I love how God is verified on X.
I stand against communism and socialism in general, but not remotely for the same reasons Republicans do.
The Republican and right-wing practice of using “socialism” the same way it was used as propaganda during the Red Scare of the 1950s has seriously run its course. Of course, the problem is that many of the people who continue to vote for these politicians still genuinely believe the United States is facing some kind of communist takeover. That is precisely why this rhetoric continues to work.
Just in case anyone is wondering, I oppose socialism and communism based on the principles and practical merits of those systems, not because someone told me to fear the word “socialism.” I fully support things such as social democracy and a democratic mixed economy. What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government. Historically, that combination has produced some very serious economic and political failures.
At the same time, I do not support using “socialism” as a political scare tactic to advance someone else’s agenda. Morally, I see little meaningful difference between Stalin using communist propaganda to serve his political objectives and a modern politician using distorted anti-socialist propaganda to serve theirs. Propaganda is reprehensible regardless of whether it is coming from the political left or right.
I can oppose an ideology on its merits without turning the word itself into a political weapon.
What I do not support is replacing a democratic, market-based economy with a centrally planned socialist economy and coupling that with an authoritarian communist government.
You’re conflating a capitalism with market commerce. Markets long predate capitalism, markets function in socialist paradigms. Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
Communist government is itself an oxymoron because communism is, by definition, stateless.
I don’t think many people would, in good faith, support a transition to a centrally planned authoritarian state - but also no one would, in good faith, be able to call such an end goal socialism or communism.
Capitalism does not mean democracy, authoritarian regimes coexist just fine with capitalist economics.
In fact capitalism as it currently exists is the antithesis of democracy. It takes control, in the form of money/capital, away from the people and into the hands of the few business owners.
I definitely understand how you could interpret the two as being antithetical, but I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system. Those are two separate things, and there are a tremendous number of combinations that can exist between the two.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world. And some of the countries that combine capitalism with the most extensive welfare states are the Nordic social democracies. They maintain market-based, capitalist economies while using taxation, regulation, labor protections, and extensive social programs to constrain some of capitalism’s more destructive effects. The OECD explicitly describes the Nordic model as demonstrating that a strong welfare state can coexist with strong economic growth.
That’s where I think democracy becomes particularly important. In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
And that’s ultimately the concern I have with the United States: not capitalism itself, but what happens when concentrated economic power becomes sufficiently influential that it begins to undermine the democratic mechanisms that are supposed to regulate it.
This is the inevitable conclusion of capitalism. People who support capitalism are like that crazy guy who lived with bears. It doesn’t have a happy ending no matter how good it is to have cute bear pets.
For example, Glass Steagall was an important regulation that capitalism eventually removed from itself through the capture of the government by the 1%. This is not a solvable flaw. The best you can do is make end stage capitalism your child/grandchild’s problem. It isnt very nice of you to treat your future decendants like this IMO.
I agree. Capitalism isn’t a very good system it’s just the best one so far and what we have now, arguably, isn’t capitalism but a corporatocracy, which is much worse.
I think you’re conflating the system of government with the economic system
I am not. An economic system can also be democratic or non-democratic, same as a political system, depending on who it is primarily controlled by. Both are intertwined and influence each other. Capitalism is not a democratic economic system on its own (since “the people” definitionally do not control the economy), and it is also incompatible with a stable democratic political system.
In fact, democratic capitalism is one of the dominant political-economic arrangements in the world.
What you are describing is usually called a “liberal democracy”.
In principle, democratic institutions should give the public the ability to regulate and rein in the excesses of capitalism rather than allowing economic power to become so concentrated that it begins to dominate the political system.
This is precisely what Marxists call “contradictions of liberalism”.
The social tenets of liberalism preach equality before law, human rights, the rule of people, and consent of the governed. To be clear, all good concepts necessary for true democracy.
The economic tenets of liberalism (a.k.a capitalism) establish the primacy of private property, including private property over capital. (there are other tenets as well, such as a “free market” but they are not as important to this discussion)
The two are simply incompatible. Private property over the means of production definitionally gives control over economy to those who own that property. This is fundamentally antithetical to the social tenets of liberalism, and this contradiction can not be totally resolved within the framework of a liberal democracy. Focusing on classical Marxism (ignoring imperialism), “regulated capitalism” is an unstable equilibrium even within a closed society, a band-aid that will eventually have to be torn off one way or another; for as long as a society upholds private property as its economic model, those who control capital will be able to accumulate it exponentially, eventually being able to simply brute-force their way into politics through corruption or nepotism to remove whatever limits may be set on their power — even one slip-up can be enough to disturb the equilibrium and start the downward spiral into fascism, see the socio-political effects that Nixon had in the US.
