this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
25 points (90.3% liked)
Communism
1885 readers
2 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
also if you look at the chart the last two stages of communism are pretty horrible with 'completely planned economies' those simply dont work and are unstable systems they're essentially equiv to late stage capitalism were oligarchs are making the market decisions.
I feel like the big question is who is doing the planning? Because if it's the central government, not workers themselves, we're fucked. Communism is bottom-up, not top down. There can be organizers and public servants but there cannot be executives.
communism ends up top down in every implementation we've seen in the wild. but maybe you should think of the question not as 'who is doing the planning?' and instead as 'what do we actually need to plan centrally'. i think you'd be surprised about how little you actually need to plan centrally. I ended up settling on worker protections.
classical communism's take is its the economy and the state. both which means its ripe to collapse into corruption/authoritarianism and its very hard to protect. particularly once the system has established itself and is relatively stable. gives time for bad actors to start needling into the processes and abusing them.
You'll never be able to control 'who is doing the planning' in a reliable manner over a long term in a centralized system. just take a look at every tech company that gets majority market share. soon as it happens they begin abusing their control as people within the company shift. can also use political parties in democracies as an example, even with voters deciding on the final candidates there isnt really a choice. this is why communism in the wild has never had the bottom up result you're claiming it has, and no i don't care about the purist written version of communism I care how it plays out in practice.
and the distinction between public servant vs executive is fairly immaterial if they're both functioning as 'making the final decision for the group' what matters isnt who the decision maker is but how that decision maker was chosen to speak for the group.
Not every implementation. Maybe every state implementation (widely recognized states tend to be at least somewhat authoritarian, and the existence of a state isn't compatible with the ultimate goal of a state-less, class-less, & money-less society). But there are some not-as-recognized examples of somewhat successful, somewhat decentralized leftist organizations. (They tend to be in a constant state of war with surrounding right-wing death squads, though.)
To be clear, it makes sense that it's easier to handle disagreements within an army or party without resorting to outright authoritarianism; people who disagree enough to lead to real conflict are more likely to join a different army/front/party than create chaos inside of it. Still, there might be one last example of a pseudo-state or pseudo-country that seems consistent with anti-authoritarian leftist values:
There was a variety of leftist political activity in the region and no clear leader or authority, at least not in a definite singular sense. Unfortunately, the right-wing nationalist death squad got to them after only about a year. I wish that someone had intervened in nationalist Spain the way there'd been de-Nazi-fication in nationalist Germany.
I was careful with my word choices. I said communism not leftists theories generally. Communism is by definition a state managed/centrally planned economy.
I have no issue with left wing movements in general. My criticism is of centrally managed governments regardless of their origin.
And I do believe its possible to structure a society align left wing values. just not through communism, at least not in a way that is stable.