I always find there’s an interesting parallel to be made between #christianism and #communism .
Does the fact that the inquisition and fascist contemporary evangelical churches exist make the teachings of sharing, non-violence, love and forgiveness wrong ?
Same for existence of gulags or state repression in USSR vs the possibility of a classless society not designed on exploitation and profits.
@santiago
True #communism is fundamentally different from the authoritarian regimes that have claimed to be #communist in the past. There's a huge difference between state #socialism, which often leads to oppression and authoritarianism, and libertarian communism, which advocates for a classless, stateless society based on voluntary cooperation and mutual aid.
@Radical_EgoCom@santiago while pure communism sounds like a great idea, it's a utopia because it completely disregards the most important factor: human nature. As much as we'd all like to think of ourselves as righteous and pure and devoid of flaws, we are all driven by the need to have status, stature, things, influence, etc. communism does not take this into account. Socialism, on the other hand, is compatible with market economy and therefore much more sustainable.
@peterg75@santiago
I've heard the human nature argument against #communism countless times, and it's simply not true. Human nature is not inherently selfish or greedy; these traits are often exacerbated by societal structures that promote competition and individualism. In fact, throughout history, humans have demonstrated a capacity for cooperation, solidarity, and mutual aid, which are central to the ideals of communism. The notion that people are inherently self-serving ignores the...
@peterg75@santiago
...many examples of communal societies and movements where people have worked together for the common good without the need for hierarchical structures.
@Radical_EgoCom@santiago where are these societies now? Why didn't they persist and thrive? You can't ignore the fact that these were isolated and primitive.
@peterg75@santiago #Communist societies in the past only having been primitive and isolated doesn't invalidate #communism. The failures of past attempts at communism can largely be attributed to external pressures, such as imperialist intervention and isolation, not inherent flaws in communist principles themselves. Additionally, many of these societies were born out of revolutions in predominantly agrarian and underdeveloped contexts, facing immense challenges in transitioning to a...
@peterg75@santiago
...stateless, classless society. Instead of dismissing communism based on historical examples, people should learn from past mistakes.
@Radical_EgoCom@santiago Communism isn't scalable to society en masse. It's only ever possible in an isolated state of equilibrium that is difficult to achieve. Multiple examples of this are evidence of this fact.
I grew up in the USSR, and while you argue that it's not a good example which I agree with, it still illustrates the nature of the problem with trying to build a communist society. Lenin's ideas were pure and righteous, but the result was an authoritarian state which is always...
@peterg75@santiago
The principles of communism are inherently scalable because they focus on collective ownership, cooperation, and solidarity, which can be applied to communities of any size.
@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom I am not saying all :commie: attempts were good, far from it, but there is a direct correlation between the economical success of communism inspired governments and their resistance to US military intervention.
Nearly every single country in Latin America had a leftist government overthrown by US intervention in the last 80 years . Countries where the US has failed to impose its colonial rule 🇻🇳🇨🇳 are just better off economically today.
@santiago@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom also need to point out that the "authoritarianism" of the USSR etc was a reaction to the continual capitalist attempts to undermine them, and that when they finally fell it resulted in mass hardship in the newly "liberated" countries. And calling smaller communal societies that sustained themselves for centuries before being destroyed by capitalist colonialism "primitive" is frankly racist
@sofiav@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom I would say that it is wasn’t only externally imposed (although war helps local tyrants) but that you don’t change a society overnight from a Czarist regime to a utopia. The people who ruled economy in imperial Russia were still there. And probably are still here today.
@Radical_EgoCom@peterg75@santiago I think the argument is less "humans are awful so no communist utopia for you," it's more "communist systems are in practice less able to defend themselves against authoritarians seizing control." Liberal systems also aren't immune to this same problem, as evidenced by... gestures broadly at everything ...but the rot at least takes longer to set in.
I wonder what multi-party communism with effective checks and balances would look like.
@Legit_Spaghetti
My argument isn't that humans are awful, but that we are ultimately individualistic and everyone wants ho have ownership and autonomy, something that communism does not provide. @Radical_EgoCom@santiago
@peterg75@Legit_Spaghetti@santiago
Communism does allow ownership of personal property, like houses, cars, etc. The only things that aren't allowed to be privately owned in communism are the means of production, ie the factories, machinery, etc that are used to make the products of society.
@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti@santiago and what do you get as a result? Without competition, you get one type of shoe, one type of dress, one type of car, etc. I've lived it, no thank you.
@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti There is only the illusion of competition in our capitalist society. All the fiber companies that come to my home (Rio de Janeiro) use the same cables from a private investment firm. They are just brands selling the same service. Same for water or electricity. All big fortunes in capitalism lead to monopoly. At least with government services you have the choice to vote the responsible out.
