What is communism

We all hear it all the time in political dialogue in all avenues of discourse, reminiscent of the “red scare” propaganda and continued perpetuation from mainstream media usage of blatantly erroneous accusatory terminology about communism being responsible for millions of deaths and oppressive regimes bent on using gulags and massacring any who dissent and or oppose them.

However, simply claiming something to be something does not make it so, actions and engagements are what provide an accurate descriptive of terminological attribution.

-We use the term democracy in america, and yet there is no such thing in the corporatist oligarchical plutocratic kakistocracy that is american governance.

-Nazis used the term National Socialists and they were in no way socialists, they were fascists.

-DPRK claims to be a democracy and yet they do not engage any democratic engagements and or applications.

-China uses the term Communist and they are in no way communist as they engage state socialism.

Simply calling something one thing, does not make it so.

In this article we are going to touch upon the proper socioeconomic terminological definitions.

“Communism (from Latin communis, “common, universal”) is the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state.”

Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Marxism and anarchism (anarcho-communism), as well as the political ideologies grouped around both. All of these share the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism; that in this system there are two major social classes; that conflict between these two classes is the root of all problems in society; and that this situation will ultimately be resolved through a social revolution. The two classes are the working class—who must work to survive and who make up the majority within society—and the capitalist class—a minority who derives profit from employing the working class through private ownership of the means of production. The revolution will put the working class in power and in turn establish social ownership of the means of production, which according to this analysis is the primary element in the transformation of society towards communism. Critics of communism can be roughly divided into those concerning themselves with the practical aspects of 20th century communist states and those concerning themselves with communist principles and theory.

Communism has never been enacted, therefore cannot be said to be the causation of anything. If anyone could provide evidence of any one single society that has abolished money, classism, the state, private property and has worker owned means of production, then by all means be the first to do so.. I will wait..

“Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership and workers’ self-management of the means of production as well as the political theories and movements associated with them. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, though social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.”

“Socialist economic systems can be divided into non-market and market forms. Non-market socialism involves the substitution of factor markets and money with engineering and technical criteria based on calculation performed in-kind, thereby producing an economic mechanism that functions according to different economic laws from those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with capital accumulation and the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices, factor markets and in some cases the profit motive, with respect to the operation of socially owned enterprises and the allocation of capital goods between them. Profits generated by these firms would be controlled directly by the workforce of each firm, or accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend. The socialist calculation debate discusses the feasibility and methods of resource allocation for a socialist system.”

“Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour, forced voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.”

Capitalism | `Illusion’ of “capital”/ “property”/ “ownership”: Is a societal economic growth system based upon constant competition to maximize profit gains, utilizing infinite growth on a finite planet, that inherently only semi benefits one percent of the human populace, to the direct detriment of the entire ecosystem and our species.

Capitalism is the socio-economic system that evolved as an alternative to feudalism, and yes, It worked for awhile and brought about lots of great things, as well as lots of horrible things.

Currently we humans are largely globally under a societal operating model of one form of capitalism or another. There are a few variations, such as crony, corporate, state, etc, of capitalism.

We would assert that the current socio-economic model of capitalism has bred an environment that requires, creates, and is ripe for, many forms of “negative” behaviours that have been long since propagated and perpetuated for optimal systems function.

As such, we now – as a species, seemingly choose blind conformity to oppression, ignorance and an illusion of comfortability to justify to ourselves the sad reality of submitting to forced participation.

This is with wage/debt slavery and exploitation/extortion for access to means of survival in our current reality.

Capitalism has destroyed our planet so bad in the past 300 yrs we are going extinct in the near future directly due to it.

Socialism is a variation of capitalism leaning towards communism, a manner of transition from capitalism to communism.

Communism is based upon the abolishment of state, private property, monetary systems, class division as well as the means of production are worker owned and operated.

Anarchism is Not a socio-economic ideology, it is a foundation of being humans are born with based upon self rulership / being without rulers.

Humans have no inherent “masters or gods”, “masters” and “gods” are learned constructs. Anarchism is merely an application of freedom humans are born with that they can choose to engage in the event of a desire for self rulership.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary and harmful.

While opposition to the state is central, anarchism specifically entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations. Anarchism is usually considered a far-left ideology and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism or participatory economics.

Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.

Capitalism is the main causation of misery and death statistically known to human kind followed only by theocracy.

Socialism is in no way able to counter what we face today due to capitalism.

Communism being enacted as it is writ, in full, would not counter what we face today due to the amount of damage already incurred from and by capitalism.

Anarcho-Communism (AnCom) is a political philosophy and anarchist school of thought which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wage labour and private property (while retaining respect for personal property, along with collectively-owned items, goods and services) in favour of common ownership of the means of production, Cyber-integrated and or basic Constructive Consensus as a social communicative and decision  making process, sometimes you will hear claims of 'direct democracy and or participatory democracy as well, cooperativism, equal distribution of valuables, and a horizontal network of workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".  This a variation of communism that could potentially lead to a system of symbiotic sustainability in the future if based upon the terminological jest within leftist discourse which sort of stuck known as ‘fully automated luxury gay space communism’, also known as a RBE (Resource Based Economy) in some circles.

We do have actual options that can save our species today, but they do not rely upon any ideology nor hypothetical concepts, simply the applications and implementation of systems, methods and processes proven to negate, mitigate and potentially render obsolete oppressive constructs and allow for a symbiotic sustainability.

Learn more about those actual solutions here: APR #15 Think and Act

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

In political science and also popular discourse, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far-left and the far-right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. The theory is attributed to French philosopher and writer Jean-Pierre Faye.

Proponents of the theory point to a number of similarities between the far-left and the far-right, including their supposed propensity to gravitate to authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Horseshoe theory has been much criticized and is not currently supported within academic circles.

Learn more about horseshoe theory here: Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia

So, the fact is simply, that the Oppressed Cannot be the Oppressors.

The Victims of oppression cannot victimize the oppression.

There is really no easier way to explain that.

Fighting against and or opposing an aggressive / oppressive force using necessary return force, is in no way the same as being the oppressor or enforcers of oppression.

Defensive violence against actions from groups or nations is a justified form of violence. Defensive violence can be defined as forceful or violent acts against a group who makes the initial violent acts.

Throughout the history of wars in the world, including World War I and II, when a country would attack another using violence, the victim country would generally respond by defensively using violence to protect themselves and forcing the attacker to flee. There are many other examples that surface today and in recent events, as well as other events that have occurred throughout history to show justified defensive violence.

Pig forces throughout the world also use similar approaches.

Even many years ago in the situations of the American Revolution as well as the recent riots in Ferguson Missouri, justified defensive violence was used. In Ferguson, defensive violence was used by the citizens and family of Michael Brown against structural violence and abuse in an attempt to gain rights, protection, and freedom for the African American people of the city.

Also, if the colonists in the American Revolution hadn’t used any violence, we might have not had the “privileges” and paid for “rights” that we have today because of said revolution.

Although to point out the colonization of America itself was an act of imperialism, theft and genocide that the native indigenous cultures of the Americas used retaliatory justified actions of defensive violence as best they could in the attempt to preserve life, land and lineage from.

Similarly, because the protesters in the Ferguson riots defended themselves and made a violent statement against the Ferguson police, there has been a lot more focus on equality and anti-racism for African American people in the recent months across the country.

On a more personal perspective, for instance, if someone were to commit harsh violent acts against you, the reader, to destroy or ravage your belongings or property, such as your home, what would you do? Most probably, you would defend yourself by using violence, which would be justified in that scenario because your possessions would belong to you and nobody else would have the right to violate your property in an unjust manner.

Some people might argue by saying that defensive violence will only create more violence and never lead to solutions. If you look at the history of such situations like the wars, riots and others I mentioned above, the truth in actuality is shown; defensively using violence creates solutions by showing that you have power and providing self protection and the protection of others. The defensive violence in wars is justified because countries protect themselves from harmful forces, and the defensive violence in the Ferguson protests is justified because it allows for more focus on equality, and so on. Shown by various events and situations in history, defensively using violence is a justified form of violence.

Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature: Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. – PubMed – NCBI

Trying to face any sort of oppression head on in any manner, is inadvisable unless the situation calls for such, and I never call or would advocate for such, in any manner.

My entire work, which seems to be conveniently forgotten whenever a thing comes up that touches someone’s cognitive bias in the dirty place, is about rendering obsolete oppressive societal operating constructs, By Any Means Necessary.

