• thedruid@lemmy.world
    21·
    2 hours ago

    Because at then end ,power over the people is given to the state. When you give the state the means of production and that state falls under the sway of humans with power, you get corruption and death.

    Once a place has enough people, anonymity happens. We stop knowing our neighbors and leaders. We don’t see the corruption they can now hide. Communism gives an easier way to leverage that corruption and power more easily

    Socialism, more specifically forms of democratic socialism ( and with today’s tech it can be one vite one person), is far more scalable and stable

    We need a new constitution with more power given to the people and LESS to the state

  • sarah ash (They/Them)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    42·
    4 hours ago

    Not quite. Dont get me wrong capitalism sucks and we should get rid of it, but for example colonialism is older than capitalism and part of its cause. So is colonialsim the root cause of evil? not quite again before colonialism there where still a lot of repressive and very hierarchical societies so again to frame capitalism as the root of all evil is ignoring a whole bunch of other repressive systems that are older but are certainly strengthend by it.

    So if you want to simplisticly frame something as the root cause of evil then it would be “opressive hierarchies are the root cause of evil”. but maybe im biased here since im an anarchist

  • Letsdothisagain@lemmy.world
    116·
    19 hours ago

    Workers of the world unite!

    Edit: not that I’m into that sort of thing… I’ve taken history classes, I’ve read about, I’ve watched documentaries, I understand that communism is not to be desired or

  • oyzmo@lemmy.world
    3719·
    1 day ago

    Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      146·
      1 day ago

      Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      132·
      1 day ago

      Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.

      Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.

    • m532@lemmygrad.ml
      126·
      1 day ago

      Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          5·
          21 hours ago

          Yeah I didn’t consider the nazis but they are just lackeys for the landlords and ceos so I mentally put them in there. Ofc nazis have to fear communism too.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
          10·
          1 day ago

          How are you going to secure your commune from external enemies without invoking authority?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          111·
          1 day ago

          The Black Book of Communism was debunked long ago, from including Nazis killed during World War II as “victims of Communism” to literally making up numbers to get to 100 million dead to being outright disproven once the Soviet Archives were opened up.

          There were excess deaths, but Communist leaders weren’t mindless butchers, either. And with the introduction of Socialism came numerous benefits for the working class, like a doubling of life expectancy, tripling of literacy rates to 99.9%, free and high quality education, healthcare, and childcare, an expansion in women’s rights, a democratization of the economy, and much more.

          Anarchism is a beautiful idea, and I used to be one. However, I am more convinced of Marxism, namely because we have more data that shows the success of Marxism, and because hierarchy and centralization are requirements for expansive infrastructure projects like high speed rail and for complex production, such as for smartphones.

          I have an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List you can check out, if you’d like to learn more.

    • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.mlEnglish
      8·
      21 hours ago

      You’re not going to overthrow fascism, white supremacy or capitalism with random acts of adventurism. If you’re not more organized than your enemy they will crush you.

  • eestileib@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    4715·
    2 days ago

    Maaaaaaybe the USSR isn’t the best example of a better society we want to be building.

    I’m watching the whole ideological-purge thing happen in the US and it kinda sucks.

    • ptee@lemm.eeEnglish
      310·
      24 hours ago

      Both extremes on display those examples, seems like they both end up in the same place in the end. Maybe it would be reasonable to use any system that is a mix of things, instead of focusing on pure capitalism or communism.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        11·
        24 hours ago

        There’s really no such thing as a pure system, any mix is still going to have either the public sector as principle or private, ie which controls the state, large firms, and key industries. There’s no way to keep them “balanced,” one will have power over the other, and its best for it to be the public sector.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1516·
      1 day ago

      Either build something better or shutup, I say. Unless you’re a big fan of Tsarist Russia

      • rational_lib@lemmy.world
        910·
        1 day ago

        I’ve played civilization and I’m pretty sure there’s other forms of government besides Communism and Monarchy that have low corruption, albeit lacking the ability to force the citizens into war on the leader’s whim.

        • m532@lemmygrad.ml
          11·
          1 day ago

          Isnt civilization the game where “democracy” has 0 corruption? I think its kinda biased and not exactly based on reality

        • CalipherJones@lemmy.worldEnglish
          11·
          19 hours ago

          Corruption is a matter of individuals rather than the form of government. Any human system is bound to be corruptible since it involves humans.

          I think a strong anti corruption culture is the best defense against it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          92·
          21 hours ago

          I’d say all AES states have broadly managed to achieve their goals. There have been troubles and struggles faced internally and externally, none have been dreamlike utopian wonderlands, but seemingly only non-Marxists are the ones that require that of Marxist movements.

          • Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf
            27·
            20 hours ago

            I had to google that first. Had no idea what the sahel states had to do with socialism or communism.

            Those AES states are mostly highly corrupt though. I wouldn’t refer to north Korea as a livable place, plus the leaders are bathing in money while the populace dies from hunger. In Vietnam, if you know someone in politics, you can get whatever you want. I know this (nearly) first-hand. Laos, lol. And why the hell is China on that list? They’re way too deep in the capitalist game to be on that list, no? People also don’t mean shit to the ones in charge. Their people are executed by the thousands every year and they like to keep minorities in concentration camps. I’m sorry, those states are failed states in my opinion.