@santiago@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti what you are describing are utility services and those are better to be owned and regulated by the state, which is what actually happens in many countries including US. The means of production refers to factories and companies providing goods and services and those are better off when there's competition.
@peterg75@santiago@Legit_Spaghetti
Factories and companies producing goods and services are not inherently better with competition. Competition often leads to exploitation of workers, environmental degradation, and the prioritization of profit over people's well-being.
@Radical_EgoCom@santiago@Legit_Spaghetti the excesses of privately owned companies are easily managed via regulation, unionizing, etc. Competition never leads to excesses, mismanagement and lack of regulatory framework does. In contrast we've seen many examples what the lack of competition leads to. It's not all about "shiny new things" but also about innovation, r&d, etc.
@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti “Easily managed” by who ? Competition in the sense of trying to do something better than the other team can be good. But this can also exist in a communist society as it does in public universities. You can have several teams competing for the best result. But when properly managed by the state the end goal is to share the best result with your competitor, not smother them in patent lawsuits for profit
@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom@santiago I remember East Germany, where the wait list for a new car was YEARS, and the car you'd get was a piece of crap made of plastic and the cheapest steel money could buy.
@Legit_Spaghetti@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom Nobody is saying east Germany was wonderful. Just that if you measure a society’s success by availability of shiny cars and not “everyone has a home” you may be taking it the wrong way.
I personally can buy a shiny car tomorrow in Brazil. Still most people don’t even have food safety. Check your priorities. Capitalism in the US and Brazil aren’t two separate systems. One depends on the other.
@sashin@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti@santiago yes it is. It's called Socialism not Communism. In communism every one wears the same shoes, eats the same food whether they like it or not.
@peterg75@santiago@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
I stopped reading after it classified communism as having a state-planned economy, showing that the person who wrote this article doesn't know what communism is. True #communism is stateless and classless, with decentralized control and voluntary association among workers. The misconception of communism as state-planned arises from the historical distortion by authoritarian regimes claiming to represent it.
@peterg75@santiago@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
Not only does communism not require a government, it's incompatible with any government. #Communism, at its core, advocates for the abolition of hierarchical structures, including government, to achieve true freedom and equality. Any attempt to impose a centralized authority in the name of communism betrays its fundamental principles.
@peterg75@santiago@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
You have a very poor understanding of communism if you don't even realize that the main goal of communism is to abolish all forms of hierarchy, including government. Even Marx himself admitted this in The Communist Manifesto, which you must not have read if you think this way.
I actually believe we have more chance of getting there from state socialism, despite all its issues. After all under some state oppression you do put in place a structure of collective ownership of the means of production which is the hardest move from where we are in capitalism.
@santiago@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
An immediate abolition of the state is a far more effective method of achieving #communism than using state socialism. By bypassing state #socialism and directly implementing decentralized, cooperative structures, we can avoid the pitfalls of authoritarianism and accelerate the transition to a stateless, classless society.
@Radical_EgoCom@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti And how exactly would you apply those changes. How would you deal with dissent ? Just wait until 100% of the people in a country are convinced ? Or would you need an empty place to start a new society with only volunteers (assuming no imperialists or other authoritarian regimes want to take it over by force).
@santiago@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
By the Libertarian Communist method, achieving such things as establishing communism and dealing with dissenters would be done through voluntary cooperation and consensus-building. This ensures that decisions are made collectively and reflect the diverse needs and perspectives of the community.
@Radical_EgoCom@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti I am already convinced on the principle but I am curious how the method would make consensus already even with the people disagreeing in this very thread, say Peter.
Not to mention many people with more extremist views: Religious fanatics, extreme right guys. How do you deal with them …with consensus ?
But if we are right, and it's possible to live in a way with less rigid hierarchy and more freedom for everyone, it will become desirable to the average person that can see it working.
Of course, for this reason, those who are most privileged by capitalist exploitation and therefore invested in the status quo will have a vested interest in anarchist projects failing and will no doubt try to stop them.
To some extent this is being done already. Open source software being the most common one. Although that part of fighting existing power structure is an essential stumbling block when getting to physical stuff like say building on land.
@santiago@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
The simplest way I can explain this is that people will have to be convinced of communism first, those who don't agree will not be forced to participate, and if any dissenters try to intervene they'll be met with an appropriate amount of force in self-defense.
How is that different from Marxism-Leninism once put in practice ? What I mean is that Leninists actually did take power in real life and could not rely on the theory of ever growing consensus. It ends up using force, always. I’d love to be wrong
@santiago@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
Libertarian Communism and Marxism Leninism are not the same, especially in terms of force and coercion. The violence that Libertarian Communists would use to take control of land and factories is not the same as the violence Marxist Leninists are known for using because Libertarian Communists advocate for the voluntary expropriation of resources through decentralized, grassroots initiatives, while Marxism-Leninism historically relies on...
