# Which type is most likely to be communist according to you



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

vote


----------



## backdrop12 (Dec 11, 2012)

ENFPs /INTJS are a tie with me on this :3.


----------



## Exquisitor (Sep 15, 2015)

Just drawing from my own experience, the kind of anti-intellectual, propagandistic moral busybodies and misled activists I've known who were actual revolutionary Marxists who wanted to bring about communism tended to be ENFJs and ESFJs, at least the biggest proponents. The followers in the group were more like ISFPs and ISFJs, maybe some ISTPs.


----------



## PalmKing214 (Dec 5, 2016)

In my experience, INTP's but ENFJ sounds like a pretty fitting type for a communist revolutionary


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Uh, in the real world I don't think there is necessarily a type per-say.

It's not something that you're "likely to be" as if some people are more genetically prone to having it like a characteristics, or personal preference; it's something many people come to conclusion on based off their personal experiences and much deliberate thought and readings of the subjects.

It's kind of stupid, go to a political theory course and take some classes, I'm sure they are all not a specific type but people from all kinds of backgrounds. In some places it's almost kind of a cultural thing and what they are taught and learned about as children. by parents or teachers.


----------



## Lunaena (Nov 16, 2013)

ShadowsRunner said:


> Uh, in the real world I don't think there is necessarily a type per-say.
> 
> It's not something that you're "likely to be" as if some people are more genetically prone to having it like a characteristics, or personal preference; it's something many people come to conclusion on based off their personal experiences and much deliberate thought and readings of the subjects.
> 
> It's kind of stupid, go to a political theory course and take some classes, I'm sure they are all not a specific type but people from all kinds of backgrounds. In some places it's almost kind of a cultural thing and what they are taught and learned about as children. by parents or teachers.


Yes, it is very different views taught over the world. I have noticed many Americans are negative towards communists and may use it as a bad name for someone, while in my country it is just a political standpoint and it does not have a negative meaning. Socialist in this country is a positive word while I think most Americans I have spoken to think of socialist as a bad word. 

I might be wrong, this is just from my observations.


----------



## SimplyRivers (Sep 5, 2015)

It would be hard to classify this by type, but just based off of stereotypes. I would say INFJ or ENFJ. The intuition would provide the radicalness. I would feel like you would need Fe and communism usually means everyone thinking aligned to one sort of thinking. 

Though, the above still doesn't make sense, because that just describes extremism of any kind.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Only cuz of the character Wolfie an ENFP :biggrin:


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

A test in college told me I was a communist, then everyone started calling me Hitler. Don't even know what it is.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

I am not sure there is a type, but I think the most broad appeal may belong to *INFP*s if not *ENFP*s.

The whole work according to your ability and take what you need is quite idealistic, even romantic about human nature, and in my personal view not very practical. I view *XNFP*s as the most susceptible to strong idealism.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

This isn't type related, as anyone can be a communist. All a communist is, is a proletarian who has class consciousness.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

TheSonderer said:


> This isn't type related, as anyone can be a communist. All a communist is, is a proletarian who has class consciousness.


most people will say: a communist, hell no. that's crazy. Never of my life
you say: this isn't type related


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

TheSonderer said:


> This isn't type related, as anyone can be a communist. All a communist is, is a proletarian who has class consciousness.


Wow, this is rich. Chalk my vote up for whatever type this guy is.


----------



## sriracha (Sep 19, 2010)

wtf?! 

INFP is winning. And it looks like communism is an N thing.


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

Lakigigar said:


> most people will say: a communist, hell no. that's crazy. Never of my life
> you say: this isn't type related


I'm not following you at all.



Dante Scioli said:


> Wow, this is rich. Chalk my vote up for whatever type this guy is.


This is rich? That's all that it really means essentially. I mean of course you would only know that if you've taken the time to read about the subject, and not just regurgitating cold war propaganda.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

With INFPs or ENFPs and maybe INTPs we are screwed in Capitalism, our mindset does not conform to its rigid framework so it should not be surprising if we look to other systems. 

Especially this one which would be less harsh on us in giving us all our own free homes, transport, food, healthcare and guaranteeing us a job. While we can enjoy our inner worlds in security, even if our mindset sucks at the job market in a Socialist system still atleast we will still have order and those basic needs regardless. Even should they be quite low budget or minimum. No need to even buy a car to get to places further away.

No need to worry, just dream, dream and explore your rich inner world until the end of time. How _beautiful_. It would feel like growing wings and flying away.

Pesky high bills, difficulty to find jobs and housing prices would pester you no longer. Thats for certain. 

I think the expectation for the leadership roles or positions in a Socialist society though is to be either an ISFJ or INFJ/ENFJ. Because being as nurturing as possible is a MUST in any decision-making roles within a Socialist, you have to be able to cater to recognize and look after the needs of all people. If you don't have those qualities you would not be able to do those positions or jobs properly under Socialism. Most to all leadership positions would end up being flooded by ISFJs yeah.

This inspiring me to ask this, I wonder how a society with an ISFJ government ruling over INFPs would look like?



sriracha said:


> INFP is winning. And it looks like communism is an N thing.


Also a very type 6 and 1 Enneagram thing for sensors whom are. Order, Security and no also no gaps for you to fall through in society. The Free Housing, preceded by also free food, healthcare, transport, education and absolute guarantee of being given a job if you can't find one I mentioned earlier. You will still be given a role in society no matter who you are.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

I would say, that Pe doms after mild brainwash


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

TheSonderer said:


> This is rich? That's all that it really means essentially. I mean of course you would only know that if you've taken the time to read about the subject, and not just regurgitating cold war propaganda.


I really have a distaste for explaining obvious things.



TheSonderer said:


> This isn't type related, as anyone can be a communist. All a communist is, is a proletarian who has class consciousness.


Communist = proletarian + class consciousness

Class consciousness = awareness of one's position in the Marxist concepts of social class and class struggle

You are saying that anyone who becomes aware of Marxist ideology automatically becomes a Marxist. That is rich.

Any manner of cult can use that same reasoning to justify to its members that they are righteous and that their cause is not about winning converts or persuading people to adopt their philosophy but simply about revealing truths and dispelling ignorance.

Honest reasoning: "Oh look, indigenous pagans. I'll convert them to Christianity."
Dishonest reasoning: "Oh look, these poor savages are ignorant of Christ. I'll bring them the Good News."



"All a Christian is, is a person who has heard the Good News."

That's what you sound like.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

PalmKing214 said:


> In my experience, INTP's but ENFJ sounds like a pretty fitting type for a communist revolutionary


Your experience is worth jack shit.

I'm also still trying to find the second asshole who filthened the intellectual purity of my brotherhood.

If I could, I'd vote for every type except for INTP, just because of this unforgivable crime.

There are way more leftist SJs and SPs out there anyway, than us INTPs.

...

If only you understood the deep scar of hatred I hold towards communism...


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

Dante Scioli said:


> I really have a distaste for explaining obvious things.


I'm sorry it wasn't so obvious to me. All you said was "Wow, this is rich" which could have meant anything as far as I was concerned.



> "All a Christian is, is a person who has heard the Good News."
> 
> That's what you sound like.


I don't know why you think so. All I'm saying is that a communist is somebody who understands class relations. It's like saying a physicist is someone who understands physics, or a veterinarian is someone who understands animal healthcare.


----------



## Dante Scioli (Sep 3, 2012)

TheSonderer said:


> I don't know why you think so. All I'm saying is that a communist is somebody who understands class relations. It's like saying a physicist is someone who understands physics, or a veterinarian is someone who understands animal healthcare.


Lol, understanding communism doesn't make you automatically a communist. I hope you can see why, because it _is_ obvious.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

INFPs dominating the polls at 12 out of 28 votes, with 2nd place being INTJs with 3 out of 28, wowsers.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

I suspect one's socioeconomic background has an awful lot more to do with it than mbti. I would rule out anybody who received a private school education, for starters. Best you'll get out of them is champagne socialists. I fucking hate champagne socialists, who wear the colours of the radical left as though they were wearing a designer trenchcoat; bought and paid for, to be discarded at the change of season and the arrival of the latest fashions. How can we hope to succeed when our ideologies and symbols themselves have become commodities in the crapitalist system? The revolution won't be sold!

