Communism
>people gives everything they have to the state
>state is controlled by elite of people
>elite gets greedy and use the things of the people as their own
>elite keeps all the power
Capitalism
>work for ownership and services
>ownership and services can be obtained from elite of people in exchange of your time and effort
>elite keeps all the power
Comunist is basically cashless capitalism
the solution is to engineer a dominant hierarchy that isnt trade based - communism is just an alternative trade hierarchy
Communism's primary goal is to establish a classless, stateless, and moneyless society.
Communism as described by Marx doesn't have a state
Well that's a pointless and retarded goal
>what?! but i'm incapable of finding any value or meaning in something that isn't defined exclusively by fiat
reddit bugpeople must return to their anthills, begone begone begone
Communism is nonsense, it replaces an endlessly complex system, created by billions of interactions over thousands of years with primitive superstitions of a few retarded intellectuals. It's like Marx thinking he could design a human brain from scratch with 19th century technology (or more accurate, millions of interconnected brains). Pure folly. Capitalism describes the function of a system which evolved 'naturally' in the western world out of its legal processes. It elevates talent into an elite in exchange for societal access to their production. The biggest problem with this system is the enormous wealth it creates and the pace at which it does that.
It was to spur the movement of capital in nation's that did not have any influence in the international stage. Nations that became communist were already backwards to begin with. It's not like Cuba wouldn't have been shitty if they weren't communist just look at the rest of Latin America. Also look how technologically backwards Russia was before they became the Soviets. Talking about Communism in a first world nation is certainly a larp but acting like it was inherently dumb because it doesn't line up with your moral ideals is retarded. When you attempt to run a nation by clinging to your morals you will be left behind and eventually exploited by another nation that is not so naive.
it's just a phase shift bro lmao
Why would I want or need to produce or even work in this society? Selfishness will never be abolished. Might have to throw me in a camp or something
Communism is the capitalism of the lower classes.
Why would you not want that? Ignore the fact that direct transition to Communism is unfeasible: what is undesirable about a moneyless, classless, stateless society?
if a communist society was actually established there would be nothing to stop foreign invaders from taking everything
ummm sweaty the whole world would be communist we would like not invade ourselves or something
It's stupid and ignores the last 6000 years of human history.
you'd have to kill 99% of the world to do so
>i
Pretty much except you have no chance of ever getting out of the rut unless you suck vanguard dick. At least capitalism, if you work hard you can get to middle class status
Except people maybe
>I don't want it because it's retarded.
>For what reason do you not want it, think it's retarded?
>Because it's stupid.
Ok. Incidentally, Communists aren't primitivists, if you think for some reason "moneyless, classless, and stateless" means "without technology."
communists are retards, if you become full commie your neighbor takes over if everybody is a commie someone will go "huh, maybe I'll take over fuck them guys" and warlords rise
I wasnt that guy, just giving my opinion. I don't think communists are primitivists, it's just the idea of a "moneyless, classless, and stateless society" is laughably ridiculous and sounds like something out of a YA novel.
that's the goal
better dead than red
America is not capitalist
Capitalism may alienate the worker from his labor, but private enterprises have the advantage of being able to supply locally, even though investing parties end up behaving like Matthew effect suggests and it's not accomplished all across the board.
But installing a centralized government ruled by a single party on a huge fucking piece of land was one of the dumbest ideas of the 20th century. Their stupid fucking rigid bureaucracy wasn't qualified to deal with the organizational and administrative workload that it inevitably faced. It's not surprising it had to resort to methods of propaganda and censorship to keep the common man in line and mobilized for big projects.
>classless
erasing the existing boundaries between class? or destroy human capacity of creating class? because as hard as the first one is to do the second one is impossible as long as value exists and is accumulated through generations
>stateless
isn't that just anarchy then?
>moneyless
you mean currency? or what are you even talking about, do you have any idea what "money" is? unless you eliminate human concept of value, of which money is merely a medium, I doubt there is going to be such thing moneyless society