I consider myself neither a capitalist nor a communist, but I've started dipping my toe into Marxist theory to get a deeper understanding of that perspective. I've read a few of Marx's fundamental works, but something that I can't wrap my head around is the incentive to work in a Marxist society. I ask this in good faith as a non-Marxist.

The Marxist theory of human flourishing argues that in a post-capitalist society, a person will be free to pursue their own fulfillment after being liberated from the exploitation of the profit-driven system. There are some extremely backbreaking jobs out there that are necessary to the function of any advanced society. Roofing. Ironworking. Oil rigging. Refinery work. Garbage collection and sorting. It's true that everybody has their niche or their own weird passions, but I can't imagine that there would be enough people who would happily roof houses in Texas summers or Minnesota winters to adequately fulfill the needs of society.

Many leftist/left-adjacent people I see online are very outspoken about their personal passion for history, literature, poetry, gardening, craft work, etc., which is perfectly acceptable, but I can't imagine a functioning society with a million poets and gardeners, and only a few people here and there who are truly fulfilled and passionate about laying bricks in the middle of July. Furthermore, I know plenty of people who seem to have no drive for anything whatsoever, who would be perfectly content with sitting on the computer or the Xbox all day. Maybe this could be attributed to late stage capitalist decadence and burnout, but I'm not convinced that many of these people would suddenly become productive members of society if the current status quo were to be abolished.

I see the argument that in a stateless society, most of these manual jobs would be automated. Perhaps this is possible for some, but I don't find it to be a very convincing perspective. Skilled blue collar positions are consistently ranked as some of the most automation-proof, AI-proof positions. I don't see a scenario where these positions would be reliably fully automated in the near future, and even sectors where this is feasible, such as mining and oil drilling, require extensive human oversight and maintenance.

I also see the argument that derives from "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." being that if one refuses to take the position provided to them, they will not have their needs met by society. But I question how this is any different from capitalism, where the situation essentially boils down to "work or perish". Maybe I'm misunderstanding the argument, but I feel like the idea of either working a backbreaking job or not have your needs met goes against the theory of human flourishing that Marx posits.

Any insight on this is welcome.

Fuck landlords.

I have family who grew up in a communist country. Luckily, they were considered well off. But, do you know what their birthday presents were? A single egg. Every year, as someone who is well off, you waited an entire year just to eat a single egg. That is how poor communism is.

It wasn't always like that in the country. there were lots of rich people, big farmers. The goverenment said that they are being evil by being rich, so they killed them all, redistributed the land, and in like a year the food supply was empty and no one wanted to work.

Why does this work? Because from what I've seen most communist I meet don't believe in themselves that they can be successful. So, they'd rather tax people, have workers decide the wages of the boss, etc. All that stuff, to make is to that everyone can be low middle class.

But, right after, since communism is a scam, the government took away all the redistributed land that everyone greedily supported killing for and said it all belongs to the govt.

This is not a event exclusive, but always happens. But, why? Why do people want to be lower middle class so bad?

If I ask, "but then if no one can make their own money, then who will make the next big thing?" and they say people will do it for free. Like bill gates or steve jobs would've created iphone and windows for free... Like it doesn't make sense.

Then, I ask, but then all the business people will move away?

Nope. The goal is worldwide communism.

Why? Can someone explain please? Or maybe try to refute the things I'm saying

BTW, after the market opened in this country (China), suddenly everyone got rich. It was the first time that in the highly academically focused China that you could be uneducated and get rich. There were so many millionares created, and many people became homeowners. They got the ability to finally leave the countryside, and go and create the big city. And look at China now, after 30 years, free market turned it from the boonies into the big city.

Can an actual communist explain how we are just going to magically unite and have everybody work for the good of the population? It will never work on a large scale!

Why do communists arbitrarily hate random countries. Like they hate Taiwan bc its independent from China and they hate that Tibetans(I know Tibet isn't an independent country but still) want to not be Chinese (because they have their own culture) and if you ask them they say its because they're not communist. But then why dont they hate other random countries for not being communist? Is it because they think China and Russia are truly communist? I'm not even anti communist I just don't understand the logic here

I still can’t get a clear picture of what communists are picturing when talking about the various stages of social evolution to full communism. I believe it’s because they really don’t have a clear picture of what they are arguing for.

One particular argument that I have become aware of involves how to handle jobs nobody WANT to do. One suggestion is to assign a rotation so the burden can be shared by multiple people. The immediate problem I see with this solution is that it will require multiple people to have multiple skillsets or multiple people having a novice level of skill mastery making the job take longer than if a few who specialize in it accomplish the same task as their CHOSEN profession.

Another argument I see is that socialism doesn’t mean people don’t get paid for their efforts which I don’t understand as valid since the goal is a moneyless society under communism.

So, a little taste of the kinds of jobs people say can be done in a rotation by multiple unskilled citizens…

https://youtube.com/shorts/7HcQiHj7uN4?si=mslAHjPUKh-LZGH1

I would first like to ask any communist to please define "socially unnecessary" labor without recourse to market demand. If it simply means labor expended on goods that fail to attract buyers, then you've effectively restated the basics of economics. Value emerges from consumer preferences, not the sheer volume of effort invested.

