Communism will win.

Unless humans suddenly turn into bees or ants, I don't think so.

Or if we are ruled under a completely totalitarian system that convinces people that they are free (such as Brave New World)

Cradle to the grave brainwashing is a requirement for it to work, because human nature rebels against it.
 
Why would a single world government inherently be communist? Could it not be another force of dictatorship?

Communist in practice. The parts where everything is controlled in hierarchical fashion by a tiny minority at the top.

So yes, a dictatorship eventually, or like Chinese communism.

It is not so difficult to promise 72 virgins (utopian communism) to entice young people to become Jihadis (activists) and fight for the caliphate (authoritarian international control system).
 
Last edited:
It will globally ONLY if the world can be broken into regions and i'd argue you would need to unite the respective regions based off something like phenotype/race. It would be very hard to get Arabs to be communist with non-Arabs let alone non-Arab Muslims for instance.

Easily you could have a EEU communist block along the lines of the USSR borders, EU communist block, East Asian/South East asian communist block, South American communist block. Maybe then a union block for North Africa and the Middle East, so groups like Turks and Kurds take a back seat but it could maybe one day work. Jews would need their own thing though since they are surrounded by Anti-Semites.

For the USA, Canada etc. Id argue you might as well just join them with the UK, Australia, NZ, and unite them as an 'Anglo' speaking union that is largely multicultural. At this point Canada, and the USA are multicultural beyond repair. You won't find any other common ground with people.

Yeah that is one of the numerous reasons why it would require an authoritarian system. How do you get dissimilar peoples, tribes, religions, ideologies, families, ethnicities, etc, to 'commune' together.

One answer is to erase all differences, but how do you do that? Only a very powerful system could accomplish such a task, and it would require heavy brainwashing and coercion, at the very least.

And of course, by the time such a huge authoritarian system has been built up big enough to re-engineer the planet in such a way, what are the chances for those running it to just give up such power?

Zero percent.
 
Communist in practice. The parts where everything is controlled in hierarchical fashion by a tiny minority at the top.

So yes, a dictatorship eventually, or like Chinese communism.

It is not so difficult to promise 72 virgins (utopian communism) to entice young people to become Jihadis (activists) and fight for the caliphate (authoritarian international control system).

Please look up what Communism means before you start using words you don't understand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
 
Please look up what Communism means before you start using words you don't understand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

I am somewhat familiar with the utopian vision.

Like the star trek earth federation, or something like that.

It's fine to have a utopian vision (even though equity is dystopian by nature since it can only be forced onto people), but pragmatism and reality has to kick in at some point also.
 
You are talking about the USSR just after the revolution where it was hit by 2 famines and a world war. Once the USSR stabilized standards of living were no different than western Europe or America.

I don't know much about the PRC so I won't comment on them.

Yugoslavia under Tito was a workers paradise... Everyone could get a job in a company owned by the workers by right. Yugoslavia was such a success story and Tito was so likeable that they were the only leftist nation to have normal relations with both the west and USSR.

Both the Paris commune and the Catalonia were embroiled in civil war.... yet they still we able to pay the groundwork for a successful society.

You don't know what you're talking about. Companies weren't owned by workers, they were "self-managed" by workers. And that was not a good thing. Productivity was low, investment in research and development was non-existent. Not everyone could get a job, as evidenced by millions leaving the country to work in western Europe. But companies did hire as many workers as they could, resulting in waste of profit. Yugoslavia was such a success story that it eventually went bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
Please look up what Communism means before you start using words you don't understand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

Also, your link makes a distinction between 'communist society' and 'communist state'

Obviously I am referring to 'communist state' (meaning imposition of communism onto a society), and according to your link this is not an incorrect usage of the term 'communist'

So by all means, clarify what type of communism you are referring to (communist society I take it) but don't pretend like the word 'communist' can only mean that.
 
I am somewhat familiar with the utopian vision.

Like the star trek earth federation, or something like that.

It's fine to have a utopian vision (even though equity is dystopian by nature since it can only be forced onto people), but pragmatism and reality has to kick in at some point also.

All systems are forced on people, capitalism, feudalism, etc are no different.

I don't understand why you think capitalism is more pragmatic. I left Ron Paul libertarianism awhile ago for communism because the left is far more pragmatic.
 