            And as long as there is corruption, communism is not going to work. It’s a nice theory, but it just takes one black sheep to fuck it up for everyone. I wish it weren’t that way. It’d be nice to live in a world where people work for a purpose and everyone gets the same and no one has to suffer. Not going to happen.

            Capitalism is plain evil though, I’ll give you that.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              81·
              20 hours ago

              AES as in “Actually Existing Socialism.” The Sahel States are a quasi-Socialist national liberatory alliance. Burkina Faso was briefly Socialist under Sankara, but that time has passed.

              The struggles faced in the DPRK are more due to sanctions and embargo than anything else, kinda like Cuba. Unlike Cuba, the US slaughtered 20% of their population and destroyed 80% of their buildings, yet they were economically ahead of South Korea until the 80s. The leadership is not “bathing in money” either.

              Vietnam is rising rapidly. It isn’t a Utopia, but is dramatically improving. Same with Laos.

              The PRC is more classically Marxist than they were under the late Mao period and Gang of Four, I elaborated on that, here. Further, you’re repeating state department propaganda about them, very silly.

              Further, China is democratic. It doesn’t have a western liberal democracy, but it does have a comprehensive Socialist democracy. You can read this article talking about why the Chinese democratic model is in place and why the people support it, or this article on how the Chinese model of democracy works in contrast to western democracy, or this short video on how it works, or this video on how elections work, or this article on the makeup of the NPC.

              By what metrics is China not democratic? What mechanically would they have to change for you to accept the opinions of the Chinese citizenry on their own system? I recommend this introduction to SWCC, it goes in-detail about how elections and the democratic model work in China. what mechanically would China have to change in order for you to accept the system that the Chinese have implemented by and for themselves, and approve of at rates exceeding 90%?

              Please explain how “one black sheep” would ruin Socialism/Communism. Given that you clearly aren’t familiar with Marxist theory nor how AES states function, this is a telltale sign that your critiques are of strawmen.

          • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
            3·
            9 hours ago

            Russia is a shit hole and has failed in every type of government they’ve ever had.

            The soviets found themselves in a feudal shithole, and elevated it to a global super power.

            China was also doing no better before “communism”.

            Not sure who claims that China is communist, but it’s definitely not the chines. They have a market socialist system (or more accurately SWCC), which still has class society and its own contradictions.

            Educate yourself on basic facts before you speak on a topic and stfu until you do so shitlib

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          113·
          21 hours ago

          That’s not how AES states function, in any capacity. Further, people get paid in Socialist states, so I really don’t know what strawman you’re fighting here.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          283·
          1 day ago

          The vast majority believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.

          • lost_screwdriver@thelemmy.clubEnglish
            39·
            23 hours ago

            I guess you can say Ukraine is now worse off than in the USSR, Back then they weren’t at war. The current situation isn’t exactly the fault of capitalism (or Ukranie for that matter)

              • cotlovan@lemm.ee
                110·
                21 hours ago

                Oh my fing god, I thought lemmy is only full of extreme liberals, but it’s also full of wannabe comunists. Dude, have you ever asked yourself why USSR fell if everything was better than in the west? Why people risked their lives jumping over the Berlin wall? Why there was a whole black market of importing goods from the west into ussr? Why people didn’t enjoy being sent to Siberia by the millions to die of hunger and of forced labor?

                Or was Cuba a success?

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  91·
                  21 hours ago

                  Lemmy is developed by Communists, the Communists were here first.

                  Secondly, the dissolution of the USSR was driven instead by numerous complex factors:

                  1. Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries

                  2. A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms

                  3. A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion

                  4. 80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war

                  5. An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market

                  Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.

                  People left the DDR after getting good educations for free, and higher wages in West Germany. They got the best of both worlds.

                  Millions were not sent to Siberia.

                  Cuba is a resilliant success story given its brutal embargo and sanctions, yes. It has astounding metrics in areas like life expectancy despite being intentionally impoverished by the US Empire.

              • SugaredScoundrel@sh.itjust.works
                112·
                1 day ago

                Private interests do align, but rarely. Meaning you have more chance at opposing narratives forming. Public is monovoiced. Without an opposing voice its data becomes suspect.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  13·
                  1 day ago

                  Private is controlled by large corporations, and often gets state funding. All press has bias. Really, you don’t have anything against the data other than you feel like it could be wrong.

  • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    2813·
    2 days ago

    The desire to dominate and the willingness to act on it has existed in a fraction of the population since before humans were human. This is the root of all evil, capitalism is a specific manifestation of this impulse that has only existed for some 400 years. If your analysis starts and ends at “capitalism bad” you miss the vast majority of oppression that has existed or will exist.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      96·
      1 day ago

      What’s your evidence for your the root of evil is that some people just have an “evil” gene theory?

      • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        58·
        1 day ago

        I never mentioned genetics, strange that you would bring it up. Sex isn’t even fully determined by genetics, something as complex and fragile as your personal values certainly can never be reduced to genetics.

        Humans brains are stochastic and the values we eventually settle on depend both on our environment and on somewhat random walks through possible values. Some people will land on violent domination as a social strategy just through randomness. I believe an environment where everyone is cared for and has the ability to flourish will minimize the people who randomly end up on violent domination, but it is not possible through environmental changes to completely prevent this. Thus we cannot allow any positions of power, since those will attract and eventually be captured by people who have chosen domination as their preferred strategy.