- This topic has 112 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
What leads Communism to inevitably turn totalitarian? I’m asking this without bias, even capitalists have oppressive countries (especially Singapore and Japan) but even these cases are better than the best of Communist countries.
-
>totalitarian
propaganda cliche
same as dictature
>capitalists can’t freely spread their lies
totalitarian/dictature
>country refuses to be a dicksucker
totalitarian/dictaturecommunism at least openly admits class dictature
capitalism pretends that problem is not exist
lets change definitions and force lower/middle/upper class idea (everything is still run by upper class but who cares at least we doesn’t call ourselves parasites ) -
It’s because of how they form and the ideological basis for forming it. Self-declared communist movements inevitably seize power when some relatively small group initiates a revolt and succeeds in overthrowing the power structure of the state it is in, usually after years of warfare. This creates several problems, mostly through the unexpected intersection of Marxist theory (which while not the totality of communist theory, is certainly the dominant strain in the form of political activism of this nature), stasis in the ancient Greek sense, and the practicalities of setting up a new structure.
So say you’ve got a recently victorious Communist party, and you’ve just overthrown the old regime and are settling into the capital, watching the fireworks of the victory celebration. You’ve got a manual in the form of Marx’s works that roughly outlines that the purpose of this government is to create a socialist state and pave the way to create the conditions for communism. You leverage the dictatorship of the proletariat; your power base are these workers and it should be strong enough that they can defeat all other classes that might exist in this society, even should they all band together against the proletariat.. In essence, the leader of the party should be speaking for the working class.
But Marxist theory has very little provision on either the structure of a socialist government or the roles of individuals within that government. Yes, the socialist state should speak for the workers, everyone agrees on that, but why should party figure A speak for the workers and not party figure B? Who is most fit to actually lead? The guidebook that they’re working on gives nothing and implicitly dismisses the question as unimportant. Maybe in a macrohistorical sense it is, but to the people who are caught in the middle of the inevitable power struggle, it isn’t unimportant at all.
1/3?
-
So once victorious, the leading figures of the revolution start to jockey with each other for power. This is almost inevitable, because of the nature of vanguard parties, which have to date been the only successful communist forms to actually overthrow a state structure. Put a bunch of driven, determined, ambitious men together and require them to be intelligent and tough enough to survive the dangerous life as a political revolutionary, and you pre-select for ambition and a drive to run things.
That in itself is cause for concern, but communist revolutions have another problem to deal with. Remember, this is a government that supposedly has a mission to it, to upend the entire economic structure of a society and create a new one that is going to itself transition to a radically new type of human organization. That’s going to require broad, sweeping powers to be able to reorder not only systems of ownership, but also huge swaths of relationships of both people and property. The government needs to be BIG in its scope. Furthermore, it’s going to be initially staffed by people who got to power by violent revolution, who have almost certainly carried the day by pitting superior commitment against superior firepower. The notion of political restraint is not likely to come easily to these men, because the restrained don’t survive to beat the older regime.
2/3-
So say you’ve got a recently victorious Communist party, and you’ve just overthrown the old regime and are settling into the capital, watching the fireworks of the victory celebration. You’ve got a manual in the form of Marx’s works that roughly outlines that the purpose of this government is to create a socialist state and pave the way to create the conditions for communism. You leverage the dictatorship of the proletariat; your power base are these workers and it should be strong enough that they can defeat all other classes that might exist in this society, even should they all band together against the proletariat.. In essence, the leader of the party should be speaking for the working class.
But Marxist theory has very little provision on either the structure of a socialist government or the roles of individuals within that government. Yes, the socialist state should speak for the workers, everyone agrees on that, but why should party figure A speak for the workers and not party figure B? Who is most fit to actually lead? The guidebook that they’re working on gives nothing and implicitly dismisses the question as unimportant. Maybe in a macrohistorical sense it is, but to the people who are caught in the middle of the inevitable power struggle, it isn’t unimportant at all.
1/3?
[…]
So what happens when you stick together a bunch of committed, ambitious, determined men, who have little notion of political restraint and no clear guide as to how they should organize each other so they can get on with running the country? They scheme. And because they don’t much believe in limits to the power of the state offices they now occupy, this scheming has lethal consequences. Lose out in the political struggle here, and you will probably be killed, as well as your friends and family. And there’s no highest authority you can appeal to, no foundation rules of law or spaces held beyond the reach of the government, that’s antithetical to the very purpose of the revolution. So there can never be any permanent safety for yourself unless you hold absolute power, such that anyone who even thinks of turning against you gets found out and killed first.
Sooner or later someone realizes this and systematically starts purging the party of anyone who is even remotely a threat. They might or might not be the one to wind up on top once the purging is over, but once it is, you’re left with one guy who is in charge and no serious contenders for power.
-
Why did the thread progress beyond this post?
