's impossible, but why couldn't a vast majority agree on something?

Ahah!
Well you reach another problem here which is the idea of choice. You can't have this choice. And i mean, it's just a fact, you can't have this choice that's all. You don't whose where you're born, well it means you don't chose which kind of society you live in, and if you're born in a group leaning towards the "nearly everything" while you're more on the "not much" side... Well I don't have a solution.

And I don't think those groups can coexist, it seems to me that those groups can only fight each other until one remains ^^

That's why most kids, when they grow up, leave the family. Each individual is his own group, so to speak. It's only when individuals agree on being a group that they can become a group. Even Stockholm Syndrome groups of captives are captive by agreement. Why do they agree? Because the alternative is too scary.

8)

I'm not sure if this could be what's @OP is trying to say, this video (https://youtu.be/FrtDZ-LOXFw) tried to explain the difference between socialism and communism and it says;

"according to Marx, socialism is a precursor to communism and the next logical step after capitalism"

And this was the second time that I've heard of that quote. Can someone who had read or knew about the communist manifesto confirm if Marx really said that? If this were true, I wont make any arguments about socialism and communism.

The idea of Marx is a stateless, moneyless, and classless society, while the idea of socialism is heavily understood as equally shared profits within a "cooperative". Can someone tell me if my view of socialism is right?

So this is how I basically understand communism and socialism, communism is a utopian system that can only be achieved if socialism is put into practice.

If you're looking for a community with the idea of socialism, or the idea of "equally shared profits", the kibbutz from Israel is a good example, IMO. Some said that the kibbutz are enjoying this equally shared profits, but if an outsider would want to join their system, it must pass their exam and is required to donate money.

Imagine if that community became self-sufficient, gathered all the knowledge, built their own vehicles, have their own army and weapons, made their own phones, computers, what will be next? Communism, world domination, or it will eventually collapse? I'm not sure if the word trust is known to them or if their system is entirely a trustless community. But here's the catch, if someone doesn't trust this equally shared profits, or if some member of the kibbutz community will suspect about their profit, a decentralized blockchain can be a good public ledger for them. Let me correct @OP, it must be decentralized/public blockchain and not just blockchain.

This is my basic understanding of capitalism - "follow where the money flows", and my country tried to follow it.

Back then, my country was the number 1 exporter of rice, but my government doesn't believe that agriculture is the first step to industrialization, and now we are importing it. My family, both my mom and dad, were from a family of farmers, but most of them sold their agricultural lands, and their excuse is that money generated from farming is not worthy enough for their hardwork. Too much competition leads to excess of food, the middleman who buys their crop back then said that there is too much rice to consume. Today, the middleman's excuse of buying the crops harvested is still the same. I'm not sure who should I believe, the middleman who says that there is too much rice, or my government who always kept on importing rice just to fill the scarcity.

EDIT: I do own an agricultural land, but it's not income generating, which part of the class should I belong? I'm not basically paying tax, FYI.

And so you're advocating that the group I was born into can do anything they want with me (or anyone else), as long as some of them agree that it's ok?

Conversation over.

Have fun in your dictatorship, sorry, commune. I hope everyone else chooses to do something nice to you

No that's not what I said please quote me entirely ><


You don't have a choice of which society you live in because you're born in it that's what I said!

Of course then you have all the choice in the world to try to change it. But you don't chose where you start from which is the main thing that will influence your life.

And I'm sorry if you're shocked by this but the group in which you're born will do whatever it wants to you.. That's already the case and it will always be. A group decides what should and should not be done to its members. Simple example if you're born in Western countries the group decided you must get mandatory first education and can't have sexual relationships before a certain age. Would you be born in an Islamic dictatorship the group would have made very different choices... The kid born has no saying in this :(

Representative democracy used to be effective when a single individual didn't represent literally hundreds of thousands of individuals.

Originally, there was a single congressional member per around 40-60k citizens. Now it's closer to 250k-500k citizens.

It's crazy to think that individuals can be represented by someone that's job is to represent 250-500k other people.

I've proposed implementing a liquid democracy system to replace the house of representatives, and I'll probably be running for my state house on that platform; which the individual voice matters.

I wish I had a lot of agricultural land for development purposes. There's so many things you can utilize that land for.

However, besides the inherent value of land itself; the problem there seems the middle-man more than anything. If you were a rice farmer and grew everyone's rice, they'd be happy with you in a simple system; unless your rice was the worst rice ever...

