I honestly wasn’t sure if the communist stuff was being said ironically or not initially.
Are people really convinced that a communist solution will ever work in reality? In principle it sounds great but it relies on EVERYONE being a perfect unselfish person which is obviously never going to happen.
I feel less and less able to sympathise with typical lemmy users tbh, there’s a bigger feeling of exclusion in the communities than reddit ever seemed to have.
It seems like if I don’t agree with all of the following that I’m a dick and represent everything that’s wrong in the world:
all landlords are scumbags
cars are the worst possible solution for travel in every situation
communism is the answer to all of societies problems
Linux is the only reasonable option and anything else makes me a demon who supports every aspect of capitalism.
Anyway, bring on the pitchforks, happy to discuss any of the points mentioned :) x
The simple answer is that Communism does not in fact rely on everyone being perfect and unselfish. The complicated answer is telling you to go read Communist theory.
Why do you hold the belief that Communisn requires everyone be perfect and unselfish to function any more than Capitalism does? Can you describe the principle or structure that leads you to believe this?
Honestly, no I’m far from an expert in political or economic matters. I’m just yet to see a system proposed that could work in reality given how complex humans are and how “value” is almost impossible to define when everyone sees it differently.
Plenty of countries have tried though and none have made it work from what I’ve seen. This is possibly (probably) a gross oversimplification but ultimately someone (or some group) ends up at the top of the tree and unless that group is uncorruptable forever it ends with imbalance.
Asking everyone to share as needed and own nothing would be great if everyone wanted everyone else to be equally happy and nobody was trying to take more for themselves (and if everyone had the same idea of what everything is worth). I think at the very least we can agree that some people are more selfless than others and other people will always exploit that given an opportunity.
How deep of an understanding do you have of these supposed proposed systems? As a leftist, the vast majority of mainstream leftist tendencies have strong theory that specifically deals with what you consider to be their ultimate flaw: an assumption of human good. It’s hard to actually answer for every single leftist Tendency, because you haven’t really given any specifics.
As for your second paragraph, there have been remarkably few countries that genuinely have tried Socialism, and all of them were developing countries. Don’t take this to mean that I’m a fan of Marxism-Leninism, but there are two prominent examples of countries that most would consider did in fact “work,” those being the USSR and China.
Again, not defending the USSR or China overall, but asking for clarification on your definition of working, as they were and are economically strong.
Your point about the top of the tree is, bluntly, extremely bad. You offer no explanation why a Socialist or Communist structure cannot be democratically accountable to any lesser degree than Capitalist structures, and assume absolute power. This goes directly against all leftist theory, even Marxism-Leninism, which is centered on the principles of Democratic Centralism.
Your point about Communism being “sharing everything and owning nothing” is also entirely incorrect, and further proves my point. The entire final paragraph is so divorced from any sense of actual leftist theory, that it can only be a product of someone fully believing a right-wing pundit’s propaganda, and not the actual primary sources for leftist tendencies, to the point where I’ll break down each sentence.
Communism, principly, is a far-future status by which the whole of the productive forces can meaningfully provide whatever anyone wants at any time, and work is done for the pleasure of working, rather than for the necessity of being. As such, it must be built towards over a long period of Socialism, which is chiefly Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. Communism and Socialism are built on the idea of earning what you actually work for, rather than allowing individuals to own the products of other’s labor via ownership of the tools they use. You make the error of assuming immediate implementation of Communism, rather than gradual.
We can partially agree on your second point, but given the actual structures proposed by various leftist tendencies, it doesn’t matter for this conversation, and you’ve yet to prove why.
Sorry for the wall of text! I truly think that you should talk to leftists, actually read some Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Luxembourg, and so forth, and actually get an idea of what the various leftist tendencies are actually saying. You don’t have to be a leftist, but you absolutely should understand leftism before attempting to disavow it entirely.
