no political implications nor trying to start a fight (please don't),
just being curious about people's philosophical preference! (I'm studying his articles this term so...)
please leave a comment here🏃🏻♀️➡️🏃🏻♀️➡️🏃🏻♀️➡️
Well, he was a road-builder in many ways, he was trying to build a theory and some things he got wrong, but he also got a lot of things very, very right. People building on top of his theories have sharpened the picture, but in the big picture, he was way more right than he was wrong.
All countries which took him as a role model are either collapsed or have starvation
Dictators posing as marxists are no measure how well the idea works. The closest to a socialist state there has ever been in human history are hunter-gatherer tribes where everyone who could work did what they could and all the results of said labour were divided between the tribe's people, weather capable of working or not. These societies were very peaceful, very prosperous and endured for longest of times, usually until Europians or some other barbarians came and destroyed them by killing and enslaving. Know your history.
I know my history well, my country was part of Yugoslavia which had lighter form of communism but there were still widesrpeaded lack of resources, poverty, people were imprisoned, tortured and killed for even lighthearted political jokes. Marx was active advocate of terrorising opposition and that's whst all communistic dictators do, they follow their role-model
由 Korisnik 编辑.
I know my history well, my country was part of Yugoslavia which had lighter form of communism but there were still widesrpeaded lack of resources, poverty, people were imprisoned, tortured and killed for even lighthearted political jokes. Marx was active advocate of terrorising opposition and that's whst all communistic dictators do, they follow their role-model
No country on this planet ever has had real communism. They were all dictatorships that posed as.
Dictators posing as marxists are no measure how well the idea works. The closest to a socialist state there has ever been in human history are hunter-gatherer tribes where everyone who could work did what they could and all the results of said labour were divided between the tribe's people, weather capable of working or not.
Marxists are by essence aspiring dictators: they want to strip individual freedom in the name of some hypothetical greater good. They fail to grasp that individual freedom is precisely what generates prosperity. Why would anyone in their right mind strive to work harder, innovate, or start something new if they can't benefit from their own efforts? When value creation stops, the system inevitably resorts to forced labor so society doesn't immediately collapse. It eventually will, but at least they bought some time.
Karl Marx was a hobo who notoriously never bathed, and didn't work a single minute in his life. Yet, he spent the entirety of it lecturing others about how to build the ideal society - leftist ideology at its finest. Can you explain why all the richest countries on the planet are the most capitalist and economically liberal, while virtually all socialist/communist countries are among the poorest? Before you possibly mention China, no it doesn't have a communist economy.
These societies were very peaceful, very prosperous and endured for longest of times, usually until Europians or some other barbarians came and destroyed them by killing and enslaving. Know your history.
I think you're trolling on this one, but I'll quickly address it just in case anyone takes it seriously:
Europeans essentially single handled built the modern world. Slavery has existed in all major cultures throughout history (in fact, the term "slave" derives from "Slav", which refers to white people). Of all peoples, do you know who fought to abolish slavery, though?
Marxists are by essence aspiring dictators: they want to strip individual freedom in the name of some hypothetical greater good. They fail to grasp that individual freedom is precisely what generates prosperity. Why would anyone in their right mind strive to work harder, innovate, or start something new if they can't benefit from their own efforts? When value creation stops, the system inevitably resorts to forced labor so society doesn't immediately collapse. It eventually will, but at least they bought some time.
People do a lot of things for other motivations too. And how do you explain the tribal societies who did not collapse? In those, people who did more than others got prestige and status and that made it work just fine. People innovate out of kindness. They see a need and know how to fix it and they do. People innovate out of the need for creativity. I think you have a very one-sided view on what people's motivations are
And slavery did not exist before farming. In hunter gatherer societies there was no point to slaves, because you need one person to watch one slave, so slavery would not bring benefit. Written history is just a tiny piece of history and that's essentially the part in human history where things started to go wrong
People do a lot of things for other motivations too. And how do you explain the tribal societies who did not collapse? In those, people who did more than others got prestige and status and that made it work just fine.
I agree that status is a very good motivation metric. It just so happens that wealth might be the best way to assess status. In a communist regime, a high status also correlates with high salary and high power ("some individuals are more equal than others" said a famous writer). Tribal societies "did not collapse" because they basically never developed in the first place (which ones were you thinking of?). Tribalism means you only accept/promote/tolerate what is from within the clan. Anyone from the outside world is de facto considered an existential threat. Tribalism is mostly incompatible with universal peace and prosperity, nor does it relate to communism anyway as they are entirely different paradigms.
