What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn’t which “-ism” is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It’s a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an “-ism” and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.
The important part is it’s not an authoritarian running the show and calling it “communism” or " democracy" when the reality is it’s just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses
But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP’s point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn’t matter what the “point” of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone’s equal.
balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.
That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.
Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.
The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.
The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Not entirely accurate. The collectivist movement in Spain did not involve installing a dictator, though it was vulnerable to being dissolved by outside forces, and this unfortunately did happen.
Also look up MST in Brazil, which afaik involves no dictator and is not an authoritarian movement.
There’s also the Sandinista (FSLN) party in Nicaragua, which still exists but would have probably been more successfully without the US trying to derail it every step of the way.
I mean now that I think of it – the Zapatistas in Mexico.
Not sure all these groups would use the term “communism,” but they all aim for a stateless, classless society, so I fail to see how that’s not a fundamentally communist goal.
I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Well, that’s the problem with bottom-up government, isn’t it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.
If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.
Just look at “balance power away from 1%” in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?
The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).
Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.
What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn’t which “-ism” is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It’s a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.
But I want to defend my -ism
Sir please put your -ism away, you’re scaring the children.
Name checks out lol
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an “-ism” and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.
The important part is it’s not an authoritarian running the show and calling it “communism” or " democracy" when the reality is it’s just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.
100% couldn’t agree more.
But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP’s point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn’t matter what the “point” of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone’s equal.
Citation fucking needed, do you even know anyone from China?
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.
That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.
Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.
The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.
The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?
Not entirely accurate. The collectivist movement in Spain did not involve installing a dictator, though it was vulnerable to being dissolved by outside forces, and this unfortunately did happen.
Also look up MST in Brazil, which afaik involves no dictator and is not an authoritarian movement.
There’s also the Sandinista (FSLN) party in Nicaragua, which still exists but would have probably been more successfully without the US trying to derail it every step of the way.
I mean now that I think of it – the Zapatistas in Mexico.
Not sure all these groups would use the term “communism,” but they all aim for a stateless, classless society, so I fail to see how that’s not a fundamentally communist goal.
Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn’t have dictators every time a revolution occurs?
Because short man special!
/s (do I even need this? This one HAS to be so absurd as to make the “/s” superfluous)
HE WAS AVERAGE HEIGHT FOR THE TIME PERIOD!!! (I miss overlysimplified so much)
Even the fucking CIA isn’t dishonest enough to say such things
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Those have been tried, but they often tend to get liberated by the CIA. Or in some cases, the KGB / Red Army.
I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Well, that’s the problem with bottom-up government, isn’t it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.
If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Rojava wants a few words.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.
Just look at “balance power away from 1%” in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?
You should read capital volume one, it will explain how the problem actually is capitalism
Actually, the problem is homelessness.
The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).
Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.
Why is there so much communist propaganda on Lemmy? Could it be that reddit is actually good at filtering out state-sponsored content farms?
Decentralization appeals to leftists, as that’s the principle of the ideology, away from bourgeois interests.
I haven’t seen evidence of state-sponsored propaganda, though there are people that simp far too hard for China and the CPC on Lemmy though.