You're viewing a single thread.
Well we're not praising fascism and corruption.
The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn't mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.
I guess the main issue is with the government having absolute control over the economy. I would not want the most prominent politicians in my country having control of the economy. No matter how much I dislike capitalism.
Just put the people who work for a company in charge of the company. Have them elect who calls the shots. Also have them directly benefit from the company doing well. I guess that is like end-stage unions or smth. All power to the workers. Should be doable within capitalism, maybe, probably."All power to the workers" is a communist principle, though. It's the main political slogan of the communist manifest by Marx and Engels.
Its a principle, but is it used in practice?
There was no country that followed the principles thought out by Marx and Engels, yet.
Yeah, any economic system that concentrates power into one group is bad, whether it's corporate monopolies or a single government (which ends up kind of like the ultimate monopoly in a communist state). Communists IMHO have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and how incentives can be exploited for the benefit of everyone. We need a form of capitalism that promotes competition (because profit is possibly the most powerful motivator of innovation), but also keeps companies in check with strong regulations, strong workers unions, and profits taxed appropriately. It's also important to recognize that some basic needs should be met by the government like public education, public utilities, correctional systems, national defense, welfare, healthcare, etc. But even with public services, there should be room for private companies to innovate and provide premium alternatives to keep the government in check (with exceptions obviously, we don't want private military and private prisons for example).
(because profit is possibly the most powerful motivator of innovation)
I agree with most of what you finished with, but strongly disagree here. Scarsity, artifical or natural drives a need for resource distribution which then gives rise to a greedy profit motive.
The internet and computers in general have largely shown that when resources are plentiful people will create for the shear desire to create. So much of the internet, and modern technology runs off software and hardware designed for free, or at extremely low cost.
Linux, OpenSSL, heck Open anything, all built because people were dissatisfied with the existing commercial available model, or just wanted to create something new.
Going beyond software the amount of free entertainment on the internet is staggering. Much of it created without seeking to use it primarily or even at all as a means of income.
I probably could've worded that statement better and you bring up good points when it comes to individuals. Innovation clearly does not require profit motive to occur. The type of innovation you're talking about does require time to achieve, however. For individuals, this is leisure time, for organizations this is billable time. Regardless of the structure of an economy, the creative pursuits you've described can't occur if people are being worked to death.
One thing I will say about open source software, though, is that a lot of projects don't exist because of pure altruism. A lot of projects have been corporate funded (sometimes significantly funded) in order to specifically kill closed source competitors. I'm a pragmatist, though, I see open source software as a universal good for humanity regardless of its raison d'etre. Open source software is a form of competition that pushes closed source software vendors to innovate in order to justify their value. I could also argue that a lot of free content on the Internet is only free in the sense that it was produced by people who didn't have a profit motive and it's still often subscription or ad supported. YouTube, for example, still makes a lot of money on it.
The main point I was driving at is the choice of economic system doesn't matter much for personal creative endeavors as long as it allows people time to pursue them. But market competition for profits is absolutely one of the most powerful motivators for product and service innovation for corporations. So if you adopt an economic system that essentially eliminates competition and profits, you kill that motivation to innovate.
While I mostly agree with you I don't think country-owned companies or even monopolies are always bad. There needs to be a huge amount of real separation between politicians and those companies but it can work. In mine, both gambling and alcohol spirits stores are monopolies and owned by a country. Profits from gambling are distributed to grants for health and social welfare nonprofits. The question is if my country with very little corruption is the exemption that confirms the rule or if, if you do it right, it can work.
I also do not believe communism without very solid safeguards can work and those would need to be applied almost at the start. I am also pessimistic about human nature these days and am not sure if there can ever be enough safeguards to protect that model from misuse. I am what you could call a democratic socialist. I believe in mix and match where public and private companies can work in the same economy. Although I do oppose land resources being sold, especially as they are usually sold with a pittance for companies to profit. And I am not talking about private persons selling their land's resources but government land resources. Selling them really doesn't often make economic sense unless extraction would require a really high investment. Ecologic considerations should also be taken a lot more into account.
If they're using "communism" to control the people, then they're not really using communism
Is true Communism even possible if it's being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn't matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.
It’s about incentives. Worker oppression in Monarchy requires a bad King, in Feudalism bad lords, in Capitalism bad shareholders, and in Socialism self-hating workers. If you shared your workplace, would you push to remove your rights? Or to screw over your customers? And then argue for that against everyone else you share power with? The incentives are plainly better in a worker owned economy.