People innovate out of kindness. They see a need and know how to fix it and they do. People innovate out of the need for creativity. I think you have a very one-sided view on what people's motivations areNo one innovates purely out of kindness. People who claim to be fully altruistic usually:
- do so at other people's expense (eg: spending other people's money, like through taxes)
- or have a vested interest (eg: influencers/organizations who loudly "give back" to buy themselves a good image)
- and/or have higher than normal narcissistic tendencies
- and/or suffer from the savior complex, which is a psychological disorder
- or simply know they will be direct beneficiaries to such policies because they intend to live off of more productive members of the group.
You seem to imply altruism and capitalism are opposites, but capitalism is just a tool to foster initiative and encourage improvement. It is both individually and collectively healthy to encourage what is productive behavior, and discourage what isn't. It doesn't mean the absence of rules, in fact it requires all parties to willfully participate since individual freedom is a key element of the concept.
And slavery did not exist before farming. In hunter gatherer societies there was no point to slaves, because you need one person to watch one slave, so slavery would not bring benefit. Written history is just a tiny piece of history and that's essentially the part in human history where things started to go wrong
This carefully avoids my questions in regards to capitalist vs communist countries, just like you chose to dismiss the part about "barbaric Europeans who destroyed/enslaved prosperous societies". Does written history include Das Kapital?
Money is absolutely horrible way to measure status, just look at the monsters it puts on top of the hierarchy here. In healthy society, status comes from altruism.
Tribalism can evolve, so that entire humanity is the tribe and if need be, wider than that as well. For a lot of modern people, their country is the tribe they see themselves as belonging to and while that might be enough, people can evolve in their thinking and let their tribe be more than that. In fact, many already do.
People do absolutely innovate from pure kindness, as they do from pure lazy and pure curiosity and pure sense of fun. Just because money would be removed from the motivators does not mean there would be no innovation. There was plenty of innovation in hunter-gatherer societies too, so the we need capitalism to have innovation is absolutely pure bogus.
Productivity can be encouraged without money. If productivity brings status, people will be productive for status. They will also be productive because they like doing what they do or because they see their productivity help someone else. And someone who loves woodworking will be productive in woodworking because they love the process.
There has never been a communist country. The closet to communist societies have been the tribal units.
Also, you don't get paid for being an admin here, I presume. So you are doing this work for non-capitalist motivations. Yet you innovate here all the time, trying to make this a more functional forum. Fancy that.
Money is absolutely horrible way to measure status, just look at the monsters it puts on top of the hierarchy here. In healthy society, status comes from altruism.
Tribalism can evolve, so that entire humanity is the tribe and if need be, wider than that as well. For a lot of modern people, their country is the tribe they see themselves as belonging to and while that might be enough, people can evolve in their thinking and let their tribe be more than that. In fact, many already do.
People do absolutely innovate from pure kindness, as they do from pure lazy and pure curiosity and pure sense of fun. Just because money would be removed from the motivators does not mean there would be no innovation. There was plenty of innovation in hunter-gatherer societies too, so the we need capitalism to have innovation is absolutely pure bogus.
Productivity can be encouraged without money. If productivity brings status, people will be productive for status. They will also be productive because they like doing what they do or because they see their productivity help someone else. And someone who loves woodworking will be productive in woodworking because they love the process.
There has never been a communist country. The closet to communist societies have been the tribal units.
Also, you don't get paid for being an admin here, I presume. So you are doing this work for non-capitalist motivations. Yet you innovate here all the time, trying to make this a more functional forum. Fancy that.
OK, let's assume you are right - currently the closest country to have the real communism is North Korea, so why don't you go there? It should be the best country because it's the closest to communistic ideal. I've heard their labour camps are in demand for workers and they offer great communistic benefits:
- no wage because your personal belongings such as wage are state-owned and in hands of all people (just like Josip Broz Tito who was the only person who has been driving 85 "peoples'-owned" cars because he wanted to take all that burden on himself and Kim Jong Un who is the only one who drinks luxury alcohol in North Korea because he doesn't want his people to get liver failure so he has decided to sacrifice for them)
- free housing with rooms and toilets shared with other 1354531 people in a true spirit of communism
- education using tribal/true communistic methods (🤜🤕)
- family-oriented atmosphere where your children and grandchildren have guaranteed spot there. If they try to leave they will be brought back and re-educated with the usage of the methods described in the line above
- free meals specifically designed for weight loss (loss of 80 percent body mass guaranteed)
- carefree attitude toward retirement because you won't reach that age there
- if you somehow manage to reach the age of retirement then you would have a special benefit - young males can have a haircut up to 5 mm long but old males can let loose and have haircut up to 6 mm long like real rockstars
Why do you use capitalistic products such as Internet and electrical energy? I totally agree that innovations are unnecessary, you could easily survive Finnish Winters without modern housing and electrical energy
I like that you aren't oriented on money and you hate the attitude which puts money at the first place, I am also in the same boat. However, communism isn't better at all, it literally destroys your freedom, creativity, productivity, health and life. Money mustn't be the main motivation for our acts but we need money to buy things (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and to help others who need help
Also, you don't get paid for being an admin here, I presume. So you are doing this work for non-capitalist motivations. Yet you innovate here all the time, trying to make this a more functional forum. Fancy that.