-
-
-
That in itself is cause for concern, but communist revolutions have another problem to deal with. Remember, this is a government that supposedly has a mission to it, to upend the entire economic structure of a society and create a new one that is going to itself transition to a radically new type of human organization. That’s going to require broad, sweeping powers to be able to reorder not only systems of ownership, but also huge swaths of relationships of both people and property. The government needs to be BIG in its scope. Furthermore, it’s going to be initially staffed by people who got to power by violent revolution, who have almost certainly carried the day by pitting superior commitment against superior firepower. The notion of political restraint is not likely to come easily to these men, because the restrained don’t survive to beat the older regime.
2/3So what happens when you stick together a bunch of committed, ambitious, determined men, who have little notion of political restraint and no clear guide as to how they should organize each other so they can get on with running the country? They scheme. And because they don’t much believe in limits to the power of the state offices they now occupy, this scheming has lethal consequences. Lose out in the political struggle here, and you will probably be killed, as well as your friends and family. And there’s no highest authority you can appeal to, no foundation rules of law or spaces held beyond the reach of the government, that’s antithetical to the very purpose of the revolution. So there can never be any permanent safety for yourself unless you hold absolute power, such that anyone who even thinks of turning against you gets found out and killed first.
Sooner or later someone realizes this and systematically starts purging the party of anyone who is even remotely a threat. They might or might not be the one to wind up on top once the purging is over, but once it is, you’re left with one guy who is in charge and no serious contenders for power.
Thanks
-
-
>San Marino
>Kerala
>Bolivia
Communists can be more liberal and democratic, but that usually means they get CIAed easier. The dictatorships are often a response to being under constant attempts at sabotage by the united states and broader capitalist hegemony and create an under siege mentality like in Cuba, the DPRK and Vietnam. It works for them though since they aren’t US puppets and keep their national sovereignty and independence from foreign will but it hinders there progress and effects society universally.-
>muh CIA meme
Stopped reading there. Flush your head of this Chomsky tinfoil shit-
scrote, CIA intervention has been a rule all over the freaking world. Read some books, talk to people. Everyone living in San Salvador can tell you of a experience with glowscrotes.
-
Yeah, but cia has often sided with communists and has been pretty much an enemy of democracy. CIA is the bad guy no matter who you are.
-
>cia has often sided with communists
-
What the fuck. Is this what glowscrotes feed american kids now?
OSS trained the Viet Minh, Operation Dixie was an American military effort to ship supplies and to support Maos army, the American policy across Africa was one of destabilizing colonial powers like Portuguese Angola or Rhodesia
-
Schizo commie cope. So I guess proxy wars are started completely accepting and believing in the pawn’s belief systems. Like hiring a racist to guard a building makes you a racist. Fuck off with that schizo ass logic tankie
-
You said CIA never sided with Commies and I’m proving that false
-
Paying a merc to do your dirty work doesn’t mean you would let them sleep in your house you immature child.
-
>immature child
CIA is full of commies and has gone red many times. There were celebrations in CIA headquarters when ho chi minh took power. Why does the CIA being a commie organization bother you?
-
>gone red many times
I wasn’t aware you could come back from communism. Is it like choosing a different fabric softener? -
CIA is an organization. They frequently have sided with communists and in Africa they’ve deliberately sabotaged peaceful colonial communities in favor of Russian trained dictators. The cold war was very much kabuki theater.
-
Nobody cares about africa though, all politics go out the window when scrotes start eating each other for being a slightly different shade of black
-
John Brennan, the current head of the CIA, is an admitted communist who said he voted for Gus Hall
-
Yes, the head of organizations can be communist, that’s usually how communists work. They can’t actually influence the people anymore because we’re not agrarian stone age plebs anymore, so they just slide into and organization and take it over from the top. Does that mean the entire CIA is a Communist shadow government? I have my doubts.
-
>He has later described his vote as a way of "signaling my unhappiness with the system", specifically the partisanship of the Watergate era
So a liberal scrote, far from a genuine communist.
-
-
-
-
-
What the fuck. Is this what glowscrotes feed american kids now?
Yeah, CIA worked very well with KGB in Africa. They basically accomplished the same things and had the same goals.
The CIA even set Ho Chi Minh up in vietnam
-
-
What the fuck. Is this what glowscrotes feed american kids now?
-
-
Yeah I know this is the basic bitch Chomsky midwit take, but the CIA wasn’t nearly as nefarious as leftist (and themselves) want everyone to believe. Most of these coups they supposedly orchestrate are entirely internal affairs with some Colonel or general forming a conspiracy within the military to overthrow their leader, then just telling the America about it right before. It’s not even always “muh democratically elected socialist!” Either. Nasser in Egypt was overthrowing a King they didn’t like, Videla was overthrowing Isabel Peron in Argentina bc the military felt she was useless in dealing with far left terrorist/guerrillas.
The only one that actually fits the meme understanding that I know of is Iran against Mossedgh. That actually was the CIA telling The Shah what was going to happen
-
I’m not even a commie but if you defend the CIA, you’re bonked in the head man.
