[2022] Communist LoL champs

Sylas is closer to anarchist than communist IMO, references to Marx notwithstanding. not that the two are mutually exclusive.

Of the roster, Sylas is definitely the closest. Anarchism is all about dismantling unjust hierarchies and taking direct action - it's hard to argue that Sylas' killing of Jarvan III isn't propaganda of the deed.

Viego is literally a monarch

Communism is the idea of a flat society with goods distributed based on need rather than on capital. It is a stateless ideology. "Equality" in communism is more closely related to equality in terms of capital - Wealth disparities, essentially.

"Communism means state run" doesn't really match up with what the political theory posits. one of the central tenets of communism is 'The withering away of the state' - the idea that the state does not need to exist in an actualised communist world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state.

Noxus has no desire for the state to wither away; it is an expansionist military empire, primarily attempting to obtain arable land. They demand loyalty to the state from their subjects. It is an empire with a military dictatorship at the helm. This is not to say that it does not display some aspects of communism, such as equality under the law, but that is also something that we think exists in capitalist democracies too, so it's hard to say for sure. The idea that Noxus is communism because army + no apparent corporate overlords is a bit telling though.

If you're looking for a place for political theory then r/lol isn't it, but I'll' give it a crack.

Your problem is coming from the perspective of looking at the world through the way it exists currently, and the idea that the world needs to continue existing in that way. That is, we have money, states, etc, now, so therefore any version of communism would necessarily need to include money and states.

However how is capital judged? Are people going to be removed from ancestral homes or simply recieve no wealth in return when redistribution occurs.

Capital is simply private (not to be confused with personal) property and money. If a state ceased to exist, there is no one to enforce laws against private property - that's what the police do. Current money probably loses most of its value when it is not backed by a state.

You don't "need" to judge capital unless you want to engage in forced redistribution of wealth. Now, if you're going to view the only way of achieving equality as by state-sanctioned actions - and you think that the world can only exist with a state - then this makes sense.

This would force them to sell said home.

How do you sell a home when there's no money to exchange it for? The point of distribution of goods based on need rather than capital is that you have a home because you need a home. If you're occupying a home, that's your personal property. You wouldn't need to give that up because you're actively using it. Now, if you had multiple homes, then this probably more of a problem, but I don't think many people would object to empty homes being used to house people who need it.

The ideals of communism are great but it does not work in practice.

It is clear from this brief conversation that your understanding of the ideals of communism do not match up with that the ideals of communism are, but rather your experience of borderline fascist movements in the name of communism. This is close to the No True Scotsman fallacy, I agree, but it's similar to how North Korea claims to be both democratic and a republic but is neither.

Who judges what people need?

This question assumes that you need a central authority empowered with the ability to judge who needs what. If your friend tells you that they are hungry and their power is out, do you go and ask a government official if that is indeed the case? Or do you see to their needs by giving them food and power until it comes back?

Prove me wrong.

I can't prove that the way the USSR and China attempted communism were not unfair, because they were unfair. There are a couple of things to examine, though:

• Both of these countries viewed communism as the end goal, rather than something that they had achieved, and that their transition from their previous state to communism was where all of their problems came from. That doesn't justify or excuse their actions, but the point is that their evil was in attempting to achieve communism rather than communism itself.
• These countries did this because they attempted to achieve communism without decentralising authority. It's all very good claiming to Do A Communism, but ultimately to Do A Communism you need the state to disappear, and people in power don't like to give up power.
• Doing A Capitalism also involved lots of harms to citizens when they transitioned away from things like Mercantalism, and it still executes those harms today. Attempting to judge communism by all of its harms is tricky because often we have compartmentalised the harms of capitalism. This is part of the perfect solution fallacy.

Unless you are someone who is fervently right-libertarian and believes that governments in the world right now are all corrupt, we already live in a world which relies on people being honest and moral. The profit incentive can guide certain things, but most of the worlds infrastructure exists not because of the profit incentive but because it was required.

And this is without getting into the fact that you do not need to be honest or moral for people to collaborate in order to further their shared interests. People need to eat, drink, be housed etc. Funnily enough, those last three things aren't even necessarily provided for in some governments, so it's hard to see how "communism won't work because we can't trust people!" is a valid argument when basic necessities aren't met when not practicing communism due to what appears to be greed.

We all trust that politicians won't abuse their power, but they do. If you want a world in which you cannot trust anyone, surely having more people with less power is better for that than a few people with a lot.

Wanna be clear here that I am not a communist (or a capitalist) I am just explaining political theory and how that relates to LoL. If you want to have an in depth discussion about political theory I implore you to educate yourself on it and then go to a subreddit more intune with that.

There are so many talented and intelligent people who are not rewarded by capitalism in practice. If the goal of the reward is to encourage innovation, perhaps a better way to encourage innovation would be to ensure that people have their meets met so that they are free to innovate and not have to worry about where their next rent payment will come from?

This is without considering that it would probably me more humane to structure society around keeping people healthy and happy and enjoying the fullness of their life, rather than making sure we extract the most value (usually for shareholders) from people.

I'm sorry, but I can't educate you on all of this. Like I said, I would advise you look into more formal educational material. The only - and last - thing I'll mention on that point in particular is that:

• There are an awful lot of things that are illegal that probably should not be that fall under crimes.
• Most people who commit crime do not commit crime because they want to commit crime.
• The police do not stop crime. The police apprehend suspects before a community panel. You do not stop crime by increasing police (in fact, there is some evidence that an increased police presence correlates with increased crime rates). You decrease crime by reducing the reason for people to want to commit crime.