California's Assembly Votes To Allow Communists To Hold State Jobs - Polidicks

A problem I've identified with communism in general is that it's not a skeleton. This explains why certain forms of socialism can be accomplished, whereas the actual communist (talking about Marxism here) theory cannot. It's mostly metaphorical, but hear me out. Capitalism is practically a skeleton, a frame. It tells the state how their politics and economical model should be [I]shaped[/I], but the materials used to build on the skeleton is the state's choice. The most successful nations have been building their skeleton using materials from their land, and some have been slightly inspired from neighboring nations in shaping their skeleton. Some have even built it using steel, which makes a very resilient but unchanging skeleton. Tossing the metaphorical bullshit aside, put simply, capitalism is [I]undefined[/I]. There's not one single book or theory defining how a capitalist society should work. I mean, there is, but none of our world's nations used it to base their economical model (as far as I know). On the other hand, communism is a [I]blueprint[/I]. It specifically details how a communist society should be ran, how the state should operate and what the people does with their money (little hint: they trash it, there's no money in the perfectly described communist society) and this trolley of, well, details and specifications. If a nation truly abides to Marxism, Leninism or any other communist ideal then this nation might find it implement to implement some if not all of its aspects, mainly because the materials needed to construct the blueprint [I]aren't[/I] there. Therefore, improvisation is needed: duct tape, staples and glue is used to patch up the holes in the final skeleton, which leaves it weak and feeble. Sometimes, it's necessary to invent new procedures in the blueprint just so you can achieve the end product... which isn't the end product anymore, as you've modified it. While some nations might not have the materials required for socialism, some might not have the materials for capitalism either. We've seen this in Africa and (probably) Latino America. Maybe there's parts of the world that can accomplish some forms of socialism or even communism, but those would probably be countries that aren't necessarily capitalist or rich. Now, OT: I didn't even know California banned communists from the government. It's, uh, mainly surprising that those laws can still exist nowadays. I thought the Cold War ended a while ago :u

[QUOTE=Kljunas;52213965]I think the rise of automation will be a huge game changer so whether a particular economic system did or did not work in the 20th century won't be absolutely relevant in that context.[/QUOTE] it doesn't necessarily mean communism will become a thing though - anybody who predicts that communism is inevitable in the future as a consequence of X development is an idiot its entirely possible something different from both communism and capitalism may replace them in the future (and it in turn could change) [QUOTE=UnknownDude;52214036]There are no historical or current examples of communism working as intended.[/QUOTE] then communism is a broken theory that should be discarded - especially when every attempt at it for the past century has failed

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52214178] then communism is a broken theory that should be discarded - especially when every attempt at it for the past century has failed[/QUOTE] I'm not a communist, so fair enough. But still that's not my point. I hear the same bullshit all the time in arguments like these that socialists and communists support totalitarian governments and centralized economies because of USSR/Maoist China/North Korea/Pol Pot's Cambodia and so on. And when you point out that it's not how socialism is supposed to work and that it's not what you actually support, you just get this deflecting bullshit thrown at you: [QUOTE]"But that's not real communism" [/QUOTE] Like there's nothing in between. Either you're a tankie or you suck it up and support capitalism.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;52213965]I think the rise of automation will be a huge game changer so whether a particular economic system did or did not work in the 20th century won't be absolutely relevant in that context.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. Something will change, there's only so many plasters you can stick over the problem before it breaks completely.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52210844]I did not realize the Cold War was still ongoing.[/QUOTE] Communism did not stop being cancer when the cold war ended

[QUOTE=UnknownDude;52214209]I'm not a communist, so fair enough. But still that's not my point. I hear the same bullshit all the time in arguments like these that socialists and communists support totalitarian governments and centralized economies because of USSR/Maoist China/North Korea/Pol Pot's Cambodia and so on. And when you point out that it's not how socialism is supposed to work and that it's not what you actually support, you just get this deflecting bullshit thrown at you: Like there's nothing in between. Either you're a tankie or you suck it up and support capitalism.[/QUOTE] well you might not support or like it, but very often such things are the result of people trying to bring about such a society

I know people often jokingly refer to the state as "The People's Republic of Kalifornia" but this is ridiculous :v:

