r/DebateCommunism

The title might not be extremely respectful but, as a slightly right leaning person from former USSR, how are there modern day communists that believe that a Marxist world could exist? Russia, china, all examples of how it goes. It is an idealistic world you are trying to live in, is it not? is modern day communism outside of former USSR countries just a label for someone who would like it to be that way but knows it doesn’t work or do you genuinely believe that it could work? I’m honestly really confused, since my country is pretty middle, and I feel like that is the best way to go about things in modern society. Some of modern communists are seriously uplifting a regime that gaslighted my parents into thinking that they were well off in comparison to other countries, whilst they barely had any idea that there were wonders out there in the west during the 70s-80s. It was hell, no Ine had money for anything, everyone is to this day scared of any change, the buildings, the neighbours turning on you and telling the police, Jan Palach, do people in the west really not know the hell that communism is in practice?

Should a pre-colonial California revive as an anti-imperialist & anti-revisionist Californian socialist state?

Communism sounds like it could actually work if humans were not breeding constantly and irresponsibly. In a world with limited resources its hard to make sense of that.

Im a bit of anti-natalist (not too extreme) so giving resources for free to people who do nothing but spawning kids, makes no sense to me.

So if you have 1 or 2 kids, maybe. But more than that is nonsense, and I wouldn't support communism at that point.

The reason why is because humans are the biggest impact on the environment in this world.

I think a lot of the problems we have and a lot of the grip capitalism has on all of us is because of the billions of people in the world, and the pressure cooker society we live in.

Considering that we are in an overpopulated world with scarce resources, I would never want people who breed without any empathy for the animals and the environment to be handled free stuff.

I see a lot of people say they are anti communist because of the soviet union and how it was always behind and poor. was the ussr actually socialist? is the ussr an example of communism not working?

(im trying to learn more about communism and other ideologies)

I am sharing a Instagram reel from page ex Muslim Peter. Here he claims a person cannot be a Muslim and a communist at same time. What are your Thoughts? Can they believe in popular religions like islam,Christianity and be a communist

Like the Arabs conquested the entire middle east and northern africa, the mongols conquered more than half of Asia, the russian empire conquer from Moscow to Alaska, but i rarely heard any "anti-imperialists" folks condemn that

There are many alternate history that seem to curiously always favour this kind of scenarios,i know that history is made by the masses but still i wanted to have the opinions of communists on the matter

Il termine “proletariato”/“proletario” mi sembra sempre più anacronistico. Etimologicamente deriva dal latino proles, prolis, cioè “figli, discendenza”. Indicava infatti, nell'antica Roma, la classe più inferiore composta da coloro che erano privi di qualsiasi proprietà, il cui unico patrimonio era costituito dalla prole, cioè dai figli. Nel corso dell''800, quando ancora il lavoro minorile era legale, molte famiglie povere trovavano favorevole procreare così da poter mandare a lavorare i propri figli i quali potevano così contribuire alle spese familiari.
Ma oggi funziona in maniera opposta: il crescente costo della vita, i salari bassi, naturalmente l'istruzione obbligatoria e il divieto di lavoro minorile, disincentivano molto le famiglie a procreare, almeno in Occidente dove vivo e sono cresciuto io. Effettivamente chi oggi ha figli significa che può permetterselo, che ha un lavoro tendenzialmente ben retribuito o che comunque gli consente di badare alle spese necessarie. Il povero oggi non ha figli, prima sì.
Per questo il termine “proletario” mi sembra sempre più anacronistico, il che mi dà l'impressione contribuisca a rendere il movimento comunista ancor meno accettato, considerato “legato al passato”. Che ne pensate?

I’ve been going back and forth asking the AI to pressure-test my political views with the aim of developing a coherent and rigorous argument against the philosophies of communism and socialism.

After roughly fifty exchanges, I arrived at what I believe is an ironclad case against those political philosophies as a whole.

Ultimately it returns to the enduring variety of human nature itself, and to the unequal outcomes that free individuals necessarily produce.

To this, I offer the following rebuttal:

-------------------

1. Human beings freely form unequal opinions and make unequal decisions according to their own preferences, abilities, and risk tolerance. Unequal outcomes necessarily follow from those free choices. Any system that seeks to eliminate or systematically equalize those outcomes must restrict the very freedom of decision that produces them.

