3 ms·

At the cost that the Soviet union imposed? I doubt there's even 100. There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. There have been ma

by spwa4 1y ago

At the cost that the Soviet union imposed? I doubt there's even 100. There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. There have been many communist communes here and in other countries, like famously Israel and Columbia. All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. So we've got plenty of historical evidence whether people would choose to have this life. All but a few dozen, out of hundreds of million, choose against it. Including all socialists, everyone in those demonstrations, ... demonstrating extremely clearly: without constant terror, socialism cannot exist.

AlecSchueler 1y ago
> There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. > All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism.
- spwa4 1y ago
  > Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint. You will pay taxes in a communist system. You will have to deal with all sorts of external influences in a communist system. > The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above No it isn't. These were voluntary sales (especially since most were abandoned, not sold. There was no profit in leaving, except in some cases). It is illustrative of the simple fact that given the choice, all but a rare exception chooses against communism. Or to put it another way: people REALLY don't want communism, and after trying it, that becomes worse. In many cases abandoning these communes required a large-ish group of people taking the decision together. In other words: they organized themselves to destroy their little patch of communism. Which illustrates the next point: > > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. > Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism. You just made an argument in favor of this. Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. HOW will you prevent it? State terror.
  - immibis 1y ago
    > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism comes in from outside and stops you practicing communism? The USA did bomb and/or coup most communist countries until they were not communist, so you may have a point but it wasn't clear if this is what you meant. > Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. Don't strawman people.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      > > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint > I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism We were talking about external influences. Period. Mentioned was taxes (ie. effort you have to put in to keep a state structure operational), and other external influences. By which I mean from acquiring food to dealing with the weather, and indeed, occasionally dealing with the fact that there are people outside working under other systems. But I bet for most communists it's, ironically, the communist state. That's the biggest external influence they have to deal with. This will include "capitalist expectations" ie. an amount of work you have to perform, without any reward, because that's what the state needs. That's what the state needs to exist, and of course to make the Kremlin look like it looks. > Don't strawman people. Then by all means do tell: how will you prevent people either individually or in groups from banding against the communist system? After all, almost by definition, that's in their individual interest because ... communist system. You agreed that it's necessary to stop this but neglected to say HOW you'd do it. In history the "white terror" is one example of how far people will go to band together to destroy communism ... Every historical communist state (after a short while) chose state terror: indiscriminate, industrial-level violence against individuals. Given that they didn't immediately chose this gives at least an indication that they tried other methods, which badly failed. Even Israel initially did that (well, the Arabs, not yet called Palestinians, did most of it for them), but then switched to give people a choice, which lead to near-total abandonment of communism (even though they kept much of the state institutions communism built).
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
> without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. I don't think you have an accurate appraisal of many socialist countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark). Meanwhile, it would appear that Capitalism inevitably leads to wars and requires frequent wars to feed the military industrial complex.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Those are capitalist, not socialist.
  - illiac786 1y ago
    The US used the word socialist is very strange way. Socialists and communists are not the same thing at all – except in the US, which is one of the very very rare countries that never had a socialist party as far as I know. A socialist party (labor, “social democrat”, etc) is what most countries consider “left” (as opposed to communists which are “far left”)
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      socialist != social democracy Socialists want councils and the political discussion to happen inside the party by party members, which is what there idea of democracy is. (The self-labeling as democratic isn't a lie, but what they perceive to be democratic.) A social democrat wants a welfare state with a democracy with multiple parties. In practice socialists strive to create communism, which hasn't really worked out anywhere yet. Some declared that it was achieved, but than later backpedaled and claimed it didn't really happened yet.
      - illiac786 1y ago
        again, to each its definition, but you should be aware your definition does not align with wikipedia’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism The US have a very strange definition of the word “socialist”, which other english-speaking countries (and seemingly wikipedia) do not share. As an example, the european socialist party does _not_ strive to put communism in place. socialist != communist

by spwa4 1y ago

AlecSchueler 1y ago

> There is nothing stopping people from living like communists in the US. Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. > All but single digits have been abandoned or sold by their inhabitants. The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism.