Anyway, what're talking about again? I already think I stated the 'best' solution to the problem; which is technology and development :)

Communism is only fair when it's anacho-communism or something similar. People need their absolute liberties regardless of the cost to "society"; they exist for explicit purposes of keeping personal freedoms.

No of course I'm probably as biased concerning liberal economy... Just trying to point out you should keep and open mind and stop putting words inside my mouth :/
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. My point is communist countries failure is more linked to representative government than to communism so let's think about it again ><

I've cut it all because you more or less say the same things on the rest of your post "you should provide evidence that communism works before wanting to go again"

But that's not at all my point, I'm not saying let's do communism, I'm saying "hey previous failures are linked to representative government which had a complete and total power which leads to dictatorship. What happens if we put direct democracy instead?"

See?

https://spencerhuchulak.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/political-compass.png?w=1113

I think he is saying that USSR socialism didn't work because it was authoritarian so maybe we should try libertarian socialism.    I think we all agree that totalitarianism is a bad idea so maybe you should move past that being 100% of your argument against socialism/communism.

I posted this compass because you are only thinking in terms of left vs right.  A one dimensional argument in a two dimensional world.  All of your arguments have been against the top left corner of the compass.  The problem is, as a socialist, I have never met anyone who's ideology is up there.  They exist in history yes, and your arguments are sound against the USSR, but we are literally on the opposite end of the spectrum; in the bottom left quadrant of the political compass where authority comes from individuals via democracy and not from the government. 

Everyone will ask for socialism when oil runs out

What are you talking about? Much of the world's oil is supplied by government owned entities and is completely socialized. Venezuela is the perfect example of this. All that oil and in the end, their socialistic system utterly failed. As the saying goes, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."  :D

We definitely need to stop capitalism before it gets to a point of "grease fire". 

The statement in all caps literally denies the existence of the political compass.  You are saying that the left only exists at the very top left corner of the compass.  Literally everyone here is between somewhere near the middle and the very bottom.    This is why all of your arguments against modern leftist ideology are strawmen.  Yes we should gloss over 100 years of totalitarianism when discussing democratic socialism because it isn't relevant.   Instead of arguing with the 20th century, maybe you should argue with the people who are here and living in the 21st century.   

You already have the answer: Communism leads to dictatorship (the worse kind of dictatorship). So why to insist on this idea?

We need clear rules to live harmoniously in society, and in a communist state it's not possible, everything is questionable and dubious, at same time everything belongs to the people, nothing belong to them, it's a total mess.

There will be always a group of people deciding how things will work for most people. A forced equality that communists promises will never work because people aren't equal, each one has his own individuality and many of them don't even want to decide anything, but to trust someone to do this for them (a government, politicals). The same way many people don't want to be bosses, but employees and there isn't any problem with that.

Communism goes against how the life naturally is.

Ok I'm putting TECHSHARE on ignore. He doesn't read people so there is no point trying to discuss with him. Or he reads people and isn't able to make the difference between cause and consequence but that would be sad. Do feel free to feed the troll if you wish though.

That's the point I'm trying to make:
Communism + representative government leads to dictatorship.
Not Communism alone I believe

Isn't there?

I mean it means handing out the power to somebody to rule over you... Isn't that the worst you can do as a human being?

Now picture this: a country in which laws and constitution are proposed and voted by the people and not by a government. It means we all have an equal share of power and we don't have to hand it over to someone. Now that would be a communist country that might work because there would be no one to abuse the system. You can corrupt 100 politicians but you can't corrupt 50 millions people :)

Completely!

Venezuela in much more complex than just saying "SoCialiSM FaiLLLLs" but that's a good example of power corruption and of how handing everything to the government is NOT a good idea.

But now what if there is no government but everyone rules equally? What if laws are proposed and voted directly by the citizens? What if there is no politician to be corrupted?

Now that's something that might work...

Hey there, would you mind explaining us what you mean by that? I never heard of liquid democracy.

Communism alone leads to dictatorship anyway...


Not everyone is interested in politics to rule the country they live, and many of the citizens don't have enough knowledge to say how things must be done in several sectors (economy, security, health, education, etc...), so it's normal to have representants, that have a similar opinion to the voters, but that are better prepared to work for the country, on the front.

There are many people who just want to work daily, earn money and buy stuff to thrive in life, they don't care about politics, ideologies, they just want to live in a confortable society, with the highest quality as possible. And if the person doesn't care about political choices, he/she won't have any idea about it, so it's better he/she won't have any power... Otherwise it can be a disaster.


