Communism and the Left

[Taem]

While clicking on a video link, I saw this interesting feed and wanted to share it. Honestly, if FIT were not part of these boards, I doubt I'd even care, but his devoted one sighted nature is so baffling to me, we'll let me just say that I really enjoyed the simplicity of this video and how it touches on how ardent deniers of the atrocities of communism talk about the "perversions of true communism" as if communism has never been attempted before, as if democracy is 100% the same in every country. Give me a break. The atrocities of what Communism represents should be known.

Reading the comments section have proven to be fun, interesting, and even enlightening. The ardent supporters of communism all seem to talk fervently with biased disposition and a gutteral tongue whose naivety on slavery and capilalistm is astounding. It's truly amusing when the educated put them in their place in the comments section such as this gem in the dirt:

1) Assuming slavery is a part of capitalist ideology - wrong. Also you are incorrect as transatlantic slavery killed in approximations between 2.5-4million as apposed to 110 million through communism. 2) 'communism should be compared to fascism', correct! So ANTIFA are technically fighting for rather than against fascism as they push left. Nazism dramaticallt improved Germany culturally, economic and socially. They invented rocket technology which starter Nasa in the US. 3) There have been and always will be commie fails because communism doesn't work, especially as we are already well bathed in the benefits of capitalism.

Anyhow, talking points I found interesting, if not misleading in the video would be how the narrator correlates the left with supporting Communism by not denouncing it entirely. I'm not sure I entirely agree with his POV. Another point is his comparing Communism to Nazism which seems fair to me, but there have been many startup communist countries to prove it doesn't work, whereas there has only been one Nazi regime to compare to. Apples to apples, or apples to oranges? Too much of a generalization for my taste, but I liked everything else the narrator said enough to share so, enjoy:

[FireIceTalon]

SMH. So you really, actually want to go here? I cannot tell if you are really this dense, or if you are just trolling for the sake of trolling.

but his devoted one sighted nature is baffling to me

This is cute coming from you - one of the most simple-minded, shallow, uncritical, dingbats whose posts I've had the displeasure of reading. The communist view is baffling to you because you haven't the slightest understanding of what either communism is, or what capitalism is either for that matter. But, lets start with Nazism and communism since that is the video you posted.

One can't even begin to compare Nazism (or fascism in general) and communism. Not only just for the mere fact they are ideological opposites with entirely different worldviews, but that one is a form of bourgeois state dictatorship centered around the proposition and foundation of white supremacy, and the other - depending on the context it's used in - refers to a specific economic mode of production, characterized by a very particular set of social relationships; or a revolutionary political movement of the working class. They have nothing in common, anymore than social democracy and feudalism do.

It is also important to note that this video presents a rather misleading way in saying there has only been one Nazi regime. This is true in the sense that Germany in the 1930's is the only nation to have a ruling political party that called themselves the Nazis. However, there has been many FASCIST regimes throughout capitalism's history - many of them quasi-US sponsored regimes put in place to protect and expand the interests of American capital. Nazism is merely one form of fascism.

Your little video is trash and outlandishly nonsensical on nearly any and every level, you should be embarrassed even posting it. It should be obvious why communism isn't hated as much as Nazism in many parts of the world - one only needs to read The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf back to back to see that they are worlds apart both in their goals and ideologically. But moreover, the video isn't entirely correct in its main premise that Nazism always gets more hate than communism. There are countries where political parties based around Nazism are sympathized or honored but sympathy for communism is criminalized (Ukraine is one example of this). All this video accomplishes is confirming the age old (but still true) "the ruling ideas of any era are always the ideas of its ruling class". From the article:

The letter read: “Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organisation [the UPA] that slaughtered tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political groups in western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine.”

It warned that the “wholesale condemnation of the entire Soviet period as one of occupation of Ukraine will have unjust and incongruous consequences,” noting that even someone who speaks positively of the perestroika market reforms under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, for instance, could be condemned.

