• Bazell@lemmy.zipEnglish
    10·
    7 days ago

    Anon opens a history book.

    Sees communism examples.

    Looks closer.

    It’s an obvious dictatorship with aspects of slavery.

    Finds capitalism examples.

    Looks closer.

    It’s a non-obvious dictatorship with aspects of slavery.

    Anon is confused and throws book away.

    • "There are not enough good examples for me to believe that something can be good. " - he says.
    • village604@adultswim.fanEnglish
      44·
      7 days ago

      The fact that communism hasn’t ever worked on a large scale without authoritarianism should tell you something.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        10·
        6 days ago

        Or the fact that it hasn’t ever worked on a large scale without authoritarianism due to a wildly uneven distribution of resources and capital before communism happened

        • village604@adultswim.fanEnglish
          28·
          6 days ago

          Communism relies on the government controlling everything to function. It requires some level of authoritarianism.

          • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyzEnglish
            81·
            5 days ago

            Communism relies on the government controlling everything to function.

            First off, “communism” is a stateless society¹. By definition. That already makes your claim an oxymoron.

            You meant “socialism”. Confusing socialism with communism is as silly as confusing capitalism with feudalism. For the same reason — it’s a succession chain: feudalism → capitalism → socialism → communism².

            And not even for socialism this is remotely valid. There are multiple ways to implement a post-capitalism society (aka socialism), from full hierarchy to complete self-governance. It depends on the material conditions.

            Notes:

            1. What your typical left-wing anarchist and your typical Marxist call “stateless” is different. However, in this context the difference between “there’s no state at all” and “there’s no state as a tool for the dominant class” isn’t relevant.
            2. Yeah, I’m oversimplifying matters. But c’mon, the user in question has been clearly fed more propaganda than information. Some didactic oversimplification is fine.
          • The D Quuuuuill@slrpnk.netEnglish
            9·
            6 days ago

            don’t make me tap the sign

            bolshevism is not communism

            you’re focusing on a single form of government and saying it’s the only way communism could exist when a lot of scholars can’t even agree on if it should exist within the discussion of communism or if it should just be considered socialism, or if its coalescion of authority was extensive enough to just be another example of another capitalist society.