The same is said about Democracy, all of us have an equal share of power, and actually that doesn't guarantee benefits. If there are 100 corruptible politicians it's because a big parcel of those 50 millions voted for them, so they are somehow in agreement with those practices.

In other words, if the biggest part of the population is corrupt, illiterate, alienated the whole country will suffer, because they are the majority. And the few guys who could raise the country will be smashed because the minority's opinion doesn't matter.

From this perspective, the Communist system you say is similar to the Democracy we have, with the difference there wouldn't be representants. So instead of electing corrupt politicians, the corrupt people would be acting directly, messing everything around...

I don't get it.  Are you proposing "no private or state property" rule?

Who exactly will control all the properties with no identifiable owners?

Without owners, it will be a complete chaos and anarchy.  People will walk into a place where you sleep (since we cannot call it your house) and take your personal belongings since they don't belong to you, your TV, the bed you sleep on, your car, your grandfather's watch etc. and you will have to agree to it since those things don't really belong to you.

Is this what you are proposing? People sharing everything they used to own with other people?

Criminal gangs would control everything in no time.  Wild West all over again.   

I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.  It is worse than a communist state idea.

You need to distinguish the difference between private property and personal property. 

https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/005/763/216/original/7bcf0dac72c846b5.png
The socialist ideal is that everyone owns their personal property.  The capitalist ideal is that the capitalist class owns everything, including the personal property of the working class. 

Not at all.

First thing I'm proposing is a direct democracy, which would get rid of corruption and cooperation between governments and big corporations.

Second thing I would propose is more of a nation-owned company concerning the basic needs (health, food, education, real estate...). Which doesn't mean that those companies shouldn't exist without private competition. I'm all in for private companies if they want to compete with national companies no problem with that.

But the most important thing here is that I say we need the first thing and... We might try the second. But once the first thing is done then who am I to decide on the second one?

I don't see how anyone could refuse the direct democracy with any kind of logical argument. But the social economy system I have in mind is just an idea of how organising our society. We might go in a totally different direction if that's what is wanted.

The important thing is the direct democracy, which would already make our CURRENT situation so much better... Reducing the power of big corporation in an incredible way.

How coul communism in a direct democracy lead to dictatorship? I really don't see how it's possible would you mind enlightening me here?  :)
Three main ideas you have here:
-First, politicians are more capable that the averag Joe that's why it's good they make the decision. I think you're extremely wrong here, I don't know how it's done in your country but in mine one guy can be minister of education one day (without having even worked in this sector before) then minister of the environment another day (without having worked or studied in this sector before). Most of our politicians are DEEPLY incapable. Maybe your country managed to assure your leaders have some skills if show I'd love to hear how they're doing this!

-Second, that representants are somehow on the same line as their voters. Here again it's completely false in my country and an Harvard studies on American democracy showed how false it was in USA. Representants in USA vote laws at 70% on the line with the 1% most wealthy people in the country and 30% on the line with their voters. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B) The representants represent mainly (if not only) the wealthy people, not the people who voted for them.

-Third, people need representants because they don't have time or knowledge or the will to take the matters in their own hands. Well I'd say that's a huge problem because a citizen who doesn't care about politics is not a citizen. I mean it in no offensive way, citizen means duties, the first of these duties being taking part of the city and the country life. If you don't want to care about politics no problem, but that means you're just an inhabitants of the country, not a citizen. So you shouldn't vote at all. Problem being that today, as people vote only every 3 to 5 years, people who don't care AT ALL about politics have as much weigth in political decisions as people actually caring.

You're completely right here! They are indeed responsible at least in part for the corrupt politicians. But why? Well again I don't know where you're from but in my country, it's not a democracy. We call it a democracy because we're used to calling it that way, but that's more an elective monarchy. You elect a king and then you can't do ANYTHING for 5 years as he has all the power and accounts to no one.

People are powerless. Hence they're no longer involved in political life. To give you an example, our previous president was elected by only 40% of the population, the 60% either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all. Why should they even vote? Whatever politicians say there is no way they'll be true to their words.

We have choice but without responsability. We have vote but we have no power. We're not complete hence we're not trying to become real citizens. We're just a small part of a big machine working without us...

I totally agree with what you said, and now they call themselves communist countries. They are not real communism. They are closer to the political power of the party state. The so-called party state means that the "party" is higher than the government, so their biggest problem is their governments, military, and large enterprises are all controlled by the party.

If you have been to any communist country, you will find that the actual top leaders in these countries are not the president/prime minister, but the general secretary of the party. The highest commander of their army is not the commander but the political commissar. The highest decision-making level of the company is not the board of directors but the party committee of the company.

