Any benefits of communism?

[Spiderman]

Can you think if any? List a number of them

[EpirusWarriorμολὼνλαβέ]

When armchairs western give me lesson and justiifications, on what me and my family lived first hand, almost chuckle. And is funny because they repeat with everyone that lived in other countries, and where the cycle repeate the same ♥♥♥♥ over and over again, no matter how many times it failed, the western armchairs will bend the other way to justify it a system proven endlessly in repeat to be a failure in real world.

[talemore]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Yabgu:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Sir Dookface McFerretballs:

Gotta love the "whataboutism" in here.

"Sure communism has directly killed over 120million+ of its own people during peacetime... But But But... What about America, they've done bad things too! Lets shift the discussion away from the hundreds of millions killed in peacetime by Marxist ideals and talk about that evil capitalism instead!"

Could you imagine if people defended nazism as much as they are defending Communism?

Good grief... Communism is bad, and anyone that defends it is no better than someone that defends fascism.

Karl Marx was a horrendous racist and anti-Semite that never actually worked a real job in his life. And the soviets/communists that helped fight the nazis actually kept many of the concentration camps RUNNING well after the fall of the nazis to again kill their own people.

https://stoppingsocialism.com/2020/06/karl-marx-racism-quotes/

https://www.france24.com/en/20200419-forgotten-the-dark-legacy-of-soviet-internment-camps-in-germany

No political or economical ideology is perfect, but good grief, stop defending the horrendous atrocities of the communists just because you read a paper in high school and have a crappy job.

hey, I'm also a pro-capitalist person, but when I see ridiculous comments, it is necessary to respond.

1- You say that 120 million people were killed, but did mao or stalin take a gun and shoot these people?There were agricultural projects and thanks to these revolutionary projects, they industrialized by ending the famine. They achieved their goal, and Russia and China became a full state of industry and science thanks to the revolution. The death toll is not 120 million. Learn its history from unbiased sources. The reason why America hates China and Russia and makes a lot of propaganda today is that it cannot cope with these two states.
2- The reason why mao or stalin are harsh and authoritarian is because they are under threat from America. I guess you don't know the history, but let me remind you that there were hundreds of western-backed coups against communist(socialist) countries between 1945-1991 during the cold war. The American presidents at that time were so aggressive that even genocides took place and nearly 5 million left-wing people perished. The guatemala and indonesian genocides were the most brutal events I have ever seen.
The lesson to be drawn from this is that no ideology is perfect. At the moment, the most suitable for the world is capitalism, even if it is corrupt, because it is democratic. What we criticize about capitalism, unfortunately, is that companies become stronger than states and the poor are extremely poor even though the rich are very rich.

The famine who Mao had created.

[talemore]

Farmers can survive on their own and that threatens the communist state.

[talemore]

Farmers were less paid and less equal with the factory workers who were the henchmen who killed farmers and threatened them and destroyed the agricultural society.

For the very reason that the factory worker is a slave to money they see themselves as higher valued by given the money and by nature humans are violent.

[talemore]

Equality is important to prevent the destruction of the society who otherwise will create an US vs Them. Civil war is not just about money, or nations with guns but also famine.

[battlezoby]

Something really weird just happened. Before I knew that they changed the Steam rules to allow topics such as this one, I reported this thread because it should have been shutdown under those old rules. I send 4 or 5 messages to the Moderators, and got no response. I send to messages to Steam itself, and all they told me was to try talking to the moderators (again).

Just now, I noticed I got a community message, Dated July 27, thanking me for putting in a Steam complaint and that "action has been taken." The messages I sent were no later than roughly June 15th, and probably actually earlier than that.

I think those 4-5 messages were the only ones I've sent to moderators in at least 6 months, maybe a year.(*)

So WTF happened? They obviously didn't shut down the thread, as not interfering with it was the right thing to do given the new rules and all. So...

Anyone notice anything? What could they have done? Maybe 1 or 2 innocuous posts suddenly went missing or whatever? Thanks.

---

* - Well, I actually sent a message in a game specific forum that the game-specific moderator acted on, but that was back in December, so still "not in at least 6 months", and I still think I haven't sent anything to a moderator that would have acted here for at least a year.

[Professor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von crunchyfrog:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Professor:

We were talking about governments having no money of their own as governments wouldn't function without money & certainly that money comes from us the people. When a government invests in anything it is done with the peoples money, not their own

Governments dont have money they use everybody else's.

No, you're moving the goalposts. I was addressing the fact that you asserted money was created by the people - that's what you said.

It isn't as it's created by the governance. Demonstrably and easily so.

Our original conversation was regarding "governments not having their own money because they used everybody else's" The only other aspect we touched on was the printing of money.

In the context of our conversation "Created or Generated" is the same thing. The only point I was trying to make is that governments dont have their own money as government revenue is created or generated by society, the people.

Governments make laws & invest in infrastructure, as some of the ways to generate revenue But the money to do so & the money to keep governments functioning always comes from us, the tax payers, the consumers & society at large.

[talemore]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Professor:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von crunchyfrog:

No, you're moving the goalposts. I was addressing the fact that you asserted money was created by the people - that's what you said.

It isn't as it's created by the governance. Demonstrably and easily so.

Yes that is right as our original conversation was regarding "governments not having their own money because they used everybody else's" The only other aspect we touched on was the printing of money.

In the context of our conversation "Created or Generated" is the same thing. Because the only point I was trying to make is that governments dont have their own money as government revenue is payed by society, the people.

Yes I agree with you that it isn't created by government, it is generated by the people.

They don't use money. They use our debts and taxes who is debts as well.

The Rome empire had to register all people to be able to tax them. Maria and Josef are to register themselves to taxation and the bible describe how the priests in the temples used capital gains on the people.