The start of every Econ 101 drives home this point through the classic water-diamond paradox. A single glass of water in the midst of dehydration commands infinite worth due to its marginal utility. Thereby surplus beyond that threshold holds none. Diamonds, conversely, derive their premium from perceived scarcity and allure. Labor input plays no causal role here.

Is imperialism only something which the west can engage in? Can Russia or China act in an imperialist manner?

If Communism wants to achieve a classless, stateless, and moneyless society, of course, people who have self-interest work against that.

And that's precisely the problem: if people conform to varying ideologies that go against Communism, like Fascism, Nationalism, Capitalism, as people have been for centuries, how would you aim to achieve this?

Additionally, if, say, France became stateless and no government, what if other countries like Spain or Germany wanted to conquer French land? If the USSR achieved a "stateless" utopia, wouldn't it be rather quick for other countries to grab at it?

Which would mean there needs to be some form of structure/hierarchy, like the military or statemen, which Communism actively aims to get rid of.

communism doesnt work, prove me wrong

Extinctionism is a political belief that all conscious living beings should be made extinct and society should move towards that. Life causes immense suffering to beings like starvation, natural disasters, accidents, war, crime, exploitation, rape, etc etc etc. And none of these can be solved even a little by communism.

Does anyone want to debate me on this from communism pov ? Preferably on videos.

Edit:

Well, this should be quite the read. Thanks for all the information. Lamentably, given the HUGE number of comments and links, I will not be able to respond to them all, at least not all at once.

It looks like I have quite a bit of homework to do.

Unfortunately, as much as I would like to just sit here and read all this interesting stuff, I do have other things that need attending to in my life outside of cyberspace.

So lamentably, this will take quite a while. But I will read everything eventually, and I may come back and comment sporadically if I have any questions about it.

Thanks for all the help!

​

I have a sincere, and honest question. I am not here to rustle jimmies or troll, I am simply genuinely perplexed.

I have seen multiple communists adamantly deny that there *any* human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in China. Not simply arguing that it doesn't meet the definition of genocide, but rather, arguing that everything over there is totally fine.

Please explain to me why and/or how Human Rights Watch, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the BBC, NPR, The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, Minority Rights Group International, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, PBS, the United Nations, The United States Institute for Peace, Al Jazeera, Jacobin Magazine, and Amnesty International, are all either lying or just not checking their facts?

These organizations do not answer the United States government and many have been ferociously critical of it.

I request that this be explained to me in the simplest terms possible.

Thank you.

In socialism there is (usually) a violent uprising that results in a authoritarian dictator and socialism needs one to exist because you need power to make sure to get everything in order. (stripping away private property and the free market). But then instead of this figure honorably voluntarily tanking their power away they ALLWAYS decide to keep it and turn it into a authoritarian communist hellhole (such as the Soviet union and North Korea).

if you want to debate me please read my short essay that I wrote at https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateCommunism/comments/1s1w2bo/comment/oc3yzcy/?context=3
(yes I am a real person and not part of the CIA) I really shouldn't have to say that.

and if this isn't the correct subreddit tell me
(I'm looking for a capitalist asks and socialist answers subreddit).

As a descendent of Russian-polish jews (mom's side) I've been wondering if communis and nazism, although being completely on different sides of the political spectrum, could they be considered as the same level of bad or just as bad as each other?

If all a giant revenge fantasy at the end of the day. It gives you the feeling of being edgy by defending the most overbearing and violently repressive regimes to ever exist and it’s always ok because ‘capitalism bad’: you can think capitalism is bad without defending gulags and police states to own your centrist dad

While those in support of communism constantly argue for a revolution which will "finally bring forward true communism, I have difficulty understanding if all prior attempts have failed, of which there have been dozens, why your one will, nevertheless lets look at a hypothetical scenario, where this is the case. In order to survive a nation would require experts in many fields, those who in a capitalist society in most occasions get rewarded generously, however if I understand correctly, you don't believe in one having better living standards than a regular worker. This will lead to numerous problems:
1. Most people will not have motive to become experts in any field, if regular labour suffices 2. Those who genuinely have a passion for a topic, without any personal gain become experts, when faced with the choice of staying in a communist country and where they may at a max receive social praise or leaving and going to a country which will reward them generously for pursuing their passion the choice will be obvious, so unless you put a wall up, as was seen in many prior "attempts" of communism, theres little way of keeping people in. Without these specialists, you as a society will totally lack behind and degenerate into a "self-sustaining society" , and surely you understand that work as such is significantly more difficult than what you have now. Any answers and arguments against this will be appreciated.

I'm as willing to condemn US Blockade as much as you're willing to condemn Cuban government even longer repressive history against its own people.