That's a good example. I spend time and energy trying to improve the community so it can grow and, maybe one day, become profitable. It's an investment. I do it because of what you call "capitalist motivations."
People need to enjoy using PPG because satisfaction is the foundation of the system. In this case, "altruism" turns out to be a hard requirement for my success.
I assume that, based on your morals, you might value someone who's 100% selfless — but unfortunately quite mediocre — more than someone who creates all sorts of things for everyone to enjoy while seeking personal wealth.
Here's a simple test. Would you rather:
A. Poor people have 100 and rich people have 1,000?
B. Poor people have 50 and rich people have 60?
Communists will always choose B, which shows they don't care about the greater good. They only care about equality of outcome, even if it means making everyone poorer in the process. In fact, making everyone poor is even better for them because it's an easy way to enslave their own population by controlling handouts.
OK, let's assume you are right - currently the closest country to have the real communism is North Korea, so why don't you go there? It should be the best country because it's the closest to communistic ideal. I've heard their labour camps are in demand for workers and they offer great communistic benefits:
- no wage because your personal belongings such as wage are state-owned and in hands of all people (just like Josip Broz Tito who was the only person who has been driving 85 "peoples'-owned" cars because he wanted to take all that burden on himself and Kim Jong Un who is the only one who drinks luxury alcohol in North Korea because he doesn't want his people to get liver failure so he has decided to sacrifice for them)
- free housing with rooms and toilets shared with other 1354531 people in a true spirit of communism
- education using tribal/true communistic methods (🤜🤕)
- family-oriented atmosphere where your children and grandchildren have guaranteed spot there. If they try to leave they will be brought back and re-educated with the usage of the methods described in the line above
- free meals specifically designed for weight loss (loss of 80 percent body mass guaranteed)
- carefree attitude toward retirement because you won't reach that age there
- if you somehow manage to reach the age of retirement then you would have a special benefit - young males can have a haircut up to 5 mm long but old males can let loose and have haircut up to 6 mm long like real rockstars
Why do you use capitalistic products such as Internet and electrical energy? I totally agree that innovations are unnecessary, you could easily survive Finnish Winters without modern housing and electrical energy
I like that you aren't oriented on money and you hate the attitude which puts money at the first place, I am also in the same boat. However, communism isn't better at all, it literally destroys your freedom, creativity, productivity, health and life. Money mustn't be the main motivation for our acts but we need money to buy things (Maslow's hierarchy of needs) and to help others who need help
North Korea is not communist, it's a dictatorship masquerading as one. If I wrapped a dog shit into tinfoil and callied it a diamond, would you buy one off of me? I think not. How hard it is for people to actually find out what they are talking about before they start talking about it?
Everyone who bashes Marxism doesn't seem to know what they are talking about. Honestly it's really tiresome.
The closest to socialism there has ever been on this planet is nordic countries and canada and even they are pretty damn far from it.
Everybody knows what is communism except you. Claiming Canada and Nordic countries communistic and claiming dictatorships and North Korea as opposite to communism reveals that you have no idea what are you talking about. This is really a time waste, so I have no intention to engage in this pointless discussion anymore
hunter-gatherer tribes where everyone who could work did what they could and all the results of said labour were divided between the tribe's people, weather capable of working or not. These societies were very peaceful, very prosperous and endured for longest of times, usually until Europians or some other barbarians came and destroyed them by killing and enslaving. Know your history.
That sounds a lot that rewriting history and forgetting the archeological sites showing massacres happening between those tribes, as well as how peaceful our cousin species are... The so called prosperity is somewhat debatable too considering the disappearance of a bunch of prey species leading to a change of diet by hunting smaller animals which, ironically, seems to have pressured selection for bigger/more performant brain in humans (not saying it's the only factor).
It's also very likely that slavery, and especially sexual slavery did exist at that time with raids to other tribes. It just was different from the form it took later. Same for human sacrifices.
I'm sure that the evil europians/barbarians idea is seductive though, especially to spit on "booh white boy" that is trendy, even though Neolithic spreads from Middle East and spread later to Europe.
If the goal was to make Marxism reppelling with a caricature, then you succeeded, but for the rest, I'm afraid that it only depicts you as someone who has a problem with some ethnicities and the concept of agriculture.