Beyond even over throwing goverments, they’ve killed tons of american citizens for disagreements, played part in the crack epidemic and experimented on citizens against their will.
And that’s just the well known stuff, they’re scum people, one of the most downright evil groups of the 21st century
-
You’re not even addressing anything I posted because I’ve completely shattered your juvenile “OMG CIA BOOGEYMAN” tinfoil shit. If you want to hate them go ahead just stop thinking they are the illuminati or whatever
-
you’re point is "it’s not the CIA, it’s just generals and people in the CIA who did these things without the CIA having the full picture, therefor they don’t need to take accountability"
That’s just stupid, an organization has to take full accountability for the decisions it’s members make in it’s name, that’s why you’re supposed to weed out shit heads in the hiring process.
Obviously the CIA has a thing for hiring megalomaniacs who assume they can make country changing on america’s behalf decision without actually checking what citizens want, and that’s fully on the CIA.
Also you talk like freaking buzzword spewing scrotebrain, i just can’t believe you’d defend and suck the dick of CIA, no matter what political spectrum you believe, like what good have they done that they also didn’t play part in starting and inflaming
-
>you’re point is "it’s not the CIA, it’s just generals and people in the CIA who did these things without the CIA having the full picture, therefor they don’t need to take accountability"
WRONG!I’m saying that these coups from all over the world during the Cold War were their own internal things. In Egypt, Argentina, Chile ect it was segments of the military or other factions choosing on their own to overthrow their leaders for whatever reason, then just telling the American intel agency that this is what’s going to happen right before that. It lined up with American interest so they just sit there and let it happen. The idea that the CIA director was this James Bond villain saying “I want Allende out” and then Pinochet saying “it will be done master” as his puppet, which is the popular conception is completely wrong.
It works the other way too. In the 70s when the communist in Afghanistan staged a coup, the KGB had nothing to do with it. It was its own internal thing by Afghan commie politicians along with some military
-
Just how much of a freaking scrotebrain can you be to think the Intelligence Agency didn’t know and had nothing to do with the multiple crisis caused by militaries all over the freaking continent so that they only acted at the last minute? Do you realize just how pathetic that sounds?
-
Youre sputtering bc your Chomsky bullshit world view has been cut through like a hot knife through butter and you know it
-
did you practice that line lol
-
-
they get millions of dollars in weapons and funding, and at times even training from the CIA. This material aide has an impact and can make the difference on whether these "Internal" affairs succeed. Deal with it.
-
America stopped all shipments of weapons to Batiste in Cuba after they found out he was being too mean and stood by and let the Communist overthrow him in a coup. What special weapons shipments are you talking about? Are you just stubbornly ignoring the fact that these coups were planned WITHOUT American knowledge?
-
And then they tried to invade in the Bay of Pigs.
-
Very lazily and only at the behest of washington. Even then it was almost set up to fail.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Muh CIA
-
>Muh CIA
nice argument scrotegarden gnome-
Don’t you have a face to cut off and use as a tortilla?
-
-
-
>San Marino
>communist
Holy freaking scrotebrain. And there are still people claiming that being an atheist make you smarter -
-
Nobody has touched Kerala. Wealthy city states with large bureaucracies aren’t communist.
-
The CIA is less competent than you think.
-
Vietnam is specifically NOT siege communism and they opened up to a market economy like everyone else.
-
-
Because the ideology itself is totalitarian
-
It’s woke af on human naivete of course somebody’s going to exploit it
-
Their escatology is woke af around a mythological "proletariat dictatorship", a vague revolutionary phase in which centralized authoritarianism is necessary to reach the comunist utopia. Of course tho once humans reach absolute power almost no one of them wants to leave it, and so this phase is prolonged forever
-
This is a pretty good article on this topic. It shows that the brutal totalitarianism isn’t a bug but a feature of the ideology. It also destroys this western left-lib meme that “Stalinism” was what went wrong and that if only Trotsky took over after Lenin everything would be fine
-
Why do westerners treat liberalism as the norm? For most countries "totalitarianism" was the norm.
-
Their ethos was "we represent the people". When you put a bullet in the brain of a dissident you are doing it for all the kids who have to rummage through trash for food and so on. Of course how much the regime actually represents the people and whether the dissident really is a CIA spy is another matter, and there is no shortage of stupid or amoral people.
-
There’s no such thing as totalitarianism. It’s a duplicitous term invented by the bourgeoisie to smear socialism, which is democratic in the real sense.
-
> but even these cases are better than the best of Communist countries.
Bullshit.The thing is that soviet socialism was born out of chaos and violence and not as a natural evolution from capitalism. Russia wasn’t even capitalist back then, it was an absolutist shithole and strong reformation was needed. Now something crucial happens, Lenin who was the brains dies and thugs like Stalin take power. This always happens in popular movements, see Ho Chi Minh, see any guerrilla in latin america, they were initially formed by economy university students who get killed when things are heating up and the battles are fought by brutes.