@tara @Sharkwellington, agree, it is precisely one of the many reasons why I use Vivaldi, it is from a European cooperative, owned by it's employees and without external investors who can influence in it's decisions. Company ethics are important.
Do you want to know what's not controlled by a company at all, doesn't give google a monopoly in web browsers (google "chromium" in a search engine like libreX or searxng), respects you freedom through a foss license? Librewolf
Better than Vivaldi could ever be
Respectfully, I can easily see a shared workplace at least encouraging screwing over customers. To me its an even more intense instance of the shareholder problem. Shareholders are obsessed with the money they're getting back with no real work but the risk inherent in the bet they made. The workers are working, for a livelihood, and of course will want to improve their quality of life. They're even more motivated to do so. And some of the best ways to do that, in the "make monkey brain happy" obvious short-term are the same policies the shareholders are already pushing. Will there be some pushback? Definitely, but you only have to sell a bunch of people on short-term easy money. And the lottery isn't popular because people are smart about this stuff.
Exactly, like we've done with capitalism
"That wasn't real communism" eh? First time I've ever seen this one..
Communism is an economic fairy tale, not policy.
It would be nice if it were possible but with the current state of the world, it is not.Social democracy is a reasonable compromise.
Social policy is socialism. Socialism is a different thing.
You can’t have a communist economic policy without being authoritarian. It’s human nature - once money is removed as a motivator, society breaks down unless you motivate people some other way (not being sent to the gulag).
The only thing that motivates you in life is money? How do you feel about that?
Don't forget the times dictators try to enforce communism onto nature. Mao's Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions.
Mao's great leap forward wasn't communism, your using association fallacy.
The introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization and outlawing of private farming led by the Chinese Communist Party wasnt communist? That is an interesting take.
Eeehhhh there are plenty of Tankies around here that unironically simp for Stalin and Mao, (never Pol Pot for some reason though), and those regimes were frought with corruption and are often called "red fascism," so I wouldn't be so quick to say "we" here. "You" maybe, "me" definitely, but "we" is too strong of a word when there are plenty of people doing just that on lemmygrad right now, and lemmy.ml being a marxist instance some there as well (though the refugees mostly drowned them out now).
Mao and Stalin (though to a noticably lesser extent) actually had insightful things to say though. Mao's essays on epistemology are genuinely really fantastic. And that can be true alongside all of the show trials and sparrow murder which was genuinely really fucking bad.
Pol Pot meanwhile admitted to never having really ever read Marx, and his faction of the Communist Party of Cambodia was more concerned about Khmer ultranationalism and anti-Vietmamese sentiment that had been brewing over the course of French colonialism, then with anything to do with building socialism.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that we ought to take a nuanced, grounded view of historic socialisms that accounts for their success and failures, and doesn't fall into either mindless exoneration of awful shit, nor reflexively screeching "TANKIE TANKIE!!!" Every time anything vaguely socialist oriented comes up in discussion.
Stalin botched Marxism into an authoritarian system that suited him. It was successful and he sponsored other authoritarians that liked his ideas. Those are all about the concentration of power and have fuck all to do with Marxs ideas.
Mao and Stalin (though to a noticably lesser extent) actually had insightful things to say though. Mao's essays on epistemology are genuinely really fantastic.
And Hitler was a Vegetarian. Does that mean vegitarians should simp for Hitler because "he had at least one good idea?" I should hope not! Furthermore if they do, even if they only simped for his vegetarianism and not his "political career," it is gonna come off a bit different than they intend to most people.
By all means, keep those subs dedicated to defending all those atrocities and simping for despots, but people likely won't be fooled into thinking they only care about epistemology while they say nothing happened in Tienanman Square without a shred of irony.
LOL I see I struck a nerve. Keep downvoting, the salt seasons my post.
And Hitler was a Vegetarian. Does that mean vegitarians should simp for Hitler because "he had at least one good idea?" I should hope not! Furthermore if they do, even if they only simped for his vegetarianism and not his "political career," it is gonna come off a bit different than they intend to most people.
Hitler being a vegetarian had nothing to do with his fascism. Mao's Epistemology was built on Stalin's synthesizing of Marxism-Leninism from the works of Lenin and the experiences of the Russian Civil War, etc.
There's actual political philosophy here that we can think through, debate, apply, update, and revise. Mistakes or outright malicious behavior can be learned from or discarded as necessary, because Marxism has within it mechanisms for self criticism and recitification.