Dunja Mijatović, the representative for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe on freedom of the media, said the “broadly and vaguely defined language” in the anti-communist law “could easily lead to suppression of political, provocative and critical speech, especially in the media”. The US Holocaust Memorial Museum also condemned the independence-fighter legislation.

Even if the laws are not invoked to send souvenir sellers and historians to prison, they will promote ultranationalism and “anti-communist hysteria”, said Denis Pilaš, an activist with the Ukrainian group Left Opposition, who co-wrote a scathing analysis of the law in the journal Commons.

A communist supporter attending a rally in Kiev on International Workers' Day in 2012.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
A communist supporter attending a rally in Kiev on International Workers’ Day in 2012. Photograph: Gleb Garanich/Reuters
“The main danger of these laws is the movement of the political discourse to the right and the violence of the far right against leftwing activists,” he told the Guardian. “It’s a further step toward the legitimisation of these things – conservatism and violence against leftists – which have been growing for the past three to four years.”

In addition, the anti-communist legislation could entail millions of dollars in expenses for renaming the huge number of cities, streets and other places connected with communist figures or the Soviet Union at a time when Ukraine is in economic crisis. Already local politicians have discussed a new names for the cities of Dnipropetrovsk and Kirovohrad, which were renamed in honour of communist revolutionaries Grigory Petrovsky and Sergey Kirov during Soviet times.

Here's a cold, hard fact that will be difficult for you to swallow: communism has killed (or murdered) exactly ZERO people - modern communism has never existed (yet). Capitalism - the system we DO live in and have so for the past 300 odd years - kills 25,000+ people PER DAY, every day, through starvation alone - this isn't counting the wars, genocide, or other ways that capitalism kills people. Nor is murder the only way in which capitalism oppresses people. But for the sake of argument, I will play your game for a moment:

EVEN IF that 110 million figure could be attributed to communism (which it cannot be as it has no relation or even any imperative that lends itself to the internal logic of communism). And EVEN IF that number was correct and the first statement was true (this is a highly exaggerated number by even most bourgeois sources), the deaths and misery from capitalism FAR, FAR exceed that number. As said before, 25,000 people starve to death PER DAY under capitalism - NOT including all the other ways the system kills people.

Even if we play your meritless game, and say "communism" killed 100+ million people (the most inflated figure), from say 1917-1991, capitalism kills more than that EVERY 5 YEARS. It's hard to put an exact total on capitalisms death toll, because it kills in so many ways and getting exact numbers is always tricky (especially when dealing with extremely large figures over a long period of time), but the number is very likely in the BILLIONS. If we take the entire totality of capitalism's history into account, it is almost certainly in that range. The genocide of new world aboriginals ALONE eclipses even the most wildly inflated claims of those who allegedly died under "communist" regimes, and it follows directly from the ideological underpinnings of the feudal/mercantile (and later, capitalist) regimes this occurred under.

It might be time for a "Black Book of Capitalism" to be published, but again, getting a total would be difficult for reasons stated above. Not to mention, the number would probably be most horrifying to look at even if it were attainable.

The ardent supporters of communism all seem to talk fervently with biased disposition and a gutteral tongue whose naivety on slavery and capilalistm is astounding.

Our disposition on the capitalist system is not unfounded, and in fact comes from a very rigorous, scientific investigation of the systems inherent, fundamental workings; from its earliest developments to this hour of late-stage capitalism. Biased? No. The Marxist view of capitalism is an objective one - based upon what capitalism actually is - and not one based upon what they think it is or what it ought to be as libertarians and social democrats (mistakenly) do. It is only biased to you because it presents inconvenient truths about the system, truths which you do not want to face because you are an apologist for the given social order. The evidence against it is overwhelming. Capitalism has been put on trial, and is found guilty - of EVERY charge.

