You may be a Communist if . . .

Post Reply New Topic

I'd have no issue with both. It's not like the one excludes the other.

You may be a communist if you whisper "communism will win" in people's ears at dinner parties.

I have read this Post and want to refute it but don’t know how to start --- Fnord is a person living in the UK, which has an ambiguous political system and people live by historical inertia.It is his consistent style not to investigate the unreasonable aspects of the system but to emphasize individual efforts.

Using the same logic, a military government is acceptable -- if you work hard enough, you can have your own arms and become a monarch.Using the same logic, racial discrimination is acceptable - as long as there is hope of getting into college or getting a job, it is reasonable.

1500 years ago, China implemented the imperial examination system, and the person with the highest score in the examination could serve as prime minister. In Fnord's eyes, this seemed to be an acceptable system, but it still hindered China's development and was eventually overthrown.

The feudal system has been completely overthrown in China, and the emperor no longer exists. "Do you want the emperor back?" is my go-to line against liberals. Yet Britain actually has a king and is running so well that I am speechless.

So China had a social credit system dating back 1500 years ago?!

Anyways, after some quick search, it does so seem to be. This meritocratic system of electing the bureaucracy in China started as early as the Sui dynasty from 581 AD to 618 AD (with precursors hinting as early as the Han dynasty when officials above 2,000 dan and above were permitted into the upper-class level) and lasted all the way until its abolition in 1905 by the reforms of the late Qing dynasty. The aspects of such continue to exist within both PRC (mainland China run by communists) and ROC (the island of Taiwan run by nationalists).

As for Britain, Britain is a very lucky "monarchy" (parliamentary monarchy at best). The Brits were aware that changes were going to come so they had to accept but they created a compromise to preserve the outdated system of monarchy by including some democracy in it as well as making reforms in order to prevent a revolution from taking down Britain. Their efforts to favor liberal values over communism have succeeded for we now see that Britain to this day is holding its monarchist position.

The British bourgeois are dangerously smart. They have managed to ensure that their liberal values are preserved by actually doing some social welfare. This did lend some positivity but this was clearly an effort to down the revolutionary fervor, especially the Chartists from 1838 to 1857. However, despite their falling out, the Chartist demands were posthumously enacted with the Reform Act of 1867 which included the urban proletariat into the voting franchise. It was later expanded in 1872 to include secret voting and by 1918, full suffrage was achieved. The only Chartist demand that was never implemented was the need for annual elections.

Then again, bourgeois reformism is what helped get Britain to avoid the monarchy being abolished as the bourgeois sought to preserve the British identity of the monarch itself, as long as there was no absolute monarchist government ofc.

One theme keeps rolling through the pro-commie replies in this and other threads: "If a Communist government fails, then it isn't real Communism".  This includes China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and the former Soviet Union (this included Tito's Yugoslavia).  They either break down and fall into Capitalism or devolve into a Feudal system run by autocrats and oligarchs.

One definition of insanity is "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time".  Another is denying reality.  Communism fails consistently, yet people keep trying it again and again, expecting that "this time, reality will be different".  It never is.

Sad . . . very, very sad.

At least we can both agree on this.

I actually want to turn this around, because it is so constantly, irritatingly applied to communism, yet never the other way around:

One theme keeps rolling through the pro-capitalist replies in this and other threads: "If a Capitalist government fails, then it isn't real Capitalist".  This includes Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the USA. They break down and devolve into an anti-democratic feudal system run by autocrats and oligarchs.


Communists at least try to change the system. Capitalists are the ones who have spent the last 300 years claiming that the system will work eventually if we just believe in it and work hard. They spent centuries will almost all the power and control, yet still they couldn't make capitalism "work". Millions of people have turned on capitalism despite centuries of people in power telling the peasants that capitalism is best. "Lower taxes on the rich! It will definitely make everyone more prosperous this time! Just because it didn't work the last 200 times doesn't mean it won't work this time!"

I ask the capitalists here: What is an example of a country where "real" capitalism has "worked"? America? I could find dozens of capitalists who would say America as it exists is far from capitalist. I could even find some who would argue it has never been truly capitalist. Capitalists have been running the country virtually the entire time it has existed, yet somehow it still isn't capitalist enough. The tiniest drop of socialism is apparently enough to cause the whole system to be invalid.