Some aspects of totalitarism will boost the economy on paper, it happens in every single totalitarian state in history while a shit ton of people get bonked. The soviet union grew on paper as well, however something unexpected happens after the World War 2 when the United States starts to actively oppose the soviet union for hegemonic power. Every single escalation of the cold war was initiated by the US, and thus more drastic measures to avoid espionage had to be implemented. From this corruption of communism born from the circumstances of the cold war, the other copycat regimes are born, such as China, North Korea, Cuba, African shitholes and so on. The entire world, the entire human history was bonked up by a bunch of glowscrote boomers.
-
Stalin was not a thug but a great communist and proletarian theoretician. He built on Lenin’s work.
-
>From this corruption of communism
Your ideology, from day one required the violent confiscation of all private property in the world at gunpoint, how the fuck could that ever produce anything other than totalitarianism?
-
-
One class manages the resources. The class that manages the resources becomes the dictatorship.
Easy.
-
Socialism not communism and yes the nazis were socialist too
-
The reason the states claiming to have been communist have become totalitarian is because they recreate the worst aspects of the society that came before it.
The USSR was literally just a secular version of Tsarist Russia, down to the literal fact of having slave labor(eg. serfdom/gulags).
None of the Communist countries, with some few very very minor exceptions have done or even attempted anything that can be called "post-capitalist".
-
Sounds about right.
-
-
Why does anyone think the CIA isn’t a communist organization? They may have opposed some south american coups bit their whole history is weird and they even worked with the KGB quite a bit in asia and africa.
I know the prevailing conspiracies theory is that the CIA is full of nazis, but that would only make sense in that they directly push transgenderism on other countries and the US in retaliation to what the allies did to germany.
-
The problem with the CIA is that it’s full of liberals(In the neolib, free market capitalist sense, not in the dumb left-wing american sense).
-
Transgenderism is idealist, like fascism.
-
peak mental gymnastics
-
Communists are typically zionists? The CIA can be zog and commie.
-
opposite of it
-
No, Marx made communism out of guilt by being an assimilated garden gnome living in western europe, much like Freud made psychology out of guilty feelings for the difference in thinking, but Stalin helped found Israel. All major Bolsheviks were gnomish and you diddy start seeing Russians in very positions of power until Stalin got paranoid of garden gnomes.
-
>Marx made communism
go back to /poo/ scrote
your waterbrain garbage worth no reply-
>writes communist manifesto
>communism followsWheres the progenitor if not marx?
-
-
>there were already similar ideas in the past which one could call communist experiments
Leftism is a mental disorder-
wash your ass sharty
-
They literally think hunter-gatherers were communists yet communism is somehow the future of evolution. It’s completely pants on head scrotebrained.
-
who "literally" believes that, i get your making a joke, but I’ve never even heard that so it’s not funny
-
I think he’s talking about the regressive nature of leftist "intellectualism" which is essentially kicking the explanatory can until anybody questioning loses interest
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Communist is evil.
-
Communism appeals to the weak by fomenting envy-hate. Invariably it will cause destruction.
-
Nobody Envy’s rich people, we just feel bad for poor people.
It’s called empathy
-
>Nobody Envy’s rich people
Their slogan is literally "eat the rich" today. Intersectionalism adopted by all main Western communist groups appeals on the basis of gathering a horde of the weak and inciting hatred towards the strong, beautiful,and successful. Lenin himself said he was stirring up the poor peasants against the rich peasants.-
If we don’t have resources to help the poor who should we get it from, the people who are hoarding them right
‘
-
-
-
We don’t want to become porky, we wish to destroy porky. What part of that don’t you understand? It’s not driven by hate, it’s driven by our material interests but many of us do hate the rich for the evil they commit.
Also you will never be rich, stop being a simp for porky you freaking economic cuckold.-
>we wish to destroy porky
Because of envy-hate. You see people who have things and can do things and despise them for their agency.
>it’s driven by our material interests
The rich are richer and the poor are vastly more comfortable than ever before. There’s no rational reason for why you would "hate the rich for the evil they commit" when they’re literally driving social progress. You did just prove that you have a hate woke af ideology but continuously fail to explain why that hate is valid.-
I think we despise them more for their lack of responsibility and General selfishness, most people with morals take accountability for the community around them, while the rich literally live in cities surrounded poverty and are still buy designer garbage.
What "Social Change" are the rich driving for, I’ve yet to see millionaire do anything besides donate to their own bullshit charities for tax breaks
-
>lack of responsibility
As opposed to self-responsibility. Stop acting like a man baby.
>General selfishness
Incentives create a willingness to achieve things. Without that we’d all be stuck at the bottom with no hope out. It’s not their duty to take care of you.
