Forums / Discussion / General

First order of business: which is better?

The Internationale:

or the Soviet Anthem:

I'm leaning towards the second myself. Because of the amazing propaganda video.

The last one from the RIAA doesn't look shopped at all.
That's not sarcasm. I'm serious. That's the kind of BS that the RIAA pulls.

The Internationale sounds better with Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman:

I have a feeling when RussianFedora gets back that he's going to facepalm at this thread.

I was going to order this as a poster, but it goes against my school's standards (it has alchohol). Karma to the first one who can also name everyone in order from the background to the foreground:

Also, is there going to be some sort of actual discussion here, or are we just going to spam these images?

Ay yo RF…

Anyway, it is my belief that the positions of moderator and admin should be removed. The Law and administration of KYM should be equal among the working editors.

It's Generalissimo, not Communist General. Get it right.

Mao, Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Castro. As the Supreme-Leader-for-Life of my friendly neighbourhood communist dictatorship party of the youth parliament, I know my commies!

And I'm pretty sure we're just spamming images.

"Hay guys what's going on in this thre-"

> Sensors detect large quantities of communism with in the region.
> Leaves le thread.

USA! USA! USA!

This thread may now continue.

If you got the BALLS FOR IT.

It's real. Put that in for lulz.

>Everyone forgetting who was best communist leader
>mfw I'm not even mad

Communism died at the hand of the recreational vehicle.

Hey kids! Remember,

I sense a severe lack of karma in this thread.

In Soviet Яussia, fox fires YOU!!

Apple = dictator
Mozilla ≠ dictator

Learn your companies.

I thought we were talking about communism, not dictatorship. Isn't free, open-source software really the people's software?

Actually, yes =P


Thing is, while Communism itself isn't that bad an idea, the countries that are supposed to be 'of the people', are actually ruled by a single man and his associates

So does that mean that Linux is communist?

Actually, I find the idea that other people are entitled to the fruits of my labors simply because I am more successful disturbing.

Thing is, Communism isn't as effective as Capitalism in a large-scale nation. In a community, tribe, or town, it could work, because there would be various people doing certain jobs, with little more than is needed. But in a country, there's competition. Motivation and ambition fuel competition, and capitalism provides more motivation than Communism does, leading to more development, due to the desire to beat the competition.

So, while Communism itself isn't a bad idea, it is less likely to succeed in a large-scale government, like Russia or the US. It could work very well for a single town, however.

Well in theory, you could have the people all working for the good of the entire country as a whole.

The thing is, people are greedy and selfish, so capitalism is better.

My solution? Have a small group of intelligent, logical thinkers commanding a robotic army of soldiers and workers that uses their own AI to carry out goals given by the humans.

Robot slaves is communism? I guess its only a matter of time before a robot becomes a little more equal then its comrades.

I think the thing that a number of theorists have suggested (including myself) is that communism would theoretically work best in an controlled environment, where outside capitalistic influences can be minimized. It's here in such conversations that I tend to suggest reading The Dispossessed by Le Guin, one of my personal favorite novels. It tells the story of an anarcho-communistic society that is founded on a moon with a breathable atmosphere. From chapter 8:

A child free from the guilt of ownership and the burden of economic competition will grow up with the will to do what needs doing and the capacity for joy in doing it. It is useless work that darkens the heart. The delight of the nursing mother, of the scholar, of the successful hunter, of the good cook, of the skillful maker, of anyone doing needed work and doing it well--this durable joy is perhaps the deepest source of human affection, and of sociality as a whole.

In any case, I disagree that selfish gain is the best motivator. It can be a strong motivator, yes, but that doesn't make it superior. Maybe I'm unusual for thinking in such a manner, but my own best motivation comes from the belief that what I am doing is in some way making the world a better place. I don't say that to sound all high-and-mighty Mr. Selflessness, either; when what I do makes the world better, then it's better for me and my friends and family, and there may be some expectation that I will be esteemed by society in some manner, whether or not that manner is monetary in nature.

Last note, before I rant too far, because this is a hot-button topic for me: in my opinion, the most valuable occupation in the world is being a mother, but since being a mother is not something that can be made profitable, a society that places value on people based on the amount of wealth they create ends up treating motherhood as a worthless endeavor. This is only one of many ways that I believe a society that values money above people is severely dysfunctional.

WELL HELLO THERE.

@Shade:

North Korea, Laos, Cuba and China aren't communist. North Korea is totalitarian state-capitalist, Laos is capitalist, China is Authoritarian capitalist, and Cuba is capitalist (Although I don't really know what its government is).

@MDF:

Under communism, the people would be accessing the fruits of a machine's labor, not yours. You see, communism is set in the (Possibly not so) far off future where the use of autonomous machinery for labor is easy and effective. What you're thinking of is socialism.

I just want to know, in a communistic society, is religion normally oppressed or have something that is religious suppressing others who have other religious belief? I just want to know if there if a communistic society that does not have either of these, I do not know much about countries but when Stalin was in power, religion was highly suppressed and it was most likely due to the fact Stalin hated religion, if I remembered am correct.
I just want to know if this is common in communistic societies.

In the Soviet era, yes, religion was highly oppressed. Ironically, even though Lenin and Stalin laid siege to religion, a rough estimate of religion during Stalin's reign shows that 1/3 of Russian citizens were still orthodox Christians. Present "Communist" societies don't prioritize religion to my knowledge. The main goal of "communist" governments today is just to hold on to power for as long as they can.