Of course slavery is not a part of capitalism's core ideologies, but only so in the 'idealist' sense of the word - If capitalists were openly pro-slavery, that would be a politically untenable position that would make it outright impossible for them to justify the continued existence of their shit system. That is why 'fair exchange' is promoted as the central ideology rather than slavery. But capitalism is indeed slavery - just a different form of it than the class dynamics and arrangements seen in slave society (Ancient Rome), or feudalism. It just relies far more on mystification and obfuscation to conceal its real-world workings, compared to prior systems of oppression. But these workings can be and have been exposed with a material analysis - that is why the system goes to such great lengths to silence or attempt to discredit anything that might be a threat to not only the systems legitimacy, but even its very existence. Thus, it is no wonder that bourgeois historians and economists, as well as other sectors of capitalisms ideological state apparatus, will try to demonize Marxism and communism any chance they get - the capitalist system literally fights for its life every day and therefore requires propaganda and mystification to protect itself. It exists through propaganda, deceit, and state violence - not on its own merit as communism would.

Ever heard of wage slavery? Workers produce all wealth in society yet own almost nothing, because the capitalists hog it all because they own the means to production. In order to survive, workers must sell their labor power to a capitalist in exchange for a wage that is far less than the value he or she produces, or face homelessness and starvation - all indisputable facts. THAT is a form of slavery, coercion, and exploitation; it just happens to be legal (but see the quote in my sig on that) - regardless if you acknowledge it or not. Maybe you should get the fuck off youtube, and go read the first 3-4 chapters in Marx's "Capital Vol.1". You would probably learn more in the couple hours or so it took you to read it than you have learned in your entire life to date.

It's truly amusing when the educated put them in their place in the comments section such as this gem in the dirt (and quoted load of horseshit)

Except, you pro-cappies aren't educated - at least not in the realms of economics, politics, or history. And you damn sure don't put anyone "in their place" - on the contrary you only reinforce the confirmation for us commies that our view is indeed the correct one and that a Dialectical way of thinking and analyzing is the surest road to historical truth. What is amusing is the typical cappie arguments being the same re-hashed tripe that has been debunked a million times over by now by various leftist groups. We scoff at the likes of you, and at your sub-rudimentary understanding of politics, economics, and hilarious oversimplification of history - and no less of your OWN system, that you outlandishly profess has no alternatives, in spite of all evidence to the contrary! Go on over to Revleft and try to put everyone there in their place, and see how that works out for you.

But perhaps the most notable (and most disgusting) part of your post though was you agreeing with this:

Nazism dramaticallt improved Germany culturally, economic and socially

No. This kind of re-writing of history as to why people are so politically confused and backwards these days, and is particularly dangerous in that some go as far to flirt with the idea that Nazism is a left-wing ideology. It isn't. Nazi Germany was an utter shithole to live in by any measure - unless you were a capitalist, or a Nazi of course. If you were a communist or any sort of leftist for that matter, gypsi, a Jew, a gay, a woman, or a worker it was a fucking hell hole if not an outright death sentence. I would pick 1917 Russia to live in over Nazi fucking Germany - 24/7/365. The Bolsheviks were 1000 x more progressive than the Nazi's in every single measurable aspect - be it rights for homosexuals, women, Jews, or workers. Not that is saying much, because there was utterly nothing progressive about the Nazi Party. Then you have the audacity to say that communists and Nazis are the same. GTFOH. But as a white supremacist, its no surprise you think Germany in the 1930's-40's was a fucking paradise. I would expect nothing less. Perhaps the one good thing about you Fascie scumbags is that you wear your hate on your sleeve, which thankfully, makes you and your ilk easy to identify. You are on the wrong side of history. FOAD.

/close thread

P.S. As far as rocket technology goes, if you want to use that as political propaganda - you fail here too. Soviet Union was the first nation to put a man in space :-)

[Archon_Wing]

Hmm, I generally prefer +10% production over a combat bonus.

Oh you guys are talking about that? lol.

[FireIceTalon]

Hi, Archy. Yea, probably shouldn't have fed the troll. You know how it is though.

[kandrathe]

While clicking on a video link, I saw this interesting feed and wanted to share it. Honestly, if FIT were not part of these boards, I doubt I'd even care, but his devoted one sighted nature is so baffling to me, we'll let me just say that I really enjoyed the simplicity of this video and how it touches on how ardent deniers of the atrocities of communism talk about the "perversions of true communism" as if communism has never been attempted before, as if democracy is 100% the same in every country. Give me a break. The atrocities of what Communism represents should be known. ...