I’m not trying to prove anything mate. I’m mainly just incredulous at the lack of acceptance in a community which claims to be left wing.
As I said initially, I am far from an expert and definitely don’t claim to understand the intricacies in ANY system, communist or not. Everything I’ve seen points to communism working in theory and not in practise though.
The definition of communism as far as I’m aware is about owning nothing, and sharing as needed. Where the state provides what the individual needs and the individual contributes to the greater effort to provide for all. Perhaps that’s where I’m fundamentally wrong, but a quick Google gives me this as a definition: “Communism is a political and economic ideology that positions itself in opposition to liberal democracy and capitalism, advocating instead for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.”
It sounds great in principle but is a naively optimistic view of how humans can coexist in massive numbers in my opinion. Owning property (and companies or pretty much anything else you care to mention) is something that needs to be much more regulated than it currently is to try and curtail bad practise, but I don’t see how it could ever be abolished without creating anarchy. The idea of owning the means of production isn’t something I fully understand as I’m sure you’ve realised, does that make employment on a salary impossible? If I work for a company I suddenly own part of that company and everyone just shares the profits rather than getting paid a wage? Nobody owns a company but all the workers work towards the same goal somehow and the person calling the shots at the company (can this even exist as a role in a world where everyone is working for fun?) is just a manager earning his equal share of profit?
I would certainly consider myself left wing if I had to label myself but honestly I hate the whole labelling thing anyway and prefer the idea that my views are my own, and I shouldn’t expect to feel a certain way about something because of my views on something else which is unrelated.
In this eventual world where people only work for pleasure, who is maintaining the sewage? Who is choosing to wake at 5am and goto bed at 10pm in order to harvest crops? Why would anyone choose to work a job that currently is only sufficiently filled because it rewards people financially for bearing the negative aspects, whatever they may be?
Ultimately I’m not a particularly political person and I just want to enjoy my life with my family and friends as much as possible while hurting nobody, I won’t be shouting on either side of a political war, I’ll cast my vote whenever I can and enjoy myself as much as possible in between those moments while being as kind as I can to as many as possible.
The USSR and China may have worked economically but take a look at the imbalance in quality of life and the lack of opportunity for an individual to do anything about it. I’ve only ever seen those used as examples we should consider successes on lemmy to be honest. You’d honestly choose to live in the USSR or present day China given the choice?
I understand that my point about groups at top of the tree goes against the THEORY, but that’s exactly my point, the theory is fine but the reality isn’t. Did the USSR or China not have economic inequality at the top and bottom of the scale? I’m sure I remember reading that the standards China sets for its quality of life thresholds are far below what similarly performing countries set in order to get comparable results, despite claiming to have all but eradicated poverty.
You’ve definitely made me think a lot more about it than I have for years but it hasn’t altered how I see the world, nor improved my understanding or life in any meaningful way. I appreciate the time taken to reply though, hope you have a nice day :) x
Lack of acceptance for what? Leftism is a group of ideologies, and not necessarily one built around tolerating that which they oppose out of a sense of moral superiority.
I was just asking for what you’ve seen that points to Communism working in theory and not in practice, because so far you’ve explained exactly none of that.
I’ve found a good start for your lack of understanding, though! You completely misinterpret the definition and conflate private property with all property, when it is specifically referring to tools and industry, ie the Means of Production. You absolutely own things in Communism, like your house, toys, games, books, etc. You just don’t own Private Property, like factories, restaurants, etc. The definition of Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, and you make the error of pretending to know what exactly that entails by your own worst imagining of your own worst interpretation of said phrase.
Your next paragraph is also very enlightening, you assume Capitalist Mode of Production with Communist consequences! This is precisely what I’m getting at, you believe things like Companies would exist in Communism, when Communism itself is anti-market, and you’re again making the assumption that we can just turn on the big red Communism button and get there, when it must be built over a long period of time, with structures such as worker councils.