We need to do like street gangs did back in the day and put hands on them for flagging our colours, who gave them permission? If our colours are not respected and feared our whole movements are weakened. Communists can have red and yellow, we Jacobins will take black and red, environmentalists can take green. Any other far left movements? Well we have the entire spectrum available, except purple (which is the colour of royalty, our sworn enemies), white (it's weak), and blue and all shades of blue (it seems to be the colour of the bourgeoise and the status quo) so it shouldn't be a problem


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

It's hard for me to say but I think that INFPs are some of the most idealistic of MBTI types, and thus one of the most likely types to be drawn to communism's allure. But the leaders of communism, just like the leaders of any revolutionary groups really, are going to made up of ENFJs and ENTJs as those types are the ones which make inspiring speeches and rally followers around them.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

TheSonderer said:


> I'm sorry it wasn't so obvious to me. All you said was "Wow, this is rich" which could have meant anything as far as I was concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you think so. All I'm saying is that a communist is somebody who understands class relations. It's like saying a physicist is someone who understands physics, or a veterinarian is someone who understands animal healthcare.


I can't believe I just read that.

_Communism_ means "understanding class relations"?

Give me a fucking break.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

ArmchairCommie said:


> It's hard for me to say but I think that INFPs are some of the most idealistic of MBTI types, and thus one of the most likely types to be drawn to communism's allure. But the leaders of communism, *just like the leaders of any revolutionary groups really, are going to made up of ENFJs and ENTJs as those types are the ones which make inspiring speeches and rally followers around them.*


_INxJs as well._

INTJs: Martin Luther, Otto von Bismarck, Vladimir Lenin, Bernie Sanders.

INFJs: Mahatma Gandhi, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden.


Jesus was also arguably one of these types.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya (Sep 2, 2014)

ENJs, extroverts in general, are much more likely to support the status quo. It falls to us introverts to force the issue and seize the initiative. The extroverts will fall in line once we have made the idea of revolution something popular, something that satisfies the extrovert's primal need for shallow bonding within vast crowds of people. At its onset however these kinds of movements are too obscure, underground and undermanned to attract extroverts. Extroverts won't do anything unless they become aware that lots of people are doing it.


----------



## Exquisitor (Sep 15, 2015)

Taj Badalandabad said:


> ENJs, extroverts in general, are much more likely to support the status quo. It falls to us introverts to force the issue and seize the initiative. The extroverts will fall in line once we have made the idea of revolution something popular, something that satisfies the extrovert's primal need for shallow bonding within vast crowds of people. At its onset however these kinds of movements are too obscure, underground and undermanned to attract extroverts. Extroverts won't do anything unless they become aware that lots of people are doing it.


What the hell are you talking about? In my stupider days I was actually part of a revolutionary Marxist group, the biggest one in my country, and it was made up of about 50/50 introverts/extroverts, with extroverts as all the leaders and organisers. Extroverts don't "support the status quo". There isn't a single dominant function in the MBTI which you could correlate with that. If an extrovert believes Marx was right 
* *




(god forbid they learn any actual economics, Marx neither did any empirical research nor took the opportunity to learn from anyone who had, the guy spent all his time in London supposedly "observing the struggles of the proletariat" without ever stepping into a factory or even fully learning English to debate with his peers, and let Engels ghostwrite columns for him to financially support his long-term refusal to work, to research or to publish)


 then that extrovert is going to support the system that they believe in, not the system that they see as wrong.

Most of the time, extroverts are the ones taking Marx's warped logic and saying "okay we have to start changing the world NOW so let's all get out there and yell about it and give out pamphlets!" while the introverts mostly follow along or become keyboard warriors. Extroverts have the extra confidence and energy and excitement when it comes to taking risks and drawing attention to themselves, which often allows them to be the most effective _challengers_ of the status quo.

Your characterisation is so backwards that I'm confused about how you came to the conclusion.

And this isn't related to the topic (typing would-be communists), but _god_ I'm glad that in the first world revolutionary ideas aren't popular and don't look like they ever will be. It was a startling relief when I stepped out of my bubble and realised how many people support capitalism not because they're the despotic elitists or ignorant slaves I was told but because it's a system that works and is actually making the world a better and better place.

Even with rising wealth inequality (the rich getting richer), global poverty is in an ongoing trend of _decline_ (the poor getting less poor) and quality of life is actually rising among the most desperate people, more and more as the terrible places to live embrace functional elements of capitalism. You won't find these statistics in a Marxist propaganda piece, but unfortunately they undermine the entire premise that capitalism is a socially destructive force and show how it is functionally better than anything which came before or since, including several failed socialist experiments that began with the best intentions and ended in the most inhumane disasters, because they ran counter to all the economic and social principles which neutral researchers have worked hard to understand (and in the process, become staunch capitalists themselves; Marshall and Friedman are two in particular who began rigorously investigating economics because of compassionate social concerns, and made huge contributions to the field, ultimately seeing for themselves the transformative power of free-market capitalism and becoming proponents of it).


----------



## ArmchairCommie (Dec 27, 2015)

Endologic said:


> _INxJs as well._
> 
> INTJs: Martin Luther, Otto von Bismarck, Vladimir Lenin, Bernie Sanders.
> 
> ...


I agree that some INxJs were revolutionary leaders as well, though I don't see how MLK could be an introvert, I'm pretty sure he was an ENFJ.



Taj Badalandabad said:


> ENJs, extroverts in general, are much more likely to support the status quo. It falls to us introverts to force the issue and seize the initiative. The extroverts will fall in line once we have made the idea of revolution something popular, something that satisfies the extrovert's primal need for shallow bonding within vast crowds of people. At its onset however these kinds of movements are too obscure, underground and undermanned to attract extroverts. Extroverts won't do anything unless they become aware that lots of people are doing it.


I respectfully disagree, when you look at historical figures like Napoleon, an ENTJ, or MLK, an ENFJ, you can see that extroverts are often at the forefront of the revolution. In fact, ExxPs are arguably some of the most rebellious types of them all, including people such as Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and most famously Donald Trump. So while introverts may often be the thinkers which identify the need for revolution, it is often extroverts who spark that revolution and attract people to the cause.


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

ArmchairCommie said:


> I agree that some INxJs were revolutionary leaders as well, though I don't see how *MLK* could be an introvert, I'm pretty sure he was an ENFJ.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Capitalism and Communism are both just basically the saaaaaaaaaaaaaaame thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing, aaaaaaaaaaaaahh,

Two-sides of the same coin. It's pretty sad that so many people protest the general idea of "sharing" whatsoever. Really, it's just completely in the land of myth's and fairytales? but then again, there's a lot of really greedy communists out there. Ideologies are only just that, a way to sell people on something. Screw your ideological fascism


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)




----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

INFPs are built into communism. They are the people who can't stand the bureaucracy.


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Exquisitor said:


> Even with rising wealth inequality (the rich getting richer), global poverty is in an ongoing trend of _decline_ (the poor getting less poor) and quality of life is actually rising among the most desperate people, more and more as the terrible places to live embrace functional elements of capitalism. You won't find these statistics in a Marxist propaganda piece, but unfortunately they undermine the entire premise that capitalism is a socially destructive force and show how it is functionally better than anything which came before or since, including several failed socialist experiments that began with the best intentions and ended in the most inhumane disasters, because they ran counter to all the economic and social principles which neutral researchers have worked hard to understand (and in the process, become staunch capitalists themselves; Marshall and Friedman are two in particular who began rigorously investigating economics because of compassionate social concerns, and made huge contributions to the field, ultimately seeing for themselves the transformative power of free-market capitalism and becoming proponents of it).
> 
> And this isn't related to the topic (typing would-be communists), but god I'm glad that in the first world revolutionary ideas aren't popular and don't look like they ever will be. It was a startling relief when I stepped out of my bubble and realised how many people support capitalism not because they're the despotic elitists or ignorant slaves I was told but because it's a system that works and is actually making the world a better and better place.


First thing is first, its time you learned that we live in a multicultural globalized world, nobody should have to all look up to and respect your colonialist enforced Capitalist/Anglo-Christian way of life as "superior". Now for the rest it is only with regulations that it seemed that it got better, if you want real Capitalism go and try living in the 1800s. See what it was like to work in a factory or any labor industry in general, because those times will be slowly coming back with neo-liberalism. Try working in a third-world sweatshop for once. Because the first world in general is inherently reactionary and of course they support the imperial system that gives them more wealth/benefits. When the third world manages to break free of first world outsourcing you just watch support for Capitalism plummet, Donald Trump is already doing that fortunately and next thing he will do is roll back the regulations that protect Capitalism from a stock market crash. The 1930s were the best times for all communist parties around the world. 

A system that does not guarantee jobs nor free food, housing, transport, healthcare and yet can provide it to criminals in jail for some reason but never law-abiding citizens. All of which any attempts of Socialism have achieved. There is more to gain than to lose from socialism.

