3 ms·

> just like how communism There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. If free

> just like how communism There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. If free public libraries didn't exist and were proposed today, they'd be accused of communism. If free public legal deference did not exist today, anyone proposing it would be accused of being a communist. Also notice that using public money to hurt a person, i.e. prosecution, is never accused of an ideology. These sort of comparisons are deeply unhelpful and only betray illiteracy of the accuser.

tristor 2y ago
This criticism would carry more weight if this entire thread wasn't full of snippets of communist fanfic about using legal force to try to upend reality and ending the profit motive for companies and enforcing worker collectives.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > using legal force to try to upend reality You mean like how we upended reality in 2008 to save corrupt institutions and/or incompetent institutions? And then again during COVID? And then again to save Silicon Valley Bank? You pretend that current situation some kind of natural state of affairs, when in reality it is a result of ‘legal force for me but not for the’
  - tristor 2y ago
    None of those things are reality, those are how we chose as a society to interface with it. Now that they've happened, they form a part of the fabric of reality, that is the history of the universe and humanity as a species. When I say "upend reality", I mean the idealist delusions that commies hold about the nature of entropy, the nature of humanity (acting like greed doesn't exist, forgetting the iron law of bureaucracy), and the nature of the world (eat or be eaten).
    - consteval 2y ago
      Yes some people hold different views on the nature of humanity. That doesn't mean they're delusional, it just means they're different. Personally, no I don't think greed is intrinsic. I think its learned. I also don't think its eat or be eaten. I think that's learned, ingrained, to benefit the most powerful. I think 99% of people are good and just want a decent life. They don't care about having more or being better.
      - tristor 2y ago
        The problem is those people are trying to intellectualize animals. Humans are animals. We, presumably, have free will. We, presumably, have rationality. While these traits make us higher order animals, we are still animals, and the law of the jungle always applies. It is delusional to act otherwise, because when push comes to shove if it's a choice between starvation/death or nearly any alternative, people will choose the alternative every time, which includes violent acts, acts of greed, and all manner of despicable things. I'm not even making a moral argument here, morals are irrelevant. Morals are a fiction created by people to philosophize our own societies. But the reality of the world transcends humanity and we cannot avoid it.
        consteval 2y ago
        Humans are animals by technicality only. We have higher thinking. Again, what you're stating is an opinion and nothing more. There's nobody anywhere saying you're right. Just you, and your beliefs. Which is fine, but when you act like your beliefs are divined from God, that is what we consider delusions of grandeur. Yes morals are made up. Everything is made up. Everything is a social construct. "the world" (I assume you mean evil and greed?) does not supersede that. Because if you kill someone you go to jail, and jail is real. Don't believe me? Try it out. The law of the jungle is... well... something you made up. Sorry. That may apply to your dog. But for the people I know, many would sooner end their own lives than doing something that distasteful. Hell, I've known many to end their own lives for much much less. Point being, it doesn't actually work this way.
havblue 2y ago
>There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. I do believe corporatism is a problem with modernity. That being said, the article does sound fairly similar to "workers must own the means of production". Are we not in the ballpark of Marx, for better or worse?
- consteval 2y ago
  No, this is socialism as best. Not communism.
edm0nd 2y ago
I'm just being pedantic but "free public libraries" don't really exist though. They are paid for by property owners via tax millages rates on their homes. Most people support this but none are free since the public pays for em.
- vidarh 2y ago
  It is pedantic, in as much as when people use "free", we are very aware that it means "free at the point of use", and so pointing out that they are paid for is unnecessary.
vidarh 2y ago
The funny thing is that Marx wanted the working class to be armed, and in Critique of the Gotha Programme, he called out the US school system as far preferable to the state-controlled school system proposed by what is now SPD (he argued the Prussian state was in need of an education by the people and shouldn't be put in a position of providing an education to the people). A lot of the people who call everything communism would be very uncomfortable with how many things they agreed with him on if they read any Marx (not because they are left wing, but because a lot of what was radical policy at the time is settled now, but also because already then a schism was developing between those on the left who favoured the state as a tool to transform society, and those who feared it as a potential oppressor, and Marx got increasingly critical of the state with age; where in 1848 he argued for state monopolies, by 1872, after the Paris Commune he criticised them for not having gone far enough in smashing state institutions, and by 1875 he criticised the now-SPD for trusting the reform potential of the Prussian state too much, such as with respect to education as above)