Your question about bullshit jobs has numerous solutions, actually. First of all, you’re assuming Communism in modern society, rather than the future, after lots of automation. Socialism would have monetary rewards, even lower stage Communism as well, for performing this labor. Eventually, it would be like your current life. Who cleans your house? You and your roommates, whether that be your friends, or family. In a Communist society, likely everyone would take turns, for whatever bullshit jobs haven’t already been automated away. In lower stages, they would be paid more money until this becomes possible.
Your points on the USSR and China are also wrong. In the USSR, wealth inequality was magnitudes lower than it is in their current oligarchic hellscape, and the Workers actually had a lot of say over how their life went, assuming they didn’t criticize the Politburo. This was referred to as Soviet Democracy, by which worker councils called Soviets decided things democratically at the local level.
No, I wouldn’t live in the USSR or modern day China, because they are developing countries with authoritarian leadership. However, you’ll find that is true across the board for developing countries. Perhaps if the USSR or China ever fully developed and became more democratically accountable, I would choose to live there, but for now you’ll find that quality of life follows development more than structure.
Both Maoist China and the USSR had far less wealth inequality than they have today, both doubled life expectancy, and the USSR had close to 0 homelessness with fully free education and Healthcare. They also lacked luxury goods and had an Authoritarian party controlling the state, but you’re demonstrably wrong about wealth inequality.
I am not a tankie or a supporter of the ML form of Socialism, if it needs to be restated.
If I point to Hitler’s Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, and Batista’s Cuba, does that mean that Capitalism is great in theory and doesn’t actually work in reality because it results in Authoritarianism? The answer is that you must state the why and how this came to be, so as not to repeat it.
Do you genuinely think the USSR and China are the only forms of Socialism that could ever exist?
Please, just read some leftist theory or watch some YouTube videos. All of your false preconceptions are easily debunked even by looking at historical records and doing some light critical thinking. I know you mean well, but you could genuinely have improvements in your understanding.
It depends on which instances you visit, the one I’m in is pretty chill, but slow. Though it does have a Chilean theme going on, so it might be harder for you to find something interesting.
I honestly wasn’t sure if the communist stuff was being said ironically or not initially.
Are people really convinced that a communist solution will ever work in reality? In principle it sounds great but it relies on EVERYONE being a perfect unselfish person which is obviously never going to happen.
I feel less and less able to sympathise with typical lemmy users tbh, there’s a bigger feeling of exclusion in the communities than reddit ever seemed to have.
It seems like if I don’t agree with all of the following that I’m a dick and represent everything that’s wrong in the world:
Anyway, bring on the pitchforks, happy to discuss any of the points mentioned :) x
The simple answer is that Communism does not in fact rely on everyone being perfect and unselfish. The complicated answer is telling you to go read Communist theory.
Why do you hold the belief that Communisn requires everyone be perfect and unselfish to function any more than Capitalism does? Can you describe the principle or structure that leads you to believe this?
Honestly, no I’m far from an expert in political or economic matters. I’m just yet to see a system proposed that could work in reality given how complex humans are and how “value” is almost impossible to define when everyone sees it differently.
Plenty of countries have tried though and none have made it work from what I’ve seen. This is possibly (probably) a gross oversimplification but ultimately someone (or some group) ends up at the top of the tree and unless that group is uncorruptable forever it ends with imbalance.
Asking everyone to share as needed and own nothing would be great if everyone wanted everyone else to be equally happy and nobody was trying to take more for themselves (and if everyone had the same idea of what everything is worth). I think at the very least we can agree that some people are more selfless than others and other people will always exploit that given an opportunity.
How deep of an understanding do you have of these supposed proposed systems? As a leftist, the vast majority of mainstream leftist tendencies have strong theory that specifically deals with what you consider to be their ultimate flaw: an assumption of human good. It’s hard to actually answer for every single leftist Tendency, because you haven’t really given any specifics.