spwa4 1y ago
> Capitalism stops them. The state has expectations of everyone. They will have to deal with things from outside that will force them into some level of capitalistic thinking which will ultimately eat the project from within. This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint. You will pay taxes in a communist system. You will have to deal with all sorts of external influences in a communist system. > The fact that the death of these experiments comes with a sale is illustrative of the point above No it isn't. These were voluntary sales (especially since most were abandoned, not sold. There was no profit in leaving, except in some cases). It is illustrative of the simple fact that given the choice, all but a rare exception chooses against communism. Or to put it another way: people REALLY don't want communism, and after trying it, that becomes worse. In many cases abandoning these communes required a large-ish group of people taking the decision together. In other words: they organized themselves to destroy their little patch of communism. Which illustrates the next point: > > without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. > Is that so? It sounds like red scare propaganda honestly, and I don't think you could reasonably make an argument for this without conceding that the same is true of capitalism. You just made an argument in favor of this. Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. HOW will you prevent it? State terror.
- immibis 1y ago
  > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism comes in from outside and stops you practicing communism? The USA did bomb and/or coup most communist countries until they were not communist, so you may have a point but it wasn't clear if this is what you meant. > Your argument is that people cannot be allowed to have access to the external world, or they will abandon communism. That must be prevented, in your argument. Don't strawman people.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > > This is not a difference between capitalism and communism, and so not a valid complaint > I don't understand. You're saying that also in communism, capitalism We were talking about external influences. Period. Mentioned was taxes (ie. effort you have to put in to keep a state structure operational), and other external influences. By which I mean from acquiring food to dealing with the weather, and indeed, occasionally dealing with the fact that there are people outside working under other systems. But I bet for most communists it's, ironically, the communist state. That's the biggest external influence they have to deal with. This will include "capitalist expectations" ie. an amount of work you have to perform, without any reward, because that's what the state needs. That's what the state needs to exist, and of course to make the Kremlin look like it looks. > Don't strawman people. Then by all means do tell: how will you prevent people either individually or in groups from banding against the communist system? After all, almost by definition, that's in their individual interest because ... communist system. You agreed that it's necessary to stop this but neglected to say HOW you'd do it. In history the "white terror" is one example of how far people will go to band together to destroy communism ... Every historical communist state (after a short while) chose state terror: indiscriminate, industrial-level violence against individuals. Given that they didn't immediately chose this gives at least an indication that they tried other methods, which badly failed. Even Israel initially did that (well, the Arabs, not yet called Palestinians, did most of it for them), but then switched to give people a choice, which lead to near-total abandonment of communism (even though they kept much of the state institutions communism built).

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

> without constant terror, socialism cannot exist. I don't think you have an accurate appraisal of many socialist countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark). Meanwhile, it would appear that Capitalism inevitably leads to wars and requires frequent wars to feed the military industrial complex.

Jensson 1y ago
Those are capitalist, not socialist.
- illiac786 1y ago
  The US used the word socialist is very strange way. Socialists and communists are not the same thing at all – except in the US, which is one of the very very rare countries that never had a socialist party as far as I know. A socialist party (labor, “social democrat”, etc) is what most countries consider “left” (as opposed to communists which are “far left”)
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    socialist != social democracy Socialists want councils and the political discussion to happen inside the party by party members, which is what there idea of democracy is. (The self-labeling as democratic isn't a lie, but what they perceive to be democratic.) A social democrat wants a welfare state with a democracy with multiple parties. In practice socialists strive to create communism, which hasn't really worked out anywhere yet. Some declared that it was achieved, but than later backpedaled and claimed it didn't really happened yet.
    - illiac786 1y ago
      again, to each its definition, but you should be aware your definition does not align with wikipedia’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism The US have a very strange definition of the word “socialist”, which other english-speaking countries (and seemingly wikipedia) do not share. As an example, the european socialist party does _not_ strive to put communism in place. socialist != communist