And further, do you guys want to argue that capitalism has ever "worked"? If you ask me, you guys do NOT want to argue that capitalism has ever worked. If America is an example of capitalism working perfectly, then that strikes me and millions of others as a damning indictment of capitalism. If this is as good as it gets under capitalism, then why wouldn't I want to try something else?

So you do prove the point that Capitalism is bad.

Not at all.  To "fall into" something in this context is to fall into a default state that works.


Yet you never seem to get tired of . . .

If Capitalism can work, then how can you deal with basic human rights?

Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.Wrong.

You do not know me, you do not know much about me, and you do not know my thought processes, so you have to invent a straw man, put my name on it, and attack it instead of what I have said -- it is common knowledge that when a person cannot refute the message, they often resort to attacking the messenger.

While a Meritocracy would seem to be the ideal case in the corporate world, democracy -- one person, one vote -- is the only way to nominally govern a disparate people, while Capitalism is the only economic system that actually works.

As for China's feudal system being overthrown, it may be safe to assume that even Emperor Xi would find that claim amusing.

Apples and oranges.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a justice system.  It is the latter that keeps the former in check.

First of all, I need to apologize because I confused you with Nades，again

Second, I think your basis for opposing communism is that "it has failed many times"; I think your basis for supporting capitalism is that "it has not failed yet."If so, it doesn't convince me

Third, I respect you very much because of your age, your emphasis on logic, and your enthusiasm for ideological topics. I want you to teach me why you support capitalism and oppose communism.What do you think are the inherent flaws in the system?What do you think is good about capitalism as an economic system?

I support communism because I learned that in history the ownership of property is constantly spreading from the hands of the few to the hands of the many, and people's political participation rights are constantly improving and spreading from the hands of the few to the hands of the many. So I believe that the next stage of society should be that everyone has access to all property, and everyone jointly formulates the next collective plan. What do you think is wrong with this statement?

The first post in your thread contains some misunderstandings about communism. Just as high-intensity labor is not an intrinsic feature of capitalism, remote labor camps are not an intrinsic feature of communism. There are many similar mistakes.

Ignorance is bliss for capitalists I suppose. If it's not a justice system but an economic one then Capitalism can pretty much be able to force people to pay to drink water since it has nothing to do with justice but just for the economy. How can capitalism make people pay to drink water is by intentionally polluting clean water and then creating their own expensive water brands as to earn money. As long as its about satisfying the capitalist economy and disregarding environmental and social issues, then capitalism can truly work as by your logic I suppose.

Apples and oranges you say? An individual can for sure enjoy his own business of apples and oranges but the problem is that capitalism encourages competition so the poor guy who harvests apples and oranges has to deal with climate change mainly induced by the urge to profit from extreme measures and capitalize on the suffering of humanity. The big corps are causing issue to the poor guy who just wanted to sell good quality oranges and apples which are rotting away due to climate change and global warming.

So, is capitalism the best thing you've got? Because you can try start a business of your own but you will face the fact that you won't see much success due to the big corps dominating the market. Even apples and oranges wont kickstart your economic growth as long as the big corps threaten the environment. But don't worry. Capitalism isn't a system of justice. It's an economic system. You'll be used to being a slave to the corporates.

In the end, justice is what keeps capitalism weak. The most recent example of capitalist greed has to be Ubisoft intentionally deleting the old "The Crew" video game from players' digital libraries and making the game itself unplayable intentionally to force people to switch to the newer release of "The Crew 2" and the most recent "The Crew Motorfest". Not only did Ubisoft practically steal the property of the players who rightfully bought the game but it also managed to intentionally destroy the old game as a means of forcing people to play the newer releases.

So, what is capitalism capable? It can even intentionally destroy stuff as a means of forcing its aggressive profiting campaign onto the consumers. However, there is justice and there shall be consumer rights. Ubisoft was once penalized by the French judicial system and so shall it be penalized again! Capitalism always turns a blind eye to consumer rights.

Don't forget workers rights. There is no job security in capitalism. Many game publishers like Activision have laid off hundreds of workers during a time of record breaking profits while the CEO gave himself a multimillion dollar bonus. It's about the share holders and nothing else. You'd think it'd result in pay raises and promotions for those workers. Wrong! Workers are even treated like crap at Activision.

And another thing. What's the point when your boss sees you as just a number rather than a human being? Workers are seen as yet another disposable and replaceable resource. It's not fair, but it's not right either.