This simply means: Build the Better very meticulously co-created societal foundations that Negate the oppressive constructs and symbiotically and sustainably allow for a thrival yet to be seen by our species.

In the process of Building a Better Paradigm, there WILL BE opposition.

There has been always, still to this day, and that will continue, no matter how hard you want for it to not be so, or how hard you hope the ppl “wake up” and become aware to reality doing the mirror and flower stunts.

These stunts, while needed to be seen and done, will do nothing in regards to being effective towards social betterment.

For those who claim “education is the key to betterment”, well, yea, it could do that, now please explain to me how you intend to do that?

We all know that handing books and or providing facts over to those who engage denialism or wilful ignorance due to cognitive dissonance from affected bias does not work.

“Scientists Say They’ve Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It’s Not a Lack of Intelligence”

Why is it sometimes so hard to convince someone that the world is indeed a globe, or that climate change is actually caused by human activity, despite the overwhelming evidence?

Scientists think they might have the answer, and it’s less to do with lack of understanding, and more to do with the feedback they’re getting.

Learn more here: Scientists Say They’ve Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It’s Not a Lack of Intelligence

Like the old adage goes – “you can bring a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”.

I mean, as well as considering that it is quite obvious that the historical and current educational models are largely failures, seemingly due to integration with capitalism, how do you educate people without a proven and or effective educational model / system?

For example, far too many ppl are science illiterate, there are folks who will fight with you claiming the earth is flat, or that dinosaurs are an elaborate hoax, or that evolution is not a fact, these ppl are integrated into our societies, and there are much more of them than those who would choose to desire factual understanding.

The best EDU model to date, the Sudberry model, is largely underappreciated as well as largely lacking due to it. When you have profit being the sole motivating factor of education, or anything for that matter, it will effectively hinder and or even altogether completely stop any efficacy or effectiveness. Educating the future properly cannot be a for profit engagement for reasons that are and or should be obvious to anyone reading this.

You want change, be that change. I myself personally go around helping people and communities implement these symbiotic systems and I have been mostly alone in doing this for the past few yrs, and have done so with and by my own meager means and as my life hobby.

It becomes rather annoying to see most of the folks who are supposed to be on board with revolution, advocating for the most idiotic shit.

There is no possible way that people think there will be no opposition to rendering the outdated predominant global societal operating constructs obsolete, or that the people doing such do not need to be armed and learn how to defend themselves in that inevitable situation of opposition. There is just no way you truly believe that….

Defensive violence is not only still a sad reality, but necessary and quite literally required for human advancement currently.

If you really think you do not need to be armed in the face of the overwhelming and near impossible to face forces of oppression we face, then you are under a severely debilitating and hindering delusion.

Defensive violence is NOT VIOLENT IN NATURE, it is a RESPONSE TO INITIATED VIOLENCE.

Please stop confusing offensive violence with defensive violence, this misconception / misunderstanding is quite problematic to the actual movements towards human advancement away from oppression.

“The paradox of tolerance is a paradox that states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. “

Karl Popper first described it in 1945—expressing the seemingly paradoxical idea that, “In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance.”

Learn more here: Paradox of tolerance – Wikipedia

Smart = Factually informed.

Intelligent = Factually informed.

Woke = Factually informed.

——————————————————-

Ignorant = Not yet privy to.

Wilfully ignorant = Denialism.

Dumbass = Expresses uninformed opinions.

If you want to be “woke”, smart or intelligent, you have to be Factually Informed. Assuming and or proselytizing nonsense as real or valid simply because you are ignorant to the subjects that would allow for an actual understanding of something is absurd and does not make you “woke” in any way, it just makes you a foolish idiot who expresses it publicly is all.

I say this often, but not often enough – Your “opinion” is subjective to your limited perspective and relative to yourself only.

Facts are all that matter, if one chooses to disregard and or deny them, then that is the action of wilful ignorance and denialism on the part of the person engaging such actions.

Being factually Informed matters, people seem to erroneously think that their uninformed opinions matter, they don’t.

People who Actually care about human and societal and planetary advancements cannot afford to engage anything other than being factually informed.

By engaging and wasting time with already debunk proven nonsense just makes you part of the problem to be faced.