Or, ask why the communist Owenite community (1825–1827) in the USA built by Robert Owen at New Harmony, Indiana failed 90 years prior to the Russia Revolution.

It's pretty simple in hindsight. Everyone has their own ideas on subjective concepts, like "Equality", "Value", or "Common good".

Josiah Warren wrote of New Harmony, "It appeared that it was nature's own inherent law of diversity that had conquered us ...our 'united interests' were directly at war with the individualities of persons and circumstances and the instinct of self-preservation... and it was evident that just in proportion to the contact of persons or interests, so are concessions and compromises indispensable." (Josiah Warren, "The Motives for Communism – How It Worked and What It Led To – Article II," Woodhull and Claflin's Weekly, IV, 15 (Feb. 24, 1872).

It is pretty clear (historically) that a society based on "sharing" is only feasible in simple societies, like a tribe, or in larger ones using totalitarian violence to enforce the dictators philosophy.

[FireIceTalon]

Robert Owen was a utopian socialist, not a scientific socialist in the same vain as Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Leibknecht, etc. In fact, they were quite critical of utopian socialism because it lacked a proper material analysis of both socialism and the class based societies of the day. The Owenites concept of socialism was an abstract one, whereas the scientific socialism is grounded in reality.

Engels work "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" distinguishes the fundamental differences between the two

He actually discusses Owen and the shortcomings of his idealistic version of socialism in one of the chapters of the above mentioned work. No one out of the utopian socialism camp has, to my knowledge, ever produced a work as rigorously researched, objective, or grounded in historical reality as Capital Vol.1.

But, all of this has been discussed many times before here. Not really interested in doing it again, at least not right now. Shouldn't have fed the troll.

[kandrathe]

But, all of this has been discussed many times before here. Not really interested in doing it again, at least not right now. Shouldn't have fed the troll.

Trudat. :-)

[FireIceTalon]

Today my dad, who is an unapologetic pro-capitalist (and also extremely racist and sexist), went on one of his political rants. Most of the time I just roll my eyes when he does this, but this time he said something truly horrifying and outright evil, but also at the same time, absolutely conducive to the capitalist system and its internal logic. We were talking about the problems of a particular piece of software that we use, and he was complaining about how much he hated it (but it forced to use for this specific situation) - not a big deal, because most of his gripes on the software itself are legitimate.

But he suddenly went on this crazy rant, saying that if he was the CEO or lead developer of this particular piece of software, that the entire development team would be fired, and that he hoped after he fired them that their kids would starve to death. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He further stated, "Thats my world, and I dont give a fuck what anyone thinks - if you cant work as hard as me or think like me you deserve to starve". To me, it really just demonstrates how morally bankrupt and sociopathic capitalists and their apologists are, as well as confirming everything I've said here to be true - that profits supersede human need under the prevailing social order. His little rant today only further reinforced exactly why I am an unapologetic communist and that any defense of the present order is a completely UNTENABLE position, on any level. My reply to him: "If that's your world, it fucking sucks ass, and needs to be destroyed ASAP, with every capitalist and bureaucrat hung by their entrails".

"Every anti-communist is a dog" -- Jean-Paul Sartre

He almost hit the nail on the head with that statement, but I'd replace "dog" with either "mosquito", "rat", or "leech". Dogs are too nice of an animal to describe any capitalist.

[Taem]

Today my dad, who is an unapologetic pro-capitalist (and also extremely racist and sexist), went on one of his political rants. Most of the time I just roll my eyes when he does this, but this time he said something truly horrifying and outright evil, but also at the same time, absolutely conducive to the capitalist system and its internal logic. We were talking about the problems of a particular piece of software that we use, and he was complaining about how much he hated it (but it forced to use for this specific situation) - not a big deal, because most of his gripes on the software itself are legitimate.

