Why do peeps want socialism/communism? - Zoomer Delusions

Cardenio

Calarts Graduate
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Because it's very easy to convince anyone who has to closely manage their money that they are the poor and are thus the "have-nots." A great example of this can be found on Twitter by writer Jess McHugh.
flo.jpg

For the record according to various websites the actress who plays Flo is not obscenely rich. The point is jealously is contagious among all classes from the working class to those connected to the higher society like this woman obviously is. And those who are jealous and don't see a quick way to improve their situation want to kneecap the competition. Where Jess McHugh sees herself as apart of a proletariat every nobody in high school and college sees her as the bourgeois.
 

c-no

Duck
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Because it's very easy to convince anyone who has to closely manage their money that they are the poor and are thus the "have-nots." A great example of this can be found on Twitter by writer Jess McHugh.
View attachment 1560382
For the record according to various websites the actress who plays Flo is not obscenely rich. The point is jealously is contagious among all classes from the working class to those connected to the higher society like this woman obviously is. And those who are jealous and don't see a quick way to improve their situation want to kneecap the competition. Where Jess McHugh sees herself as apart of a proletariat every nobody in high school and college sees her as the bourgeois.
If they mean't a fictional character, that would of been understandable. On that same note though it'd also be stupid because then you'd just be comparing a fictional character to real life people.
 

PaleTay

kiwifarms.net
I think the main reason is that the service economy has failed miserably. People need some sort of project or goal to work towards as a collective, especially since the family structure has been damaged.

Companies are importing millions of immigrants to lower wages and raise the cost of living, and instead of innovating and providing something better for employees and customers there's a race to the bottom and lowering of standards.
 

LazarusOwenhart

Terrainist Shitlord!
kiwifarms.net
I think people confuse socialism and communism. Socialism at its core is merely a capitalist society that recognizes that certain public services, particularly pertaining to health and welfare, should be free for all and funded by taxation. Here in the UK I only ever pay what called a prescription charge, which is like £9.20 or something for medication, other than that all my healthcare is free. Even then, people are forelock tugging because you only pay that charge if you fall into a category that can afford it and its per med so some people get slapped with ENORMOUS healthcare bills of like, £27. Socialism also recognizes that in an ideal world, public services, like transport, power, water, telecoms etc should be state run, in theory to prevent price gouging by large corporations and also prevent the kind of competitive backbiting you get when an essential service like power is in private hands. Publicly owned industries actually worked very well in the UK until the trade unions decided to wreck them. The government wanted to modernize the railways but the unions didn't want 1 man diesel locomotives replacing 3 man steam locos because of job losses. We labored on with steam whilst parts of the continent were electrifying. Our state run steel industry died because the unions resisted automation because again, job losses. When the French ran a full fiber network in the 80's, our unions were worried that exchange operators would be out of work. State run industries are inherently more fragile than private ones and eventually the government decided to privatize them, and since then they've been frankly shit (or vanished). Ultimately, democratic socialism done right could be a really nice way to live, but it requires governments and citizens advocacy groups like trade unions to work together on creating it.

Communism is a fucking joke. Planned economies are always doomed to fail and communism can only work if every person placed in a position of authority is 100% incorruptible and scrupulously honest.
 

kuniqsX

Dead man.
kiwifarms.net
Because of "US vs. them" effect. Also because history is cyclical (poetic name for forgetting what you did 100 years ago and repeating it like a dumbass). Communism is pretty much a fashion statement, hippies were communist and teenagers think hippies were radical and cool like bikers/criminals/greasers and others that make your tummy tingle with excitement (girl) or make you feel like a badass for knowing them or acting like them (boy).

During the "Golden" age of capitalism, workers really had it bad. I'm talking about throwing your machine-mutilated factory worker on the street with no notice or pay, reading hate-mail from your workers for fun or forcing your workers to accept your pay in form of "chips" that can only be cashed in your shop for overpriced necessity goods - I mean, they have nowhere else to go, what's going to stop you fucking them over?