This is a little different from dictatorship, they are usually not personal dictatorships, but a collective dictatorship. That is to say, there will still be struggles for power in their interiors. If most party members oppose their general secretary, then it is very likely that the general secretary will be overthrown and a new general secretary will be produced, but personal dictatorships are usually not overthrown from within.

It's like communist countries managed to make even dictatorship innefficient  :D

Quoting you for the people who might read this thread later.

All of what you said is in previous answers because I answered each and every claim you made one by one. If there is a single argument missing please notify me I'll edit this post.

I'm deleting your comments because I consider that your aggressive behaviour without any logic (you're not being logic, you talk as if everyone should know the strange hypotethises you have in your mind...) is just trolling. You're being circular and ignoring that the point of this OP is NOT that communism is the answer, but that socialism should be studied deeply to see if the combination of socialism and direct democracy could produce an interesting result. I'm not even saying it WILL I'm saying I don't see how it can't be better than what we have currently.

If you want to discuss how stupid communists are create your own thread. And deleting your aggressive comments while keeping all the arguments in previous quotes is NOT censoring in any way...

EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0) if you're interestedEDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0) if you're interested

LOL  ;D
I am very curious. Two people not from the communist countries(I guess) are arguing over communism. Well, let me tell you the true thoughts of the people living in the communist countries. In fact, They don’t care what communism is at all. For most of them, they only have one idea: make money--->migrate to the West.
This is the truest idea of ​​the people in the communist countries. They do not oppose the Communist Party. At present, the rule of the Communist Party can make the country more stable, but they also yearn for democracy in the West, so quietly make money and then quietly change their nationality to be the ultimate thing for the richers.

+1

The privileged (probably white, middle-class kids) arguing about socialism.  They have no fucking idea what socialism or communism is.

If you lived under both socialist/communist and capitalist systems you would understand the fundamental flaws and benefits of each system.

They should interview people who lived in socialist and communist regimes. 

Instead, they think they "got it", and their interpretation of socialism will work (no matter the evidence to contrary) if they would only get a chance to implement it "properly".  LOL.

These guys are a joke.  Comedians really.

It seems even more people are confusing authoritarian implementations of communism and socialism with theological implements of libertarian communism/socialism.

To most people, in the West, not living under an authoritarian regime; they see socialism as "democracy in the workplace".

I described your delusion a bit upper man ^^

I know that socialism is what allowed me to be where I am.

I wouldn't have the money to pay for my college without socialism. My dad's first company went bankrupt and by the time he made a more successfull attempt I already had my diploma. Do you suggest that it wasn't thanks to socialism?

There are good and bad sides to both systems and I'd say socialism outweigth capitalism on the good side, although it is again not the main point of this post but all the liberal economist of the forum are trying to argue that so I have to answer this off topic subject...

And I am yet to be presented any argument against socialism + direct democracy... mrcash02 is arguing this point right now but I haven't seen anything from you.

No to just direct democracy; liquid democracy is way better.

It has the benefits of representative democracy (for apathetic voters) and allows the freedom of direct democracy (for those that are interested in politics).

It's quite a revolutionary system that needs implemented in our House of Representatives. The sooner its implemented; the sooner Americans can have their interest represented.

You got any link to that? I've never heard of this so I'm pretty interested!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegative_democracy

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/Democracy.svg/264px-Democracy.svg.png

You are confusing social programs with socialism.

You are wrong on capitalism.  Capitalism is cruel, harsh but has more opportunities for people who want to work hard.

Socialism or communism will provide you with free education, free medical services, and will provide you with jobs after you graduate that will get you through the first week of the month, the rest will be up to you to figure out.  Socialism will offer you subsistence living, most of the time you will be literally starving.

In capitalism, even with a job on the production line, you can survive the whole month with two weeks pay.  You can save money even with a job at the McDonalds.

The hardest thing in capitalism is to control yourself and not to buy all the shit you don't really need.  That was the hardest part.  I could have retired sooner if I did not take expensive vacations, bought expensively jewelry or cars early in my career.  

Other than that, the hardest job I had was washing aluminum extruder dies in acid (with rubber gloves that had holes), but it paid very well.
Almost died there.   Do I think workers struggle in capitalism?  I think most do because they spend too much, are not educated and are destined for a life on the production lines.  Do I think their lives are better than the upper management in the socialist or communist countries, you bet yah.
 