But he suddenly went on this crazy rant, saying that if he was the CEO or lead developer of this particular piece of software, that the entire development team would be fired, and that he hoped after he fired them that their kids would starve to death. I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He further stated, "Thats my world, and I dont give a fuck what anyone thinks - if you cant work as hard as me or think like me you deserve to starve". To me, it really just demonstrates how morally bankrupt and sociopathic capitalists and their apologists are, as well as confirming everything I've said here to be true - that profits supersede human need under the prevailing social order. His little rant today only further reinforced exactly why I am an unapologetic communist and that any defense of the present order is a completely UNTENABLE position, on any level. My reply to him: "If that's your world, it fucking sucks ass, and needs to be destroyed ASAP, with every capitalist and bureaucrat hung by their entrails".

"Every anti-communist is a dog" -- Jean-Paul Sartre

He almost hit the nail on the head with that statement, but I'd replace "dog" with either "mosquito", "rat", or "leech". Dogs are too nice of an animal to describe any capitalist.

So the actuality of your belief system resides in your daddy issues? How precious! More or less exactly what I anticipated in creating this topic, albeit slightly less ranty and much quicker than I expected. More rope?

Just FYI, your father is just another member of the capitalist society, as are you and everyone else who contributes to its growth. His views don't represent mine or anybody elses and from what I can tell, can hardly be considered the norm among the majority of people in this society. Your point-of-view is clearly distorted by your conditioned brainwashing. Better luck in the next life comrade.

[Taem]

It's pretty simple in hindsight. Everyone has their own ideas on subjective concepts, like "Equality", "Value", or "Common good".

If what you're alluding to is in fact true, then a society based on socialism would crumble, yet there are many socialist societies with hints of liberalism, some whom even align with a communist mentality.

It is pretty clear (historically) that a society based on "sharing" is only feasible in simple societies, like a tribe, or in larger ones using totalitarian violence to enforce the dictators philosophy.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[kandrathe]

It's pretty simple in hindsight. Everyone has their own ideas on subjective concepts, like "Equality", "Value", or "Common good".

If what you're alluding to is in fact true, then a society based on socialism would crumble, yet there are many socialist societies with hints of liberalism, some whom even align with a communist mentality.

People will begrudgingly go along the flow, but chafe and undermine the laws with which they disagree. It is even a struggle in our democracies due to a lack of true discourse and participation.

Do people follow the 65mph speed limit laws in LA? They don't here.

[eppie]

Apples to apples, or apples to oranges? Too much of a generalization for my taste, but I liked everything else the narrator said enough to share so, enjoy:

I havent checked the video but just my opinion:

The whole goal of nazism was to exterminate several groups of people living on earth (Jews, gays, gypsies etc.)
The goal of communism is equal distribution of wealth.

OF course we all know the atrocities of Stalin, or Mao but when people (like FIT) say they are communists I am 100% sure they don't say that because they want to kill a few million people.
If however someone says he supports nazism he does want to get rid of the Jews....and probably also blacks, muslims etc.

I think that is quite a difference.


Again every type of rule has its bad examples and the problem with communism is that it usually has to work using some form of opression because people by nature are selfish and telling them to share equally usually doesn't work.


Communist ideology is superior to most other ideologies only making it work is very difficult.....so that is why we are stuck with a world of ever increasing extremist market economies and we are steadily heading to the end of humanity (and to that of many other species on our planet).......so all I want to say we shouldn't be to proud of how we are handling things at the moment.

[kandrathe]

... because people by nature are selfish and telling them to share equally usually doesn't work.

Your honor, I rest my case.

[FireIceTalon]

So the actuality of your belief system resides in your daddy issues?

Apparently, you cannot read. My dads views are just one, among thousands, of confirmations as to why I am a communist. No, I didn't become a communist because of my dad. I became a communist mostly because after reading Marx and Engles and seeing that their analysis of human society was overall correct and the best explanation for the worlds workings. Also, observing the material workings of the world contributed to my politics as well.

More rope?

There is already more than enough rope to hang the capitalists.

His views don't represent mine or anybody elses and from what I can tell, can hardly be considered the norm among the majority of people in this society.