As for your second paragraph, there have been remarkably few countries that genuinely have tried Socialism, and all of them were developing countries. Don’t take this to mean that I’m a fan of Marxism-Leninism, but there are two prominent examples of countries that most would consider did in fact “work,” those being the USSR and China.
Again, not defending the USSR or China overall, but asking for clarification on your definition of working, as they were and are economically strong.
Your point about the top of the tree is, bluntly, extremely bad. You offer no explanation why a Socialist or Communist structure cannot be democratically accountable to any lesser degree than Capitalist structures, and assume absolute power. This goes directly against all leftist theory, even Marxism-Leninism, which is centered on the principles of Democratic Centralism.
Your point about Communism being “sharing everything and owning nothing” is also entirely incorrect, and further proves my point. The entire final paragraph is so divorced from any sense of actual leftist theory, that it can only be a product of someone fully believing a right-wing pundit’s propaganda, and not the actual primary sources for leftist tendencies, to the point where I’ll break down each sentence.
Communism, principly, is a far-future status by which the whole of the productive forces can meaningfully provide whatever anyone wants at any time, and work is done for the pleasure of working, rather than for the necessity of being. As such, it must be built towards over a long period of Socialism, which is chiefly Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. Communism and Socialism are built on the idea of earning what you actually work for, rather than allowing individuals to own the products of other’s labor via ownership of the tools they use. You make the error of assuming immediate implementation of Communism, rather than gradual.
We can partially agree on your second point, but given the actual structures proposed by various leftist tendencies, it doesn’t matter for this conversation, and you’ve yet to prove why.
Sorry for the wall of text! I truly think that you should talk to leftists, actually read some Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Luxembourg, and so forth, and actually get an idea of what the various leftist tendencies are actually saying. You don’t have to be a leftist, but you absolutely should understand leftism before attempting to disavow it entirely.
I’m not trying to prove anything mate. I’m mainly just incredulous at the lack of acceptance in a community which claims to be left wing.
As I said initially, I am far from an expert and definitely don’t claim to understand the intricacies in ANY system, communist or not. Everything I’ve seen points to communism working in theory and not in practise though.
The definition of communism as far as I’m aware is about owning nothing, and sharing as needed. Where the state provides what the individual needs and the individual contributes to the greater effort to provide for all. Perhaps that’s where I’m fundamentally wrong, but a quick Google gives me this as a definition: “Communism is a political and economic ideology that positions itself in opposition to liberal democracy and capitalism, advocating instead for a classless system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.”
It sounds great in principle but is a naively optimistic view of how humans can coexist in massive numbers in my opinion. Owning property (and companies or pretty much anything else you care to mention) is something that needs to be much more regulated than it currently is to try and curtail bad practise, but I don’t see how it could ever be abolished without creating anarchy. The idea of owning the means of production isn’t something I fully understand as I’m sure you’ve realised, does that make employment on a salary impossible? If I work for a company I suddenly own part of that company and everyone just shares the profits rather than getting paid a wage? Nobody owns a company but all the workers work towards the same goal somehow and the person calling the shots at the company (can this even exist as a role in a world where everyone is working for fun?) is just a manager earning his equal share of profit?
I would certainly consider myself left wing if I had to label myself but honestly I hate the whole labelling thing anyway and prefer the idea that my views are my own, and I shouldn’t expect to feel a certain way about something because of my views on something else which is unrelated.
In this eventual world where people only work for pleasure, who is maintaining the sewage? Who is choosing to wake at 5am and goto bed at 10pm in order to harvest crops? Why would anyone choose to work a job that currently is only sufficiently filled because it rewards people financially for bearing the negative aspects, whatever they may be?
Ultimately I’m not a particularly political person and I just want to enjoy my life with my family and friends as much as possible while hurting nobody, I won’t be shouting on either side of a political war, I’ll cast my vote whenever I can and enjoy myself as much as possible in between those moments while being as kind as I can to as many as possible.