Capital would flee.  Your currency would collapse.  An iPhone would cost as much as a doctor's annual salary in your system.

Any more questions?

Let's say there isn't state, each person has the same rights, everyone is "equal" (I really don't believe in equality, as it smashes the individuality). Then I suppose there won't be any constitution, because who will rule the country are the citizens directly, right? What they want is the law.

So the majority starts going against others unfairly, creating a big syndicate that will rule (dictatorship) aiming their own interests. There won't be any laws to protect anyone, as what matters are the majority wishes. After this point, a civil war may happen.

This majority can also create big economical issues, as there is a chance they won't know what they will be doing.


Politicians should be more capable than the average Joe to get that position (probably the average Joe should be more capable to choose the right politician too). It's true in many countries it doesn't work well, here there was a preacher as Science and Technology minister. Nothing against preachers, but in this case the guy didn't know anything about science or technology... At least here now there is a promise it will change, I hope so.


I'm not a big fan of these studies, they are very convenient when they want. It may vary depending on how you interpret them. Maybe a law that benefits the wealthy people, benefits average people too. Especially taking in consideration investments wealthy people make on the countries, what is advantageous even for the miserable ones.

But if a representant isn't being coherent with his initial proposals, there are many others on the competition, waiting for a chance. With social medias the pression over them is much bigger nowadays.


That is true, that is how Democracy is fail, not a perfect system, but at least there are some guarantees that respect our individuality against a possible majority's abuse. And even if it was the Communism you say, these people would continue apathetic towards the politics, with the difference it would be a hostile unstable system.


Yes, changes are needed, 5 years is too much to accept quietly, especially if the political said one thing during the campaign and did the opposite or nothing after elected. I just don't think changes should be so extreme...


Between the two options, none was good for them, however their candidates weren't enough to please the majority too, otherwise they would be on the final round of the elections... The stronger group wins, with or without majority. It's really hard to find a candidate who is able to get votes from most people of a country.

I think if a politician lies new polls should be summoned.


Yes, because the ones who just press the buttons on the election's day and doesn't care anymore. Some people don't even know the difference between a president and a mayor... Again, it's not a perfect system, changes are constantly needed, but always preserving the conquests we made so far.

Yes please. Tell me what capital would flee and how?
That's the one red flag all the capitalists are always swinging like a Damocles sword and I find it very funny as it makes no sense whatsoever.

Why shouldn't there be a constitution? The constitution just must be writen by citizens as it has been done in Iceland.
And you talk about a big syndicate aiming at their own interests, but that would be only if you manage to find a large enough amount of people who share the same interests.
What you mean here is that majority would rull over minority right?

You're right. The constitution might guarantee certain rights and we can change the idea of majority by saying for example laws can pass only if 60% of the population agrees but eventually, you reach a point where you say "hey, 80% of us agree on this so let's do this". But I don't see any way to have a system where a group manages itself without deciding that majority rules minority. It's teh very base of group interactions. Unless you see something else possible?


Exactly. The average Joe will be as skilled as many politicians and at least he won't be corrupted and sold to big corporations. That sounds like a win to me.
Well the study was both easy and objective: there are polls of opinions on all the laws and they're classified depending on how they're received by the different social classes. The study got international recognition and was approved by pretty much everyone, it's rather reliable.
Yeah and that's what's happening, politicians are replaced every terms or nearly, but does that change anything? No, as they don't have to stay true to their words they just lie, get elected, get all the money they can, go away...
I don't see how... It's even worse, in current Democracies, as laws opposed by the majority are still enforced.
That's a possibility, but education and knowing they actually have power will change a lot of people. Don't you see how people are more eager to discuss about politics when there are important elections? How they get more interested and involved? A direct democracy would mean people would be able to keep this state of mind all the time!

Well that's understandable cause that would be some crazy changes. I don't see any mild solution but if you do feel free to tell  :)
And he should go to prison or get executed. That would be a good start we can agree on this :D

I really think people would change their state of mind if they knew they had actual power. Today people don't give a shit because they know politicians are just lying and nothing can be done.
If you tell them "ok now you make the laws and the constitution, no more representants you're going to decide yourself" they will be scared of course, but also happy to have control over their own destiny. And I think they'll really get more and more involved in politics.

All the capital in your country would flee abroad.  Your banks will be insolvent.

If you freeze the bank accounts while you implement your system, your country's currency will be worthless on the international markets.

Billionaires who would lose money because of your plan would short sell your currency, stocks to ZERO.  Most likely than not, the billionaires would make sure your country is invaded and you are executed like Muammar Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein.  These gentlemen only hinted that their actions would affect USD exchange rates, look what happened to them.