[QUOTE=Sinatra;52214166]A problem I've identified with communism in general is that it's not a skeleton. This explains why certain forms of socialism can be accomplished, whereas the actual communist (talking about Marxism here) theory cannot. It's mostly metaphorical, but hear me out. Capitalism is practically a skeleton, a frame. It tells the state how their politics and economical model should be [I]shaped[/I], but the materials used to build on the skeleton is the state's choice. The most successful nations have been building their skeleton using materials from their land, and some have been slightly inspired from neighboring nations in shaping their skeleton. Some have even built it using steel, which makes a very resilient but unchanging skeleton. Tossing the metaphorical bullshit aside, put simply, capitalism is [I]undefined[/I]. There's not one single book or theory defining how a capitalist society should work. I mean, there is, but none of our world's nations used it to base their economical model (as far as I know). On the other hand, communism is a [I]blueprint[/I]. It specifically details how a communist society should be ran, how the state should operate and what the people does with their money (little hint: they trash it, there's no money in the perfectly described communist society) and this trolley of, well, details and specifications. If a nation truly abides to Marxism, Leninism or any other communist ideal then this nation might find it implement to implement some if not all of its aspects, mainly because the materials needed to construct the blueprint [I]aren't[/I] there. Therefore, improvisation is needed: duct tape, staples and glue is used to patch up the holes in the final skeleton, which leaves it weak and feeble. Sometimes, it's necessary to invent new procedures in the blueprint just so you can achieve the end product... which isn't the end product anymore, as you've modified it. While some nations might not have the materials required for socialism, some might not have the materials for capitalism either. We've seen this in Africa and (probably) Latino America. Maybe there's parts of the world that can accomplish some forms of socialism or even communism, but those would probably be countries that aren't necessarily capitalist or rich. Now, OT: I didn't even know California banned communists from the government. It's, uh, mainly surprising that those laws can still exist nowadays. I thought the Cold War ended a while ago :u[/QUOTE] This is the longest "that's not real communism" i've ever read

-snip-

[QUOTE=Cabbage;52214519]This is the longest "that's not real communism" i've ever read[/QUOTE] But he's talking about Marxism, the initial communist ideology, not being palatable as a society.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52214178]it doesn't necessarily mean communism will become a thing though - anybody who predicts that communism is inevitable in the future as a consequence of X development is an idiot its entirely possible something different from both communism and capitalism may replace them in the future (and it in turn could change)[/QUOTE] Of course, I just mean the fact that it failed in the past doesn't make it indefensible.

Who needs communism? There has already been a successful worker's rights revolution, it's called social democracy.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52214955]Who needs communism? There has already been a successful worker's rights revolution, it's called social democracy.[/QUOTE] Communism and social democracy are nowhere near the same thing. Socdem societies are literally just capitalist with some social safety nets included. Workers don't control production in a social democracy.

[QUOTE=nulls;52215130]Communism and social democracy are nowhere near the same thing. Socdem societies are literally just capitalist with some social safety nets included. Workers don't control production in a social democracy.[/QUOTE] That's his point though. The oppression of the working class is ultimately what lead to the great communistic movements in history, and social Democracies have achieved plenty of rights for workers over the last 100 years or so that you have to ask - why do we need to go as far as to have communism if the issues people have been facing are already being adressed by this compromising social democracy? [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] Not saying social democracies are perfect.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52214955]Who needs communism? There has already been a successful worker's rights revolution, it's called social democracy.[/QUOTE] The irony is that social democracy was an attempt to address the "social problem" in early European democracies. It [I]was[/I] socialism, and social democrats had the full intent to pursue a communist society. Revolutionary socialism emerged later, with the Russian Revolution, and didn't have the organically-evolved long-standing institutions stabilizing society like the successful social democratic states did. What happened with social democracy is that the socialists stumbled into a system that effectively balanced control of capitalism with political, social, economic, and cultural rights, and then they just gave up on achieving communism. The Scandinavian model is evolutionary - [I]not[/I] revolutionary. The Soviet model is revolutionary, and we all know how well that worked out.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215808]The irony is that social democracy was an attempt to address the "social problem" in early European democracies. It [I]was[/I] socialism, and social democrats had the full intent to pursue a communist society. Revolutionary socialism emerged later, with the Russian Revolution, and didn't have the organically-evolved long-standing institutions stabilizing society like the successful social democratic states did. What happened with social democracy is that the socialists stumbled into a system that effectively balanced control of capitalism with political, social, economic, and cultural rights, and then they just gave up on achieving communism. The Scandinavian model is evolutionary - [I]not[/I] revolutionary. The Soviet model is revolutionary, and we all know how well that worked out.[/QUOTE] That's really my biggest issue with Marxism - I feel like it is very apt when describing some of the issues with capitalism but it gets worked up with a very nineteenth-century notion of a great war that will lead to a (eventually) utopian society. If you want to even consider something like communism then there must first be social democracy before socialism. Marx looked too far into the future, the social progress we have [I]now[/I] didn't come from a sudden upheavel but a long, gradual effort led by countless people.

