Jump to content

[Game] Last one to post wins!


Recommended Posts

(edited)
1 hour ago, BearBeaBeau said:

 

So, the contentious attitude and paranoia aren't neccessary.

 

I am asking a question knowing you support the idealism. I am currently attempting to understand the pathways to a practical implementation, you can excuse yourself if it's too much for you.

 

I'm not interested in the past and my own shenanigans are completely irrelevant. If you want, I can post puppy images. How about instead, not attacking someone for trying to understand.

 

Edit: I'm not looking to cause drama or an argument. If I worded the question improperly then I apologize. I am looking into the connection and historically apparent disconnect between Marxism and it's support by humanists. 

the way that you phrased it made it seem like you just wanted an argument, though perhaps it is just that I have been asked this question in bad faith too many times by now, and being that I was quite tired, my usual filter to keep myself from sounding aggressive was not working at 100%. sorry for the hostility

 

I wouldn't actually consider myself a Marxist. I think that he had some good ideas, and some of his predictions were shockingly accurate, but I don't agree with all of his takes. in ideology I am probably closer to a Marxist-Leninist, but I haven't read enough on Lenin to be comfortable actually calling myself that

 

I don't care to go into too great detail right now about the history of communism, but as for why many communist states fail, it mainly comes down to 2 reasons:

1. doing a revolution is hard. if you look at all revolutions, even the ones that were not in favor of communism, you will see that very few of them actually achieve what they want. most of them don't even manage to overthrow the previous government, and those that do often struggle to instate a new one and/or end up very badly off economically. these difficulties are exacerbated by.

2. external sabotage. since before the start of communism, there were already powerful capitalist states who really don't want communist countries to succeed, and it is hard enough trying to fight against that when you have already established yourself, let alone while you are in the middle of a revolution or just afterwards. on this topic, I recommend reading about the attempts by the US government to assassinate Fidel Castro; it's pretty much roadrunner and coyote in real life

 

I just realized that this isn't actually the question that you asked, and also that you have later posted more specific questions. I'll get to that stuff in a later post. I am trying to pay attention to school for a change right now though

Edited by Breloomancer

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Breloomancer

    23491

  • Bear

    7453

  • Srn347

    4776

  • Miichu

    4494

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I've had similar questions to bear before

 

I haven't been convinced of communism, though I seem increasingly convinced of some form of socialism

 

At some point I had thought something similar to if perhaps it would be better if a business was democratically owned and that the money made could be more fairly distributed, so you don't have wage slaves at bottom who can't even make enough to support themselves and some person at top making billions. Not everyone making the same, but lowering the ceiling and raising the floor in some way

 

I guess other people have had a similar idea and it is related to socialism

Creation for creation's sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently some ideas that I thought were dumb about marxism that I thought specifically weren't part of marxism-leninism are actually part of marxism-leninism, so I would definitely not call myself that. I am just communist, not further specified

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

Explain to me how Marxism could work given the historic evidence to the contrary?

so in my post before I was pretty much explaining why I don't think that the problems that communist states face aren't because of communism. the way that the world currently is, I don't believe that a communist revolution would be successful, and I don't believe that a peaceful transition to communism is possible. as the US declines further as a world power and capitalism cannibalizes itself more, I think that it becomes more possible, though probably only for developing countries rather than first world countries

 

36 minutes ago, BearBeaBeau said:

The capitalist system works for me ofc, being solidly middle-class, way over the 50% mark, I'd lose a lot in a switch equal distribution of wealth. My overall question is if the quality of life of the "average person" could be improved by communist implementation? Also, what incentives a overachiever would have in that system? I would wonder if such a system would breed apathy because I've worked at places where there was no incentive to work harder and what we got was a lot of slackers.

 

I don't expect a complete answer here obviously. It's not tulpamancy related.

as things currently stand, due to how unequal the distribution of money is, most people would personally benefit from an equal distribution of wealth. furthermore, depending on how you set things up I believe that it would be possible to pull off a socialist take on competition that would work better for encouraging innovation than the free market equivalent

 

so, with true communism, you can't really offer much incentives for people to work hard, other than responsibility and status, and in practice those things don't seem to mean nearly as much socially when there isn't money/power to back it up. in east germany doctors would complain that they could no longer use being a doctor to help with getting romantic partners, since everyone made the same amount of money and so being a doctor wasn't as prodigious anymore (garbage men were quite happy with this change though). this is sort of a mixed blessing, because, though the benefits of equality and equity should be obvious, we are not yet in a post-labor society and so sometimes we need people to do certain people, and it is a lot harder to get people to do things that they don't want to do when you can't offer them power in reward. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to encourage the population in certain ways that like that, but it is certainly a lot more difficult

 

if you open things up past just communism and are willing to get into socialism somewhat, then an attractive solution is to have all necessities (food, water, shelter, medicine, ect) as a baseline that everyone gets, but access to luxuries can be changed in order to encourage people to do things that benefit society. now this is a pretty broad idea and there are a lot of different ways that one could try to implement it, but I'm trying to avoid getting too specific

 

so back to my claim before that one could beat capitalism in terms of innovation using socialism. historically, socialist states, like communist china (back when it was still socialist) and the soviet union, have had big problems with mismanagement and lack of technological progress. I think that looking to capitalism we can see what conditions allow for innovation and what conditions stifle it, and then we can see why these socialist countries had those problems and how to fix it

