> How can regulations stop corruption?

Regulations enforced by courts are the only tool functioning societies are willing to use to limit corruption, including under communism. Some forms of communism are anarchic and just assume it will work without it, but then I can say this about anarch-capitalism too, and it's just as wrong there.

> The only way to actually stop it is to not allow individuals to profit off of others.

There are many kinds of profit besides the currencies broadly recognised today. Money itself is a fungible token of power, and the very same corruption works just as effectively when it's any other form of power. It's even possible just by barter, as demonstrated by that guy who swapped his way from a paperclip to a house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

To actually stop corruption would require an incorruptible omniscient surveillance system, and I know of nobody who wants one of those even in principle due to the downside of what "omniscient" means, and in practice it doesn't matter anyway due to the lack of incorruptible people to act in this role.

> And it's something that we all enforce and control through local councils.

Ah, the small-commune model of communism. For reasons too long to go into, this limits you to roughly the tech level of the Late Bronze Age collapse. Even then, this is only even stable until someone outside your council comes along with an army, and at best they insist you use modern tech you previously couldn't import because you abolished money, at worst you're working for a 1700 AD equivalent to the Spartans.

▲

Atlas667 2 days ago | parent [-]

Regulations themselves are not bad, but regulations without changing any of the power/property relations in society politically means NOTHING for the masses (you and I are part of the masses btw).

You are doing wishful thinking. The world is not ideas the world is real.

Regulations meets deregulation backed by billionaires. They can completely fund political candidates and judges. They can carry out conspiracies to avoid and circumvent regulations. In fact they do. The powerful already are the law, dont you see? They cant do everything they want, but they do almost all of it.

Do you think politics is as it seems? The very existence of the massive power imbalance requires you to think deeper about how politics works and not believe the illusion of modern democracies.

> There are many kinds of profit besides the currencies broadly recognised today.

Your mentioning of "many kinds of profits" is ignorant, we're talking about profits and capital, it doesnt matter what the currency is. The rule is still exactly the same:

The accumulation of profits from the work of others leads to power imbalances. The type of currency is irrelevant.

And the red paperclip thing was a stunt, it is not an inherent part of modern economies. Its not "real".

> To actually stop corruption would require an incorruptible omniscient surveillance system

Nah. Blockchain can be used for managing funds. In fact the function of the state should be reduced to accounting, which almost anyone could do.

> Ah, the small-commune model of communism.

Im not talking about that. Read Lenin, real democracy requires local councils. Small communes dont work.

Honestly, dude, I can tell you know nothing about communism, marxism or even power dynamics in politics. I'm not being rude. Read about it, because if not youre just hating because someone told you to.

Like I said before: Marxism is a framework that describes the progression of society through socioeconomic theories. It implies the democratization of production. Thats whats so bad about it, according to the rich and their state. Thats why they made you hate it without you even knowing what it is.

▲

lazide a day ago | parent [-]

Not the person you’re responding too - but I’m quite familiar with Marxism.

The issue is that the stated ‘progression of society through socioeconomic theories’ is all good sounding wishful thinking, which is only actually ‘doable’ through authoritarianism.

It’s why it’s such sweet bait for people to get sucked into, and why everyone who has tried it for any group larger than can fit into a single room turns into a authoritarian dictatorship - which then usually ends up just abusing the control for their own ends. Best case. Or turns into something even worse, like the Khmer Rouge.

Not that it’s the ONLY path to authoritarian dictatorship mind you. But it happens every time.

▲

Atlas667 21 hours ago | parent [-]

Marxist theories arent just floating in space they are grounded studies.

Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research, fully cited with notes for each citation. The dude was a proffessor. Lenins books are research pieces, not vague posturing. They are cited and founded in real phenomenon. In fact Lenin was persecuted because of the things he researched. He has books studying the rise of banking in Russia and Europe and how corruption arised from the simple business practices of finance capital and how that turned into imperialism through profit seeking of raw materials in foreign lands.

You would know that if you actually engaged with it instead of forming your opinions from vague notions passed down to you or read on social media.

Their theories arent unfounded.

> only actually ‘doable’ through authoritarianism

Nah. The central point of Socialism/Communism is the DEMOCRATIZATION of production. Calling it authoritarianism is a lie by billionaires to keep people hating it.

See, If peoples courts decide that wallstreet hedge funds and the military industrial complex deserved life sentences in jail they call it authoritarianism.

But when bourgeois judges systematically put poor people in jail its "just the legal system" and "hey it aint perfect, but nothing is".

Your ideas on Marxism are very western. The Khmer Rouge was backed by the CIA and the brits. Pol Pot was the only Marxist who said hes never read Marx, imagine that. Its almost as if they werent Marxists. He also adored Hitler, which is antithetical to Marxism.

Remember and recognize that a peoples state will always be called authoritarian by the rich.

Marxism is about making the people their own state. Make society FOR itself by eliminating the capitalists who create the imbalance of power.

▲

AnimalMuppet 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of research

Marx's Capital is actually a very well written piece of bad research. He cherry-picked the data, ignoring evidence that was available to him that disagreed with the conclusions he was reaching. Let me say that again: There was evidence against his theories present in the data he was perusing.