[QUOTE=nulls;52215130]Communism and social democracy are nowhere near the same thing. Socdem societies are literally just capitalist with some social safety nets included. Workers don't control production in a social democracy.[/QUOTE] Of course they are no where near the same thing. Social Democracy takes points from socialist theory, mixes them with capitalism and it actually works in practice unlike communism which is based on two dudes' idea of a Utopian society through the lens of industrial era Europe based around an outdated ideas on Historicism. And social democracy was a tremendous victory for worker's rights. Of course workers don't own the means of production, but why should they? They don't know how to run industry, there are already people educated for that job. Trade unions and collective bargaining does a good enough job already (as long as you live in a society that supports those systems).

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215808]The irony is that social democracy was an attempt to address the "social problem" in early European democracies. It [I]was[/I] socialism, and social democrats had the full intent to pursue a communist society. Revolutionary socialism emerged later, with the Russian Revolution, and didn't have the organically-evolved long-standing institutions stabilizing society like the successful social democratic states did. What happened with social democracy is that the socialists stumbled into a system that effectively balanced control of capitalism with political, social, economic, and cultural rights, and then they just gave up on achieving communism. The Scandinavian model is evolutionary - [I]not[/I] revolutionary. The Soviet model is revolutionary, and we all know how well that worked out.[/QUOTE] This so much. The reason western european countries have remained so peaceful for so long, heck especially if you look at scandinavia, is cause there's been more or less steady social progress over the course of not just years, but generations. [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] Reform over time seems to work pretty as you have the opportunity to adapt accordingly rather than brute-force something no matter how rough society and the world resists. [editline]11th May 2017[/editline] Perhaps there's something to the idea that society is overloading the people so hard that they are anxious to make impulsive, irrational decisions because they lack the patience and long-term perspectives.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;52215826]That's really my biggest issue with Marxism - I feel like it is very apt when describing some of the issues with capitalism but it gets worked up with a very nineteenth-century notion of a great war that will lead to a (eventually) utopian society. If you want to even consider something like communism then there must first be social democracy before socialism. Marx looked too far into the future, the social progress we have [I]now[/I] didn't come from a sudden upheavel but a long, gradual effort led by countless people.[/QUOTE] There's a lot of competing perspectives in communist/socialist discourse. I think we'd have a [I]very[/I] different view if Trotsky, instead of Stalin, headed the Soviet Union after Lenin. The revolutionary rhetoric is fantastic for mobilizing a base, especially of less-educated industry and agricultural workers during the 20th century, but it doesn't supply much of a practical model for the "in-between" of socialism before communism is actually achieved. Marx had fantastic criticisms of capitalism that hold up well to this day, particularly about concentration of capital. He was basically the guy to provide a framework that explained why markets fail and depressions/recessions occur. Marx is great - Marxism-Leninism is outdated and doesn't cleanly apply to the modern information era. Social democracy is great not because it [I]cooperates[/I] with capitalism, but because it provides a [I]practical[/I] stepping stone in [I]restricting[/I] capitalist exploitation.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215873]There's a lot of competing perspectives in communist/socialist discourse. I think we'd have a [I]very[/I] different view if Trotsky, instead of Stalin, headed the Soviet Union after Lenin.[/QUOTE] there would have been little difference. much of the basis of soviet society was already in place before lenin died