Can't find a job? Apply for one and be assigned one suited for you and what you like. Rapid industrialization policies(That don't exist in Capitalism) would create many jobs really fast at the same time.

Can't afford food? Apply for rations which don't cost anything?

Can't afford needed healthcare? Free to you without any charge.

Can't afford the home or bills? They are cheap in Socialism and you can also apply for free housing that does not cost you anything. Fuck the demands of real estate and body-corporate owners.

Transport? Development of infrastructure is so fast that trains, buses and any forms of public transport can take you anyway which you do not have to pay for by the way. No need for even cars. I would personally forfeit or be willing to put up on trade(sellout) *literally* anything/everything to live in such a comfortable alternate society that does not go against what is right if there was a deal for it in which I had to give up whatever was stated in exchange. A society of plenty with no monopolies on anything in life where surviving does not need competition.

None of which any form of Capitalism can all give to you, and those are why people support Socialism. No other system can give you those. Also Capitalism in general is a living hell for all INFPs.

Even Medieval Feudalism was also better than Capitalism by the way in every aspect of life. "Survival of the fittest/Every man for himself"(Which does not guarantee the necessary survival of good people btw) is an evil philosophy to apply to society. The group and collective is far superior to the individual in surviving. Capitalism sacrifices what is right for supposed "efficiency" in those benefiting from the exploitation.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

whichever type doesn't understand economics or history the most


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Toru Okada said:


> whichever type doesn't understand economics or history the most


How about some history not written by the winners or conservatives for a change? We live in a globalized multicultural society and different ways of life/beliefs need to be accepted. Perhaps its time you learn some tolerance and catch up from your backwards position on the world?

Everybody who supports it knows Socialism has been proven to be able to achieve rapid industrialization within a plan of 5 years and create a system where jobs, housing, food, healthcare, transport, homes are available to all people with 0 homelessness or employment rates. No system in history can or has ever done that. Whichever type understands this the most supports "Communism"(As ideology), especially people who can think for themselves without needing to rely on intuition according to what other brainwashed people have said about it.

How do these things above "kill" people compared to the actual system inside Capitalism(Excluding the PEOPLE with their own interests in leadership positions) that do? If anything "Communism" caused more 'overpopulation problems' for some countries by expanding the life expectancy to be very high in an extremely fast manner which is good:















If Capitalism is so much about "freedom" then where is the option to shoot at the people coming onto your property to seize all your personal belongings + evict you in order to defend them from theft? Or the option to opt out and still survive competing? None, it is all mandatory. Try another Orlando property occupation or Paris Commune and you will see. Why can't you at the very least set up special "planned economy zones"(Similar to Auroville) where people who don't want to participate in Capitalism can move into and live in, and freely move out if they don't like it? Once again shows Capitalism is forced.

People who support the Socialist system want to tunnel out and escape from Capitalism but furthermore this shows its your side of people the conservatives that are hostile ones to others pursuing their self-interest who didn't even have you in the image from the first place.


----------



## ElectricSlime (Nov 25, 2016)

Chara said:


> Everybody who supports it knows Socialism has been proven to be able to achieve rapid industrialization within a plan of 5 years and create a system where jobs, housing, food, healthcare, transport, homes are available to all people with 0 homelessness or employment rates. No system in history can or has ever done that. Whichever type understands this the most supports "Communism"(As ideology), especially people who can think for themselves without needing to rely on intuition according to what other brainwashed people have said about it.


>Attacks capitalism from a moral standpoint for how many people it has ruined
>Proceeds to bring up Stalin's five year plans as a proof of efficiency in favor of socialism/communism

wat.

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to apply a value judgement on a situation, you have to apply it to yourself as well. Socialism wasn't around for that long and applied almost only to the USSR for the most part, yet it managed to bring down between 10 and 20 million people merely under Stalin's rule. Now I'm not denying how "efficient" his methods were (which is usually not brought up in history books) but it doesn't have its place here considering you're arguing socialism's righteousness as well.

As for your stats about "deaths caused by capitalism", please don't put every right wing country into the same box as the U.S and their nonsensical wars. Also that's ultimately a matter of opinion, but i believe developed countries don't have the responsibility to babysitt the underdeveloped ones. Of course it's a shame that innocent people suffer in third world countries, and there are more and more help programs for them, but each country has its own problems to take care of first before tending to others' shit. And no not every poor country is poor because of the way the planet distributed its climates and resources, some just didn't have the innovation to fulfill their potential like some others did. I'm not about to lend money to a neighbor if my family is barely eating. To add to this, here's a life-changing revelation -> There aren't enough resources to take care of everyone on Earth.



> If Capitalism is so much about "freedom" then where is the option to shoot at the people coming onto your property to seize all your personal belongings + evict you in order to defend them from theft?


Capitalism is about free market and right of property, it doesn't remove laws, government and society. That's anarcho capitalism. Even Libertarianism doesn't take it this far. You have responsibilities as an individual, and where there is the opportunity to win there is also opportunity to fail. You have to pay your debts somehow and assume the consequences of your actions. That's not theft. Unless you also believe society has the responsibility to bring success to people for them and protect them from failure ? Yes there are holes in the system which allow greedy individuals to take advantage from people who don't know better (just as socialism tends to turn into a negative dictatorship) and we have to fix them, doesn't mean we should switch the whole system for a worse one.

Your sources of authority aren't particularly convincing either, I can just as much go and post a series of videos from Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (actual authorities in economics that have worked their whole lives in search of the better/least worse system) debunking socialism.

Anyway, I don't support capitalism because I'm a greedy white supremacist conservative (fuck the U.S political system anyway), but because I support innovation and believe in having the right to buy what I feel I need, the right to make profit from my own products and the efficiency of management in business. Besides, the only thing all humans inherit is their drive for survival and acting (mostly) in their interest. Relying solely on people's goodwill to make a society function would make it stale. If you want an authority on the subject, just look up Maslow's hierarchy of needs or Hertzberg's hygienes and motivators.

Edit: Now I don't reject everything in socialism, several "socialist" regulations would help capitalism function more fairly in the future and create better opportunities for everyone. I also believe that some government involvement in the economy is a good thing. Things aren't black and white.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Not that i'm certain that support for communist ideology necessarily requires one disposing with of moralizing. But Marx, a significant proponent of communism, was distinct in not exactly offering a moral criticism of capitalism. Though in the process of trying to explain it's essence, does cast evaluative judgement on it that can't be disentangled from factual claims.

* *





SUSAN M. EASTON - FACTS, VALUES AND MARXISM


> Marx's critique of capitalism is derived from his account of the workings of capitalism rather than from abstract moral principles. Society is always changing. As it changes so does its own standards of justice. The exploitation characteristic of relationships between men in capitalist society cannot therefore be construed as unjust. Nor can this exploitation be removed by the demand for and extension of human rights or an appeal to absolute moral principles. Indeed Marx was highly suspicious of the abstract ideals of the French Revolution which he thought would serve to divert the working class away from its historical role as the agent of social change. If each mode of production has its own standards of justice we cannot say that Communism is better or more just than capitalism, as Taylor, Allen and Kline, each in their own way, imply. If there is no external moral standard against which different societies may be measured, the Communist society described by Marx cannot be seen as a better alternative. Nor can Marx be seen as advancing a moral theory. On the contrary he argues that "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development conditioned by it". 26 What comes with Communism is a new mode of production with its own peculiar judicial and moral institutions and practices. It will not be more or less just than capitalism but simply appropriate to that particular way of life.
> ...
> From the foregoing discussion we can note that whilst Marx transcends the fact-value distinction he embraces neither a scientistic approach nor a moral theory. Rather he gives a sociological account of morality, illustrating that description and evaluation cannot be separated and that juridical conceptions need to be understood in relation to the mode of production in which they arise, s° In the absence of an absolute notion of justice it is mistaken to see Marx as offering a critique of capitalism based on moral principles. Of course Marx had reasons for attacking capitalism but these are contained within his account of the capitalist mode of production. Yet whilst this theory is not a moral theory it cannot be described as a descriptive theory either. In Marx's work description and evaluation cannot be meaningfully separated.
> 
> In portraying Communist society as the solution to problems generated within capitalist society Marx is not sketching out a picture of a morally superior society but rather considering the possibilities of an alternative way of life with its own moral and judicial standards. Indeed the fact that Marx did not provide blueprints for future Communist society is itself symptomatic of his awareness of the difficulties involved in the attempt to describe in detail a form of social life based upon principles different from our own.