You can ascribe to that philosophy or not, I don't care. But this kind of kneejerk reaction isn't in line with the way these discussions actually happen within Marxism.
Do dogmatic Marxists who blindly defend bad shit exist? Yes. But they're commonly denounced and criticized for their garbage analysis.
You're taking a small subset of, mostly online weirdos, and stawmanning my position, and an entire branch of political philosophy.
By all means, keep those subs dedicated to defending all those atrocities and simping for despots, but people likely won't be fooled into thinking they only care about epistemology while they say nothing happened in Tienanman Square without a shred of irony
Buddy, I'm not trying to pull wool over your eyes or be sneaky. I literally said to not do this shit. I'm trying to get people to engage with these topics with nuance and critical thinking skills. Not blindly screech uniformed praise or condemnation based on kneejerk, emotional, preconceptions.
It's difficult for people. When Mao/Lenin/Stalin or even Marx are discussed they all go to the "takie" slur. Their brains turn off and all they can think about is their propaganda.
Everyone is so quick to write off the atrocities of the USA and Europe. Japanese internment camps, destruction of democracies and creation of fascists dictatorships. The funding of terrorists (before and after we called them terrorists), the destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits, child labor and slave labor also in pursuit of profits.
But damn, because communists took businesses away from their oppressors, they are just as bad as fascists. /Shrugs
People gotta read more books.
@SpookyBogMonster @ArcaneSlime, I'm a left commonsensist in my ideology, and I only can say, that any system which lacks of the sovereignty of the people, based only on a leader or a small elite, be it from the right or the left, necessarily becomes a fascist and corrupt dictatorship. It is irrelevant if it is called Stalin or the fat boy of North Korea on the left or banks and multinationals in capitalism that make the rules, the result for the people is the same. Fascism
This I can get behind.
Ok so the analogy isn't the best, but the point still stands that simply because they did a good, that doesn't mean that simping for them and ignoring the bad is a good idea, nor does it mean that those simping for "the guy" will be taken as simping only for "the good" and not also "the bad" he did. Those subs/instances I mention and the people that populate them are literal genocide denialists, they aren't posting on "c/epistemology" and they aren't talking specifically about epistemology, they are denying the holodomor, the armenian genocide, and the tienanman square massacre, among other things they support like China's current Uyghur genocide because "America did an Iraq, and while we said that was bad, China is good for doing the same thing, because America did the bad" which is among the dumbest circular logic available to be found on lemmygrad.
Yes yes, but the people I'm complaining about aren't doing that, they're simply doomposting about late stage capitalism and denying genocides, simping for their preferred cults of personality. In essence to use my bad analogy, it'd be like if an instance of nazis doomposted about communism and denied the holocaust, but it was fine because they could sometimes also discuss his vegetarianism if they so chose, they just happen to not do that very often.
In "marxism," or on lemmygrad, "internet marxism?" If you suggest these things are different, maybe, but if you're suggesting that I'm wrong about the specific people I'm talking about, I'll have to disagree having seen it for myself.
Do dogmatic Marxists who blindly defend bad shit exist? Yes. But they're commonly denounced and criticized for their garbage analysis.
Again, on lemmygrad or somewhere else? Because I'm complaining about the Tankies on lemmygrad specifically and all who think as they do, and they certainly do not denounce and criticize that garbage analasys, rather they encourage and fester it.
You're taking a small subset of, mostly online weirdos, and stawmanning my position, and an entire branch of political philosophy.
Again, do you mean a small subset of lemmygrad, or do you mean marxists as a whole? In any case, I'm actually inclined to believe the subset isn't quite as small as you believe, or would like others to believe. I run into those people all the time and rarely your camp, suggesting either they are more numerous, or they are more loud, in which case I'd suggest your camp attempt to be louder to drown those crazies out, because they're doing a pretty good job at convincing people they're the bigger camp.
That's great that you're trying to do that, but the people on lemmygrad still exist, and hand waving my complaints about them away as simply nuance saying they're just discussing epistemology is patently false. You're basically just saying "not all communists" here, like "not all men." Well, as the "not all men" camp was told, "it's enough that it's a problem, and you need to teach
mencommunists not torapedeny genocides."
Ahh so guilty by association McCarthy?
They literally said the exact opposite of that. Work on your reading comprehension.
whoosh
oka. explain how you centralize governmental control of the economy without enabling the government to profit from it.