Your country would not be able to buy foreign goods or resources.  Your citizens will die of starvation. Some lucky ones will escape before you implement your plan.

It is not funny.  This is what happened (and is happening) to many countries where social or political environment inhibits foreign investment.

Just the fact you are asking this question tells me you did not take any undergrad economics courses.  This is economics 101.

No country is self-sufficient.  The international currency market is where the wars are won and lost.

You live in a carefully constructed bubble.

Reserved. Coming back to you as soon as I can because you (at last) makes some relevant points that can (and must) be discussed. I'm glad you finally said something constructive I was afraid of seeing a TECSHARE 2.0 xD

Are you saying that in the capitalist system the capitalist class owns the underwear of workers?  Are you well? You should check it out, it might a tumor. LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaTO8_KNcuo

I am very familiar with what it means not to be able to own a private property.  It is a nightmare.  

I would not wish for my worse enemy to live under a socialist or a communist system.  

The right to own a private property is a basic human right, IMHO.

Yeah the capitalist class owns the underwear, workers buy the underwear with labor time.  The workers who made the underwear get a small percentage of that labor time and most of it goes back to the capitalist class.  You can't buy underwear at walmart without making walmart richer.    its really not that complicated. 

East Wind Community was (and is) an interesting experiment.

I wonder if that's classified as "communism".

https://www.eastwindblog.co/?p=1250

$150/month for slave work and dorm bunk bed, yeah, they live much better than people in North Korea.

What a waste of time.  Lost opportunities; these young people will regret their decision one day.

35 hour work weeks. There are people who work 60 hours a week in America, and have less leftover than these individuals (after all expenses are paid).

Not to mention; work can include stuff like pole fishing, it doesn't seem to bad to be honest.

They spend too much, they should save about 20-25K, invest it in dividend-paying instruments and generate $150+/month.

Maybe investing in order to increase production is not the right way to go? :)

Don't know in USA but in France most small peasants died because of the race towards innovation and productivity. Those who survived are the ones that kept their original ways of producing and are producing less but of higher quality with little investment.

I meant financial instruments.  Invest 25K, and get $150/month in your sleep.

Everyone should do that!

waits for black tuesday 2.0

Oh, everyone is broke, cool!

The constitution may not reflect the wishes of the citizens during a period of time (for an example: We created it today with majority's agreement, but in 30 years, most people don't agree with this anymore), so will the communists citizens accept to keep following it? It's contradictory with the "communist direct democracy" idea...


Majority rules almost everything. They can't, for an example, come to my house and send me out because it's going to become a factory, state's building or something like this. In a communist (even the perfect one) it could happen, and I wouldn't have who to appeal.

Communists don't respect the individual, because everything that matters for them is the whole collective. If most people want, that is what must be done, even if it involves taking most profits/production, properties from the citizens and forcing them to work where they don't want.


Replacing the represetants and pressing them to make their job correctly. If it doesn't work in a country, the problem aren't exclusively the politicians, but the people in general...


I think power isn't for anyone... Everyone changes their state of mind with power, but some for the worse.

Monarchy, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy, communism... Everything could work, depending the people involved on these systems. In the end the problem are the people and not the systems themselves... That is why there are always positive examples about everything involving nordic countries, but when you apply the nordic politics in third world countries there isn't any guarantee they will work too, because the people.

Any organization can be corrupted, but some are a lot easier to corrupt than others. One of the main benefits of Capitalism is that it factors in human greed and exploits it to benefit the whole in most (but not every) circumstances, much like Bitcoin itself.

kapitalism exists also in communism, actually, kapitalists in kommunist societies are richer, more powerful than others, the behave a bit different, but they effectively also dominate the society. kapitalists exist everywhere.

Socialism/Communism can not exist without Capitalism because it is parasitic to it. Once that funding runs out totalitarianism inevitably ensues.

and just to clarify, by "totalitarianism" aren't you including "printing money and taxing"?

Socialism can never work, humans by nature are selfish and ambitious and we don't like to divide us by race, wealth, religion and neighborhood. There always gonna be someone with a better job, a better payment, a better talent or gift so we are never going to be equal

Capitalism is destroying itself, we are at a stage of wealth inequality that hasn't been seen before.


Capitalists have zero regard for the environment.

You can't deny that automation is advancing rapidly and most of the current jobs won't even exist soon, there will need to be some sort of UBI or people will riot and kill the wealthy.