Why communism will work, and capitalism won’t.

[tsmereka]

@Markus

Many people talk of how communism is a “noble concept” but that it can’t work. We are told how people have suffered under communism - the intellectuals and artists who were allegedly targeted and killed in mao’s cultural revolution for example, the tens of millions of ukrainians murdered by stalin, the aggressive expansionism, gulags, the ridiculous notions of lysenkoism and the idea of making everyone work for equal and very low wages, the extent of state control over everyone’s lives. But communism, despite all this, is still a “noble concept” and that is because there is a nugget of pure gold at the centre of this ideology -and that is socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.

OK, first of all, when you say “communism” are you talking about everybody playing nice and sharing, or are you talking about Uncle Joe and his buddies throwing people in gulags? I am definitely cool with sharing, Gulags not so much. In addition, you use the word “noble”. Now this has two meanings, one meaning virtuous, and the other pertaining to the aristocracy. Its largely an old propaganda term by and for the aristocracy.

So lets restate your argument as “Treating everyone fairly is virtuous”. But you are claiming that liberalism does not treat people fairly, and is therefore not virtuous (or less virtuous). I take issue with that, as not only does liberalism treat people fairly but socialism in fact does not.

The basic gist of socialism is that all the stuff is collectivized, and that people should decide how to allocate resources “democratically”. But what the hell is democracy, and how is it fair? The pioneers of democracy, the Greeks, gave the rich a bigger vote than the poor, and did not allow women, children, or slaves to vote. Is that fair? What about modern “democracies”? Should everyone have an equal vote? What about systematic bias in the electorate (Ex: everyone votes for political parties who are for tariffs, there is no mainstream free trade party)? In democracy the people who are experts on subjects and do more work than others get the same amount of vote as the ignorant and lazy.

Lets say I spend my labor to bake a pizza, and want to split it with my sister. Then two random people come out of nowhere, who contributed nothing towards creating the pizza, and say “We have to eat this pizza democratically, you have to split it evenly among all four of us”. Would that be “fair”? I dont think so. Thats what liberalism is about, giving people property rights over the things they individually create and use, and allowing people to restrict access, and exchange property towards a more efficient ends.

Many of the positive things about communism as it has been practiced and realised in actuality are not known to the general public. For example, that a policy of full employment was accompanied by free housing. The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong. If communism “did not work” it is nevertheless true that what it was replaced with is little better, and in a number of ways worse.

I was born in the CCCP, and I will have to call bullshit on this. In communist countries people do not have the freedom to live a happy life, they are treated as nothing more than factors of production by the corrupt beaurocrats who have no incentive to care about them. That is why people in eastern germany fled to the west side. That is why modern eastern europe is the capital of alcoholism, depression, and suicide.

Communism does work as practiced today in various nations around the world. these now are all non-white nations, non-western nations. Because they reject the western capitalist way of life they are demonised. But the people living in these countries do benefit from communism - and the communism is special there in that it is no longer internationalist and has taken on a nationalist flavour. Even Soviet Russia had to resort to rousing feelings of nationalistic pride in ww2. So these communist regimes are nationalistic and also socialistic, and yet they are undoubtedly fascist as well in that the state requires that the people obey its laws and serve the state’s existence.

Somalia is currently much better off than it was under its communist dictatorship, and its economy is by far outperforming that of its neighbors. Another good example of communism ruining things is Cuba, it used to be a first world nation in the 1940s and 1950s. It was more wealthy and more developed than most of Europe was at that time. Now it is a third world nation.

The communism practiced in various countries now is different in each one. To some extent capitalism has been allowed, including allowing western capitalists to relocate factories to China, for example, and exploit the Chinese people. not good. but the variant of communism they have in china still has benefits to the Chinese people in that it controls criminal activities far more effectively than would otherwise be the case and takes a strong stance against such things as drug dealing, prostitution and pornography.

China would still be the same agriciultural backwards place it was before the 1970s if the economic liberalizations were not allowed to happen and the industrial revolution was not allowed to begin. The way a country builds up wealth is through savings, which can be lent out to people willing to take risks to build capital or create inventions. In a country with free trade, even if it has no existing savings, citizens can borrow savings from the citizens of other more developed countries. In the CCCP, the people had no savings and were not allowed to borrow from abroad. So the government had to “force savings” through inflation, taxation, and slave labor in gulags to finance their industrial revolution, this resulted in famine and the death of milions.

These communist countries have to be heavily ruled by a totalitarian state (and are thus basically fascist ) because the people living in them lack the altruism that would be necessary for the state to ease off and allow a natural socialistic consensus to emerge. China is a vast and over populated nation, but there is a fairly high level of homogeneity, especially in localised areas. true socialism could work if the separate areas would work as autonomous regions.

Altruism is a false concept, and the people in government are not altruists, they are thieves.

National socialism as practiced in Germany in the 3rd reich worked like a charm because there was a high level of homogeneity, a strong sense of nationhood, and simply because the northern European/Germanic temperament is ideally suited to socialist society. Even today’s anti-nazi documentaries with emotive titles about “the rise of evil” and so on admit that national socialist Germany was a paradise - as long as you were not one of those being hauled away to a concentration camp.