Marx's approach I don't believe isn't so easily subject to the sort of fact/value distinction.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/ethic.php


> The logical distinction which is said to exist between facts and values is founded on the belief that it is possible to conceive of one without the other. Given a particular fact, the argument runs, one may without contradiction attach any value to it. The fact itself does not entail a specific value. Historically the view that moral beliefs are contingent has tended to go along with the view that they are also arbitrary. On this model, all judgment depends in the last instance on the independent se of values which each individual, for reasons best known to himself, brings to the situation. The ethical premise is not only a final arbiter but a mysterious one, defying sociological and even psychological analysis. Though some recent defenders of orthodoxy have sought to muddle the distinction between fact and value with talk of 'context', 'function', 'real reference', 'predisposition', etc., the logical line drawn in conception remains. Yet, if one cannot conceive of anything one chooses to call a fact (because it is an open ended relation) without bringing in evaluative elements (and vice versa), the very problem orthodox thinkers have set out to answer cannot be posed.
> 
> Moreover, on Marx's view, the real judgments which are made in any situation are a function of that situation and the particular individuals active in it. Thus, the very notion that it is logically permissible to take any attitude toward a given 'fact' is itself a judgment inherent in the circumstances out of which it emerges. Rather than being logically independent of what is, any choice—as well as the idea that one has a choice is linked by innumerable threads to the real world, including the life, class interests, and character of the person acting. Judgments can never be severed, neither practically nor logically, from their contexts and the number of real alternatives which they allow. In this perspective, what is called the fact-value distinction, appears as a form of self-deception, an attempt to deny what has already been done by claiming that it could not have been done or still remains to do.
> 
> ...





And this is where I came to look upon the defenses of the USSR for its industrialization and such as wrongly situated, that it seems to justify itself based on an instrumental point which doesn't seem that distinctively socialist in that both a capitalist and socialists see the necessity of expanding productive capacities. Though their ideology might change the manner in which they implement it, though both are still necessarily restricted by real world conditions. 
Discussing things purely in a instrumental or moralistic fashion doesn't seem to capture the thought of Marx which doesn't view things in such a fragmented sense that is typical to thought under capitalism. 

I personally would treat most with suspicion in their appraisal of Marx on the basis that he is fucking hard to understand in a rather conscious way. That trying to develop the sort of dialectical materialist perspective he has in a conscious way is no simple nor easy task. And from this, many have misinterpreted Marx because they don't understand his own philosophical perspective/worldview, ending up with all sorts of criticisms that don't seem to really fit, like being an economic determinist. 

And I think many of the criticisms that many try to apply to communists necessarily apply to supporters of other things. That people seem to often be arguing purely in the ideological/cultural realm where they find their position exemplified. Though it would seem that many would arguably support the very same means but to different ends given the right conditions. They would all fall to the same rationalizations to feel secure in their perspective, we all do. We have an ideological layer that seems necessary to human function of which none of us can escape, always within some ideological frame, its just which one do we see the world through. And it would seem that to me, that peoples philosophical views are already within them through their experience of the world. We simply refine what we are already disposed towards, though it's a bit more complicated than as I've expressed it here of course, with the human subject not being well understood.

Generally I think it difficult to use MBTI as the primary variable in determining preferences as I think there are more significant determinants of one's world view and that Myers-Briggs Types might be negligible or the means of measuring MBTI so difficult that one couldn't confidently posit it more than speculation. 
Speculation like whether superman would beat the hulk in a fight, one could make an effluent argument but I'm not sure there's a way to resolve it with a particular answer. But this has been very interesting regardless for the strong turn out in voting for INFPs.
And I wonder if this beyond people associating communism with idealistic (not philsophical idealism), that there are INFPs on here that are visibly associated with such views and so there is sort of a stronger bias towards them in being associated.
But I would posit that whilst many INFPs might like imagining what communism would be like if actualized. I think they are in for some serious disillusionment if they engage with Marx's thought and have to consider the process of actualizing it. Abstract fantasies might be common within the dreamer sentiment of INFPs, but I don't believe Marx's thought is really amicable to simply dreaming shit out of no where as much as people like to characterize him as Utopian. His thought is explicitly concrete in its focus. To which one could attempt to criticize his view of the concrete but he certainly wasn't an idealist in the philosophical sense. 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#p48


> Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.


So people dreaming up fantasy lands need to cut the shit hehe


----------



## Hero of Freedom (Nov 23, 2014)

Wellsy said:


> And I wonder if this beyond people associating communism with idealistic (not philsophical idealism), that there are INFPs on here that are visibly associated with such views and so there is sort of a stronger bias towards them in being associated.
> But I would posit that whilst many INFPs might like imagining what communism would be like if actualized. I think they are in for some serious disillusionment if they engage with Marx's thought and have to consider the process of actualizing it. Abstract fantasies might be common within the dreamer sentiment of INFPs, but I don't believe Marx's thought is really amicable to simply dreaming shit out of no where as much as people like to characterize him as Utopian. His thought is explicitly concrete in its focus. To which one could attempt to criticize his view of the concrete but he certainly wasn't an idealist in the philosophical sense.
> 
> https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#p48
> ...


Not intending to criticize but just giving my insights.

You can still "idealize" having a society which no longer contradicts what is right, that people would call "values"? Where there is no more pressure to compete in order to survive, just drift into the inner world and stay there in peace/order knowing everything is alright. The goal and party name is "Communist" but the actual system is just a form of Socialism or Marxism-Leninism run by a "Communist Party".

And I'm not implying the USSR was perfect but certainly less cruel of a place to live than Capitalism or "the lesser bad". If your mindset doesn't conform to the economic system you can still have a basic form of housing to not have to live in the streets and a job to keep you going. Socialism spares you(Even if all you get is low budget stuff at worst but still sufficient enough for you to live), Capitalism is "no mercy for you, survival of the fittest only".


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

d


Chara said:


> You can still "idealize" having a society which no longer contradicts what is right, that people would call "values". Where there is no more pressure to compete in order to survive, just drift into the inner world and stay there in peace/order knowing everything is alright. The goal and party name is "Communist" but the actual system is just a form of Socialism or Marxism-Leninism run by a "Communist Party".
> 
> And I'm not implying the USSR was perfect but certainly less cruel of a place to live than Capitalism. If your mindset doesn't conform to the economic system you can still have a basic form of housing to not have to live in the streets and a job to keep you going. Socialism spares you, Capitalism is "no mercy for you, survival of the fittest only".


Indeed, I would say such an idealization may even be necessary for a lot of human action, and this is where no matter the ideology, one uses propaganda to agitate action. That touching peoples emotions and arguing for them is useful in prompting people to consider alternative perspectives, like using immanent critique of liberalism in its lack of content to then prompt further thought.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/ssr_ch05_content.php


> Becoming a socialist is obviously a process that varies with each person, but judging from my own frequent but highly informal inquiries there are certain experiences and insights that have a disproportionate influence in triggering or speeding up this transformation. Among these experiences are the following: undergoing a particularly brutal example of capitalist exploitation (or seeing it happen to one's parents or other loved one); becoming involved in radical political activity, even of a minor sort, and being treated as a socialist by others (it is surprising how many comrades told me that they only knew they were socialists or were becoming socialists when people who disagreed with them said as much); living socialist relationships and finding them humanly more satisfying; having socialist friends and coming to take their assumptions for granted; knowing a socialist whose wisdom or kindness or courage one admires. Among the intellectual events that constitute major breakthroughs in the process of becoming a socialist there are the realizations that one has been consistently lied to; that the personal oppression from which one suffers is shared by others and is socially determined; that the path on which society is traveling leads to economic and social disaster; that the problems of capitalism are inter-related and cannot be solved individually; that classes exist and the class struggle is real; and that the socialist ideal represents a morally superior way of life. *This last shows that even though ethics has no place in Marxism (see Lecture 4), people may come to Marxism by an ethical route.*


That our desire for things that don't exist are an incredibly powerful force of propelling action within people. 

* *




This helps illustrate such a tendency in a particular example.








I have inquired with others their thoughts about the importance of revolutionary spirit, hope, the importance of having a love for working class people but also capable of being rational in one's assessment of things and not spurred purely by passion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/03/man-socialism.htm


> At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality. Perhaps it is one of the great dramas of the leader that he or she must combine a passionate spirit with a cold intelligence and make painful decisions without flinching. Our vanguard revolutionaries must idealize this love of the people, of the most sacred causes, and make it one and indivisible. They cannot descend, with small doses of daily affection, to the level where ordinary people put their love into practice.