@Radical_EgoCom@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti “Voluntary expropriation of resources” is great but I guess that’s where I draw the line between idealism and the cold reality. It is true that some people will do it. Actually a lot of people considering most people in this world own little to nothing.
But for the existing structure of power which actually owns most of the world it is not happening (without coercion).
@santiago@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti
...centralized state power and coercion. The distinction lies in the approach to power and the recognition of individual autonomy within the revolutionary process.
@Radical_EgoCom@peterg75@sashin@Legit_Spaghetti The thing is the others won’t “leave you be”. Isn’t this why anarchists were crushed by fascists in Spain and by Leninists in Russia (and in a more subtle way daily by plutocrats in our societies) ?
It’s not like there are actually several separate worlds with their own sets of resources. Imperialists will want absolutely everything and then some more.
@sashin@peterg75@Radical_EgoCom@Legit_Spaghetti In theory or in practice? In theory it does not. In practice because in real life this could exist only with consent of every single person …which is simply not something we have seen so far.
Not saying it is impossible. Just highly unlikely. But who knows maybe once people see some small perfectly working small scale examples …
@Blinxeto@peterg75@Legit_Spaghetti@santiago
Well, #communism doesn't go against human nature. It aligns with our innate desire for cooperation, equality, and solidarity, which have been suppressed by #capitalist systems that prioritize profit and competition.
@santiago The thing is ... how many times do you have to try setting up either a Communist or a Theocratic State, to have it devolve into (or start with!) authoritarianism to realise that it's a feature of the philosophy, not merely an unintended bad side effect?
Both systems are doomed, not because of human nature, but because they both run contrary to it.
@duncan_bayne I heard this a lot and even believed it at some point. Then when you look closer you come to another conclusion: it is survival bias. Only the violent survived the constant assault from capitalism.
Ever heard of Salvador Allende (and so many more ) ? All the “naives” were wiped out by US power.
@duncan_bayne Vietnam had its own revolution. It was their thing. Occupied by France and then Japan. USA invaded & failed.
Korea. Occupied by Japan. Liberation came jointly with revolution. USA invaded and maintained a military dictatorship until 1987. Only equally authoritarian regime could counter it. Still at war.
I am not saying these are ideal regimes. I am saying the ideal regimes were cleaned out. By force. By the largest army and economy in the world.
@santiago Both Korea and Vietnam sort of illustrate my point. The Communist revolutionaries operating in both countries were horrendous. Consider how North Korea is faring today, compared to South Korea.
Yes, South Korea is far from perfect - and its history even more so. But even mixed-market societies - a sort of watered-down capitalism if you will - are objectively better. You'd rather be South than North Korean, right?
I still hold out hope that Korea may one day be unified (following the same sort of arc as Germany). But it's not the South that's preventing it.
@duncan_bayne The question seen from a western country is why we are shown North Korea every day as a scarecrow (or Cuba in Latin America) and the main argument is always poverty. We surely don’t care as much about poverty in all the other poor countries who are still in the capitalist system.
If communism doesn’t work. Why don’t we just leave them fail alone ? We do seem to send lots of military ships to prevent them from having a healthy economy. And when we don’t: China + Vietnam 📈
@duncan_bayne Then again I understand how when one lives in the center of capitalism in US or western Europe how it can feel like the system works (I lived in Switzerland most of my life). There is a certain level of actual “trickle down” effect on a regional basis 🤣
Let’s say after moving to Brazil you see this closer. You get the coffee is cheap in Europe because humans are cheap here. And in this system this can’t be fixed. You need to see the extent of Maré favela and feel it.
@duncan_bayne And I did hear all the other theories about it: “it’s in the past, it’s the current corruption, they just need more education”. Nope it’s just capitalism working as it should. Exploitation is a requirement.
Europe is slowly starting to feel it again since the threat of communism ended in 90s. Slowly the middle class is sinking into poverty. And just like in the 30s they will look into fascism as solution. Investors will applaud because it maintains the economic system
@duncan_bayne When France 🇫🇷 had its first revolution in 1789 all the kingdoms around it attacked it to restore monarchy.
Not so different of what you see when western powers invaded Russia after 1917 to counter the revolution and maintain the local regime and most of all current economical system. Or Korea or Vietnam.
Or from every US-backed military coup in South America to maintain economic supremacy. We don’t hear about them because they all lost (except Cuba).
@duncan_bayne Both North Korea and South Korea had authoritarian regimes for 30 years after the war. One communist and other had occupying American troops and a commerce friendly military dictatorship.
Democracy isn’t related to economical situation. North Korea suffers an embargo much like Cuba still today. Not because it is authoritarian. Otherwise Saudi Arabia would also suffer from it, right?
Question why is Vietnamese economy doing well today ? Because it won and can do commerce
Add comment