>most people with morals take accountability for the community around them
Only if they have a connection to that community. Commutards don’t believe in any type of unifying factor other than "poor people together amirite" and it’s dumb as fuck. Being proles or simply having a heartbeat doesn’t mean people have the same values, beliefs, or culture, and there’s no reason to feel that one should surrender their effort for the sake of people who might socially oppose them. This is extremely relevant in the post-modern multicultural world we’re coming into. A moral person wouldn’t undermine themselves for the sake of others who seek to undermine them as well.
>I’ve yet to see millionaire do anything besides donate to their own bullshit charities for tax breaks
So you’re reducing all charity, even the heavy hitters giving out tens of millions to billions, on the assumption that they will break even with tax breaks. That’s so asinine I don’t even know where to start with that one. You’re like a child.-
>Commutards don’t believe in any type of unifying factor other than "poor people together amirite"
What’s wrong with that?-
I’ve just explained it to you. Because not having things isn’t an identity. There’s no belief or underlying value in it. That belief is, for one, predicated on nihilism and being ignorant of opposing cultural differences that underlie in every single group in the world. Our proof is in eastern European communism, which all resulted in the explosion of ethnic rivalries. It proved that national consciousness is more powerful than an enforced "class" consciousness.
-
How can you act like an authority on Identity
Anything can be an identity, and of course the experience of not having enough money is something that tons of people can build an identity around.
The underlying value " we don’t deserve to have to struggle like this while others are making exuberant amounts money off the work we do"
-
-
-
you can have both self responsibility, but also a responsibility to your community, i think that’s the key factor in being a Man.
>Incentives create a willingness to achieve things
Money is not the only incentive in the world, why would you think that’s the only reason people do things, like people work for the sake of doing good job, innovating, and just generally feel self full-filled. So many people are fine not being rich and fulfilled by their family and friends.
>only if they have a connection to that community
How can you be connected to the literal city you live in, it’s more then just "poor people" it’s just people that live around you, maybe if you somehow live in a place with no poverty or general issues to be solved that be different, but even in the richest cities theirs still tons of poverty. I put myself in my family first, but nobody needs to be multi millionaire or live in a McMansion, when you get to that point i think it’s not moral to turn around to help out your community.And I’m not reducing all charities, but the charities of the today, Especially the biggest, barely end up doing any work for how much money they make and are usually just a way for the rich to get good boy points, not to mention these charities are economy themselves, just look how many are run by the off spring of rich people, it’s way more beneficial to actually use your own money and time to actually look at a problem and fix it yourself.
I’ll say also, i don’t think rich people are actually evil, I’m not even really a commie, but i think being a multimillionaire. with the full knowledge of the state of the world, is essentially turning your back on your community and is not a moral act
-
>to your community
This assumes there is a community whatsoever. Let’s say you had it your way and more people started becoming commuturds and running around shouting "eat the rich". How is that rich person supposed to feel like part of the community at that point? You just contradicted your own argument by basing your ideology on arbitrary hate for them.
>Money is not the only incentive in the world
But you literally said your reason for hating the rich is because of material desires (your words).
>How can you be connected to the literal city you live in, it’s more then just "poor people" it’s just people that live around you, maybe if you somehow live in a place with no poverty or general issues to be solved that be different, but even in the richest cities theirs still tons of poverty.
In San Diego there was a sector of the inner city that used to belong to commercially oriented businesses. Every few weeks it became a tent city where stinky homeless people would shit on the side of the street and bark at people, sometimes attacking them. I’m not afraid to say that I do not sympathize with them and I’m not sure why you are. When you think poverty, you think "well everyone is just like me". You’re even assuming I’m like you. You don’t have values, or beliefs, or serious convictions. Your symbols weren’t handed down to you, you just picked them at the spur of the moment because you do in fact need to fill a void. You’re a cultureless null entity. A place holder for someone who does have cultural value. Being "poor" or having less is not an identity and destroying the class of people with initiative is a sure fire way to fuck up a social order and drive it into tent city status.-
>how is that rich person supposed to feel like a part of the community
Give up your exuberant wealth and come hangout with people, like what do you mean, you don’t have to be rich, like do positive things with your money for your community.
If rich people we’re actively helping their communities, people wouldn’t hate them
Wanting people to have food and housing does is not being driven by money, also that’s not like my only goal in life, i have hobbies and am driven by the people around me being proud of what i do as well as a want for self actualization.
> Every few weeks it became a tent city where stinky homeless people would shit on the side of the street and bark at people, sometimes attacking them.
You realize how many of these people are just mentally challenged and have been essentially abandoned and left to degenerate, like if they’re stinky, why don’t these rich people open a bathhouse, we all know why they can’t bathe, they have no houses. You’re unwilling to help people get out of poverty because they’re dealing with the effects of poverty, that’s such like a shitty person mindset.
When i was a lil kid, i was like you, afraid of homeless people, but then i grew up, i met people that got of homelessness, i realized that most people who are homeless have reasons that led them there.
Also you use insults to much to make yourself seem above the people you disagree with, just learn to make your points without having to sperg out for the last lines with the freaking super villain quotes lol,
-
>Give up your exuberant wealth and come hangout with people
You’re an idiot. "Just chillax" isn’t going to fix any social problems.