But I wished to illustrate to onlookers clearly that their sense of Communism being starry eyed dreams born out of moral ideals is mistaken as Marxism can't be so simply characterized. 

Some more bits to further emphasize this point

* *





http://sci-hub.cc/10.1007/BF01043575


> *A. Servitude: Scientific Description or Moral Evaluation? *
> Words such as 'servitude' and 'exploitation', one could argue, have a role in our language analagous to that occupied by terms such as 'liar' and 'thief' insofar as each combines factual and evaluative elements. For Engels, as we saw earlier, exploitation was a technical term used to describe the relationship between capitalist and worker. But it could also be seen as expressing certain values. For there is no way in which exploitation may be explained without containing pejorative notions. To understand how to employ this concept in the context of Marx's theories of surplus value is to understand what is wrong with an economic and political system. Just as one acquires the appropriate values in learning the correct use of the word 'liar', so one can be said to acquire a certain attitude towards capitalism when one learns the usage of concepts such as 'servitude', 'pauperization', 'ruling class', 'alienation' and 'surplus value'. The difference is that whilst for Phillips and Mounce one learns how to employ terms such as 'thief', 'liar' and so on in the course of conforming to society, Marx held that terms such as 'servitude' are acquired in learning how to transform capitalist society. But both share the view that moral concepts are acquired in human activity rather than in the speculations of philosophy. Marx often referred to servitude and alienation in describing capitalism and accepted that these were good reasons for attacking it. But he never advanced an additional philosophical argument to show why these factors would constitute good reasons for condemning it,just as Phillips and Mounce argue that we require no further argument to establish that lying is bad. No doubt Marx was fully aware that capitalism could not be adequately undermined with an appeal to its own moral criteria. Presumably he felt that the reasons contained in his theory were sufficient. Hence no further appeal to moral principles was necessary to demonstrate the iniquity of capitalism. Given this, the question of whether Marxism is prescriptive or descriptive, moralistic or scientific, is misplaced. This point has been made by Wood in his article 'The Marxian Critique of Justice':
> 
> Marx's own reasons for condemning capitalism are contained in his comprehensive theory of the historical genesis, the organic functioning, and the prognosis of the capitalist mode of production. And this is not itself a moral theory, nor does it include any particular moral principles as such. But neither is it 'merely descriptive', in the tedious philosophical sense which is supposed to make it seem problematic how anything of that sort could ever be a reason for condemning what is so 'described'. There is nothing problematic about saying that disguised exploitation, unnecessary servitude, economic instability, and declining productivity are features of a productive system which constitute good reasons for condemning it.~9
> ...





> Indeed to argue that every man has an unalienable right to appropriate the full value of his labour, and that a denial of this right constitutes an injustice, is anachronistic. For it presupposes a mode of production based on individual private property with each individual producing his own means of production, a mode of production very different from capitalism whose hallmark is the co-operation of men in the work process using the same means of production. Insofar as the extraction of surplus value is the fundamental and defining feature of capitalism, there can be no moral objection to this practice within the framework of a capitalist mode of production. The extraction of surplus value, argues Wood, is just and to try to deprive the capitalist of surplus value is unjust. It would therefore be wrong "to suppose that Marx's critique of capitalism is necessarily rooted in any particular moral or social ideal or principle". The extraction of surplus value is not an abuse of capitalist production or an unfair practice within capitalism that should be abolished. On the contrary, this appropriation is of the essence of capitalism. It cannot be removed by social and political reforms. Only a complete change in the mode of production can remove it and this would involve a transformation of capitalism itself. But if the extraction of surplus value may be defended as just, why did Marx condemn capitalism? Wood responds to this question in the following way:
> 
> It would be extremely naive to suppose that there could be any single, simple answer to such a question. The only genuine answer to it is Marx's comprehensive theory of capitalism as a concrete historical mode of production; for it was as a whole that Marx condemned capitalism, and his condemnation was based on what he believed was a unified and essentially complete analysis of its inner workings and its position in human history. Capitalism, in Marx's view, had performed a valuable historical task in developing social forces of production. He even speaks of this development as the historical 'justification' of capital. But this development had taken place at enormous human cost. Not only had it impoverished the physical existence of the mass of workers whose labour had brought about the development of productive forces, but the intellectual and moral lives of men had been impoverished by it as well. The rapidity of social change under capitalism had created a permanent state of instability and disorder in social relationships which had taken away from human happiness perhaps more than was added by the increase in human productive capacities. But the capitalist era, itself, in Marx's view, was drawing to a close. Marx argued that the capacity of capitalism further to develop the forces of production was meeting with increasing obstacles, obstacles resulting from the organic workings of the capitalist system of production itself. At the same time, and partly as a result of these same obstacles, the human cost of capitalism was growing steadily greater. The interests and needs of fewer and fewer were being served by its continuation, and its preservation was being made more and more difficult by the cumulative effects of its own essential processes. 25
> 
> Marx's critique of capitalism is derived from his account of the workings of capitalism rather than from abstract moral principles. Society is always changing. As it changes so does its own standards of justice. The exploitation characteristic of relationships between men in capitalist society cannot therefore be construed as unjust. Nor can this exploitation be removed by the demand for and extension of human rights or an appeal to absolute moral principles. Indeed Marx was highly suspicious of the abstract ideals of the French Revolution which he thought would serve to divert the working class away from its historical role as the agent of social change. If each mode of production has its own standards of justice we cannot say that Communism is better or more just than capitalism, as Taylor, Allen and Kline, each in their own way, imply. *If there is no external moral standard against which different societies may be measured, the Communist society described by Marx cannot be seen as a better alternative. Nor can Marx be seen as advancing a moral theory. On the contrary he argues that "Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development conditioned by it".* 26 What comes with Communism is a new mode of production with its own peculiar judicial and moral institutions and practices. It will not be more or less just than capitalism but simply appropriate to that particular way of life.


http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/1/VWills_ETD_2011.pdf


> In evaluating specific moral questions, Marx evaluates a whole host of concrete historical factors to reach a conclusion about whether a particular action, principle, movement, etc., is such as to promote or inhibit the realization of human nature and the development of what he calls “rich individuals,” human beings for whom the exercise, development, and expansion of their own capacities is their greatest need, and for whom labor has been transformed from drudgery into “life's prime want.” And so morality, according to Marx, is not mere abstract moralizing, but a scientific analysis of which things are most likely to promote the development of human beings. The morality he develops is thoroughly historical, and so the specific fact of the matter about whether an action or a state of affairs is moral or immoral can be different in different historical situations. However, on Marx's view it is possible to say with a very reasonable degree of accuracy which things are actually likely to promote the development of the “rich individuality” of human beings, and which things are not. This allows Marx to claim an objectivity for the moral judgements that he makes.


And from Engel's, a view on morality.


> We therefore reject every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and for ever immutable ethical law on the pretext that the moral world, too, has its permanent principles which stand above history and the differences between nations. *We maintain on the contrary that all moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time.* And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonisms, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. That in this process there has on the whole been progress in morality, as in all other branches of human knowledge, no one will doubt. But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. *A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life.* And now one can gauge Herr Dühring’s presumption in advancing his claim, from the midst of the old class society and on the eve of a social revolution, to impose on the future classless society an eternal morality independent of time and changes in reality. Even assuming — what we do not know up to now — that he understands the structure of the society of the future at least in its main outlines.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

NF's is an obvious pick. While it's paradoxical that the Fi savior function in INFP's would want a collectivist ideology, I think the answer is more about INFP's lack of success in an ST dominated economic system that makes them yearn for something that would have the potential of benefiting them, even if it wouldn't.


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Infp followed by infp and then infp.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I picked randomly since this isn't a question that I think will correlate with MBTI.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Pretty much xNFPs are the most likely to want to turn the world into a grey sad hellhole and call it beautiful Communism. I have an INFP friend... She's your classic SJW, but it's weird because those are foreign ideas to us here, but somehow they made it all the way here and there is a small audience for things which don't really match anything in our society. Why do people care about minorities living thousands of km away, but at the same time not give a fuck about the issues of people actually living here?

She once described to me her egalitarian Communist idea of a perfect society and I was all like: "Wow! I would die either of boredom or in some forced labour/death camp!"

So, the moral of the story is: don't let xNFPs get into power!