2. Socialism and communism claim to target only a special kind of inequality—the power that comes from private ownership of the major instruments of production—while leaving differences that arise from individual preference and effort untouched. Yet the method they propose is clear in the Communist Manifesto: “The proletariat [working class] will use its political supremacy [control of government] to wrest [seize], by degree [force], all capital [factories, businesses, and money used to make profit] from the bourgeoisie [the owning class], to centralise all instruments of production [tools, machines, factories, and resources used to make things] in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class [the working class set up as the group in charge].”

3. Once that authority — "the dictatorship of the proletariat" — is established, there is no reliable institutional mechanism to prevent it from expanding beyond “structural” inequality into the broader equalization of outcomes, nor any proven way to ensure it dissolves once its stated task is complete. Even if one grants that ownership of productive assets creates real power over those who must work, the proposed remedy still replaces economic constraint with political coercion and offers no demonstrated path back to voluntary association.

4. Communism and socialism, for all their moral ambition, therefore remain an inevitable failure. They cannot resolve the contradiction at their core, where the free exercise of unequal human judgment will always produce unequal results, yet the project requires a coercive authority powerful enough to override those results in the name of structural justice.

5. Once that authority is created, it possesses both the incentive and the means to perpetuate itself, and history has never supplied a mechanism by which it reliably dissolves. The pursuit ends not in the liberation it promises, but in the permanent administration of people by those who claim to act in their name. It is for this reason that millions have died under the many attempts to force communism and socialism throughout history. The cost of ignoring the limits of human nature and the necessities of freedom has always been paid in lives.

So, Fascism is widely misunderstood by many. Ultimately when it was synthesised by Giovani Gentile Fascism continues the Hegelian conception of the state being the ultimate realisation of man, except taking a step further in the idea that man should be subordinate to the state. That you are the state, the state is you or whatever. I’m not an expert. Anyway, nowadays fascism seems to be vaguely defined by scholars as ultra authoritarian nationalist state capitalism yada yada. A lot of fascists online are like “yeah but this is not what gentile said”. Now here is where I sort of agree: us communists time and time again have to argue with people setting out communism or socialism to be vague state welfare or government control. Communism is stateless, socialism is when the workers own the means of production. People always argue “yeah but in theory not in practice”, which is hard to argue with. Like if I say im a vegan and then start eating meat and say any diet I eat is vegan Im not sure most people would agree I’m vegan. And this happens with fascism as well, where scholars are like oh but Hitler was fascist yet he didn’t believe man should be subordinate to the state, he rejected this. And he didn’t believe in actual idealism. But I think most people would laugh were you to say Nazi germany wasn’t fascist. And then this is where everything gets tricky, definitions in general seem to just be a way for augments to get bogged down. Ancaps argue we don’t live under capitalism, to which us comrades point out the real manifestion of capitalism. But can they not apply the same logic to communism? Hope this makes sense. Was wanting some clarity

I just got banned from r/thespectreofcommunism for saying that these russian groups are fascists. How can communists frame this? How did russia become such a sacred cow within parts of the Left? How is saying that Putin supports and gets support from the European far-right and Maga controversial? Why should everything should be handled like we are still living through the Cold War?

So recently i have quickly figured out that my best friend is relatively clueless about politics and clearly has a lot of deprogramming to do from capitalist and specifically liberal propaganda. For context they are Colombian but have lived most of their life in the US and i am Czech, never been to the US, which gives me a much easier time seeing through the veil of lies as an outside observer. I am most concerned with and educated on US politics as they are the global hegemon and Czechia are extremely close allies with both the US and Israel but i try to have at least some knowledge on all parts of the worlds.

I am an Anarcho-Communist and my friend is.. unknown. They do not know what to describe themselves as and neither do I so that is the first thing i need help with.

I tried working with the process of elimination but that didnt really lead me anywhere because they:

Cannot be a liberal or Soc Dem because they are anti-capitalist

They cannot be a fascist or really anything right OF Soc Dem because they are a leftist in terms of social issues

They cannot be a communist because, in their own words, they "do not like capitalism but also don't like the other extreme" while acknowledging they have and aren't opposed to having extreme opinions

when i asked them what part of communism they are skeptical about they told me they didn't know and actually asked me for a definition OF communism to which i replied and explained in very simple terms "a moneyless, classless, stateless society" as well as explaining the "to each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" quote again in simple terms.