Also, your link makes a distinction between 'communist society' and 'communist state'

Obviously I am referring to 'communist state' (meaning imposition of communism onto a society), and according to your link this is not an incorrect usage of the term 'communist'

So by all means, clarify what type of communism you are referring to (communist society I take it) but don't pretend like the word 'communist' can only mean that.

Engels and Marx used communism and socialism somewhat interchangeably. When leftists talk about these terms they usually use Lenin's view where socialism was the stage where the state was run by a dictatorship of the proletariat to get to a stateless, classless, and money free society which is what we call communism.
 
All systems are forced on people, capitalism, feudalism, etc are no different.

I don't understand why you think capitalism is more pragmatic. I left Ron Paul libertarianism awhile ago for communism because the left is far more pragmatic.

There are aspects of top down imposition in all systems, I would agree. So then it becomes a matter of extents.

In order to enforce equity, there has to be constant management and force applied because that is extremely unnatural. Any environment where there is freedom and competition (which is the norm in nature) will inevitable lead to unequal distributions of any given metric. People have different desires, aptitudes, strengths, weaknesses, etc. And of course there are other things like corruption, cronyism, etc. On the larger scale, you also have different groups competing with one another (teamwork is a competitive advantage in many cases)

You have to hamstring anyone with the ability to excel (and thus create inequality), or at the very least crush their ambition, and then who does this management? They will inevitable use such power to rig the game in their favor and it becomes "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others". It becomes a way for them to eliminate their own competition.

When I used the term 'pragmatic', I mean realistic expectations. As in, you have to be real in terms of mapping out the possibility of creating such a utopian vision without it going drastically wrong.

And I am not some flag bearer for the current state of things. The 'capitalists' I view as very problematic, as they form the Oligarchy that controls our system more or less.

The thing is, I would rather not give them complete power over everyone by facilitating the collectivist system.
 
Last edited:
There are aspects of top down imposition in all systems, I would agree. So then it becomes a matter of extents.

In order to enforce equity, there has to be constant management and force applied because that is extremely unnatural. Any environment where there is freedom and competition (which is the norm in nature) will inevitable lead to unequal distributions of any given metric. People have different desires, aptitudes, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

You have to hamstring anyone with the ability to excel (and thus create inequality), or at the very least crush their ambition, and then who does this management? They will inevitable use such power to rig the game in their favor and it becomes "everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others"

When I used the term 'pragmatic', I mean realistic expectations. As in, you have to be real in terms of mapping out the possibility of creating such a utopian vision without it going drastically wrong.

I don't think equity is nearly as unnatural as privatization which requires constant force to have any meaning.

If the drive to compete was higher than the drive to cooperate we wouldn't be such a social species.

How many Einsteins or Mozarts have lived and died without the ability to express their talents because they were hamstrung by their economic conditions under Capitalism.

The automation revolution is just over the horizon. There will be a time in our lifetimes where human labor will be obsolete. There is no way a Capitalist system can be sustained in any non dystopic way in a world where people cannot make money anymore. Communism is the only pragmatic solution to this problem.
 
Engels and Marx used communism and socialism somewhat interchangeably. When leftists talk about these terms they usually use Lenin's view where socialism was the stage where the state was run by a dictatorship of the proletariat to get to a stateless, classless, and money free society which is what we call communism.

Yes and I think such a state would be a per-requisit to a global communist society (if it isn't global, it will be defeated by more competitive systems)

And that is where things go drastically wrong.

You have to have a huge amount of power in order to hypothetically re-engineer society and the people in it, to be compatible with the collectivist utopia. This is international in scale. The engineering requirements of such a job are tremendous.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. And that is even assuming that those who aquire such power are well meaning, which I would say is extremely unlikely considering the nature of power seeking and the existing crop of Oligarchs who have the financial strings.
 
Last edited:
Yes and I think such a state would be a per-requisit to a global communist society (if it isn't global, it will be defeated by more competitive systems)

And that is where things go drastically wrong.

You have to have a huge amount of power in order to hypothetically re-engineer society and the people in it, to be compatible with the collectivist utopia. This is international in scale. The engineering requirements of such a job are tremendous.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. And that is even assuming that those who aquire such power are well meaning, which I would say is extremely unlikely considering the nature of power seeking and the existing crop of Oligarchs we have with financial strings.

I would agree which is why I'm an anarchist not a Marxist leninist. The state will always serve those that make up the state and it is too easy for someone to abuse the power. I think we need a bottom up revolution where the citizens themselves organise with no need for a state.
 