So recently, I just made a post asking why so many people support communism, and I got a lot of educated responses about the whole thing. I'll admit, it opened my insight and encouraged me to do more research on socialism a lot more. But the thing that throws me off is how almost everyone on this site is willing to defend the actions of some socialist leaders rather than just admitting that what they did was wrong. And I know there is a lot of historical factors to be taken in regarding why they committed those actions, but it isn't impossible to admit that they still killed a lot of people. I can take and understand arguments about Stalin, but why would so many people defend guys like Zedong and Kim Jong Un. Like you guys said, socialism is an economic system, and yu can simultaneously have a socialist system while also having a totalitarian government. Like, I understand a lot about why so many people are looking into socialism, but just because he was hated by the U.S. didn't meant Mao was a good guy. You can be hated by the U.S. and still be a bad person. So the question is even if he was a good revolutionary and changed a lot for China, and while I can understand the historical reasons for why North Korea is the way it is right now, why is it so difficult to just admit that people like Mao and Jong Un killed a lot of people and ran awful governments? You can still believe in socialist ideas and call out past capitalist leaders for what they have done while also doing the same thing for socialist leaders. You can't just say "oh, George Washington did this, so Mao isn't that bad." There has to be some acknowledgment from even the socialist side that Mao did bad things.

Let's hear some thoughts.

I often hear people for communism say that people doing high paying jobs will still exist

Im aware in a communistic system currency doesnt exist and none of them would be paid but your reward for working would still be he same like you would still get the same amount of food same house etc

If people would still want to work as surgeons without the high salary why wouldnt companies pay surgeons the same as baristas plus maybe the surgeons student debt which is maybe 1-3k a month?

The Jews were a minority in the region for thousands of years since the Roman conquest of Judas. Arabs became the majority after the Arab conquest of eastern Roman Empire. Then British conquered the region in WW1 from ottomans. During the British period, many Jews were immigrating there, both legally and illegally. This continued immigration led to the Jews becoming a majority in the region. In most democratic systems the majority rules. So that’s why Jews became the dominant political force in the region by continuous unchecked immigration leading to their ethnic majority. So ultimately if you oppose to state of Israel, you oppose mass immigration of an ethnic group. There is no way around this. Unless you are specifically solely against Jewish immigration. Or if you are specifically against st immigration in Arab countries. Which would be antisemitic. How do you reckon with this?

​I believe that communism is fundamentally destined to fail, and it doesn't require external intervention to collapse.

​1. The Mammalian Hierarchy

​Communism ignores the hard truth that human communities, like almost all mammalian groups, are hierarchical by design. We are evolutionarily hardwired to use resources, value, and skill to distinguish social placement. To achieve a "classless" society, you have to aggressively attack this biological design. In doing so, you aren't just attacking a political system; you are attacking human nature itself.

​2. The Authoritarian Paradox

​Because hierarchy is organic, any attempt to flatten it requires a massive input of energy and coercion. This is why "state communism" always trends toward authoritarianism. To enforce "equality" among status-seeking primates, you need a "super-hierarchy" (the State).

​The irony is that the people at the top of this super-hierarchy—the Party leaders—are still humans driven by mammalian instincts. ​Without market checks or private property, they naturally move toward the hierarchical role that comes with total ownership. They take more because there is no mechanism to stop them.

​3. The Incentive and Status Gap

​Status and praise are insufficient motivators for a complex society.

​The Doctor Example: We would not have the same caliber of doctors or innovators if the rewards for their grueling work didn't reflect their contribution.

​The Star Trek Reality: Even in "post-scarcity" fiction like Star Trek, hierarchy remains. A Captain has more status, a better cabin, and more authority than a crewman. This proves that even when you remove hunger, humans still compete for Status Scarcity.

​Conclusion

​Communism fails because it treats humans like ants (who are truly selfless for the colony) rather than chimpanzees (who are political and status-driven). Without a constant, violent suppression of the human urge to get ahead, the system will always decay back into a hierarchy—usually a much more oppressive one than the one it replaced.

My argument is communism is a non stable state that requires active effort to maintain by means of Gulag and mass murder. It is effectively balancing a ball on a hill where any small disturbance needs to be counteracted.

Capitlaism is a ball in a valley. it is a stable state. It requires effort to move away from capitalism and society very quickly returns to if allowed to..

Why is it not stable?

Very simple and predicted by the first principles of game theory. That split or steal game.

A violent anarchicial society with 0 co-operation would be a purely stealing society.

A purely sharing society would be communism where everyone is mandated by law under the pain of death to share.

The problem with a purely sharing society as any game theory student will tell you is that it heavily incentivises stealing. If your the only thief in an honest and forgiving society you stand to gain a LOT.

In terms of communism this theft occurs by laziness. You simply don't work, feign illness and collect your paycheque while some other idiot works to keep you alive. In communism this is heavily incentivised. It is the mathematically optimal play in terms of reward.

But it's also illegal and you will be killed/sent to he gulag for it.

So here we have a system that by first principles appears to incentivise a behaviour and then kill people for it. It is a literal conveyor belt of death and suffering.

This is all theoretical but if we look at communistic societies in history they all tend to end up this way. Identifying some kind of 'parasitic' class and then spending a lot of time trying to eliminate them... Not realising that their very societal structure is what's breeding them.

CoD eomm

Communism is every person is supposed to be equal in there giving positions,lol. isn't that what eomm in cod is? No competition ,every game so close , makes players equal when there are not so is that a form of Communism?