10 ms·

>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this proba

>When you sit at the dinner table and ask for the salt, you get it. Actually, it's you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of communism, and yes, this probably shows the sad state of our education system. Communism is not cooperation. Sitting down to dinner with family, is not Communism. Working on a project with your friend is not Communism. Donating money, time or skills is not Communism. Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Capitalism is another. Communism has been shown in practice to be a devastating, corrupt and wasteful system. It doesn't work in theory either because it creates huge incentives to cheat and lie (because if you don't inflate your need, your neighbor will and he'll get more - after all you have to prove your need before you get yours). I have more, but I think I made my point.

saraid216 13y ago
> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. Where does one even begin to explain why that's wrong? Communism is a socio-political theory. It's a way of defining a governing structure of our society Furthermore we live in a world of scarcity, so it also defines a way of distributing scarce resources amongst the population. As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. Under Capitalism, people cooperate, and work together all the time. Sometimes there's a profit motive (e.g. a typical manufacturer may have hundreds of suppliers), and sometimes there isn't. With respect of the latter, Communists usually trot out Open-Source Software as a inherently Communist movement. Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Your time belongs to you, do as you fit with it. Does that make sense?
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism is a socio-political theory. No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not. > As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. He never said otherwise. That was his entire point. > Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.

saraid216 13y ago

> Communism is a particular way of allocating scare resources (which also implies a particular government structure). Such as salt at the table, or time spent at a company. You haven't actually explained what he got wrong about communism; you're just basely asserting a negation.

macspoofing 13y ago
He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. Where does one even begin to explain why that's wrong? Communism is a socio-political theory. It's a way of defining a governing structure of our society Furthermore we live in a world of scarcity, so it also defines a way of distributing scarce resources amongst the population. As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. Under Capitalism, people cooperate, and work together all the time. Sometimes there's a profit motive (e.g. a typical manufacturer may have hundreds of suppliers), and sometimes there isn't. With respect of the latter, Communists usually trot out Open-Source Software as a inherently Communist movement. Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Your time belongs to you, do as you fit with it. Does that make sense?
- saraid216 13y ago
  > He defined Communsim as any positive interaction between people, and implicitly any negative interaction as capitlist subversion. No, he didn't. > Communism is a socio-political theory. No, it isn't. It's an economic system where the means of production is commonly owned. This has socio-political consequences, and socio-political requirements, but is not itself a socio-political system. Democracy is a socio-political system. Capitalism is not. Monarchy is a socio-political system. Communism is not. Meritocracy is a socio-political system. Distributism is not. > As a counter-example, every example he gave, is perfectly allowable in a Capitalist society. He never said otherwise. That was his entire point. > Except that OSS exists comfortably in a Capitalist society, because Capitalism has no problem with people freely donating their time and skills towards any type of endeavour they choose. Or you could acknowledge his actual point, which is that communism and capitalism are able to, and do, coexist.