----------



## InfiniteLightvoid (Jul 11, 2018)

Any personality type as long as the person's intelligence is pure AIDS.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Oh well, any political system could work peacefully provided that there's no NTJ to turn it into a silly dictature.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Strelnikov said:


> Pretty much xNFPs are the most likely to want to turn the world into a grey sad hellhole and call it beautiful Communism. I have an INFP friend... She's your classic SJW, but it's weird because those are foreign ideas to us here, but somehow they made it all the way here and there is a small audience for things which don't really match anything in our society. Why do people care about minorities living thousands of km away, but at the same time not give a fuck about the issues of people actually living here?
> 
> She once described to me her egalitarian Communist idea of a perfect society and I was all like: "Wow! I would die either of boredom or in some forced labour/death camp!"
> 
> So, the moral of the story is: don't let xNFPs get into power!


She doesn't deserve you as a friend, if you treat her like that. I don't know in what country you do live, but if you're American, a lot of the most important issues right there are more social rights like: single-payer healthcare, lower college tuition fees, and so on and so on... but people call even that communism... In Europe we have those systems and we gladly enjoy it, and indeed we have a grey sad hellhole calling it communism, and Americans than complain about our country getting invaded by muslims while in fact in their country there are much more death by shootings than there are in our countries death by terrorist attacks.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> She doesn't deserve you as a friend, if you treat her like that. I don't know in what country you do live, but if you're American, a lot of the most important issues right there are more social rights like: single-payer healthcare, lower college tuition fees, and so on and so on... but people call even that communism... In Europe we have those systems and we gladly enjoy it, and indeed we have a grey sad hellhole calling it communism, and Americans than complain about our country getting invaded by muslims while in fact in their country there are much more death by shootings than there are in our countries death by terrorist attacks.


I'm not American, I was born in an actual Communist country and I've seen what Communism does to people first hand, instead of just reading cheap theories like those Western Communist wannabies who think revolution is cool. We know what it's like not to trust your neighbour, because he might snitch you to the Militia or even worse the secret police. My grandfather was a political prisoner under the Communist regime. We don't want to build more canals and use trucks to throw away the dead along with the excavated earth (true story told by a truck driver who after seeing the earth she threw away, saw an arm belonging to a political prisoner coming out of the earth).

Why do you think our countries here in Eastern Europe are poorer than the West? Because of Communism. Communism murdered the educated political leaders and replaced them with illiterate peasants and ruthless murderers. People would be judged not based on what they did, but on their social class... "unhealthy social origins" (that was the euphemism they used). So what you were innocent? Fuck you! You go to jail because your dad is a doctor and you wear glasses! (based on Andrey Vyshnisky's principles of Socialist "justice") Whoever wants to live in a new Gulag should pack and go to North Korea. Good luck! We don't need new Lenins here in Europe! And this includes the self-declared Leninist Steve Bannon... He should go back to his master, Trump!

I'm a European Nationalist. I agree with single-payer healthcare, I agree with lower tuition fees (from an American perspective as I perceive the prices to be there). Yes, we do have these things here in Europe, but that doesn't make us Socialist. That's the garbage Republicans spew about Europe (people like Mitch McConnell or Ann Coulter and other slaves) We, Europeans are on the centre, not on the left and we like it that way. Also, need I remind people that some of the first measures of welfare were right-wing measures, not Marxist garbage. Welfare isn't exclusively a left-wing idea.

PS: And yes, she does deserve a friend like me, because beyond our political differences we respect and appreciate each other. For this reason I chose to stay and take care of her after she had an operation, instead of going to work. Because I value her and our friendship much more than I value money or my career. So unless you stood by us for over a decade of friendship, just shut up! You weren't there and you have no idea what you're talking about!


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm ESTP and I've always been somewhat anti-corporatist (not to be confused with anti-capitalist). 

I despise crony capitalism, lobbying, sweatshop culture, government collusion with corporations and the American Oligarchy.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Strelnikov said:


> I'm not American, I was born in an actual Communist country and I've seen what Communism does to people first hand, instead of just reading cheap theories like those Western Communist wannabies who think revolution is cool. We know what it's like not to trust your neighbour, because he might snitch you to the Militia or even worse the secret police. My grandfather was a political prisoner under the Communist regime. We don't want to build more canals and use trucks to throw away the dead along with the excavated earth (true story told by a truck driver who after seeing the earth she threw away, saw an arm belonging to a political prisoner coming out of the earth).
> 
> Why do you think our countries here in Eastern Europe are poorer than the West? Because of Communism. Communism murdered the educated political leaders and replaced them with illiterate peasants and ruthless murderers. People would be judged not based on what they did, but on their social class... "unhealthy social origins" (that was the euphemism they used). So what you were innocent? Fuck you! You go to jail because your dad is a doctor and you wear glasses! (based on Andrey Vyshnisky's principles of Socialist "justice") Whoever wants to live in a new Gulag should pack and go to North Korea. Good luck! We don't need new Lenins here in Europe! And this includes the self-declared Leninist Steve Bannon... He should go back to his master, Trump!
> 
> ...


than don't mock or ridiciluze her for her political beliefs on the internet.

Western communism is entirely a different idea of the communism we had in the eastern countries. Don't forget you were just basically communist under Russian imperalist influence, but communism can be very different than from what you've experience.

Also, i really doubt you know what you've experienced during the communist age, because you're a generation y-person... and wasn't born yet or at least still very young.

Eastern Europe was by the way ALWAYS poorer than the west.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Well, i don't know the poor condition of the socialist communist country back then. But i have a hunch still better than this:

http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/who-are-bottom-40

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> than don't mock or ridiciluze her for her political beliefs on the internet.
> 
> Western communism is entirely a different idea of the communism we had in the eastern countries. Don't forget you were just basically communist under Russian imperalist influence, but communism can be very different than from what you've experience.
> 
> ...


Oh, Western Communism... I guess it wouldn't be based on the same Marxist ideas? Riiiiiiight! And people will be sooo happy to be forced to live in a psychotic utopia which goes against some of humanity's most basic instincts, like competition or freedom. Do you think in the West it would be different? That's so laughable!

I know very well what I lived through, I still remember, even though I was young. I know what my parents lived through. I know what my grandparents lived through. And you know what we all have in common, despite the generational divide? The same hate for Communism! Why did everyone in the East throw away the shackles of Communism as soon as we got the chance? Because it's a retarded system of government. Because it's a murderous system of government.

Russian imperialist influence? No, Russia was also affected by the disease of Communism, which took over power in a coup, they later called a revolution to make it sound legit. Tens of millions of Russians were murdered by Communism.

Let's assume it was just Soviet influenced Communism who was bad, then how do you explain Cambodia and the killing fields? How do you explain China and the "great leap forward" and "cultural revolution" with other tens of millions of dead? How do you explain Cuba where people would try to escape to America on anything that would float or fly? What about current day Venezuela with its 1000000% inflation and its violence? How do you explain the poverty in African countries who chose Socialism compared to Botswana, where Seretse Khama took a country with 10 km of roads and 25 people with higher education and actually built something? You know how he did it? Through intelligent market reforms! Not through centralised Communist crap! His country was just as poor as the others in Africa, but they didn't follow the path of dictatorship. Even China, in order to straighten out its economy had to adopt MARKET reforms! You know why? Because Communism brings nothing but poverty by trying to centralise everything.

You sit and criticise capitalism, but there you are enjoying its products. Cell phones and internet, cars and modern infrastructure! I bet you like the modern hospitals. Well, guess what... look at the equipment. Capitalist companies invented and produced them. You like the healthcare they provide. The computer or cell phone you have? Capitalism! You love what Capitalism does! You love the money to buy things! You like to go shopping in CAPITALIST stores! But on the side, you're all so critical...

Armchair politicians, cheap theoreticians... Oh, how Marx really liked to cash in the dough when he got paid for his writings! Engels, the son of an industrialist! Lenin, the son of a high ranking Imperial official! All hypocrites and liars, madmen and murderers!

Regarding my friend, no I'm not making fun of her, I'm strongly disagreeing with her ideas. A person is not the same thing as his/her ideas.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I really don't want to discuss this with you, but you are telling a lot of lies, and are biased as hell. No wonder you're a nationalists... The nationalists aren't as quick to condemn what Hitler did, but communism or even socialism and social democracy and the entire left-wing is as sick as it can be according to them.



Strelnikov said:


> Oh, Western Communism... I guess it wouldn't be based on the same Marxist ideas? Riiiiiiight! And people will be sooo happy to be forced to live in a psychotic utopia which goes against some of humanity's most basic instincts, like competition or freedom. Do you think in the West it would be different? That's so laughable!