Whether his views represent yours or anyone elses is not the point here. What is the point his views are conducive to the internal logic of the capitalist system: that profit supersedes human need and rights. Always.

As for his personal convictions, yea, they probably don't align with that of most people. To not only be ok with children starving to death, but to actually WISH it upon them is beyond sociopathic and cruel, and a completely untenable position both politically and morally. But when I say people, I say people in general, not capitalists. Most people are not capitalists. And when you put things into perspective for most people by explaining to them capitalism's internal logic (without even having to use the words "communism" or "socialism"), and what the consequences of that logic are, most of them are rational enough to see what you mean. I'm pretty certain that my dads view is indeed in the vast minority, and that most people do not condone children starving, war, poverty, and all the other social ills in the world. It is for that reason (among others) why a better world and alternative social organization of our species is possible in the first place. But again, whether most people do not condone such things wasn't the point - the point was is that it directly follows the ideological underpinnings of both capitalisms goals and its history.

That being said, I do not doubt that most or at least many capitalists think like he does. Maybe not to the extent that they WISH children would starve, but most of them probably view them as simple collateral damage or just an unfortunate consequence in profit making machine - "children starve to death or get killed in air strikes?? That's unfortunate, but I still need to make a bigger profit than I did last year". Most capitalists have an elitist view of workers and view the poor as being nothing more than leeches on society or cannon fodder for their wars for profit.

Your point-of-view is clearly distorted by your conditioned brainwashing

Says the guy who has never used an ounce of critical thinking in his life. At least, not here you haven't. Your very posts here shows it is you who is brainwashed comrade. You are in utterly no position to call anyone else brainwashed, or denounce the communist view as distorted.

Better luck in the next life comrade.

I'm sure this is what most churches tell the poor. A perfect example of why religion goes so hand in hand with capitalism. Suffer in this life but you will be in paradise in the next one! (There is no next one btw, but ssshhh, don't tell anyone that!). Even if there was a "next" life, why the fuck should people have to suffer in this one to enjoy the next one?

Do people follow the 65mph speed limit laws in LA? They don't here.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to follow the speed limit down to the exact mph. What is important is that you drive with the flow of traffic, and that you drive prudently and not do stupid things like texting and trying to watch the road at the same time.

But if people do exceedingly break the speed limit, its probably because they are trying to rush to their masters domain in time to punch the time-clock, lest they be late to slave duty and cutting into the time for which they must produce value for their master to expropriate and risk being fired or reprimanded in some other way.

[FireIceTalon]

If what you're alluding to is in fact true, then a society based on socialism would crumble, yet there are many socialist societies with hints of liberalism, some whom even align with a communist mentality.

No. Those are all capitalist countries with various types of governments and varying degrees of a welfare state. You still do not get it, and continue to display your ignorance on what capitalism and socialism are. "Socialism in one country" (aka Stalinism) does not and cannot work, and thus why Marxists of nearly all tendencies oppose it.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

You agree with it, but you are both wrong. People share with eachother with no problem all the time, and in fact, that is one of the earliest things we learn as children is to share. Ironically enough, it is when we are older that we are told sharing is no longer good and that its ok or even good to be selfish and just "get yours". But I would argue that communism isn't based on sharing, so much as it is on cooperative principles that exist through common ownership of the means of production. Sharing would just be a logical consequence of this imperative. Remember, material conditions, not ideas, are the driving force of the world. For any idea to have traction and legitimacy, the material conditions necessary for it must exist and be conducive for said idea. A good example of this is why slavery was abolished following the Civil War - it wasn't conducive to the needs of an industrialization of America. Yes, many people found slavery to be reprehensible and morally wrong, but that was a secondary reason, at best, for its abolishment compared to the North's vision of an industrialized USA.

I am 100% sure they don't say that because they want to kill a few million people. If however someone says he supports nazism he does want to get rid of the Jews....and probably also blacks, muslims etc.