Socialism was a good idea then and we wouldn't have most of our current quality control or worker's rights without it. Problem of socialism is glacial adaptation pace and inflexibility, so if you have a multiethnic, high-income-disparity, diverse society it's one of the worst forms of government. Plus, robots and automation in general will become BIG in this century so, uh, this whole "worker" shtick will be obsolete at best and laughable at worst. Workers will become useless, because nobody needs human labor when you can have Semper Fi robots shoveling snow off your yard, which won't sue your ass when they break on the job. I guess socialism will be attractive then, because there will be no need for forced human labor + lots of useless people who, if not placated by (now cost-free) bread and circuses, will feel frustrated and humilated and will burn everything to the ground because they have nothing else to do with their lives.
 

LazarusOwenhart

Terrainist Shitlord!
kiwifarms.net
Because of "US vs. them" effect. Also because history is cyclical (poetic name for forgetting what you did 100 years ago and repeating it like a dumbass). Communism is pretty much a fashion statement, hippies were communist and teenagers think hippies were radical and cool like bikers/criminals/greasers and others that make your tummy tingle with excitement (girl) or make you feel like a badass for knowing them or acting like them (boy).

During the "Golden" age of capitalism, workers really had it bad. I'm talking about throwing your machine-mutilated factory worker on the street with no notice or pay, reading hate-mail from your workers for fun or forcing your workers to accept your pay in form of "chips" that can only be cashed in your shop for overpriced necessity goods - I mean, they have nowhere else to go, what's going to stop you fucking them over?

Socialism was a good idea then and we wouldn't have most of our current quality control or worker's rights without it. Problem of socialism is glacial adaptation pace and inflexibility, so if you have a multiethnic, high-income-disparity, diverse society it's one of the worst forms of government. Plus, robots and automation in general will become BIG in this century so, uh, this whole "worker" shtick will be obsolete at best and laughable at worst. Workers will become useless, because nobody needs human labor when you can have Semper Fi robots shoveling snow off your yard, which won't sue your ass when they break on the job. I guess socialism will be attractive then, because there will be no need for forced human labor + lots of useless people who, if not placated by (now cost-free) bread and circuses, will feel frustrated and humilated and will burn everything to the ground because they have nothing else to do with their lives.
By that logic though a form of socialism is going to have to become the norm. If the 'worker' becomes obsolete then no government can simply say "Hey guess what guys, 75% of you are now obsolete equipment, enjoy starving kthnxbye." Not just workers either, the people who form the structure that supports them, HR, Occupational Health, some legal professionals. If we assume in this society a 'useless' person can be assured of housing, healthcare, food and a steady ration of consumer goods the interesting question is how you create what will be effectively be a two tiered, non aspiration based society. If you're of the 'useless' class is there any point educating you if you don't show any promise? Is there then, an argument for pouring extra money in to education to make sure the very best and brightest get the education they need to form that top tier of "useful" people. If you effectively have a glass ceiling over the whole of society that isn't based on race or gender but simply the arbitrary measurement of a persons worth at the age of say, 16 as well as what will likely be an exceptionally competitive job market what sort of anger will the lower class feel? At the moment we have an aspiration based society. When you are born, there are few limits on what you might eventually be. You can be born into poverty and end up a billionaire. Most people aspire to make the next year better than the last, to improve their homes and lives. If you set a bar on 'goods for all, for free' vs 'goods for money, for the privileged' then logically, everyone in the lower class will be living the best life they can by the time they move out, if they even bother to do so. Presumably government provided housing won't be in the 'nice' neighborhoods reserved for the useful class. Suddenly we're back to the old class distinctions and all the problems it brings.
 

LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]

I try so hard and got so far
kiwifarms.net
They think they will still have the exact same life they have in capitalist first world, with all the commodities and amenities except they won't have to work and can just play videogames and smoke subsidized weed all day. They truly think it will all be the same but with free gibs, free stuff and things would just keep getting better with no drawbacks or anything, and with the plus that they get to expropriate and steal from the rich people they envy.

That mentality is why populist politicians always do better on their second term than on their first, they buy massive amounts of support during their first run at it because they give away free money and can maintain the illusion of the economy booming by printing more money, paying for nonstop propaganda and going into debts, by the time the consequences happen and hyperinflation explodes the government is already totalitarian and the support of the people wont matter, thats when useful idiots are told to go fuck themselves if they suddenly start getting sassy and commies abroad start damage control saying it was all an international plot or that it wasn't real socialism.
 

Secret Asshole

Expert in things that never, ever happened
Local Moderator
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Socialism is different from Communism. We have to hit that distinction first. Socialism is a humanitarian ideal where the government regulates the means of production. You CAN have a Socialist-Capitalist system, to varying degrees. This is because Socialism is not inherently incompatible with Capitalism, and Socialism done right can prevent crony capitalism, monopolies and banking oligarchies. Its pretty much never done right, but I digress.

Communism itself is where the state controls the means of production entirely. Meaning, no entertainment, no food, no products are produced without the permission of the state itself. They feel they can eliminate 'injustice' by making everyone equal if the state controlled everything. The problem is that these economies always fail. China is always teetering on the brink and has to do massive manipulation to keep its economy going, and it isn't really 100% Communist anymore. They believe that in this system, everyone will be equal and that they, because they are so smart, will just be members of the party. They won't be the workers or laborers dying in factories and mines because the government cuts costs to the bone, because a planned economy is ridiculously inefficient. The cold reality is that most of these people would be the first up against the wall.

In a Communist society, the strongest, most corrupt and most brutal rule. Someone who can forcefully cow the state to his will. The revolutionaries who created the communist government typically don't last long. There's been a long standing suspicion that Stalin killed Lenin. Also Trotsky, one of the architects of the USSR, got rewarded for his creation of the communist state by getting an ice pick to the head by a Mexican Communist Assassin.

There's also this complete disillusion and lack of planning for the future. They get worthless degrees and think they're entitled to something. They go to the day-care center known as college, get coddled and doted on and catered to their every whim in the safest of spaces, and then when they go out into the world, they find the walls aren't padded, they're lined with spikes and people are all-too happy to push your face right into them. They don't go for higher STEM degrees, because the higher up you go, the less you are coddled and the harder you are beaten down. It takes a lot of willpower and inner strength to get higher degrees in STEM. Which a lot of these people do not have. So instead of bettering themselves or contributing, they lament that they can't do anything with these degrees that their university said were so amazing. They look to what everyone else has and get arrogant and angry. They want their entire lives to be a safe padded room, and Communism (they think) will offer them maximum comfort and minimal effort, since the state will 'take care' of them.

The main problem is Communist societies are notoriously violent and corrupt. They would be completely unprepared for the abject poverty they would experience, while the strongest beat them down. In a communist society, where the workers are valued over intellectuals, they will be fodder. They will be reviled. They have no concept of the real world and view communism as an out to all their problems, another way they can be coddled by the state. They can also control the media and entertainment, shaping it to what they want without any of that pesky 'vote with your wallet'. Again, the things that would happen would be all entertainment would be propaganda. Foreign entertainment is banned or heavily regulated. They won't be dictating anything. They will at best live in poverty and at worst be laid low by a strongman who comes in and beats them down, executes them and forces the entire society into poverty so you have to suck on a party member's cock just so you can get an extra bread ration.
 