They then told me they would have to do their own research first to which i agreed and am now waiting for the results.

So that leaves me with the conclusion that they are a socialist but not a communist. Which i feel is nonsensical both from a modern and an orthodox perspective as Marx personally didnt differentiate between Socialism and Communism and from a modern perspective Socialism is a transitionary period between Capitalism and Communism.

Apart from this though their general beliefs and allegiances are very very liberal-coded.

For example when i tell them to support a third party they repeat the lesser evil argument and say that a third party has no chance of winning anyways. Yes I've explained to them that even in more "revolution-prone" countries it still takes decades to build a legitimate third party, they seemingly did not change their view

When i describe to them why people like Sanders and Mamdani are not socialists, only social democrats and explain to them both why reforms both only harm socialism and that social democracy is still very compatible and arguably even more dependent on imperialism and colonialism they get upset at me for condemning Mamdani because hes "the only politician actually doing something, hes fixing New York City, etc."

For some reason they remain hell bent on not condemning Mamdani overall despite the blatant zionism and lies he has spent his entire time in office spreading because he has done sooo much for NYC.

While at the same time arguing with me that he is just a mayor and has no real power, etc etc. (Which i have always had issue with as an argument regardless. He isnt just a mayor he is the mayor of fucking NEW. YORK. one of THE most politically significant cities on the face of the planet ESPECIALLY to Zionism, the only place more important to Zionism than that is Tel Aviv itself. He has probably the most power that is possible FOR a mayor of ANY city on EARTH to have so i am not buying it).

I want to talk more about this especially the Mamdani glazing and other similar liberal claptrap they still believe in but this post is too long already and i would like to not be seen as insane because REMINDER: this isnt a vent post, i legitimately need help in how to approach radicalizing them. I have been friends with them for years and know that they have a baseline of ethics and principles they hold. They have always been a Leftist on all social issues like Race, sex and gender and they have always been skeptical of Capitalism and much more open to Socialism and its ideas. I have no reason to believe they are some secret reactionary or even that they are truly a liberal or Soc Dem in their heart of hearts, they really just seem to be uneducated about politics and fallen for propaganda. i mean, just recently i had to explain how Liberals aren't on the left but are just polite fascists. So it is clear they arent very radicalized or deprogrammed from that world of propaganda but they seem to be open to it, just more stubborn in some areas than others.

Okay so, I have a friend who was communist (he still considers himself as a communist). He’s deeply anticapitalist, on this point almost everything’s fine.
But on some issues he is becoming a reactionary dude.
To show some of his “ideas”:

1. Atheists are way more stupid than religious people because “Newton and Lavoisier were religious”

2. The life of the peasant was way better during the ancien regime/absolute monarchy period because “at this time at least the nobles were fighting each other. And compared to the bourgeois they don’t want to have more power and wealth”

4. he thinks that the true liberation of women is not by working and making the revolution with the men. But going back to the kitchen to do the cleaning and take care of the kids because for him it’s better than being oppressed by their bosses

5. And finally. He thinks that we shouldn’t have too much immigration because they steal the jobs of French (we’re French) and immigrants lives in terrible conditions so for him to stop their conditions we should just stop immigration

So just.. is he really became fully reactionary or not that much?

An imperfect system which promotes rapid growth, development, rising living standards, education, industrialisation- this is basically the only justification I see of soviet communism or Maoism. The difference is capitalism is compatible with democracy and a free society whereas the communist experiment does the same economic things but worse and needs a brutal police state to do it

Segue referência de gráficos já que aqui não dá pra postar foto: https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2018/01/23/actualidad/1516705169\_487110.html

Eu vou postar isso sabendo exatamente o que vem: “fascista”, “burguês”, “neoliberal”, “coxinha”. E é justamente por isso que estou postando.
Porque eu já perdi a conta das vezes em que tentei discutir economia com gente de esquerda e a resposta não foi um dado, não foi um estudo, não foi um contra-argumento — foi um rótulo. E isso me deixa triste, não com raiva. Porque eu queria ser confrontado. Eu queria que alguém me mostrasse onde eu estou errado.
O que eu vejo, e vou falar com todas as letras: muita gente de esquerda parece carregar um ressentimento pessoal, uma raiva de fundo, que precisa de um culpado. E o culpado é sempre um sujeito abstrato — o mercado, o patrão, o rico, o “sistema”. Aí a discussão deixa de ser sobre o que funciona e vira uma disputa moral sobre quem é boa pessoa. Quem discorda não está errado: é mau-caráter. É muito mais confortável acreditar que a sua vida é difícil porque alguém te sabotou do que encarar o gráfico acima.