National socialism is like communism with all the failings removed. It is strange indeed that it is thought of in any way as being the opposite of communism but that mistake can be explained by the fact that Germany fought a war against soviet Russia, and the soviets needed to give the impression that national socialism was nothing like their own variant of socialism. it was the soviets who first decided to label the nazis as “fascists” in order to avoid the use of the term “socialism” to describe their enemy. Although Hitler allied with Mussolini and the Italian fascist regime, national socialist thinkers in the third reich have always made it clear that national socialism is a rejection of fascism. National socialism is about putting the folk before the state while fascism is the opposite. Fascism in no way implies any kind of racial loyalty and in fact would only exploit racial or patriotic loyalty as far as it benefited the state to do so - always at times of war. At present the west is ruled by a fascism in which the ruling capitalists exploit the people and seek to prevent true socialism by bringing in millions of immigrants of various races, especially third worlders. This provides them with cheap labour, causes racial conflict to replace the class conflict that capitalists fear, and prevents the folk of a nation from maintaining their territory and identity.

Naziism didnt work “like a charm”, thats why children had to be forced into public schools to be indoctrinated with propganda and taught to fight and kill, and people who engaged in critical thinking were repressed.

Yes true communism, true socialism, depends upon human nature being altruistic, and looking around us at the world it seems that such a society would be impossible. But it is not. Altruism has been scientifically proven to be a genetic trait that is lost unless it is practiced very discriminatingly. Animals have evolved to be altruistic - but only towards others who are closely related to them. William Hamilton’s equation demonstrates the mathematical formula for this kin selection. Altruism and socialism are almost homonyms. Socialism requires altruism and this is why, when you bear in mind the facts regarding the necessity of close relation, the most potential for a socialist society exists amongst people who are of one ethnicity and one nation. The biggest mistake of communists is to forget this rule. there cannot be a global village that is socialist - in which every ethnicity and creed cooperates in a spirit of harmony and love. We can imagine such a world perhaps, but the reality is that it can never happen and that attempts to make this happen not only fail but in fact ruin the only real chance of socialism, which is ethnic based.

Those who favour capitalism like to point to the failings of communism and say that human nature is egoistic and selfish and that people never really work for the common good. Since the most successful capitalists and politicians today are clinically psychopaths, it is not possible for these people to empathise with altruistic urges anyway. These people could never feel loyalty to blood, only to their own bank accounts. It is horrific that such people have so much power over all our lives.

Capitalists suggest that people live only for shallow material reward and they have no conscience about exploiting workers. Proudhon’s famous phrase “property is theft” is most accurate when referring to the ill-gotten gains of capitalists. Capitalists point to the Darwinist fact that animals are genetically programmed to desire to prosper, reproduce and expand. They ignore the fact that this is achieved as a group - and thus socialistically - even if the animal is not gregarious. Success in nature is about spreading ones genes and these genes succeeding within a gene pool. The capitalists abuse and twist Darwinism and that is how the abomination which is called “social Darwinism” came into the language. To capitalists, “survival of the fittest”, is about selfish exploitation by an individual and about the individual getting as good a material existence for himself, even without having any offspring at all in many cases, as possible. When we have these people in our midst it is only bad for our gene pool and the anti-nature world view that capitalists spread is killing us and raping the planet. It is a big factor behind the plummeting birth rate in the west.

The capitalists have not only twisted Darwinism but they have twisted socialism too. Many associate socialism now with a policy of supporting the least deserving and most useless people in our society. Many associate socialism with being pro immigrant - when as i have explained immigration wrecks the basis of socialism and merely strengthens the position of capitalists. Not only those who dislike socialism have these misconceptions, but the multi-racialists who claim to be socialist or communist also have these ideas. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin - none have ever advocated that third worlders should immigrate to the west and mix with whites. Trotsky made clear that he advocated black nationalism/separatism in the united states, even while the ku klux klan at the time did not, preferring the capitalist/masonic stance that blacks be kept as slaves. (thankfully today’s kkk does appreciate the principle of ethno nationalism and has an ironically similar view to that of trotsky in this regard).

Socialism is about contributing to society, while capitalism is about taking out of society - it is about making a private profit. when capitalists point to ways they feel they do contribute to society, from the “trickle down effect” to donations they make to third worlders, or creating jobs or adding to the economy, it is all cynical spiel with no grounds to justify it as being positive. All of these things result in pollution, unsustainable use of natural resources and surging populations in parts of the world where it is most harmful.

Capitalists have been behind all wars, including the last two world wars and the present “war on terror”. Selling arms is very lucrative, as is rebuilding destroyed infrastructure and of course war would have had to be declared on a national socialist state that had promised to hang bankers and capitalists and was printing its own currency.

Communism in the soviet states had a strange relationship with the western capitalists and that is why they did not see it as the same threat that national socialist Germany posed. as the Russian anarchist mikhyl bakunin pointed out :“i am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschild’s appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschild’s. this may seem strange. what could there be in common between communism and high finance? ho ho! the communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence…”

When it comes to a debate over which is the better, communism or capitalism, the argument always fails to realise the true biological basis for socialism and how it really could work to bring a utopia, if only the capitalist exploiters of the labour of the people would be stopped, and ethnic cohesion taken as the foundation for harmony and cooperation.

Most of the rest of this is garbage so I wont go through it piece by piece. Socialism does not recognize individual self ownership, and does not have the capacity for individuals to make rational economic decisions without a price mechanism. Wealth cannot be created without savings, and socialism demonizes and destroys the incentive to save (the interest rate). Thats why native americans (which are considered by socialists to be the great example of collectivized property) never were able to advance from the bronze age. Socialism leads to people gaming the system and establishing hierarchies through force and fraud, which is why native americans had chiefs and went to war with other tribes.