6 ms·

do you like communism, where everyone gets equal outcome? (true equity) Like in Cuba, Russia/Soviet Union, DPRK, or Campuchia during Pol Pot's time?

by slt2021 4y ago

throw93 4y ago
You are wrong, communism was never about equality of outcome, it was more about equality of opportunity. This is part of red scare propaganda. Also US had a lot to do with Cuba and Pol Pot if you study history.
- dh2022 4y ago
  You obviously did not live under communist propaganda. Communism was 100% about the equality of outcome - everyone was equal and was supposed to get his/her equal share. I lived 15 years in Romania under communism, 8 of these years under daily propaganda at school so I know this first hand.
  - throw93 4y ago
    The question was whether communism meant equal outcome and the answer is No. I’m not gonna defend Romania, Soviet Russia or any other old regimes on how they implemented communism. The context here is about unions. Democracy at work is important and unions are the best way to achieve it in a capitalist nation.
- slt2021 4y ago
  How come people who never lived under commie regime claim to know more about communism than the people who actually lived under commie regimes? Did you obtain you theoretical knowledge of what actual communism is - purely from Lenin's books? Have you tried to reconcile communism theory to communism in practice?
  - defrost 4y ago
    As I recall Lenin didn't think actual communism was obtainable without a long period of enforced socialism .. so the regime under Lenin was never actual communism (at least according to Lenin) and not especially socialist other than in name by Lenin. In any case it segued into Stalinism .. and all of these were oppressive authoritarian top down rule. People that think of post revolution Russia as a good example of communism are the kind of people that think of the USofA as a good example of capitalism.
  - throw93 4y ago
    "people who never lived under commie regime" - I get to hear this so often. We live in under a capitalist regime where 1% of the people own the rest of the population. Basic human needs like healthcare and shelter are paywalled by big corporations. Do you sincerely think wasting your life to make those 1% even more richer is somehow better than communism? Btw, I didn't even claim that communism is the best way forward, you just assumed it. I would rather advocate for socialism which has better chances to succeed in US. Still, the moment we wave off 10k from student loans people start shouting "communism". Those same people got millions of dollars in PPP loans, still fired their employees and saw nothing wrong with it. The main context here was about unions and people still cry "communism" whenever they hear the word union. I have seen immense benefits of unions from past generation and feel sad that they are not as prevalent today. "United we bargain, divided we beg" is the whole point of unions and still people choose to beg because "big bad communism". This propaganda has been enforced on us so much by govt that we forget what's good for us and that makes me sad.
nerdponx 4y ago
I knew someone was going to say this. There are a lot of things wrong with this line of thinking, but the simplest rebuttal is that there is a lot of room between "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" and "we have abolished the State and everyone gets exactly the same outcome in all situations, and also we have executed half the population". To deny that is to argue in bad faith and/or deep ignorance.
- slt2021 4y ago
  I am from Soviet Union (which had strong state) and witnessed labor unions - who did nothing of value absolutely. so no, not buying this argument at all. "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" - tech engineers dont need it - because if you dont like it - you can simply leave to another employer. market forces will find equilibrium, labor union is only an obstacle in reaching market equilibrium. it is telling that people who escaped communist countries never want to see any sign of communism in their life. Because communism doesnt work, never worked, and will never work
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    it is telling that people who escaped communist countries never want to see any sign of communism in their life. Because communism doesnt work, never worked, and will never work Oddly enough, I don't see too many former communists movie to Somalia or Ethiopia or Afghanistan. Former communists seem to favor the EU and the US, where we have heavily socialized large aspects of our public life (health care, etc.)
    - slt2021 4y ago
      Are you saying USA has socialized healthcare? Perhaps, but only if you are poor (medicaid) or very old (medicare), or risked your life for military service (VA), and even then the wuality and access is not very good (just like anything socialized) Looks more like minimum safety net, rather than socialism
gbrindisi 4y ago
In what way is this communism?
- slt2021 4y ago
  everybody gets same results regardless of input, merit, or effort
  - alexandre_m 4y ago
    Everybody at the bottom of the state pyramid. The elites at the top get everything.
  - camdat 4y ago
    And how is that communism?
  - barneygale 4y ago
    So like rich kids with generational wealth under capitalism? Sign me up!
    - slt2021 4y ago
      According to statistics - rich kids squander ALL of their wealth in ~ 2 generations, so dont worry about rich kids. Stupid ones (of which there are a majority) wont be rich for long. "Approximately 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation, with 90% losing it the generation after that." [1] 1: https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/ https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth... in the end only smart ones will have $$$, everything according to their merits/efforts
      - barneygale 4y ago
        > According to statistics - rich kids squander ALL of their wealth in ~ 2 generations, so dont worry about rich kids. Stupid ones (of which there are a majority) wont be rich for long. So it's not a meritocracy - it's an inter-generational relay race. A meritocracy involves a level playing field. A 100% inheritance tax would help.
lbrito 4y ago
Great argument. Do you like capitalism, where everyone gets unequal outcome? Like in Liberia, South Sudan or Chad?

