Memes

No, you see, you have to upvote it because communism is great

"Today, five countries exist that can be said to be communist: China, Russia"

Tell me you have no idea what you are talking about without directly telling me you have no idea what you are talking about. In what way can today's Russia "be said to be communist", and how does its current, very explicitly anti-communist government, contribute to the point you are making?

Stock market? The thing where you buy tiny fractional ownership of of a company, too small to influence it, then try to sell that legal construct for a little more to someone else later? Why would you need that at all?

The USSR famously took ownership of Tetris away from its creator.

He developed the game on company time. If he'd lived in a capitalist country, the government wouldn't have taken control of Tetris, but the company would have. Every software company contract I've ever heard of has a clause that says the company owns any code you produce while working there.

No you can't own a platform like youtube or facebook, but you could make content on it, intellectul propriety is not a thing as you don't have to produce art just to get a monetary return, but just because you enjoy doing so, there's no need of a stock market in an ideal communist world because everyone gets what they need based on what they can provide, but if it's just a country i guess it's the government who takes care of it.

Regarding those 5 countries i'm not sure of every one of them, but talking about China as you said it's not a communist country but it is not a dictatorship of the proletarian either, as it's not the proletarian class nor their democratically elected representatives who govern the country.

In the end i'll add that greed is not more "human nature" that wishing to kill someone annoying.

Those websites are highly capitalistic and never brought any innovation, all technologies related to the internet were researched by public money.

Look into patent trolls. Patents are bad, publicly funded research is always better, but it doesn't prevent people from spending money to do research, but it doesn't entitle them for the profits.

I'm not advocating FOR communism, I'm just trying to dispel myths.

Socialism is soluble with capitalism.

If it makes money (or some equivalent) then you can't own it. Parents aren't necessarily, if you're supported so that you can invent for the betterment of society or for fun.

Dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a temporary phase, but it is a fundamental weak point in the transition to communism that I think cannot be overcome, because once people get that power, they won't be able to give it up (or they'll be removed by people who don't want to give it up).

So I consider communism sort of an unattainable ideal that we should strive towards rather than actually considering implementing irl.

I'll never understand how owning guns is normalized.

You could have a personal garden, but to have a farm you'd have to obtain a lot of land. Then you'd have to make the land productive with either large and resource hungry machinery i.e. capital or you'd have to obtain and exploit the labor of farm workers to work by hand.

That's a paddlin'

I don't think most communists would have a problem with people trading crops that they grow themselves. The problem comes in when someone hires employees to grow more crops for them, starts collecting profits, and grows the farm even bigger. All under the expectation that they own everything that their employees worked for. Cause that's literally capitalism on a small scale.

Of course it needs to be possible for multiple people to come together and start growing crops, but only as long as no single person can take over the entire operation. Leaders would be elected, and be given a somewhat higher salary to reflect the additional responsibility.

My country used to have communism. Niche shops like this barely ever started as small businesses and instead usually started out as specialized departments of large all-encompassing state corporations. Instead of there being a company that specialized in making furniture, the furniture would be made by the logging company. The company that ran a chemical plant would directly sell shampoos, paints, toothpaste, fertillizer, etc. It cut out middle men but the products were usually crap quality because it couldn't focus on each product individually. This stifled progress. My dad wanted to learn programming (this was the late 80s) but because the government was too oldschool to open a computer science degree programme, the only way to get near a computer was to go to a university that specialized in mining and take a programme in mining machine automation.

Well if the comminity really wanted a unicycle repair shop everyone chips in to build the shop, and gets the equipment or the state directly decides you need a unicycle repair shop.

Although you and a few of your buddies could decide to make a unicycle repair co-operative. You don't have enough money so. You go to the credit union to get extra starting funds, you then use these funds to contract out the building of the shop as you are unicycle repairers by trade. You then get all the equipment and run it as a co-operative.

There are many ways to run a co-operative and in the begining you and your friends are probably going to split the profits directly using your equal shares to recieve divedends. If it takes off and you start needing to hire people, you may start having salary bands instead so everyone will always make X amount of money working with you depending on their position, but will also make a variable amount from dividends depending on the unicycle repair excess profits and might also have a say in how things are run.

This is a more general left-wing idea which can happen in many left-wing, socialist, and communist societies, rather than just communist.

The line? When you start selling things to people en mass. One or two custom things you sell occasionally? Workshop. Start setting up production lines and hiring people? Now it's for the people

Yes. What this is saying is large industries that are meant to feed people or provide commodities cannot belong to just one person. We are seeing the effects of monopolization right now in our time.