Correct. It pretty much speaks to why this thread is pretty dumb in the first place. Some things need not be explained. It should be blatantly obvious why Nazism is almost universally despised nearly everywhere (except by Nazis or those with a similar ideology), and communism is not.

because people by nature are selfish

No, Eppie. We are actually cooperative by nature, but material conditions can distort and change our behavior and how we interact with one another. Contrary to what most capitalists or their apologists think, the capitalist system is not a reflection of "human nature" (if there was such a thing), but rather a betrayal and caricature of it. The reason is because there is no set, innate human nature, other than a few biological imperatives as I mentioned in the BLM thread. Material conditions determine our social being. If you put humans in a cooperative, rational society, they are going to work with each other to make society go. If you put them in a competitive chaotic society like capitalism, they are going to compete and fight over resources. But even under capitalism, most people generally still at least try to cooperate rather than compete with one another (capitalists are the opposite, as they have NO CHOICE but to compete against one another, and why they need a central state to protect their long-term collective interests even if their short-term interests conflict). Its why we have millions of people who still get up every day to serve us our food, take our trash away, and just in general, try to make society the best it can be, capitalist social-relations not withstanding. Most of them certainly ain't doing it for the money, that much is for sure. The existence of charities in itself practically disproves the notion that people are inherently selfish, though charities themselves wouldn't be necessary if we had a system that actually provided everything people need to survive instead of one that only seeks more profit.

[FireIceTalon]

The goal of communism is equal distribution of wealth.

I assume you mean communism as an established mode of production - as opposed to a communist political movement, am I correct? If so, I would argue that "equal access to wealth" is more accurate. In a communist society, everyone has equal access and ownership of the means of production. However, this doesn't mean everyone has an equal amount of things. "From each according to his/her ability to each according to his/her need". Another one of the goals is to make "work" more interesting and fulfilling, which would be accomplished by the fact that people would not be alienated from their work as they currently are; and to remove drudgery. But if a communist society already exists, then there isn't any more goals (politically speaking) since these things would exist as a natural consequence, they would follow the direction of communisms internal logic into material circumstances that featured these characterizations.

EVERYONE would be entitled to and get the basic necessities they need to keep them alive - housing, food, clean water, electricity, education, and healthcare - as these are basic human rights withheld from people every day under the capitalist system, by force. Anything beyond these things, however, would be based on your participation in whatever it is you do.

You could choose to not contribute at all, and no one is going to punish you by starvation or homelessness as we do in this barbaric capitalist society. However, when the time comes to make decisions effecting the whole of that society (including yourself), your input/opinion may not be taken into consideration if you haven't contributed or participated in the past. In some circumstances, you may find yourself even not taken seriously and yourself alienated from those who do participate and contribute.

[Taem]

The existence of charities in itself practically disproves the notion that people are inherently selfish, though charities themselves wouldn't be necessary if we had a system that actually provided everything people need to survive instead of one that only seeks more profit.

When I look up altruistic, this is the definition I get, “Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others”, and selfless gives me, “Disregarding your own advantages and welfare over those of others.” When I look up selfish, I get this, “Concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others”. When one observes and examines the very act of giving itself, it becomes clear that charities are nothing more than acts of selfishness.

Let’s start with presents; in regards to birthdays and Christmas, we only (directly) give presents to those whom we want to see benefit from them in some way. This is most likely a survival tactic, to help ensure our friendship or improve our loved ones lives however, we expect the receiver to show some appreciation for said gift because it is this acknowledgement that sends endorphins to our brains tricking us into believing we did something worthwhile, and as humans, we enjoy that feeling. When someone shows us indifference or uncaring towards a present we’ve given, we often feel a sense of rejection which causes us to desire giving less of a present to that individual the following year. If the present were to a second cousin you’ve only met once, or as part of a gift program at work, it’d be rightfully small instead of that $2k laptop you bought your son or daughter. So, the two selfish reasons we give at all is for survival, and more importantly to see someone else enjoyment, which makes us feel good. We give according to our own selfish urges.

Read this very short article if you will: https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-se...to-charity

In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. […]. Research has revealed that spending money on others actually makes us happier than spending it on ourselves, and giving to others can actually make us healthier.