>like do positive things with your money for your community.
Again, this assumes giving money is going to be positive. Another story from San Diego: When I first arrived I saw a homeless guy and I asked him where I could find a place to eat, he pointed to a few places in line of sight and told me the district for that sort of thing would be. I gave him a twenty thinking he was going to use it for food. When I got back I saw a case of beers. He just wanted to get as drunk as he could. This is most people. Giving money to random people isn’t a solution. You’ve again also assumed that there is such a thing as a "community" when there may not be at all. Again, people living in proximity are not a community, especially when you have so many of them shouting "eat the rich". Not making a great case for themselves by posturing against the people they’re demanding from.
>If rich people we’re actively helping their communities, people wouldn’t hate them
That’s not true at all. During Occupy movements they were castigated and sometimes attacked outright. When big banks host gay pride parades they’re lambasted as posers. There’s no benefit for communicating in the language of the defeated.
>Wanting people to have food and housing does is not being driven by money
This assumes that those people are already benevolent and rational and will use resources in a logical way and won’t use them to undermine the giver. It’s like white people supporting decolonial movements knowing full well that they’re erasing and propagandizing against their own history and identity.-
I think you’re the idiot
No shit if you hand right into a homeless persons hand, they’ll go buy crack or something, what do you expect, they’re freaking crack heads.
That’s why you have to think deeper then "Throw money at issue, oh it didn’t work, well no need to do anything then". I never said, "Give money to Random People" I said give money to the community, think about ways you could help, for example instead of giving a homeless twenty bucks, buy him a haircut or food directly, Expecting the homeless, a group that i usually dealing with mental illness and drug addiction, to make a good case for themselves, is just stupid, take the agency to realize, these people obviously need some legitimate help, what can i do with the resources i have to actually make a difference, be more creative then "throw money at the issue"
Expecting people in tough situations to always be amazing people who are undoubtedly deserving of wealth, is just a mindset removed from reality. If you have the capability to be the bigger man and help the situation, you should.
Also i didn’t say "just chilllax" i said, you don’t have to be rich, nobody has to be rich, every rich person has the choice to put their wealth towards good causes and live modestly like the rest of humanity.
Also no shit, the occupy movement was against the super rich, and the rich didn’t do anything. And it would be freaking stupid to forgive banks because their marketing team told them to hang a sign on pride day, that literally as nothing to do with wealth inequality and millions of regular people did this shit years before the banks. Also, blaming some people of the billions of not rich people for being not being beacons of the utmost respectability is just dumb, why would everyone at these rallies just happen to be amazing people, like statistically that’s just not gonna happen. You don’t have to respect people to want them to have decent lives.
-
>No shit if you hand right into a homeless persons hand, they’ll go buy crack or something
Exactly. So when you make blanket statements about people under the poverty line, half of them can’t and don’t care to be fixed to meet long term self sufficiency criteria.
>I said give money to the community
You keep saying this word over and over again and never substantiated that either of us even have communities. I know that over half the people around me have interests that rail against my own. It wouldn’t make sense for me to empower the people who insist on villainizing me individually and all of my identifying aspects. Communities have cultures and trust. I don’t trust that over half the people in my proximity would sacrifice for me and I do believe that the majority of them actively vocalize hatred for me and what I stand for because they villainize the people who stood for me to bring me where I’m at.
>for example instead of giving a homeless twenty bucks, buy him a haircut or food directly
You expect me to start babying 50 year old men? What the fuck are you on? -
>You keep saying this word over and over again and never substantiated that either of us even have communities. I know that over half the people around me have interests that rail against my own. It wouldn’t make sense for me to empower the people who insist on villainizing me individually and all of my identifying aspects. Communities have cultures and trust. I don’t trust that over half the people in my proximity would sacrifice for me and I do believe that the majority of them actively vocalize hatred for me and what I stand for because they villainize the people who stood for me to bring me where I’m at.
It just seems more like you are actively not a part of the community you live, like you’re the one is who villlainizing the people around you more then anything else
How can you say that the people that you interact with everyday, live around and share an economy with are not your community, the place you live not having a sense of community is problem in itself, and it’s why i would never live in suburbs or a downtown condo, but community first definition is people that live together and share characteristics.
Just because you don’t like the people around you doesn’t mean you don’t live in community, i would recommend moving cause it just seems like you hate where you live.
Also "half of them can’t and don’t care to be fixed to meet long term self sufficiency criteria", if everyone had this mentality nobody would ever get out of any slump, like these people are people not ideas, they don’t just clearly communicate everything about themselves, they have egos, they understand the people around them hate them and react to it. Again, it just seems ridiculous to say "Well i would help this homeless guy if he had no mental and social issues, was well kept and was able to work" well then they wouldn’t be homeless probably!