We can have freedom under a communist society... 
Competition isn't a basic instinct of humanity... or i may hope this is no longer case... Murdering each other and wiping each other's family entirely out is also a form of competition. Killing someone's love competitor is also a form of competition, so you really think competition is a good idea here. Cooperation is better than competition.



> I know very well what I lived through, I still remember, even though I was young. I know what my parents lived through. I know what my grandparents lived through. And you know what we all have in common, despite the generational divide? The same hate for Communism! Why did everyone in the East throw away the shackles of Communism as soon as we got the chance? Because it's a retarded system of government. Because it's a murderous system of government.


That's not true. You haven't lived properly under it.
Also... it was very authoritarian.



> Russian imperialist influence? No, Russia was also affected by the disease of Communism, which took over power in a coup, they later called a revolution to make it sound legit. Tens of millions of Russians were murdered by Communism.


It was a revolution, and millions of people wanted it, because they didn't want the tsar anymore and were exploited by an even more authoritarian country. The whites have commited even more crimes than the reds did during the civil war.



> Let's assume it was just Soviet influenced Communism who was bad, then how do you explain Cambodia and the killing fields? How do you explain China and the "great leap forward" and "cultural revolution" with other tens of millions of dead? How do you explain Cuba where people would try to escape to America on anything that would float or fly? What about current day Venezuela with its 1000000% inflation and its violence? How do you explain the poverty in African countries who chose Socialism compared to Botswana, where Seretse Khama took a country with 10 km of roads and 25 people with higher education and actually built something? You know how he did it? Through intelligent market reforms! Not through centralised Communist crap! His country was just as poor as the others in Africa, but they didn't follow the path of dictatorship. Even China, in order to straighten out its economy had to adopt MARKET reforms! You know why? Because Communism brings nothing but poverty by trying to centralise everything.


The living standards in Cuba are higher than almost any other country in Latin America. Life expectation is even higher. The economy might be worse, but economy alone doesn't offer you a good life. Most of it are lies. I oppose stalinist variant of communism a lot, as it resembles more of national socialism than of communism.

Venezuela had the same problems when it was governed by a right-wing government... In fact, because of that the left came to power. But the real problem of Venezuela is that it is way too dependant of oil (45% of incomes), and if oil prices decrease worldwide they'll collapse. You can call it bad governing however that they didn't anticipate on that, but i doubt the right would've solved this crisis, or can solve it.



> You sit and criticise capitalism, but there you are enjoying its products. Cell phones and internet, cars and modern infrastructure! I bet you like the modern hospitals. Well, guess what... look at the equipment. Capitalist companies invented and produced them. You like the healthcare they provide. The computer or cell phone you have? Capitalism! You love what Capitalism does! You love the money to buy things! You like to go shopping in CAPITALIST stores! But on the side, you're all so critical...


That's not true. I hate money. The healthcare under socialist systems are better, and are unanavailable for most people in 100% capitalist countries. The ideas of socialism are better... Capitalist did invent bookshelves, communism did invent libraries, i prefer libraries over individual property (bookshelves here), wheras the library offers a cheap way to read lots of books, a place to meet people, and way less books need to be produced saving on valuable resources on the planet, which would otherwise have caused CO² levels to rise. Just like i love busses, and trains more than cars.

AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH I HAVEN'T SAID and assuming a ton of bullshit.



> Armchair politicians, cheap theoreticians... Oh, how Marx really liked to cash in the dough when he got paid for his writings! Engels, the son of an industrialist! Lenin, the son of a high ranking Imperial official! All hypocrites and liars, madmen and murderers!


Marx and Lenin are heroes for me, and i will have eternal respect for them. I think Stalin is one of the biggest crime perpetrators in history and one of the biggest mass murderers, and he abused a very good system for that. Communism isn't perfect though, but we need to give it the space and the time to give it it's democratic checks & balances and on social issues communist parties are among the most liberal.



> Regarding my friend, no I'm not making fun of her, I'm strongly disagreeing with her ideas. A person is not the same thing as his/her ideas.


You are


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

This is why i'll never be friends with NTJ's. I have to meet the first left-wing xNTJ yet.

I wished we had a world where only NF's did exist. It would be a much nicer place.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> We can have freedom under a communist society...
> Competition isn't a basic instinct of humanity... or i may hope this is no longer case... Murdering each other and wiping each other's family entirely out is also a form of competition. Killing someone's love competitor is also a form of competition, so you really think competition is a good idea here. Cooperation is better than competition.
> 
> That's not true. You haven't lived properly under it.
> ...


You're the one who's lying. You're talking about an abstract cheap theory, I'm talking about what people lived. Maybe I was too young. What about my grandparents who lived through the entire period of Communism? They also hated it! What about entire countries who rebelled against it, people of all ages! You lived the good life, shielded by prosperity that Capitalism gave you. You don't know what it's like to see bananas and oranges on shelves only at the new year! I haven't lived properly through it? Did you? Please tell me where have you lived in "proper" Communism? Please tell me of this magical fairy tale land where all people WILLINGLY live in Communism 

No, you can't have freedom under Communism! Again you lie! No Communist country was ever free. And there were a lot of Communist countries, all over the world! After 1000 attempts, it's obvious that no. 1001 will also fail! Communism had its chance and it failed! It's a failed system who produced nothing but suffering and death. I'd rather give Feudalism a second chance than give Communism another one.

Competition IS a basic instinct of humanity. That's why we've been doing it since always (e.g. wars, sports). We compete for everything, from material to immaterial things! It's as natural as breathing. It was always the case and it will always be the case. Cooperation and competition are BOTH part of the human instinct. That how humans are... human nature is contradictory.

Regarding the revolution. There were 2 different revolutions and you lie again! You know it and you do it anyway! The February Revolution maybe was wanted, but definitely not the October/November Revolution. Yes, the people didn't want the Tsar, but they didn't want the Bolsheviks either. Why else did they fraud so many elections? It was a coup during which the Bolsheviks forcefully took over power. For EXACTLY that reason the White Armies were formed. Because the Bolsheviks were ILLEGITIMATE! Republicans and Monarchists fought alongside against the Bolsheviks. Regarding the exploitation, again you lie so much... I mean... even more than Trump! There were a few hundreds of political prisoners in Imperial Russia right before Communists took over. Your hero Lenin immediately created the CHEKA and the numbers went through the roof! The Gulag was formed during his period. He started it all! Stalin, simply took it to the next level. But the idea were already there. The best question was asked by a former Gulag inmate: if the Tsar was the enemy of the people, how come there were more traitors under the Communists who claimed they represented the people?

Communism invented libraries??? No! It didn't! Neither metaphorical libraries, nor literal libraries. People could pool resources and did share resources waaaaaay before Communism. No need to rob others of their work!

If you think Cuba is ok, how come the most developed countries in the world are NOT COMMUNIST?


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

ENFJ and INFP


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Strelnikov said:


> If you think Cuba is ok, how come the most developed countries in the world are NOT COMMUNIST?


Because there is no demand for communism in countries which have high living standards. Communism was founded in literally a fucking shithole where people had no rights (in Russia)... Communism actually made an empire and made Russia into the 2nd most powerful country on the world. Uneducated people that had no literacy rate were the first ones to send a human into orbit... The intense science and social programs they did set up has increased welfare in Russia while without communism Russia would probably not exist, and be a series of smaller states where there was more poverty and much a-like India. Without communism, we wouldn't have acquired as many social rights as we have done, because the truth is... we have acquired them because the elite had fear of communism spreading to Europe, and it would have done so, if we didn't acquire our social rights.



> Communism invented libraries??? No! It didn't! Neither metaphorical libraries, nor literal libraries. People could pool resources and did share resources waaaaaay before Communism. No need to rob others of their work!


Libraries are a communist concept, it's how society would work... The library owns the books but for a small montly or yearly fee, you can lend as many as you want to and enrichen yourself. This would apply to almost everything that exists in the world

public housing instead of privatized housing where lots of people can't afford to buy / rent a house
public healthcare instead of privatized healthcare which most people wouldn't been able to afford
public schooling vs private schooling which again most people wouldn't been able to afford, and where people would be more egalitarian (no selection criteria, black people have right to educate themselves too!!!)
public transport instead of everyone having a car and emitting lots of waste..

I want communism..
I hate competition. I love cooperation and being connected to other people. We're way too individualistic and selfish and competitive. We need to take care of other people!!! Why do you hate that so much.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

Lakigigar said:


> Because there is no demand for communism in countries which have high living standards. Communism was founded in literally a fucking shithole where people had no rights (in Russia)... Communism actually made an empire and made Russia into the 2nd most powerful country on the world. Uneducated people that had no literacy rate were the first ones to send a human into orbit... The intense science and social programs they did set up has increased welfare in Russia while without communism Russia would probably not exist, and be a series of smaller states where there was more poverty and much a-like India. Without communism, we wouldn't have acquired as many social rights as we have done, because the truth is... we have acquired them because the elite had fear of communism spreading to Europe, and it would have done so, if we didn't acquire our social rights.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...