The USSR and China may have worked economically but take a look at the imbalance in quality of life and the lack of opportunity for an individual to do anything about it. I’ve only ever seen those used as examples we should consider successes on lemmy to be honest. You’d honestly choose to live in the USSR or present day China given the choice?
I understand that my point about groups at top of the tree goes against the THEORY, but that’s exactly my point, the theory is fine but the reality isn’t. Did the USSR or China not have economic inequality at the top and bottom of the scale? I’m sure I remember reading that the standards China sets for its quality of life thresholds are far below what similarly performing countries set in order to get comparable results, despite claiming to have all but eradicated poverty.
You’ve definitely made me think a lot more about it than I have for years but it hasn’t altered how I see the world, nor improved my understanding or life in any meaningful way. I appreciate the time taken to reply though, hope you have a nice day :) x
Lack of acceptance for what? Leftism is a group of ideologies, and not necessarily one built around tolerating that which they oppose out of a sense of moral superiority.
I was just asking for what you’ve seen that points to Communism working in theory and not in practice, because so far you’ve explained exactly none of that.
I’ve found a good start for your lack of understanding, though! You completely misinterpret the definition and conflate private property with all property, when it is specifically referring to tools and industry, ie the Means of Production. You absolutely own things in Communism, like your house, toys, games, books, etc. You just don’t own Private Property, like factories, restaurants, etc. The definition of Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, and you make the error of pretending to know what exactly that entails by your own worst imagining of your own worst interpretation of said phrase.
Your next paragraph is also very enlightening, you assume Capitalist Mode of Production with Communist consequences! This is precisely what I’m getting at, you believe things like Companies would exist in Communism, when Communism itself is anti-market, and you’re again making the assumption that we can just turn on the big red Communism button and get there, when it must be built over a long period of time, with structures such as worker councils.
Your question about bullshit jobs has numerous solutions, actually. First of all, you’re assuming Communism in modern society, rather than the future, after lots of automation. Socialism would have monetary rewards, even lower stage Communism as well, for performing this labor. Eventually, it would be like your current life. Who cleans your house? You and your roommates, whether that be your friends, or family. In a Communist society, likely everyone would take turns, for whatever bullshit jobs haven’t already been automated away. In lower stages, they would be paid more money until this becomes possible.
Your points on the USSR and China are also wrong. In the USSR, wealth inequality was magnitudes lower than it is in their current oligarchic hellscape, and the Workers actually had a lot of say over how their life went, assuming they didn’t criticize the Politburo. This was referred to as Soviet Democracy, by which worker councils called Soviets decided things democratically at the local level.
No, I wouldn’t live in the USSR or modern day China, because they are developing countries with authoritarian leadership. However, you’ll find that is true across the board for developing countries. Perhaps if the USSR or China ever fully developed and became more democratically accountable, I would choose to live there, but for now you’ll find that quality of life follows development more than structure.
Both Maoist China and the USSR had far less wealth inequality than they have today, both doubled life expectancy, and the USSR had close to 0 homelessness with fully free education and Healthcare. They also lacked luxury goods and had an Authoritarian party controlling the state, but you’re demonstrably wrong about wealth inequality.
I am not a tankie or a supporter of the ML form of Socialism, if it needs to be restated.
If I point to Hitler’s Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, and Batista’s Cuba, does that mean that Capitalism is great in theory and doesn’t actually work in reality because it results in Authoritarianism? The answer is that you must state the why and how this came to be, so as not to repeat it.
Do you genuinely think the USSR and China are the only forms of Socialism that could ever exist?
Please, just read some leftist theory or watch some YouTube videos. All of your false preconceptions are easily debunked even by looking at historical records and doing some light critical thinking. I know you mean well, but you could genuinely have improvements in your understanding.
Okie doke :) x
It depends on which instances you visit, the one I’m in is pretty chill, but slow. Though it does have a Chilean theme going on, so it might be harder for you to find something interesting.