Nostr Web Client

Communism is when people eventually lose interest in building things because they have no resulting ownership of the thing or tangible personal reward for building the thing. That reward doesn't have to be money, but it should be money or something more valuable than money, like social status, personal comfort and luxury, or attractive mates. But communism never results in rising social status for producers. Quite the opposite.

Communists don't get to define what capital is or capitalism is. Adam Smith predated Marx and Smith was drawing upon historical sources with his description of the different kinds of capital.

All communists did was declare that there isn't any reason to connect the capital with the capitalist. That you could sever the capital and redistribute it, with net-positive results for the wider society. This is simply not true. Communism is painfully inefficient, so capital becomes a consumption good or is left unused and rots. Communism destroys the capital.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

You're not getting it's not communism that's inefficient, it's humans.

A good country would work fine under a capitalist or communist system because it's just a bunch of good people who happen to prefer one system over the other.

Real countries are into killing and dying and being delusional about fossil fuel.

It also just so happens that communism was the original system and is the only one we've ever had where humans were sorta properly functional. We still all died, but we coped better with it and we weren't finding ways to wipe out the planet (including ourselves). It remains to be seen whether experimenting with other systems leads to more survival or less.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Side point - it definitely seems like since communism was the only system we had sociological health in so far, maybe it's the most stable system and the healthy state for us to inevitably return to, but it's clearly not completely stable since we aren't in it anymore.

Laeserin 1y ago

You are confusing communism with lower forms of communitarianism, like the transactions within a family of blood relatives and mates, or within an ethnic tribe. A system that scales decreasingly well, the less sexually or genetically-related the participants are. Communitarianism doesn't sever producers from capital, it just changes the incentive structure for production.

Communism is not a system run on selfish genes advancing their own promotion. It's a bunch of randoms taking other people's stuff.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

The humans in this world are more into tribalism than any non-tribalist form of capitalism or communism.

A tribe of humans who are into working together and being as chill as possible towards enemies can exist - in fact I see an example: most of the devs building nostr as capitalists, including you. The same could be done without currency or capitalism, assuming we still had computers and people who are into working together.

And either way, it would be great if the people building nostr weren't outnumbered by people who are so naturally tribalistic, they have a hard time understanding the issue with censorship... those people don't let communism scale, and they don't let capitalism price oil high enough, among many other good things they don't allow.

Laeserin 1y ago

Also, any argument that begins with the axiom that human nature is the problem is going to be a non-starter with me, as I believe that humans are made in God's image.

🇵🇸 whoever loves Digit 1y ago

Humans are the common link between separate examples of any other problem you could cite.

Like, you could blame technology, but nobody does technology like humans.

If you're sure humans are made in God's image, how has that process lead to these results? That's not meant to be like "you can't answer this question so you're wrong," I'm sure you can find an answer, it's an actual question.