this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
889 points (94.3% liked)

Memes

48558 readers
2381 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 minutes ago* (last edited 7 minutes ago)

What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?

In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).

I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.

It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn't hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn't enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).

Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.

I know I'm an idealist, but I'd like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).

We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.

We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.

We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.

There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Communism only works on a small scale. The second society gets bigger, you require a state with militaristic presence to keep the people in line. To this very day, the Marxist ideal of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" has ALWAYS resulted in centralized power structures that became brutal dictatorships.

No matter which country you pick, large ones like china or the soviet union or smaller ones like cambodia under pol pot or vietnam under the CPV, all of them have devolved into a dictatorship. Even "experiments" like yugoslavia under tito were, in the end, still dictatorships where political opposition was disallowed, a secret police was founded and tito still had absolute control. Now, you might say: "But the people lived well!", yes, for about 10 years until the 1960s where the country suffered a massive economic crash, insane debt (because commies suck at economics) and inflation. Tito was able to hold it together with sheer force until he died, and after his death, yugoslavia completely unraveled into the mess it is today.

I know you like to cope with "oh no the evil CIA again >:(" but in the end, communism is a failed ideology that will never work on a large scale without completely suppressing individual freedom and brutally knocking down any sign of dissent.

Edit: By the way, I'm more than willing to argue about this - however, I just noticed that I'm on lemmy.ml so I'll most likely get banned for not conforming to the tankie-ideals.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 40 minutes ago (1 children)

This is generally wrong, though. Communist countries have dramatically democratized society, it can only work at large scale because that's the Marxist reason for Communism to begin with. Competition centralizes, so in the future it must be publicly owned and planned.

Pol Pot wasn't even a Communist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 28 minutes ago* (last edited 27 minutes ago) (2 children)

Communist countries have dramatically democratized society

No. That's just a straightup lie. Name one.

it can only work at large scale because that’s the Marxist reason for Communism to begin with

And yet, it never did. Not one single time.

Competition centralizes, so in the future it must be publicly owned and planned.

Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That's why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.

Are there mega corpos that harm people in general? Absolutely. Should we do something about it? Absolutely. Is communism the solution? Nope.

Pol Pot wasn’t even a Communist.

Pol Pot followed a radical form of Maoist communism, heaviely influenced by china. So no - that's also a lie.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 13 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes ago)

Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That’s why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.

Competitions have winners, and in this case it means the competition goes out of business and dies, leaving you with a near monopoly or outright monopoly.

That power then gets used to

  • lobby (bribe) the government to raise barriers to entry to prevent new competitors
  • buy out new competitors
  • intentionally price everything lower than competitors, at a loss, to kill competitors in a war of attrition that they can't possibly outlast

And that's even assuming there's any competition at all, which often isn't the case with certain things like healthcare, internet, electricity, etc.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 23 minutes ago (1 children)

The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc are more democratic than theie previous systems.

Communism still works, just because the Soviet Union isn't here doesn't mean everything is a failure.

Competition forces centralization and monopolies over time due to increasinly complex production practices that raise the barrier to entry. It's unavoidable.

Pol Pot denounced Marxism and focused on an odd agrarian system, and was backed by the CIA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 minutes ago

You made a lot of claims here. Do you have any sources to provide support?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

All communist states were/are dictatorships (Soviet Union, China, North Korea).

What the society really needs are strong democracies with a free, well regalemented market and strong social welfare (mixed economy). This is already happening in northern europe with great succes.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 55 minutes ago* (last edited 51 minutes ago)

Those aren’t/weren’t communist so per the post their leaders worked for the CIA

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 57 minutes ago

Damn CIA created Maoism

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

Seeing some of the zingers in the comments here, now seems like a great time to plug my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Read up, comrades!

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›