I don't think equity is nearly as unnatural as privatization which requires constant force to have any meaning.

If the drive to compete was higher than the drive to cooperate we wouldn't be such a social species.

How many Einsteins or Mozarts have lived and died without the ability to express their talents because they were hamstrung by their economic conditions under Capitalism.

The automation revolution is just over the horizon. There will be a time in our lifetimes where human labor will be obsolete. There is no way a Capitalist system can be sustained in any non dystopic way in a world where people cannot make money anymore. Communism is the only pragmatic solution to this problem.

I think you are comparing it to a communal tribal living arrangement? I agree things like private property and ownership of a business, a car, etc, is very unnatural compared to a primitive tribal existence.

And by equity, I assume you mean that everyone owns nothing of their own?

But, even in tribal societies I don't think they 'communed' with competing tribes. Rather, they were in competition with them. So, scaling up a tribal commune type arrangement meets some serious hurdles.

If you think the capitalist system keeps people down relative to non-capitalist systems, I think I'd need your reference point. What are you comparing it to. It isn't that private property and the facilitation of businesses is perfect, but it has raised the living standards and has driven technological development more than any other system. If done ideally, it allows people to make their own livings and brings about a middle class, which has demonstrably happened, even though there are of course still problems of corruption and abuse of such a system that takes place.

And of course, there are many other factors besides 'capitalism' that has pushed development. Things like law structures, governmental structures, societal values and ethos, etc all play roles, but you know what I mean.

In terms of automation, yes that will be a game changer and I suspect something like a universal basic income will be put in place, but I don't think there is any intent on it being a utopia, because it is driven by the very 'capitalists' that we probably agree are up to no good. They want a power monopoly and that does nothing to prevent that. It enables it, as does implementing communism onto the larger society.
 
I think you are comparing it to a communal tribal living arrangement? I agree things like private property and ownership of a business, a car, etc, is very unnatural compared to a primitive tribal existence.

And by equity, I assume you mean that everyone owns nothing of their own?

But, even in tribal societies I don't think they 'communed' with competing tribes. Rather, they were in competition with them. So, scaling up a tribal commune type arrangement meets some serious hurdles.

If you think the capitalist system keeps people down relative to non-capitalist systems, I think I'd need your reference point. What are you comparing it to. It isn't that private property and the facilitation of businesses is perfect, but it has raised the living standards and has driven technological development more than any other system. If done ideally, it allows people to make their own livings and brings about a middle class, which has demonstrably happened, even though there are of course still problems of corruption and abuse of such a system that takes place.

And of course, there are many other factors besides 'capitalism' that has pushed development. Things like law structures, governmental structures, societal values and ethos, etc all play roles, but you know what I mean.

In terms of automation, yes that will be a game changer and I suspect something like a universal basic income will be put in place, but I don't think there is any intent on it being a utopia, because it is driven by the very 'capitalists' that we probably agree are up to no good. They want a power monopoly and that does nothing to prevent that. It enables it, as does implementing communism onto the larger society.

By equity I mean everyone is entitled to the same rights instead of just the rights they can afford. You have a right to own things that are intended for personal use. Things like your car, house, garden, toothbrush, etc are pieces of personal property.

I do not deny that Capitalism was a great improvement upon feudalism, but feudalism was also a great improvement on slave empires. Like you said though it's flaws are blatantly visible so there is no reason to not continue this evolution towards total economic liberation.

Capitalism holds people down with interest on capital loans which is no different than a ransom placed upon resources. Rent which is just a tax on a necessity. Wage slavery which forces workers to give up the profits they created to the person that holds the capital. It encourages profit motives in healthcare, law, and education for profit. It divides people into classes which alienates communities. Politics become pay to play. People are reduced to stats and cash when they are intrinsically so much more.
 
When did Lenin say that? Source please.

Few communists criticized the Bolshevik party at the time of the Russian Revolution because being a Bolshevik was the practical definition of what Communist meant at that point. Disagreeing with Lenin was the demarcation between communist and socialist just like rejecting Lenin's leadership had earlier been the demarcation between Menshevik and Bolshevik.
Even without seeing the source, it was rather obvious that the USSR was state capitalist in application despite the official Marxist-Leninist declaration of the ruling government. Communism simply isn't a viable socioeconomic and sociopolitical system. You'll die trying before you will ever succeed in implementing it.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,256
Messages
55,267,866
Members
174,714
Latest member
cartoonq123
Back
Top