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215808]The irony is that social democracy was an attempt to address the "social problem" in early European democracies. It [I]was[/I] socialism, and social democrats had the full intent to pursue a communist society. Revolutionary socialism emerged later, with the Russian Revolution, and didn't have the organically-evolved long-standing institutions stabilizing society like the successful social democratic states did. What happened with social democracy is that the socialists stumbled into a system that effectively balanced control of capitalism with political, social, economic, and cultural rights, and then they just gave up on achieving communism. The Scandinavian model is evolutionary - [I]not[/I] revolutionary. The Soviet model is revolutionary, and we all know how well that worked out.[/QUOTE] I wasn't using the term revolution literally, was a tongue-in-cheek response to people who talk about the workers' revolution.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52215884]there would have been little difference. much of the basis of soviet society was already in place before lenin died[/QUOTE] I mean, yeah, but the basis of Trotskyism is that the revolution wouldn't have ended. Neither Stalin or Trotsky were fans of social democracy or the two-stage theory. Stalin just ended the revolution, called the Soviet Union communist, and ended up stalling revolution at the bourgeois-democratic stage (even though he called two-stage social democracy "social fascism.") The bureaucratic bloat of the Soviet model ended up empowering a new bourgeoisie and wrecked Lenin's intent. Social democracy is interesting to me, because I feel like the consistently evolutionary nature of it is ironically closer to Trotsky's permanent revolution than other less-revolutionary forms of Communism. It's slow, consistent progress, occasionally backsliding, but moving towards a society where workers are empowered. It's still bourgeois-democratic capitalist, sure, but it's had far more success in defending and empowering workers than revolutionary states like the Soviet Union and Russia.

Didn't Trotsky's permanent revolution involve spreading their brand of communism to [I]other[/I] countries as well?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215873]I think we'd have a [I]very[/I] different view if Trotsky, instead of Stalin, headed the Soviet Union after Lenin.[/QUOTE] Well, for one thing Trotsky would have tried to expand endlessly rather than support 'Socialism in One Country' which basically would cause World War II to be between the UK, France, Germany and possibly the USA vs the Soviet Union. It also would have encouraged other demagogues to start their own revolutions.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52215910]I mean, yeah, but the basis of Trotskyism is that the revolution wouldn't have ended. Neither Stalin or Trotsky were fans of social democracy or the two-stage theory. Stalin just ended the revolution, called the Soviet Union communist, and ended up stalling revolution at the bourgeois-democratic stage (even though he called two-stage social democracy "social fascism.") The bureaucratic bloat of the Soviet model ended up empowering a new bourgeoisie and wrecked Lenin's intent.[/QUOTE] the "permanent revolution" ended on 15th August 1920 the USSR failed to conquer the baltic states, and Lenin gave up on the idea to focus on russia instead. the hungarian revolution failed, as did the uprisings in germany. it was dead long before lenins fatal stroke the bureaucracy of the early USSR began to form the day after the revolution. it didn't stop growing

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52215916]Didn't Trotsky's permanent revolution involve spreading their brand of communism to [I]other[/I] countries as well?[/QUOTE] Yes, it would have caused a large, grueling war with the UK, France USA, Italy & Japan against Russia and also would have encouraged hopeful demagogue around the world to start their own revolutions.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52215954]Yes, it would have caused a large, grueling war with the UK, France USA, Italy & Japan against Russia and also would have encouraged hopeful demagogue around the world to start their own revolutions.[/QUOTE] If only Trotsky and Stalin ended up killing each other after Lenin died. Perhaps the Russian people and those they later imposed their will on wouldn't have suffered as much.

~100million people have been killed by communist regimes. How many millions more have to die before people figure out communism is bad.

[QUOTE=benzinxrm;52216303]~100million people have been killed by communist regimes. How many millions more have to die before people figure out communism is bad.[/QUOTE] at least one more by the sound of your post [I]ironically[/I]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52213615]there's examples of democracy working in practice though (Switzerland) point me an example of communism working[/QUOTE] The vast, vast majority of humanity's existence? On a very large scale there aren't any examples but to say that communism was [i]never[/i] successful is blatantly untrue.