You know, the reason the Soviet Union advanced so rapidly had much to do with its competition with the west in general and the United States specifically. Even so, basic services were sacrificed in the name of that competition because they had very limited resources. The roads were crumbling, but at least the USSR had the largest tank army in the world.

A communist world would grind to a halt quite rapidly and sputter out, because competition is and always has been the driving force of human endeavor. Expecting a world simply deprived of competition to function as an empathic paradise is grossly unrealistic and a simplistic view of the world. For that matter, so is expecting such a world to ever be created. Your vision is best served by hoping that we meet alien civilizations that will force us to band together to compete against; it's not realistic, but it is more realistic than a communist paradise.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Because there is no demand for communism in countries which have high living standards. Communism was founded in literally a fucking shithole where people had no rights (in Russia)... Communism actually made an empire and made Russia into the 2nd most powerful country on the world. Uneducated people that had no literacy rate were the first ones to send a human into orbit... The intense science and social programs they did set up has increased welfare in Russia while without communism Russia would probably not exist, and be a series of smaller states where there was more poverty and much a-like India. Without communism, we wouldn't have acquired as many social rights as we have done, because the truth is... we have acquired them because the elite had fear of communism spreading to Europe, and it would have done so, if we didn't acquire our social rights.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no demand for Communism in countries with high living standards because it doesn't have anything of value to offer.

Russia was a powerful empire way before Communism. Stalin did make the USSR a very powerful country by sacrificing the people for power, a power which eventually proved brittle and the entire state disintegrated.

During the USSR it is true that the literacy rate improved, but so did other countries improve it... so did Canada, so did Japan, etc. without having to murder millions of people. Just through rational and measured reform.

Russia did exist without Communism for centuries and still exists today without Communism. Communism was a passing illness in the history of Russia.

There were non-Communist social reformers, which did have a positive social impact, even since the 19th century... even before. For example slavery wasn't abolished in the British Empire because of fear of Communism. Neither in the US.

Libraries are definitely NOT a Communist concept. The Library of Alexandria existed millenia before Communism. I mean Julius Caesar was alive when the Library of Alexandria was already old. If I'm not mistaken Summerians had libraries... And they lived 4-5000 years ago... way before Communism.

I agree that the public sector can do a lot of good, but again you can have it without Communism. There are public sector institutions in countries which never had a Communist government. You can even mix public and private institutions. Again these kind of public institutions existed way before Communism. The Roman Empire had public institutions, again way before Communism.

You may hate competition, but so many other people love it. I like both competition and cooperation. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. We are individualistic and competitive and selfish... that is human nature. But you know what? Human nature is complex and even contradictory: we are individualistic, but we are also altruistic; we are competitive, but we also cooperate; we are selfish, but we also share. History is filled with examples for all these traits. The fact that they perpetuate throughout time and are found across the world shows that they are indeed part of human nature. A good government should respect all these human impulses and direct them in a constructive direction, something that Communism doesn't do.

You want to feel connected to other people? That's normal and good! So do I! Just because I prefer competition, doesn't mean I'll murder my friends for a 1% increase in income. I love my friends! Competition is not something bad and it's not something to be afraid of. Communism destoyed the trust between us. Children could rat on their parents, neighbours could snitch, strangers, etc. The system made you truly alone.

And sometimes, you can connect with people through competition. I was impressed to hear the story of a group of Nepalese teenage girls (about 14-15 years old) who travel for days by foot through the mountains to play a football match in another village. Football is competition, but it can unite us. I may not understand their language, I may not understand their customs and traditions, but I do understand their love for the game. One round ball, in a competition, can unite people. So yes, competition can connect people!


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> This is why i'll never be friends with NTJ's. I have to meet the first left-wing xNTJ yet.


Hey! No commie xNTJ! High-fives! 

:smug:


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I don't want anything to do with xNTJ trolls and fascists... I'll put you on the ignore list.


----------



## LeSangDeCentAns (Apr 10, 2018)




----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> This is why i'll never be friends with NTJ's. I have to meet the first left-wing xNTJ yet.
> 
> I wished we had a world where only NF's did exist. It would be a much nicer place.


What. You haven't read many my replies yet???

Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Changed my vote to ENFJ

1. ENFJ
2. ENFP
3. INFP
4. INTP
5. ISFP
6. INFJ
7. ENTP
8. ESFJ
9. ESFP
10. ISFJ
11. ISTJ
12. ISTP
13. INTJ
14. ESTP
15. ESTJ
16. ENTJ

Though some INTJ and ENTJ commies might be well known ones, but i don't think they've had a huge following among those types.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

This topic is always a really interesting way to identify Americans.


----------



## Ronney (Jul 17, 2016)

ISFJ because they would care the least about individual freedom. As for a totalitarian leader that would be an ENTJ


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Well my INFP daughter lectures me a lot for my expression of opportunism so I lean IxFPs


----------



## Vasiliev (Dec 4, 2020)

Any kind of ISJ. Especially one that's looping.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I still love how INFP's are absolutely winning this poll.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

I would agree for INFP if the question was about being anarcho-communist.

Because I despise communism so much. I really hate the idea. proletarian dictatorship is wrong on so many levels.
Plus, communist only perceived economic and structure, the analysis has to be refined with psychology and biology


----------



## Flabarac Brupip (May 9, 2020)

I voted INFJ because the one person I really know who's basically Marxist is an INFJ. I'm not Marxist. I'm a social democrat, which contrary to right wing fear mongering, is not Marxism/Communism, and its ultimate goal isn't Communism just because Lenin made some quote a century ago that Communism is the ultimate goal of social programs. Lenin isn't my king.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

lecomte said:


> I would agree for INFP if the question was about being anarcho-communist.
> 
> Because I despise communism so much. I really hate the idea. proletarian dictatorship is wrong on so many levels.
> Plus, communist only perceived economic and structure, the analysis has to be refined with psychology and biology


The thing is

INFP's love communism because we (some of us) associate it with more justice, with being able to out yourself and identify yourself as what you want, being free to be whoever you want to be as opposed to conservatism which is more focused on adhering to what is known, traditions and stuff like that and which are hostile to progression in society (and i mean the hardline conservatives, not all). For me, when I think about communism, i think about indeed libertarian socialism and democratic socialism which is to me not an authoritarian form of government, but the opposite. In Belgium,the PVDA is most communist but their ideas are less authoritarian than the ideas of the liberals which are more hard-lockdown policies in terms of covid.

The INTJ's and INTP's rather think communism is more like stalinism or North Korea which INFP's of course do not support. We're probably the first to be against it. But this is why I made the distinction between western communism and other communism. Communism originated in a country that never had a democracy (Russia), even today it still isn't (Russia is an authoritarian democracy where the opposition risks getting in prison if they criticize Putin too much). Democracy has nothing to do with right vs left or communism vs capitalism, it's different.

And some people just don't get that you can be left-wing economically and/or socially while still being a democrat or being pro-freedom, and some people don't get that. I however am not a fan of the cancel culture and political correctness that the left-wing parties act on now, and it's hurting them. They need a different strategy, because the strategy right now isn't working, and I hate to live in an even more polarized world.

So i think people just don't understand it very well.

Yes i sort of identify as a communist, but i'm not like "the communist" you think I am, and the ones that oppose me solely because I identify with it, are exactly more authoritarian ("never elect an NF" is something that has been written in this thread, like such a statement is very authoritarian, generalizing and disgraceful... and also dumb since despite it honestly looks like we're much more left-wing, not all of us are).


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Communism # proleterian dictatorship.

I'm a democratic socialist. I'm a Berniecrat, and arguably a bit to the left of Bernie but i've been critical of the left in the past at times too.


----------



## lecomte (May 20, 2014)

Lakigigar said:


> Communism # proleterian dictatorship.
> 
> I'm a democratic socialist. I'm a Berniecrat, and arguably a bit to the left of Bernie but i've been critical of the left in the past at times too.


ahah don't worry I am like you! I was just sensitive with the exact term. Not because of the distinction between Russia and occidental countries but because there s people living in occidental countries who are marxist leninist communist and want an authoritarian regime

So maybe there is a thing with being INFP and coco.


----------