-
>It just seems more like you are actively not a part of the community you live, like you’re the one is who villlainizing the people around you more then anything else
This would be a leap to conclude. I’ve already told you people literally build careers on shaming my identity and thus myself and everyone who brought me up to this point and everyone who associates with me. That’s a deeply personal attack made by people you expect me to kowtow to. There’s no reason I should and the fact you would defend them means you don’t care about blatant propaganda woke af attacks either. Exposing the different communities and their competitive nature isn’t villainizing anyone, and the fact you just handwaved obvious villains who attack me personally just makes you look like one of the villains yourself. If someone attacks everything about your personhood and legacy, you would think that’s evil. In fact, what you do is far more ludicrous- you think anyone who has lots of things is evil regardless of how much they try to help you as we have seen in the banking and occupy examples of rich people trying to reach out towards people of your ideals and you joined in lambasting them. I can recognize people who attack me as evil, but you attack even people who would help you because you’re so disgusted by them having things you don’t. This is another proof you’re displaced from reality. -
who attacks you Personally, like by Name, who are you that you’re been villainized Personally
I guess I’m sorry, but again, why the fuck do you live in a place where you are actively seen as a villain by the majority of people, you’re not even explaining why, or how you got to this point that you see people around you making careers out of directly attacking you.
You seem to live in like a very unhealthy fantasy, where now you’re beginning to see me, some random guy on the internet, as an active villain in your life where you personal personhood and legacy is at stake, like buddy were just having disagreement, you seem a little up your ass but i don’t think your evil, i think if anything you should out of san francisco, it’s kind of a shitty place, especially for someone like you
-
And No asking you the baby him, but just to have little awareness of "okay this 50 year old, probably mentally ill, scarred from years of homelessness and suffering from alcoholism, probably won’t end up investing the 20 bucks i give him and getting a job anytime soon, so if i want to help him, I shouldn’t expect it to be that easy"
like it seems like, one you strongly identify with being white and don’t want other cultures being more prevalent around you, and two hate homeless people and have strong objectivist judgements, so why the fuck are you living in San Francisco, you’re just setting yourself up to be a very pissed off person all the time. Like move mid country to a mainly white town ,they’re still tons of them, then maybe you could actually understand community
-
-
Why do socialists have no actual conception of what actual wealth is? Do you honestly think every wealthy person is like Ebeneezer Scrooge walking around with gold coins in their pockets?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It doesn’t work.
So, someone realises it and finds his way to the top so he can pretend it does but it’s actually working because he takes the necessary measures.
Basically Fascism but with huge amounts of red LARP.
-
>huge off top posting from seething mutts
many such cases -
>Especially the biggest, barely end up doing any work for how much money they make and are usually just a way for the rich to get good boy points
It’s you thinking like a child again. There are no "good boy points". They have to go through effort and sacrifice to make a charity, which in my opinion, is grossly counterintuitive to what they should be doing most of the time.
>just look how many are run by the off spring of rich people
All this proves is that rich people give generationally. That’s pretty astonishing at all given that the poor people are "eat the rich". Imagine if there was a communism for rich people ("eat the poor").
>i think being a multimillionaire. with the full knowledge of the state of the world, is essentially turning your back on your community
This has already been addressed twice. You’re saying that people in proximity to each other are a community and this isn’t true at all. A community is an extension of the family and acting as a tribe or nation. They’re people who would guarantee that they have cohesion and concern for one another because they are the same. Look at America- it isn’t a nation. It’s a country of small nations competing with one another. There’s no coherence. The constitution acts as a cease fire agreement between individuals. -
>why don’t these rich people open a bathhouse
There are a dozen major homeless shelters in San Diego, another few dozen minor shelters. They choose not to go, for whatever reason.
>You’re unwilling to help people get out of poverty
Again, you’re ignorant in assuming they didn’t have a choice in the first place. The guy I gave money to could have gotten two days worth of food but opted for boxes of beer. That wasn’t rational self interest at work and there’s no reason for you to assume most or even any of the homeless people in poverty have that to begin with.
>When i was a lil kid, i was like you, afraid of homeless people, but then i grew up, i met people that got of homelessness
Firstly, I’m not afraid of homeless people lolI just think they’re foolish more often than not. Secondly, you’re assuming they’re actually homeless in the first place. Some people, and they do exist, go out and do it because it’s easier to make 15 bucks an hour standing on a roadside then going to work. Thirdly, out of all the hundreds of homeless people I’ve seen and met, I don’t think I’ve met anyone who’s ever gone to the brink and come back. I don’t think you actually have either. Yes, I’m calling you a liar. No way someone can say the ignorant things you’ve said and actually tasted the real world.
