/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.53761714]

Is Communism essentially a state run by a monopoly like Amazon or Walmart but with politics involved?

[Anonymous No.53761727]

>>53761714
it's exactly like what we have now, except the leaders are "men of the people" rather than consulting/investment banking kikes with MBAs or law degrees.

[Anonymous No.53761728]

>>53761714
Pure communism and socialism don't exist, what you describe are centrally planned economies.

[Anonymous No.53762379]

>>53761714
what makes you think politics isnt involved in amazon and walmart?

[Anonymous No.53762726]

>>53761714

Amazon and Walmart are relatively efficient compared to a centrally planned government because they're accountable to their shareholders. Centrally planned governments command men with guns and are therefore accountable to no one and operate very inefficiently.

[Anonymous No.53762736]

>>53761727
>it's exactly like what we have now
COPE

[Anonymous No.53762868]

>>53761714

Partially.

To complete the analogy, in the case of socialism, it would be like if Amazon ran things but all its stock were equally distributed between the whole population.

Its employees/citizens would be able to vote on who manages them and the middle managers on the upper middle managers, and so forth up until the post of CEO.

Finally, the company would be constitutionally obliged be insure everyone gets basic necessities like a roof, food, defense, etc.

[Anonymous No.53762894]

>>53761714
communism is an utopia and its final ideal form will never happen. the state is theoretically just a transitory phase before a communist society. we know however than in reality it would just become a shithole like north korea. it wouldn't be be able to be as efficient and creative as amazon

[Anonymous No.53762910]

>>53762736
how's that paycheck protection plan boomer gibs induced inflation working out for you?

[Anonymous No.53762935]

>>53761714
Communism is the absence of state and class.

[Anonymous No.53762944]

>>53762868
yep, except it doesn't work because (among many other reasons) there is no way to assign labor to those who are fit for it.

e.g. if you have a group of 5 retards who want capital to start a machine learning "company", there is no reasonable way to vet whether or not they are capable of effectively doing the work they want to do. and because people are not allowed to invest personal capital to start privately owned businesses someone is going to have to make that call.
basically imagine the above problem times a million in every single industry you can imagine, everything is a logistical nightmare because central planning in complex societies is not even remotely feasible and only retards are incapable of seeing that

[Anonymous No.53762947]

>>53762868
That sounds like democracy with extra steps

[Anonymous No.53762949]

>>53762910
welfare in a capitalist society isn't communism

[Anonymous No.53762956]

>>53762949
>state takes from you and redistributes it to others
ignore the labels and look at the reality of "either" system. it's identical.

[Anonymous No.53762959]

>>53762956
no, in a communist society there wouldn't be private ownership.

[Anonymous No.53762964]

>>53761714

[Anonymous No.53762965]

>>53762956
>taxation is literally communism!!!!
back to middle school hillbilly retard

[Anonymous No.53762978]

>>53762959
private ownership to some extent has been a practical reality of every "communist" country.
>>53762965
>IT AIN'T REDISTRIBUTION BECAUSE I CHOOSE CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE
good morning nigger retard

[Anonymous No.53762988]

>>53762978
>IT AIN'T REDISTRIBUTION
no one said it's not REDISTRIBUTION, you autistic fuck. it's not COMMUNISM. the most damaged part of your brain is telling you "communism is when there's any redistribution at all" when what you'll actually find is that communism is a slightly more specific economic system

[Anonymous No.53762992]

>>53762978
>private ownership to some extent has been a practical reality of every "communist" country.
then it wasn't really communism

[Anonymous No.53762998]

>>53761714
Yes but communsism is just socialism , same with national socialism it is all the same.

[Anonymous No.53763020]

>>53762992
>it wasn't real x
>it was just an inextricable feature of every x to have ever existed

[Anonymous No.53763025]

>>53762944

That also describes our current society. Anyone who has worked in a big corporation knows talent doesn't necessarily flow to the top and investment is more easily decided on who your buddies are than the actual value of the idea.

Those societies actually worked pretty well, just not using the same benchmarks. If you look at nutrition, education, employment, healthcare, etc they outperformed comparable states by leagues.
Compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, or Indonesia to China. Hell, even the USSR, despite being invaded by nearly every advanced country, went from a quasi-medieval shithole into space pioneer in 40 years.

[Anonymous No.53763028]

>>53762959
there isnt private ownership though, you cant own real property in the fee simple absolute, even though they call property ownership fee simple. real property ownership is subject to eminent domain, police power, escheat, and taxation whereas in the fee simple absolute it is not subject to anything. it's more like feudalism than communism though

[Anonymous No.53763033]

>>53763020
because "true communism" will never happen, it will collapse way before its final form, like it did with the soviet union

[Anonymous No.53763058]

>>53762868
Isn't it funny how all the first world nations populations are plummetting, our women being brainwashed into whores and office ladies, as the machine rapes us for productivity. Yet the supposed victims thrive and just fuck like rabbits.
Really shows how inverted the truth is from the view offered to us by the powers.

[Anonymous No.53763062]

>>53762998
That infographic is a bunch of horseshit

[Anonymous No.53763100]

>>53763025
>Anyone who has worked in a big corporation knows talent doesn't necessarily flow to the top and investment is more easily decided on who your buddies are than the actual value of the idea.
this is true but in our system this is an inefficiency, not a non-starter. someone producing sufficient value will generally always be able to find a way to decently compensated, and someone producing absolutely no value or negative value is rarely going to float by forever unless they were uniquely positioned to take advantage of a loophole or flaw in the market.