Also, I don't think Stalin hated religion, he just thought of it as a threat to his government.

I guess the lack of wanting religion in communist society is one draw back I guess.

Well, Marx viewed religion as a tool for the people who are in power/want power, and in a way, this is true. A preacher who knows just the right words to say can accrue massive attention, money, and clout, as in the case of Pat Robertson. A politician who knows just what the majority believes can peddle religion as a way to get into office. An already instated leader can use religion as a way to keep his people complacent.

Personally, I believe people should always be free to have a religion (Or none at all). But the large amount of footholds in organised religion, that allow people to gain fame, money and power are many.

Also another thing, is in communism that no matter what job you have you get paid the same? Or is that something different, because that can be a draw back to people but a plus to others who are poor (but possible most likely do not deserve such a thing).

so derishus

Money is abolished under communism and socialism.

That's kind of weird, because I thought money was intended to help limit consumption.
Other then that.
How do they…uhhhhh…have a economy then…how do they get stuff? Just thinking about it makes me feel sort of confused.

The economy is based on production for use, instead of production for sale. Under socialism, users put in relatively equal hours for the production of items which will then be distributed amongst the populous. In Communism, it's basically the same, except with robots.

I think the main difference between Communism and Capitalism, is Communism forces you to work together to move forward, while Capitalism works in self interest to move forwards.

I.E.: A bunch of people making a steady climb and a jumping rich guy.

Communism in a nutshell:

Works well in small groups of humans

works well in alrge groups of robots with a hive mind mentality

falls apart with large groups of greedy selfish creatures (humans and likely any other sentients)

Actually, communism has touched well on the importance of individuality. Under communism, with machines doing the grunt work, humans are free to do what they want, under whatever laws are in place, of course. Want to become a doctor? You can do that, especially so with your free education. Want to help the bots out with mining? You can do that too. You're thinking of Socialism, and I don't think you have the right idea about it.

I think that humans can be greedy to a degree, but in recent decades, as hyperconsumerism is forming steadily, people have been conditioned to be more greedy and selfish than is natural.

General TL;DR on communism

No, you're confusing socialism with communism, he's perfectly correct. Socialism, an economic system in which the government (or the public) has great control over the economy and provides benefits for its citizens, works perfectly fine. Look at Sweden, Norway, hell, most of Europe is pretty socialist, and they're doing pretty well. Communism is a different beast. Marx specifically called for an abolition of government (at least in the way we define it), believing that the workers or proletariat could run both the country and economy. It completely fails because no one wants to be equal to everyone else. Some people will always be more greedy, or more lazy, and because of human nature, it is only a thought experiment.

The way that "communism" was put in to practice in the 20th century was completely different from Marx's ideas. Lenin knew that communism didn't actually work, so he altered it into his own form (Leninism), which was simply a dictatorship continuing the oppression of the peasants much like the tsars that preceded him. Then you have Mao, Kim Il Sung, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh and everyone else following Lenin's suit and claiming that their nations were communist when in fact they ran on exploiting the proletariat, instead of empowering them like Marx said.

FUN FACT: "Marxist" and "Marxist-Leninist" share nothing in common except for Marx's name and the label of communism.

Humans are more than greedy to a degree, at least in this day and age. I believe that prehistoric societies ran on some sort of communism, or at least socialism, with everyone getting equal-ish amounts of food no matter their contribution to the kill. Of course, there were some greedy cavemen who smuggled some mammoth meat for themselves, but socialism worked pretty well in their small communities.
I'd say humans have been conditioned too much by the advent of feudalism and capitalism for communism to ever work again. We simply can't go back to the "ideal state" of government, economy and society like Marx wanted.
And evolution screwed us over even more. The greedy ones were the ones that got to eat, got to live, got to reproduce and pass on their genes. As a direct result, humans of today are some of the greediest and self-absorbed ones in history.

By today I mean these past few hundred years (human history goes back over a million years).

Response to your post
Wait, I didn't completely read what you wrote. Communism has nothing to do with machines and robots running society. Sure, it's easy to adapt such a society into communism, the society itself is not communism. When we reach the point in which humans don't have to do anything anymore, society will implode because no one has any role in the society other than take in oxygen and food and be a general waste of space. A key part of communism is that all citizens have the same (or similar) roles in society, and under a robot dominated society, humans will become obsolete.

When did this thread stop being an image dump one?

Two things:

Look at Sweden, Norway, hell, most of Europe is pretty socialist

No, they're not. They're just very liberally capitalist.

Communism has nothing to do with machines and robots running society.

They aren't running society, they're just doing the grunt work. Mining, factory work, construction, all of these things are within machine's domain (Of course, if you want to pitch in to these, you can do that, too). The more "Human" jobs, such as being a doctor, a professor, a historian, and the like are within Man's domain.

I'm not really in a position to dispute the rest of your post. I'll look through some stuff about communism and get back to you.

inb4 Western Coalition

The futurist idea of communism under this thread's definitions is just a post-scarcity society.
If there was no need for humans to work, sure. It could function. But you know we'd simply throw lavish parties on the fruits of robot labour, spend all our time on the internet, etc. If effort isn't linked to meaningful gain, then nobody will bother. We won't need to, but we'll have lost something precious.

This thread needs more images.