>Also you use insults to much
>super villain quotes
*too
And I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I think your points are ignorant. You can take that as an insult but the fact stands on its own. You keep assuming every poor person is a rational respectable actor and the majority of those in dire straits are not. You keep assuming there are communities to begin with but don’t have a criteria for what a community even is. -
>Expecting people in tough situations to always be amazing people who are undoubtedly deserving of wealth
Being a good person doesn’t make you money. And in today’s economic climate, even being good at a job isn’t a security. Socialism isn’t inherently bad, it’s good, but it’s predicated on the idea of social cohesion and trust to begin with- something few western countries have. There aren’t really that many western nations, most are divided countries.
>If you have the capability to be the bigger man and help the situation
We have two very different versions of "help the situation" because you and I have different values altogether. What you think is beneficial is harmful to me, and what I think is beneficial you would think is bad because it would make you feel bad. We have different interests stemming from your aculturalism. The problem is, you don’t actually have a culture so you assume everyone in the world would look out for you or have your interests at heart and therefore you should have theirs.
>live modestly like the rest of humanity.
Most people don’t want to live modestly. In the example of the homeless person I gave you he had nothing and still chose to prioritize luxury over necessity.
>Also no shit, the occupy movement was against the super rich, and the rich didn’t do anything.
They do, proportionately, the most. And the fact you just hand waved the banks trying to assist scrotery out because market teams are inherently evil is exactly what I’m talking about. There’s no benefit for the rich to indulge in commutard fever dreams. They shouldn’t be doing anything at all that might validate them because they’ll only get more hate from the people they’re helping.>You don’t have to respect people to want them to have decent lives.
Yes I do. Especially since so many of them build careers and lives on disrespecting me and my own.
>inequality
Inequality is the sole marker of human progress.-
>Inequality is the sole marker of human progress
Scummy
-
-
>Why did the thread progress beyond this post?
Because it didn’t address any of the basic reason why scheming evil people end up running communist mafias or approach the world views of those who would insinuate that communism is in any way moral. That post didn’t do anything but tell us what we already know about a handful of men instead of addressing the idea in totality.-
We get it, you’re biased and scrotebrained. And functionally illiterate.
-
-
Not enough checks and balances. It isnt true though as several Communist countries went from more totalitarian to less totalitarian with time (USSR, PRoC)
-
>How can you say that the people that you interact with everyday, live around and share an economy with are not your community
Because those interactions are often deeply negative in no part due to my own actions. Me having an identity alone is considered egregious to some of those people and I have a right to it. Actual communities need to be built on shared values and culture and we don’t have that so obviously there’s going to be conflict. We don’t "share characteristics" as you say. We don’t even live together. We live in relative proximity, and by that we happen to live under the same government and that’s it. That’s just another domain we have to compete in order to actualize our identities. Sharing an economy means nothing as well. There’s no value in the fact that we require trading services and currency. That means literally nothing.
>i would recommend moving cause it just seems like you hate where you live.
I don’t think you get it. The post-modern world is divided along cultural lines across most of the west, and certainly North America. This means that the divisions will exist in most urbanized and suburban areas. Only groups like the Amish or inner city peoples would have coherence in values and symbols. Throughout most of the country it’s just individuals conglomerating into small groups of self-interest. That self-interest isn’t a bad thing mind you, it’s a consequence of legacy, opportunity, and identity.
>if everyone had this mentality nobody would ever get out of any slump
A life long slump is not a slump.-
Also Again, I feel like you’re projecting on to me this idea of like a hyper communist who feels no attachement to any in groups and has no personal desires
I’m just saying, the decision to become a multi millionaire is completely unrespectable, as it shows that you lack any sense of greater responsibility and accountability.Self interest is fine and i always think people should have the choice on what issues they help with, but actively hoarding resources and ignoring the obvious issues the people you live around are dealing with is disgusting, and it takes a lot of dissonance and buying into your own egos bullshit to do, i obviously don’t expect the world to change cuz i said this, but I’m also never gonna give rich people any respect they don’t deserve and won’t ever go easy on them.
-
>ignoring the obvious issues the people you live around are dealing with is disgusting
Why do I have care about them and not myself? I don’t have to value human life. Human life intrinsically have no value, and I don’t have value humanity to put myself first.
>I’m also never gonna give rich people any respect
They don’t need your respect to stay rich-
>Why do I have care about them and not myself? I don’t have to value human life. Human life intrinsically have no value, and I don’t have value humanity to put myself first
I mean that’s fair, but if you don’t value human life, i don’t want you in my community, you are the freaking villain and you’re honest, and yet your pissed when people villainize you"I don’t give fuck about these people…wait, why do they hate me that’s so bonked up"
And sure they can stay rich, I’m not jealous of them, but i will continue to make jokes and remarks at their expense, which originally, you were complaining about, you’re painting me as jealous at first, then selfish cause the rich do so much, when i’m just saying they’re awful people, they made a bad choice and continue to in hoarding there money, and i won’t fully ever respect them until they do something with it
-
-
-
-
>need centralized authority to lead a revolution
>dont give it up after
It’s really that simple. You need to hope a dictator will give up power and act in good faith.-
this
Especially considering how out of touch with reality and violence war heroes tend to be
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.