tristor 2y ago

This criticism would carry more weight if this entire thread wasn't full of snippets of communist fanfic about using legal force to try to upend reality and ending the profit motive for companies and enforcing worker collectives.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> using legal force to try to upend reality You mean like how we upended reality in 2008 to save corrupt institutions and/or incompetent institutions? And then again during COVID? And then again to save Silicon Valley Bank? You pretend that current situation some kind of natural state of affairs, when in reality it is a result of ‘legal force for me but not for the’
- tristor 2y ago
  None of those things are reality, those are how we chose as a society to interface with it. Now that they've happened, they form a part of the fabric of reality, that is the history of the universe and humanity as a species. When I say "upend reality", I mean the idealist delusions that commies hold about the nature of entropy, the nature of humanity (acting like greed doesn't exist, forgetting the iron law of bureaucracy), and the nature of the world (eat or be eaten).
  - consteval 2y ago
    Yes some people hold different views on the nature of humanity. That doesn't mean they're delusional, it just means they're different. Personally, no I don't think greed is intrinsic. I think its learned. I also don't think its eat or be eaten. I think that's learned, ingrained, to benefit the most powerful. I think 99% of people are good and just want a decent life. They don't care about having more or being better.
    - tristor 2y ago
      The problem is those people are trying to intellectualize animals. Humans are animals. We, presumably, have free will. We, presumably, have rationality. While these traits make us higher order animals, we are still animals, and the law of the jungle always applies. It is delusional to act otherwise, because when push comes to shove if it's a choice between starvation/death or nearly any alternative, people will choose the alternative every time, which includes violent acts, acts of greed, and all manner of despicable things. I'm not even making a moral argument here, morals are irrelevant. Morals are a fiction created by people to philosophize our own societies. But the reality of the world transcends humanity and we cannot avoid it.
      - consteval 2y ago
        Humans are animals by technicality only. We have higher thinking. Again, what you're stating is an opinion and nothing more. There's nobody anywhere saying you're right. Just you, and your beliefs. Which is fine, but when you act like your beliefs are divined from God, that is what we consider delusions of grandeur. Yes morals are made up. Everything is made up. Everything is a social construct. "the world" (I assume you mean evil and greed?) does not supersede that. Because if you kill someone you go to jail, and jail is real. Don't believe me? Try it out. The law of the jungle is... well... something you made up. Sorry. That may apply to your dog. But for the people I know, many would sooner end their own lives than doing something that distasteful. Hell, I've known many to end their own lives for much much less. Point being, it doesn't actually work this way.

havblue 2y ago

>There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. I do believe corporatism is a problem with modernity. That being said, the article does sound fairly similar to "workers must own the means of production". Are we not in the ballpark of Marx, for better or worse?

consteval 2y ago
No, this is socialism as best. Not communism.

edm0nd 2y ago

I'm just being pedantic but "free public libraries" don't really exist though. They are paid for by property owners via tax millages rates on their homes. Most people support this but none are free since the public pays for em.

vidarh 2y ago
It is pedantic, in as much as when people use "free", we are very aware that it means "free at the point of use", and so pointing out that they are paid for is unnecessary.

vidarh 2y ago

The funny thing is that Marx wanted the working class to be armed, and in Critique of the Gotha Programme, he called out the US school system as far preferable to the state-controlled school system proposed by what is now SPD (he argued the Prussian state was in need of an education by the people and shouldn't be put in a position of providing an education to the people). A lot of the people who call everything communism would be very uncomfortable with how many things they agreed with him on if they read any Marx (not because they are left wing, but because a lot of what was radical policy at the time is settled now, but also because already then a schism was developing between those on the left who favoured the state as a tool to transform society, and those who feared it as a potential oppressor, and Marx got increasingly critical of the state with age; where in 1848 he argued for state monopolies, by 1872, after the Paris Commune he criticised them for not having gone far enough in smashing state institutions, and by 1875 he criticised the now-SPD for trusting the reform potential of the Prussian state too much, such as with respect to education as above)