 

with capitalism, innovation tends to happen a lot when there is a lot of competition, and in the case of monopolies and where just a few companies hold too much of the marketshare, things tend to stagnate and ideas even get held back. a good example of this is with phone companies. for a long time there was just one phone company and whenever anyone tried to do anything new with phones it would do everything that it could to stop them, and then after the government got involved and broke up that company, now all of a sudden tons of new ideas are being tried out. the internet, with it's dial up modems, never would have been allowed to exist if it weren't for the phone companies being broken up

 

so with this in mind, there are clearly parallels to be made with the highly standardized and centralized economies of the soviet union and Mao's china and monopolies. so therefor the solution should be to decentralize the economy. make multiple organizations to do the same thing, and make many branches of all of those organizations. make it easy for people to try out their ideas, and if it works then those ideas can be spread and the people who came up with them can be rewarded. the important difference between this and capitalism is that in here all of these organizations are state owned, which means that one company can't buy another one, and thereby a monopoly could never form. this idea could also be applied to places where capitalism couldn't be, for example there could be competing organizations of scientists who are trying to research something that doesn't show any immediately useful applications

 

I guess I mostly argued for socialism rather than communism. I think that communism is the ideal, but in order for it to work there would first need to be cultural changes brought about by a socialist system (though that isn't exactly a hot take, the idea of needing a stepping stone socialist system was first brought up by marx and has persisted to this day. the main way that I disagree with marx is that I think that the idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat is a really bad idea and also kind of an oxymoron)

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BearBeaBeau said:

The capitalist system works for me ofc

  

Well that explains a lot

 

"all my homies HATE capitalism"

 

But anyways, you got infinitely better responses in your reddit thread than I could ever give

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Luminesce said:

  

Well that explains a lot

 

"all my homies HATE capitalism"

 

But anyways, you got infinitely better responses in your reddit thread than I could ever give

 

I can't multi-quote in mobile anymore.

 

Yeah, I learned a lot in that thread. I'm specifically looking in terms of a humanist or humanitarian solution to the issues of corruption and poverty, the humanist sub seem to love Marxism and I really didn't know much about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Breloomancer said:

the way that you phrased it made it seem like you just wanted an argument, though perhaps it is just that I have been asked this question in bad faith too many times by now, and being that I was quite tired, my usual filter to keep myself from sounding aggressive was not working at 100%. sorry for the hostility

 

I wouldn't actually consider myself a Marxist. I think that he had some good ideas, and some of his predictions were shockingly accurate, but I don't agree with all of his takes. in ideology I am probably closer to a Marxist-Leninist, but I haven't read enough on Lenin to be comfortable actually calling myself that

 

I don't care to go into too great detail right now about the history of communism, but as for why many communist states fail, it mainly comes down to 2 reasons:

1. doing a revolution is hard. if you look at all revolutions, even the ones that were not in favor of communism, you will see that very few of them actually achieve what they want. most of them don't even manage to overthrow the previous government, and those that do often struggle to instate a new one and/or end up very badly off economically. these difficulties are exacerbated by.

2. external sabotage. since before the start of communism, there were already powerful capitalist states who really don't want communist countries to succeed, and it is hard enough trying to fight against that when you have already established yourself, let alone while you are in the middle of a revolution or just afterwards. on this topic, I recommend reading about the attempts by the US government to assassinate Fidel Castro; it's pretty much roadrunner and coyote in real life

 

I just realized that this isn't actually the question that you asked, and also that you have later posted more specific questions. I'll get to that stuff in a later post. I am trying to pay attention to school for a change right now though

 

This is all good, thank you. It saves me from asking the question that would warrant this response. I get interested in things that I then binge on until I either have a more informed opinion or opt out of it. Zen and Humanism are my two topics of interest recently.

 

Humanism and Communism go well together in a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

so in my post before I was pretty much explaining why I don't think that the problems that communist states face aren't because of communism. the way that the world currently is, I don't believe that a communist revolution would be successful, and I don't believe that a peaceful transition to communism is possible. as the US declines further as a world power and capitalism cannibalizes itself more, I think that it becomes more possible, though probably only for developing countries rather than first world countries

 

 

I see it cannibalizing itself. I see the buying power decline generation over generation. The American dream is becoming an elitist dream.

37 minutes ago, Breloomancer said:

I wouldn't say that it is impossible to encourage the population in certain ways that like that, but it is certainly a lot more difficult

 

This along with the rest of what you wrote is what I was looking for. Reddit answers were very idealistic and less practical until I drilled them.

 

I liked what you said about a socialist hybrid where highly trained and skilled individuals as well as individuals in dangerous forms of work would need to be incentivized in some way for those industries to thrive. Otherwise you end up with shortages of services or resources to the detriment of all.

 

An interesting point someone made was that tax for the highest paid individuals was as high as 70% in the early 80's and in the 50's business tax on profit was as high as 90%.

 

This incentivizes better production in and lower prices and also more jobs for individuals. I doubt we'll be able to go back though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah, I banned Marcus an hour ago but I forgot to delete the thread until now. Sorry guys.

 

As of now, we don't have a great way of flagging his posts down yet.

I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love hippos! I also like cake and chatting about stuff.

My other headmates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogcBox | Yay! | Bre Translator

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   2 members

×
×
  • Create New...