>Compare Cuba to the Dominican Republic, or Indonesia to China
these aren't really valid comparisons because they're not the kind of systems that are being advocated for by the people i'm responding to.
china allows the private ownership of capital for instance. there is a chinese stock market in which you can buy shares of chinese companies without working at them, which violates the most basic tenet of communism/socialism. these countries are "communist" in name, in the same way the DPRK is "democratic". the chinese economy is by no means centrally planned and responds with exceptional calibration to both domestic and global market forces. china is clearly not a place where the workers own the means of production, in any real sense of the word. it's just a place where the government has a disproportionate amount of influence over private capital.

and when comparing places like cuba and DR, who now have similar GDPs, it is worth noting that in the early 1970s cuba was twice as wealthy, this headstart has to be accounted for when evaluating modern outcomes. cuba's economy is generally a shitshow where there is essentially zero luxury available to anyone and doctors are working as glorified uber drivers after work in the cuban "shadow economy" out of financial necessity. you don't want to model your economy after cuba, despite their nominally high rates of healthcare availability and (shitty) housing

[Anonymous No.53763138]

>>53763033
that's a fair conclusion. humans are retarded jealous faggots.

[Anonymous No.53763141]

>>53761714

No.

If you're talking about Communism in theory. It should end in "Anarcho-Communism" which is what Marx wanted. Basically, a stateless society with no government, or corporate/class hierarchy, but everyone produces enough and shares enough resources to the point where nobody is starving, everybody has equal shelter, healthcare, accees to resources, free time/leisure, etc.

I'm not going to waste my time explaining why, but it's honestly the most childish and economically illiterate political ideology in existence. It completely ignores human nature, incentives, luck, power dynamics, revenge/vengeance, greed, lust for power, etc. You'd basically have to pretend the 7 deadly sins don't exist, or somehow remove them from the human psyche for Communism to even start making sense.

If you're asking in practice, the answer is still no. Places like the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc; all attempted Communism. All of them just became totalitarian states with different aspects of Fascism, or Racial National Socialism thrown in..

Russia went from a Psuedo-Communist totalitarian state with mostly hard-core nationalist ideology. To after the collapse, it's now an Authoritarian split-state with the Orthodox church and ex-goverment officials backing the state and the capitalist oligarchs/gangsters in opposition to the state.

Look at Mao's China compared to today. The Chinese Communist party is the ONLY party allowed, but nothing about them is Communist. China is actually similar to Hitler's Germany. They are hard-core nationalists, they allow private corporations to thrive, but only under the surveillance and direction of the state, they are racial supremacists, they are state atheists and only allow religious freedom under specific regulations, they throw Muslims in slave labor camps, etc.

[Anonymous No.53763151]

>>53761714
Amazon and walmart wouldn't exist in a communist state and would go bankrupt long before a communist state would be realized. Walmart and amazon won't exist by mid century and will go out of business faster then sears.

[Anonymous No.53763208]

>>53762868

It's a stupid analogy because under Communism, corporations don't exist. The entire idea of stocks and owning shares in a corporation is a capitalist concept. If the shares are equally distributed between the workers, it's still capitalism, it's just called a worker co-op. Socialists have become so retarded that they think a worker co-op is a Socialist concept.

[Anonymous No.53763269]

>>53763100

China is a special case. It's hard for us to understand the scope of a country with dozens of languages and 1.4 billion people. It's not communist nor does it claim to be. It is a socialist country - supposedly working towards communism - with a mixed economy with private enterprise, both homegrown and foreign owned, big state owned corporations, workers cooperatives, etc. At the moment, it seems more like an advanced welfare state + proletarian dictatorship.

As for Cuba, the embargo has to figure into the equation. Take the DR: despite no embargo, they're a typical poor country with no international presence or industry , just a cheap place for vacation. Cuba on the other hand manages to have a very decent homegrown medical/pharmaceutical industry and education system despite a decades long embargo and all sorts of shenanigans. Makes one wonder what they might have done if their development hadn't been curtained.

These systems have their flaws, but they also have some very important upsides, and they really need to be compared to countries in similar positions.

[Anonymous No.53763900]

>>53763141
>but it's honestly the most childish and economically illiterate political ideology in existence.
it actually can exist but only in small communities. it would be possible to have a lot of small tribes but then we would have the same problems those tribes have before nation-states. in that system you're not oppressed by a state but can simply be conquered by another tribe. as you say, imperfect human nature will prevent any utopia to exist.
>>53763269
i think the correct classification of china is state capitalism

[Anonymous No.53763956]

>>53762868
genocide has to do with group identity otherwise its just mindless extermination. If you atomize and subvert an entire group's culture, religion, traditions and replace them with yours. You have effectively genocided them without spilling blood.

[Anonymous No.53765361]

>>53763900

State capitalism was a trotskiyst term to describe stalinist USSR. Doesn't apply well to a mixed economy like the PRC, at least in the original sense.

>>53763956
You're right. Also, as far as muslim countries and the UN are concerned, it isn't happening in Xinjiang. It's just a psyop, like the babies thrown from incubators in Kuwait.

[Anonymous No.53765378]

There's nothing more goyish than wasting your precious time arguing over this type of nonsense.

[Anonymous No.53765397]

>>53761714
Communism originally referred to the Paris Commune in which people got together and operated production communally.
Since the Soviet Union, it's referred to the state operating businesses with even less input from workers than in a situation in which businesses were operated privately. Turns out you can use people as slaves and just tell them some fiction about them being in power. Stalin, for instance, abolished trade unions because "the workers were running everything anyway". It's that simple.
To answer your question: yes.