do you like communism, where everyone gets equal outcome? (true equity) Like in Cuba, Russia/Soviet Union, DPRK, or Campuchia during Pol Pot's time?

throw93 4y ago

You are wrong, communism was never about equality of outcome, it was more about equality of opportunity. This is part of red scare propaganda. Also US had a lot to do with Cuba and Pol Pot if you study history.

dh2022 4y ago
You obviously did not live under communist propaganda. Communism was 100% about the equality of outcome - everyone was equal and was supposed to get his/her equal share. I lived 15 years in Romania under communism, 8 of these years under daily propaganda at school so I know this first hand.
- throw93 4y ago
  The question was whether communism meant equal outcome and the answer is No. I’m not gonna defend Romania, Soviet Russia or any other old regimes on how they implemented communism. The context here is about unions. Democracy at work is important and unions are the best way to achieve it in a capitalist nation.
slt2021 4y ago
How come people who never lived under commie regime claim to know more about communism than the people who actually lived under commie regimes? Did you obtain you theoretical knowledge of what actual communism is - purely from Lenin's books? Have you tried to reconcile communism theory to communism in practice?
- defrost 4y ago
  As I recall Lenin didn't think actual communism was obtainable without a long period of enforced socialism .. so the regime under Lenin was never actual communism (at least according to Lenin) and not especially socialist other than in name by Lenin. In any case it segued into Stalinism .. and all of these were oppressive authoritarian top down rule. People that think of post revolution Russia as a good example of communism are the kind of people that think of the USofA as a good example of capitalism.
- throw93 4y ago
  "people who never lived under commie regime" - I get to hear this so often. We live in under a capitalist regime where 1% of the people own the rest of the population. Basic human needs like healthcare and shelter are paywalled by big corporations. Do you sincerely think wasting your life to make those 1% even more richer is somehow better than communism? Btw, I didn't even claim that communism is the best way forward, you just assumed it. I would rather advocate for socialism which has better chances to succeed in US. Still, the moment we wave off 10k from student loans people start shouting "communism". Those same people got millions of dollars in PPP loans, still fired their employees and saw nothing wrong with it. The main context here was about unions and people still cry "communism" whenever they hear the word union. I have seen immense benefits of unions from past generation and feel sad that they are not as prevalent today. "United we bargain, divided we beg" is the whole point of unions and still people choose to beg because "big bad communism". This propaganda has been enforced on us so much by govt that we forget what's good for us and that makes me sad.

nerdponx 4y ago

I knew someone was going to say this. There are a lot of things wrong with this line of thinking, but the simplest rebuttal is that there is a lot of room between "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" and "we have abolished the State and everyone gets exactly the same outcome in all situations, and also we have executed half the population". To deny that is to argue in bad faith and/or deep ignorance.

slt2021 4y ago
I am from Soviet Union (which had strong state) and witnessed labor unions - who did nothing of value absolutely. so no, not buying this argument at all. "workers should organize for greater market power to prevent abuse by employers" - tech engineers dont need it - because if you dont like it - you can simply leave to another employer. market forces will find equilibrium, labor union is only an obstacle in reaching market equilibrium. it is telling that people who escaped communist countries never want to see any sign of communism in their life. Because communism doesnt work, never worked, and will never work
- gamblor956 4y ago
  it is telling that people who escaped communist countries never want to see any sign of communism in their life. Because communism doesnt work, never worked, and will never work Oddly enough, I don't see too many former communists movie to Somalia or Ethiopia or Afghanistan. Former communists seem to favor the EU and the US, where we have heavily socialized large aspects of our public life (health care, etc.)
  - slt2021 4y ago
    Are you saying USA has socialized healthcare? Perhaps, but only if you are poor (medicaid) or very old (medicare), or risked your life for military service (VA), and even then the wuality and access is not very good (just like anything socialized) Looks more like minimum safety net, rather than socialism

gbrindisi 4y ago

In what way is this communism?

slt2021 4y ago
everybody gets same results regardless of input, merit, or effort
- alexandre_m 4y ago
  Everybody at the bottom of the state pyramid. The elites at the top get everything.
- camdat 4y ago
  And how is that communism?
- barneygale 4y ago
  So like rich kids with generational wealth under capitalism? Sign me up!
  - slt2021 4y ago
    According to statistics - rich kids squander ALL of their wealth in ~ 2 generations, so dont worry about rich kids. Stupid ones (of which there are a majority) wont be rich for long. "Approximately 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth by the next generation, with 90% losing it the generation after that." [1] 1: https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth-explained/ https://fortune.com/recommends/investing/generational-wealth... in the end only smart ones will have $$$, everything according to their merits/efforts
    - barneygale 4y ago
      > According to statistics - rich kids squander ALL of their wealth in ~ 2 generations, so dont worry about rich kids. Stupid ones (of which there are a majority) wont be rich for long. So it's not a meritocracy - it's an inter-generational relay race. A meritocracy involves a level playing field. A 100% inheritance tax would help.

lbrito 4y ago

Great argument. Do you like capitalism, where everyone gets unequal outcome? Like in Liberia, South Sudan or Chad?