> Nah. The central point of Socialism/Communism is the DEMOCRATIZATION of production.

How does that work out? You can call what happened "democratization", but it sure looks like central control to me - central control by an authoritarian. That's what has happened every time.

You know how they say "the purpose of a system is what it does"? Well, at least by that standard, no, the purpose of communism is not the democratization of production, because that's not what it does.

▲

Atlas667 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Can you point me to the critique you mention?

Also

I mean "what it looks like" to you is kind of irrelevant because we really do not live in a democracy but it probably looks like one to you.

Are you OK that your country aids in the literal enslavement and exploitation of people abroad for cheap goods?

Are you OK that capitalist countries perpetrate more war and caused more death than any other before it? You must be if you believe in democracy.

Wake up, there is no democracy.

ALL poverty is fabricated and sustained for profits.

So in the same sense: How does capitalism work? Is it democratic or is it a profit extraction system that knows no bounds?

I know communist states commited some mistakes in the 20th century, most are inflated for capitalist propaganda but there are legit ones.

But Im not here for apologia. I do what makes sense. And it makes sense to me that profit creates authoritarianism. And that to create true democracy we must democratize production. That shit makes more sense to me than "getting rich makes everyone better through competition".

Read communist literature and decide for yourself, be intellectually honest, and move on if its not right. I dont care. I dont want someone to rule over me. And I'll never EVER vote for someone who isnt enacting mass democracy. Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.

▲

lazide 14 hours ago | parent [-]

This shit is hilarious. Like literally can’t make this up.

There are many problems with the current system, but it’s hard to think of a better indictment of everything you’re saying than “Which is why I havent voted. I'm a real person with real aspirations and I wont be taken advantage by the rich who provably run this shit.”

Huh?

▲

Atlas667 4 hours ago | parent [-]

lol, you've made no argument yet you act like you have presented something here.

Corporations already fund some politicians and judges whole careers. Corporations fund the policy groups within popular political parties. They fund the policy groups/think tanks that influence popular political parties as well.

Did you think this was just the will of the people?

Ever heard of Citizens United? What is Lobbying?

Do you think these people are just gonna come out and say: "Hey, influencing politics is a whole industry worth billions."? and "We make sure your political options are aligned with our interests before they even reach your perception"?

None of them propose mass democracy because they know its not in their interest, but it is in ours.

Don't vote for images. Democracy is not trust, Democracy is control.

▲

lazide 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Dude, the original question was ‘and do you have any concrete proposals for making it better that trying to implement won’t definitely (and historically provably!) end up even worse’

And you keep not answering the question while spewing a whole bunch of random other BS.

It reads like your only exposure to real life is Political Science 101.

And the stuff you’re complaining about isn’t even specific to capitalism! Do you think judges in other countries (especially communist and social countries!) are somehow totally independent? Do you think massive abuses of workers and the population didn’t (and don’t) happen in the USSR or under the CCP in its various iterations?

Even ‘return production to the people’ is ludicrous without even specifying how. Because

1) why should the current owners be okay with it, and what are you going to do to them if they aren’t. (Historically, this is often ‘murder them’)

2) how would ‘the people’ even operate it ‘individually’ without destroying it or having the same hierarchical (or worse) power structure (historically this is ‘don’t worry, our political appartchik/crony will run it’)

and 3) how do you stop abusive pieces of shit from abusing the structure? (Historically, this is murdering anyone who complains that we’re being abusive).

People like Stalin and Mao did untold damage under the banners of communism and socialism, because people kept just spouting the same bullshit you are and never asking these actual questions.