Alba gu brath

Snarky English mixed with illegible Scots.
kiwifarms.net
Oh dinnae get me wrong here, commie myself, or hell, socialist. But I'm coming at it from a European standing point, didn't hae the red scare as badly as the yanks. Need to take it from the historical perspective, sae, what pushed socialism here in Britain was the second world war, sae you hae the blitz and the ltieral crumbling ae the cities, London and shit. Technically, we could have gone back as things were, but the people pushed ol' Winston out of office, big surprise there aye, but they voted in probably one of the most radical - by that time period - governments you could have had in Britain. Sae, rather than people wanting it generally, it's events, life conditions and sae on that'll push the wee zoomers towards it.

You're getting it in America mostly because of social mobility, health care being an utter shite heap in terms of equality and all the other lefty/general issues you poor buggers hae at the moment. Take away, or fix those issues and you'll find the desire will slowly deflate if not drastically deflate. Why push tae the left, if the middle ground you're standing on is holding nice n'firm, ken? Sae, the wee zoomers are seeing these perceived, or real reasons to be angry, worried and sae on. Even more sae now, you hae the internet, sae issues that are more local, are now being broadcast nationally, sae everyin thinks every wee shitty cop is now in their district, and they need to get out and protest and all ae that pish. What could be smaller issues in the wider scale, are being magnified tae the breaking point. Just happens when information is sae widely available.

But aye, like I said, give folk a livable wage, deal with the rent issues and you'll see the need/desire bugger of nearly entirely. Fail to do that, and it's just going to expand.

But to just give an idea, selfishness could/is pushing me towards ye auld lefty shit. Show me a disabled bugger like myself demanding laissez faire styled government, and I'll point to someone who clearly is getting money somewhere else to fluff their life along. Your uncle Toms of the fecked lot, if ya will.
 

JoseRaulChupacabra

1.c4 is not as bad as 1.d4, practically speaking.
kiwifarms.net
There's also this complete disillusion and lack of planning for the future. They get worthless degrees and think they're entitled to something. They go to the day-care center known as college, get coddled and doted on and catered to their every whim in the safest of spaces, and then when they go out into the world, they find the walls aren't padded, they're lined with spikes and people are all-too happy to push your face right into them.
I think part of it is also the LARP. In fact, I'm almost certain that's a big appeal for some of them, consciously or not. Why have normal views when that entails being a nobody IRL, when joining the party allows you to feel like a revolutionary - indulge in self righteous anger, hear the sound of your own voice, trigger and own the neo-libs and ask them if they ever read LockeKapital.
 

Zwiebelkönigin

kiwifarms.net
I think LARP and they want an excuse for deviency. I don't necessarily hate the idea of communism, rather I know people are shit and it would never work in reality. I accept that.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: MadameMidlifeCrisis

Pickle Dick

boy do i wish it was 2016 again
kiwifarms.net
but muh anarcho-communism

communism is always meant to be stateless!!111!one11
 

Cybertonian

kiwifarms.net
A lot of pro-communism sentiment as of recent probably also grew out of the "intellectual outsider" doctrine of tumblr from the early-mid 2010s: basically, teenagers and twenty-somethings who see themselves as being part of an enlightened group of people (need to fit in due to real life failure of social affiliation) and their other peers in school as being ignorant, corrupt, and in need of education. Basically, a dopamine rush from being morally superior as well as "unique". Of course, they fail to recognize the lack of nuance inherent in their own views (the fact that many things are emergent phenomenon, so it's often hard to dissect isuses simply, and that because of this, their ideologies aren't much more than a bunch of token phrases they repeat) because their ~quirky and intelligent~ peers told them they're right.
 
Last edited:

kuniqsX

Dead man.
kiwifarms.net
Just because they earn a lot in Silicon Valley doesn't mean they actually do any useful, requested work. All those workplace standards, requirements, quotas etc. create an environment where the creative and industrious feel suffocated while the grifters feel at home.

I never met a self-employed, tax-paying person who liked anything about communism; what they want is to pay 0 tax and spend 0 time on things that earn them 0 money like doing the Taxman's job for free (i.e. bookkeeping/invoices).
 
Tags
None