If we give our hard-earned car to some random person on the street we didn’t know, we would feel like we made a terrible decision because we don’t know that persons situation in life or if they even needed a car which only proves we are NOT altruistic creatures by nature, but selfish ones whose sole purpose in this lifetime is survival. Ironically, this is the very reason why our capitalist society does so well, because that’s the natural order of things. If we were truly altruistic, the person’s financial status wouldn’t matter to us at all because we wouldn’t need a reason to selflessly give; having a reason to give automatically relegates our decision on the matter to which charity we think is most deserving or would have the most impact on the world (us), another question of survival… Tell me, would you give $500 to a millionaire because of your altruism? Of course not, because your logic would tell you the millionaire doesn’t need or deserve that money, but then your very actions stop becoming selfless the moment you realize this, because when you give to someone down on their luck, your only doing it to help the weaker of your species survive (ones that don’t threaten your position in life) and because it makes you feel good inside thinking of how your generosity has helped these downtrodden. On top of that, you pick and chose a charity you feel would benefit the world most. Think about that for a second and let it sink in… you’re donating because it makes YOU feel good inside; an act of pure selfishness.

You are right about one thing however, that by nature, humans desire to give and are hardwired to do so because it makes us feel better about ourselves. But you are wrong about it being a selfless act.

[FireIceTalon]

Ironically, this is the very reason why our capitalist society does so well

If 60 mill+ people dying through starvation alone every 5 years (along with every other social ill directly linked and rooted in capitalist social relations - they are too many to list here) is your idea of doing "so well", then perhaps a serious re-examination of your atrociously low standards is in order.

because that’s the natural order of things.

This is easily disproven through a simple historical observation and an anthropological investigation. It is anything but that. Modern humans have existed anywhere between 100,000-150,000 years. Capitalism has existed a mere 3xx years, the blink of an eye in our time here. If capitalism were the natural order of things it would have been here from day 1, and likely we would have gone extinct long ago. No, the capitalist organization of society is about as unnatural as it gets as far as the human condition is concerned.

The whole 'natural order of things' has been used as an excuse by the ruling classes throughout history to justify their oppression and power over everyone else, but it has no scientific backing. I'm sure masters in slave society thought that was the natural order of things, and that monarchs and their right to rule by 'Divine Right Absolutism' were the natural order of things as well - they were wrong, just as the capitalists in our society are today when they try to use the same rationale.

[kandrathe]

Ironically, this is the very reason why our capitalist society does so well

If 60 mill+ people dying through starvation alone every 5 years (along with every other social ill directly linked and rooted in capitalist social relations - they are too many to list here) is your idea of doing "so well", then perhaps a serious re-examination of your atrociously low standards is in order.

I'm not sure where you get your scary propaganda... 20 million are not dying of starvation annually.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

[FireIceTalon]

No, its "only" somewhere between 8-12 million per year, almost every source on Google has the numbers in this range - but regardless of the numbers, that does not vindicate the system of its crimes against humanity. Even if we assume the number to be on the low end of this estimate, that still comes to an astonishing 40 million every 5 years. Not only that, those numbers also don't include people who die from other causes of poverty, such as disease or lack of access to medical care, or those who die for other reasons outside of starvation or poverty altogether - such as war or being murdered by capitalist police. As I stated before, getting an exact number of the deaths over the course of capitalisms history is difficult because it kills in so many different ways, and because it spans 300+ odd years, but its probably safe to say the number, in the entire totality of its history, is almost certainly in the billions.

Further, murdering people is far from being the only crime against humanity that capitalism commits every day. It is also guilty of extortion, robbery & larceny, exploitation (especially of women, those with disabilities, homosexuals, and POC), racketeering, false imprisonment of the working class, colonialism and imperialism, ethnic cleansing, segregation and gentrification. The list goes on...ill stop here cause I'll be here all night if I listed all the charges. Basically, just about every conceivable crime under the sun.

That is not propaganda (though it certainly is scary). That is the harsh REALITY of your lovely capitalistic system, that you have no choice but to face.