Communism can be flawed and a flaw it is, but let’s not forget that capitalism imposing indignity is capitalism working perfectly and is not a flaw. We reward greed.
So with this communism if used correctly can lead to prosperity.
I would like to point you towards reading about the transitional period, its an important part of communism and also reading about internationalism, essentially its very hard to move from a greedy society to communism and equally its hard to be a communist country while surrounded by greedy countries.
Airlines can treat people like shit because it’s not a free market. If anyone who wanted could start up their own airline, they’d be a lot more consumer-friendly by necessity.
According to Marx communism is a scenario of complete freedom.
It’s the socialist state that is authoritarian.
I think Marx’s idea is to actively burn away the old and then the new grow spontaneously. I think he’s wrong, since the old is a result of spontaneous growth already, but that’s the theory at least.
“Communism” is always going to be authoritarian if by “communism” you mean a government that attempts to control the whole of society. If by “communism” you mean a society where private property (not personal property) is democratically managed, that has nothing to do with authoritarism. Nor with the Soviet Union, or China, for that matter.
Authoritarianism is an empty label since it’s used against one’s opposing ideologies. Rarely if ever is the inherent authoritarianism of the current or any system of government acknowledged.
Understandable. But how does a government choose the label, in this case, communism, when the it’s governed by a very small group of individuals and in most cases against the will of the people?
The governing body is the vanguard which is to downsize overtime and the country is to eventually shift to a worker lead government. It would be anarchy to deploy communism without first building the systems to allow for a workers lead government, especially off of the back from a greed riddled society and like wise surrounded by greed riddled capitalist countries.
I should also so that mention communism isnt often implemented against the will of the people, Russia pre communism was an awful place, low literary, low life expectancy and the working class/ peasantry were exploited by the west and ruling class. They had a long bloody civil war and held strong. Then after which things slowly improved under communism.
I’m definitely not an expert on this. But let’s take foss as an example. I find it to be an amazing bottom up community that contributes to itself freely. I can’t imagine how a top down system would flourish if a small group of people decided what was good for the foss community and deleted what they thought wasn’t. Is there is a distinction? Is there different versions of communism I should check out?
There’s hypothetically a bunch of different version of communism for everyone. The thing is, Marx described the problems with capitalism, and some vague sense of what socialism could be, some guidelines of what it should aim for, then kind of left the details up to each individual society to get there how they think is best based on their individual material conditions. He gave his own guesses, but didn’t think he could predict that part fully, it would be up to the people of the future to figure it out and build on. A third world country, rural serf based near fuedal society, like Russia, would have completely different needs from some post-industrial country, like if Germany turned communist, for example. If the world’s sole superpower, the US, turned communist, it would probably be a lot different than communist countries that had to transition under siege neighboring imperialism, like Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam.
This is just to answer your last question. Don’t think this really addresses your other questions, but just wanted to explain that part, as I’ve had it explained to me before. But I generally agree with you. There should still be some form of democracy but it might look different than what we are used to here in the US or liberal west.
foss has a legally binding licence to support itself, this licence can be seen as a vanguard as it steers and protects the software, without the licence people would be sure to steal and monetise others works. But let’s say Foss became the defacto, everyone releases free fully open and no anti feature software, we could loss the vanguard and naturally a classless system would be present.
No, that is just another class of ownership. Whoever maintains the AI would be the ruling class. Or if we’re talking AGI, there’s little reason humanity should trust what humans build over what humans do.
Oh, in that case it’s a Democratic Republic of the Free People. The label the government chooses for itself might not be accurate according to political science.
Isn’t “communism” essentially authorianism? I’d love to see true communism in action but humans tend to be too flawed to give up all that power.
Communism can be flawed and a flaw it is, but let’s not forget that capitalism imposing indignity is capitalism working perfectly and is not a flaw. We reward greed.
So with this communism if used correctly can lead to prosperity.
I would like to point you towards reading about the transitional period, its an important part of communism and also reading about internationalism, essentially its very hard to move from a greedy society to communism and equally its hard to be a communist country while surrounded by greedy countries.
Airlines can treat people like shit because it’s not a free market. If anyone who wanted could start up their own airline, they’d be a lot more consumer-friendly by necessity.
According to Marx communism is a scenario of complete freedom.
It’s the socialist state that is authoritarian.
I think Marx’s idea is to actively burn away the old and then the new grow spontaneously. I think he’s wrong, since the old is a result of spontaneous growth already, but that’s the theory at least.
“Communism” is always going to be authoritarian if by “communism” you mean a government that attempts to control the whole of society. If by “communism” you mean a society where private property (not personal property) is democratically managed, that has nothing to do with authoritarism. Nor with the Soviet Union, or China, for that matter.
Authoritarianism is an empty label since it’s used against one’s opposing ideologies. Rarely if ever is the inherent authoritarianism of the current or any system of government acknowledged.
Understandable. But how does a government choose the label, in this case, communism, when the it’s governed by a very small group of individuals and in most cases against the will of the people?
The governing body is the vanguard which is to downsize overtime and the country is to eventually shift to a worker lead government. It would be anarchy to deploy communism without first building the systems to allow for a workers lead government, especially off of the back from a greed riddled society and like wise surrounded by greed riddled capitalist countries.
I should also so that mention communism isnt often implemented against the will of the people, Russia pre communism was an awful place, low literary, low life expectancy and the working class/ peasantry were exploited by the west and ruling class. They had a long bloody civil war and held strong. Then after which things slowly improved under communism.
I’m definitely not an expert on this. But let’s take foss as an example. I find it to be an amazing bottom up community that contributes to itself freely. I can’t imagine how a top down system would flourish if a small group of people decided what was good for the foss community and deleted what they thought wasn’t. Is there is a distinction? Is there different versions of communism I should check out?
There’s hypothetically a bunch of different version of communism for everyone. The thing is, Marx described the problems with capitalism, and some vague sense of what socialism could be, some guidelines of what it should aim for, then kind of left the details up to each individual society to get there how they think is best based on their individual material conditions. He gave his own guesses, but didn’t think he could predict that part fully, it would be up to the people of the future to figure it out and build on. A third world country, rural serf based near fuedal society, like Russia, would have completely different needs from some post-industrial country, like if Germany turned communist, for example. If the world’s sole superpower, the US, turned communist, it would probably be a lot different than communist countries that had to transition under siege neighboring imperialism, like Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam.
This is just to answer your last question. Don’t think this really addresses your other questions, but just wanted to explain that part, as I’ve had it explained to me before. But I generally agree with you. There should still be some form of democracy but it might look different than what we are used to here in the US or liberal west.
Its called worker lead, classless society.
foss has a legally binding licence to support itself, this licence can be seen as a vanguard as it steers and protects the software, without the licence people would be sure to steal and monetise others works. But let’s say Foss became the defacto, everyone releases free fully open and no anti feature software, we could loss the vanguard and naturally a classless system would be present.
Could a non-human vanguard be possible for a broader scope of governance? I don’t trust humanity all that much when it come to dictation.
No, that is just another class of ownership. Whoever maintains the AI would be the ruling class. Or if we’re talking AGI, there’s little reason humanity should trust what humans build over what humans do.
AI could do it but this is fantasy, current ai would have everyone eating glue pizza lol.
This should be worked on seriously. Our future looks bleak and we need to do something about it.
Oh, in that case it’s a Democratic Republic of the Free People. The label the government chooses for itself might not be accurate according to political science.