The taxation become normal. We are subscribed to internet who has become the new church. The church taxes the people for entering their temple.

We work and has been doing it for 1000 years but the pin does not move at all.

[Professor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von talemore:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Professor:

Yes that is right as our original conversation was regarding "governments not having their own money because they used everybody else's" The only other aspect we touched on was the printing of money.

In the context of our conversation "Created or Generated" is the same thing. Because the only point I was trying to make is that governments dont have their own money as government revenue is payed by society, the people.

Yes I agree with you that it isn't created by government, it is generated by the people.

They don't use money. They use our debts and taxes who is debts as well.

The Rome empire had to register all people to be able to tax them. Maria and Josef are to register themselves to taxation and the bible describe how the priests in the temples used capital gains on the people.

The taxation become normal. We are subscribed to internet who has become the new church. The church taxes the people for entering their temple.

We work and has been doing it for 1000 years but the pin does not move at all.

Yes I sort of agree as government revenue & expenditures are simply numbers in a ledger & doesn't necessarily mean that physical dollars are used. It seems to just be a reshuffling of the ledger, figures being shifted from one place to another.

[JK_Original]

Communism isn't horrible, it's just typically horribly abused and modified by countries that pursue it.

[talemore]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Professor:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von talemore:

They don't use money. They use our debts and taxes who is debts as well.

The Rome empire had to register all people to be able to tax them. Maria and Josef are to register themselves to taxation and the bible describe how the priests in the temples used capital gains on the people.

The taxation become normal. We are subscribed to internet who has become the new church. The church taxes the people for entering their temple.

We work and has been doing it for 1000 years but the pin does not move at all.

Yes I sort of agree as government revenue & expenditures are simply numbers in a ledger & doesn't necessarily mean that physical dollars are used. It seems to just be a reshuffling of the ledger, figures being shifted from one place to another.

The money never vanishes. It trades hands. Or the federal reserve put them out of circulation. None of these printed dollars have ever been burned up and instead money is re- printed and why it has serial numbers.

Digital money makes this even simpler since it give the government buying power and this buying power is used to buy soldiers.

It is very hard to destroy metal. You can't burn it up, it will just melt into liquidity which makes it in purpose Indestructible. Canada dollars have been designed to be hard to destroy and the goal is to ensure nobody can destroy cash.

Salaries may been used as payment but the rome coin was found as far as ancient Japan. The destruction of the rome coins was the end of the rome empire.

[Triple G]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Professor:

Our original conversation was regarding "governments not having their own money because they used everybody else's" The only other aspect we touched on was the printing of money.

In the context of our conversation "Created or Generated" is the same thing. The only point I was trying to make is that governments dont have their own money as government revenue is created or generated by society, the people.

Governments make laws & invest in infrastructure, as some of the ways to generate their own revenue, but the physical dollars always come from us.

It´s perhaps easier if it´s not about money, or debts, or whatever one would like to call it - and how everything is created or generated - and why, but rather on how values for certain goods and services are determinated, because that´s in the end all what counts for the people. Which is then usually paid for with money, which is in itself useless, but just a way to standardize values.

Else it could easily about that one person means that the actual printing presses for money are run by the government, while another person means that the money of the government is generated by people who pay taxes. And i´m unsure if there is any country which has no debts, because they may be run on some promise to pay the money back later, by selling certain bonds. And usually a government is not about making profits, but about not making not more debts per year than a certain percentage, while the main thing is about paying back the interest rates. I mean You can probably invest directly into any capitalist country and buy such a bond, which earns You like x% per year for like 7 years. While there is very little risk to not get it back, or to not get that agreed percentage - at least here in an AAA country - which usually also means the percentage is low, and perhaps below the actual inflation - so it makes little sense to invest in it for profits, but it´s better than leaving it on a bank for 0% interest rate.

And usually debts of a country are never paid back.

TL;DR
From a societal perspective it doesn´t really matter who exactly generates money, as it is about the distribution, who has access to it, and what is done with it. And that is what different systems are about. While one shouldn´t forget that paying taxes doesn´t mean that one actually pays for it, when it also comes back indirectly - especially when it enables people to buy products or get services, which they couldn´t otherwise, as that creates and saves jobs or businesses.

[talemore]

Social security and military are the two leverages.

Buying power of the military or the consumers.

We call it communism when the military has more buying power than the consumers.

In the end these two options are between fiscal war or martial war.

Buying power created by distribution.

Distribution of power is taken from the people by giving it to the companies.

Together people gain buying power. The companies make people subscribed to the company who takes the money the government distribute and give it to the companies and so the people vote on the company by subscribing to their political party.

[Professor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von talemore:

Thank you for your contribution as I do understand what you are saying & agree that it is only a resource that is given value to be traded just like any other resource. When it comes to resources surely all that matters is the strength of selling or buying power. In a way no different to values of other resources like apples & bicycles.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Triple G:

As usual a great perspective on how value to any resource is derived. I do like the idea that it is only one resource amongst many that can be given value. And perhaps it is exactly how you said, all that matters is the value people perceive it to be.

[talemore]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Yabgu:

China and Russia are authoritarian because they are under threat. Countries that were communist(socialist) in the past were destroyed by civil wars, coups and genocides supported by usa (for example, the genocide against the left-wing people in Indonesia in 1965, nearly 5 million left-wing people lost their lives horribly in the Cold War between 1945 and 1991.). Russia and China are the last two socialist countries. America hates both of them because they both have nuclear power. It is not good to have only one superpower in the world. There must be at least 3 superpowers so that the balance of power is achieved. Also, the most logical system for the world at the moment is capitalism, even though there are problems with imperialism.

The more you dig into liberalism the further it becomes about military alliances. That we love each other and protect each other.