	▲	Atlas667 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Never took a politics class. There are dozens and dozens of books outlining revolutionary experience of different peoples. I can't tell you all of it cause I haven't read every single one, and for the ones I have read this isn't the place to do so. Seek them out and read them, I can only give you a general overview. > Do you think judges in other countries (especially communist and social countries!) are somehow totally independent? No doubt corruption will literally ALWAYS be a problem. But capitalist property rights allows people to corrupt for a living. Capitalist property relations means you control a vital part of a functioning society, its production, which allows you to profit from peoples labor and "invest" in politics to attain a better outcome. Workers can't do that, you and I cant do that. Corruption under capitalism is intensified by the very nature of how capitalism works. In one phrase: Capitalism always leads to authoritarianism. > 1) why should the current owners be okay with it, and what are you going to do to them if they aren’t. (Historically, this is often ‘murder them’) They are not going to be okay with it. But you gotta get outta your head that capital is "mom and pop shop". Capital is finance, raw materials, and monopolies. Mom and pop shops are almost as equally squashed under the boot of monopolies as average workers . That's also why monopolies and finance capital conflate themself with mom and pop shops, they want you to think they're "just like us". Half of us don't own our houses or cars, they own six of each. The way this take over happened in the past is that workers would organize and after a long political struggle end up controlling production in their workplace. The ownership of production would be made a crime enforced by the workers themselves. The incentive to uphold it is better share of the outcomes of good production. > 2) how would ‘the people’ even operate it ‘individually’ without destroying it or having the same hierarchical (or worse) power structure (historically this is ‘don’t worry, our political appartchik/crony will run it’) The workers already operate 98% of all production everywhere. They just dont do it according to their own collective interests. Right now workers operate production to squeeze pennies for the shareholders/owners. Think about what a manager does: put profits over quality. What a socialist workplace would do is they would operate in a similar way by sustaining operations, organizing with other branches (top and bottom), coordinating with neighborhood/regional councils, increasing production to the highest degree, all in order to take production to the highest level and produce enough for all. No profit extraction to slow them down. All workers would partake in the decision making towards sustainable production. They WANT to keep their jobs, so they have to operate well. Capitalists aren't ruling all of production and keeping it from falling apart, people aren't dumb. > and 3) how do you stop abusive pieces of shit from abusing the structure? (Historically, this is murdering anyone who complains that we’re being abusive). Ever heard the phrase "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"? It's a poetic way of saying that the people must arm themselves and be their own police force if they are to preserve their own order. These neighborhood councils would (and did in the past) organize their own police forces made up of volunteer members. Neighborhood representatives would be members of your neighborhood, if they were stepping out of line you could literally put them in jail yourselves. No big money to fund the police and defend them. This requires deep political knowledge to recognize when a person is trying to take over property for their own gain. Total transparency of public income will be made a right, I'm sure everyone will agree. > People like Stalin and Mao did untold damage under the banners of communism You say that about Stalin and Mao, and sure they did commit mistakes, I am not here to defend them. But also think about what monarchies were doing and how they helped undo that. THE MAJORITY of people in Russia and China were indentured slaves, serfs. Many were prohibited from reading and kept in a state of constant toil and suffering for profits. Many of those serfs rose up and killed their masters, its not right, of course, but what is? It happened get over it. The communists didn't create the revolution, the revolution truly did happen organically and the communists were there to guide them into a state without capitalism. Read a fucking book, there are dozens talking about just this.

▲

lazide 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

bwahahahahahahaha.

and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun.

that you think because a bunch of academics wrote a bunch of words and that’s why it doesn’t happen doesn’t mean it doesn’t always happen. provably. in real life.

because of exactly the reasons I stated.

I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do.

because you know, it’s ‘for the greater good’. And there is always someone else to blame. but it never actually works, so doubling down we go….

And re: Pol Pot. Just beyond words [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot].

▲

Atlas667 19 hours ago | parent [-]

If Pol Pot was a Marxist why did Vietnam (Marxist) fight against Pol Pot?

I'll tell you.

Pol Pot was never a communist. He was an anti-intellectual who himself said he had never read Marx and said he admired Hitler. Western Nations claim he was a Marxist in order to spook the average citizen. There are also serious allegations that the CIA and the MI6 were involved in trafficking weapons to them.

The Vietnamese were seen as a threat by the Cambodian capitalists and the Chinese didn't like the Vietnamese due to the sino-soviet split. The US, China, and the UK backed Pol Pot to get at Vietnam.

Pol Pot was a populist. Asian fascism was created to counter Marxism.

Read about the CIA backed killings in Indonesia. They aided in the killing of LITERALLY 125,000 people a month in order to squash communist sentiment in Asia.

> and yet it always ends up the same, with one person in charge (chairman, commissar, supreme leader, etc.), and everyone at the point of a gun.

Where did you read that?

Did you know that the Americans have placed more dictators in power than any other state in existence?

> I’ve known many people who lived through the USSR, and a few that lived through Mao’s China. I’ve lived in Eastern Europe and seen the long term damage. This isn’t academics. This is what happens when people are given high minded academics and use it to justify atrocities - which are easy to do in this case. Almost custom made to do.

Did you know that capitalism started world war 1 AND 2? What has caused more destruction in Eastern Europe than both world wars? Did you know that most of the destruction and social chaos in Africa was caused by capitalism? Did you know that capitalism has decimated South America? Why do you not say that the poorest countries on earth are all capitalists?

I'm not here to defend or espouse the doings of past states. I'm here because I want to put power in peoples hands. The billions of us, not just the middle class. I don't want anyone above me, like there is now. I want people to have democratic power in order to end this artificial poverty that generates power for the few. All poverty world wide is sustained for profits and that is evident.

▲

lazide 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Pol Pot was literally China’s man in Southeast Asia. He was taught by the French Communists. Vietnam hated the French (past colonizers), and the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese - and the Chinese disliked the Soviets. Power balance thing within the Communists.

It rarely spilled over directly until Cambodia kept crossing over into Vietnam and murdering people when they got overzealous with their own internal murdering. Eventually Vietnam got fed up and stomped on them.

The CIA hated both of them with a passion.

You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.

▲

Atlas667 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The Khmer Rouge were not communists.

China, the CIA, and MI6 backed them solely because they were against the NVA. They were tools. And they severely lacked an ideological backbone which is why shit go so bad in Cambodia. It was fascism.

Like I said before Wikipedia is average tier knowledge, but sometimes it compounds sources well, so follow the sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_United_States_s...

And it would be inline with what it has been proved the US did in that same time frame in Indonesia as well, and for very similar reasons too.

	▲	lazide 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure dude.