<OP here>>475198>Every stage of capitalism had govt involvement
And feudalism had markets and private capital. What's your point?>>475209
You got hung up on the word communism but otherwise didn't seem to actually read the OP. I forgive you since the rest of this thread was a hilarious exchange between you and one of the mods>>475216>one should take a closer look at the realities of communism as it has played out in the real world
Every attempt at communist has ended up in a technocratic oligarchy… Very similar to what exists in the west as well. The point of OP is that some sort of technocratic oligarchy is inevitable. It's just a question of the cultural and social characteristics of such. OP doesn't paint 'space communism' as an egalitarian utopia, you lovable derpy autist, but rather a technocratic society which aims toward human excellence, much the same way a as military does (a functional military, not a woke temp work agency for single mothers like America has)
Pretty ghey that he was banned for this. Wtf are the jannies smoking today?
The USSR actively suppressed private capital, especially under Stalin (and in contrast to the desires of Bukharin, who was also kinda based, much more so that Trotsky)>>475223
Has a good point. Markets actually help determine an ideal allocation of resources and labor. As it turns out, bureaucracies aren't the best at centrally planning how much lettuce to grow, lol >>475231>The only way to get a better population is by changing economics to produce low-wealth-inequality distribution.
Agree. High wealth inequality erodes social cohesion and creates a bunch of shitty people.>Castes are feudal social divisions, while not entirely gone, those have been severely eroded. They will have entirely disappeared by the end of this century.
>Classes are still being reproduced in capitalism, but once the mode of production gets switched to socialism those will also get phased out as well. It's utterly delusional to think that things like classes or casts could be eternal. The only people who think that are reactionaries.
It's this sort of naive self assuredness that makes it easy for the Prager U fanboy to dunk on you. There's absolutely no indication in history that either castes or classes will ever be eradicated entirely.
It's not some binary options between classlessness/castelessness or extreme inequality>>475236
On point. That's why OP somewhat redefines 'communism' to mean something much closer to what exists in the real world - a technocracy with a common purpose - rather than a utopian ideal that exists on paper only.<inb4 that sounds oppressive
Ok, enjoy getting knifed by a feral scholars in America/Europe and having your kid groomed by a childless preschool teacher>>475237>Karl Marx said…
Who cares, nerd>>475238>I'll ban you
The inner .ogre jannie reveals itself>>475242>The practice of communism, as seen in various regimes, often involved authoritarianism, economic inefficiencies, and the suppression of individual liberties, factors you conveniently omit from your idyllic description.
So basically, just like any western country today? With the added bonus of anarcho tyranny and hormone therapy for your depressed teenage she/her son.>>>475243
Weak reply>>475245>Any modern communist movment that exists today that is worth its weight believes in the democratic control of production by a syndicate of unions mutually and democratically running and controlling the work place.
Democratically controlled workplaces (plural) is just syndicalism and still operate under the dynamics of profit and the market place. Elsewise, the entirety of the economy is too complex to democratically decided in an efficient way.
This sort of dopey naivety is why the Prager U guy is running circles around you.<Inb4 but Cockshott blah blah blah
Can you please talk about the real world instead of nice sounding theories.>>475257>What you are calling human nature is but an attempt of reifying what humans are under the yoke of capital, every system tries to do this shit.
The fact that you can't recognize aspects of psychology that are deeply ingrained in people leads me to believe you lack basic social intelligence.
Most of 'human nature' is attributable to the fact that we spend 100,000 years evolving in conditions of scarce resources among small yet socially connected bands of other people, for whom we individually had to rely on for survival. 10,000 years of fuedalism and 350 years of capitalism hasn't changed that, only taken advantage of it.>We're just living in pre-history, history proper will begin once class society is in the dustbin of history.
I'm sorry. But this is retarded sophomoric phraseology>>475264>Your assertion seems to oversimplify the dynamics of ruling classes and technological progress. Ruling classes have demonstrated remarkable adaptability throughout history, and technological advances often lead to new forms of inequality rather than the end of class divisions. The idea that overthrowing individual ruling classes will magically eliminate all class divisions is a utopian oversimplification at best.
True>some people interpret straightforward information as condescension. Perhaps a dose of rationality and objectivity might help in better understanding
Lol, ya. The person you are debating, who I kindly refer to as Comrade Dunning Krueger, must be smoking something, because zim/zer seems extra inspired to spout idealistic nonsense today.
Where you and I diverge, however, is specifically in the notion that 'new technology breeds new types of inequality.'
While I agree on that point, I'd simply ask, which type of new inequality 'sucks least' while offering the most overall, long-term benefit.
Hence, I'd go with the 'space communism' of militaristic, exploratory technocracy.>>475265
Hence, we've already arrived at a sort of rentier oligarchal economy which barely deserves the title 'capitalism'
The few capitalist who continue to push forward/manage the development of innovative technologies, such as Elon Musk, are the ones the left curiously singles out to hate. Funny how that works ..>>>475266>retarded slogans don't magically solve the the real world.
Lol, according to Comrade Dunning Krueger, they do>>475277
This uyghur can't make a point without referencing someone else (Zizek, Cockshott, etc). It's a diversion to make his fantasies seem tentable by relying on some other 'authority.'
Fake and ghey
Also kinda ironic since reliance on authority in determining what is true is one aspect of the human nature which zim/zer adamantly insists doesn't exist.