Olhem o gráfico
É o mundo reduzido a 100 pessoas, em dois séculos.
Mortalidade infantil: em 1820, 43 de cada 100 crianças morriam antes dos 5 anos. Hoje, 4. Quase todo mundo que já viveu neste planeta enterrou um filho. Hoje isso é a exceção rara e devastadora que a gente acha inaceitável — e essa mudança de expectativa é o progresso.

- Alfabetização: de 12 pessoas em 100 que sabiam ler, para 87.
-Educação básica: de 17 para 86.
-Democracia: em 1820, zero pessoas em 100 viviam em democracia. Zero. Hoje, 54.
-Pobreza extrema: de 79 em 100, para 9.

O ponto em que eu acho que vocês estão certos: o meio ambiente
É o único lugar onde eu não tenho resposta que me satisfaça.
O problema não é falta de tecnologia nem falta de boa vontade. É estrutural: quem polui não paga pelo dano que causa. O custo é jogado em cima de terceiros e nunca entra no preço. Isso não é falha de execução do mercado — é como o preço funciona quando ninguém cobra pela externalidade. Economista liberal nenhum discorda disso; Pigou escreveu sobre isso em 1920.

Eu não acho que o mundo de hoje é justo. Acho que a alternativa histórica não era um mundo melhor: era um mundo em que 43 de cada 100 crianças morriam antes dos 5 anos, 88 em 100 não sabiam ler, e ninguém — literalmente ninguém — vivia em democracia.
Se eu estou lendo errado, mostrem onde. Eu mudo de ideia com dado. Não mudo com adjetivo.

Marx famously said in a post-revolution world the state would wither away because the state fundamentally serves ruling class interests, and in a post revolution world there'd be no ruling class to need the state. But what real mechanisms or systems would really make the state obsolete? Would the economy just be so free flowing? Would people be able to regulate themselves, thus making the state irrelevant?

I agree with several principles of communism, such as the idea that the means of production should belong to the collective, the planning of production, and the abolition of patents... However, I am much more skeptical about the abolition of money. I understand that a monetary system creates inequalities, but I do not see how we could realistically do without it.

I will give several examples to explain why I am skeptical :

How do you motivate people to pursue long studies if, in the end, they do not have any more advantages than others? I fully agree that passion and vocation matter, not just money, but money still plays a role. Imagine a person who is equally passionate about profession A and profession B, but profession B requires five additional years of study and provides no additional benefits. In that situation, the person would probably choose profession A. But if many people react this way, would there not be a risk of a shortage of people in profession B?

How would housing be allocated? How do we decide that person A has the right to a huge villa with a swimming pool while person B gets a small apartment? How would that work? Would housing be distributed according to family size? Would the villa be divided into several apartments? Would the swimming pool be requisitioned and turned into a public pool? And if it is too small to become a public pool, what would be done with it?

How would consumption be limited for environmental reasons? If people can take as many televisions as they want, what would stop them from putting a television in every room of their house? If everyone does that, it creates overconsumption, which is not good for the environment. The same applies to transportation: if people do not have to pay for fuel, how do we prevent them from using their car for every trip and therefore polluting much more?

For me, a communist system could only work relatively easily on a small scale, in small communities (such as a village), with relatively simple technologies and professions: farmer, plumber, butcher, baker, and so on.

It seems much more complicated when we are talking about societies of several million or even billions of people, with professions that differ greatly in terms of technical complexity, for example a secretary and a nuclear engineer. This is not an attack on secretaries: everyone is essential to the proper functioning of society. But objectively, it is difficult to claim that a secretary and a nuclear engineer possess the same level of technical expertise.

Therefore, I personally think that we should keep money. It is certainly imperfect because it creates social classes, but I believe it is unfortunately necessary. On the other hand, I think that if we abolished inheritance, private ownership of companies, real-estate renting as a source of income, and other forms of passive income, it could help reduce inequalities. It would probably not be perfect, but I do not really see how we could do much better.