Thus, for a society to achieve a stable political democracy, private property must be eschewed and relegated as a secondary mode of production, at least initially. Whatever that system would be, it would not be capitalism.
You’re essentially making a Marxist argument using many of the same premises Marx and later Marxists used. I actually had to do some research to respond to this because I wanted to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding the argument. But I have to admit, I do wonder whether you actually wrote this yourself.
Normally, I would start by defining the terminology you’re using: liberalism, capitalism, socialism, etc. But I’m not going to do that here. I don’t think getting bogged down in definitions is going to resolve the fundamental disagreement, because I think we’re operating from completely different assumptions about how these systems actually function.
I could obviously be wrong. Maybe you’re an economics professor at Harvard and I’m completely out of my depth here. Somehow, I doubt it, though.
So instead, I’ll counter the broader argument with one word: history.
Marx and the other early socialist and communist theorists identified some very real problems with capitalism. Their criticisms of concentrated wealth, class power, exploitation, and the political influence of capital are not inherently irrational. In fact, many of those criticisms remain relevant. The problem is that the theoretical solution has repeatedly run into the same obstacle: human beings.
The historical record does not demonstrate that attempts to replace capitalism with comprehensive systems of collective ownership have produced the stable, classless societies Marx envisioned. Whatever the theoretical merits of the argument, the practical results have repeatedly been far more complicated.
Meanwhile, some of the world’s most prosperous democracies have developed in the opposite direction: capitalist economies combined with democratic institutions, extensive welfare states, strong labor protections, taxation, and significant regulation. The Nordic countries are probably the clearest examples. The OECD itself classifies the Nordic countries within the social-democratic welfare-state tradition, while still describing them as developed capitalist economies.
China is an interesting example from the other end of the spectrum, although I wouldn’t describe it simply as “socialism.” China officially describes its system as a socialist market economy, with substantial state and collective ownership alongside extensive private economic activity and legally protected private property.
So ultimately, I don’t actually disagree with the fundamental observation that there is a tension between concentrated economic power and democratic political equality. That’s a legitimate problem, and I think democratic institutions absolutely need mechanisms capable of preventing economic power from becoming political domination.
Where we disagree is what follows from that observation.
I think Marx’s critique identifies a real structural problem, but I don’t think the historical evidence demonstrates that abolishing private ownership of the means of production is the necessary solution. In practice, the systems that have proven most durable have generally been mixed systems: markets and private property combined with democratic government, regulation, redistribution, social insurance, and public institutions.
And perhaps the deeper problem with Marx’s theoretical framework is that it assumes we can fundamentally restructure the economic system without having to account for the behavior of the human beings operating it. Until scarcity itself is substantially reduced, I don’t see a realistic path toward the kind of society Marx envisioned.
It’s funny because no ideology will work if the people are corrupt, and no ideology will fail if the people have character.
They’re using divide and conquer to make us fight each other over concepts, when what we all really want is people in power with character and accountability - which is the one thing they won’t give us regardless of system.
I’ll take a good man with a bad ideology over a bad man with a good ideology any week in any era.
We are a deeply unserious joke of a nation.
Change my mind.
That one time when that one dude uhhhhhh 🤔. Nahhh you right!!!
Oh no, it’s very serious, like end of the world serious.
Change my mind.
No
WRONG.
In Magastan there are NOT two classes. There’s just rich people and some subset of human waste that apparently think of themselves as people with rights (that doesn’t make them people in the eyes of the only class existing there).
You see, in Capitalist America, man oppresses man. In Soviet Union it is the other way around.
No matter the political or economic system, what is to be avoided is the concentration of power, both “soft” and “hard”. Alas, I’m more convinced than ever before that this is a feature of homo sapiens, and not a bug.
I agree that social hierarchies are a feature of homo sapiens, hence why any good form of governance should be based on restricting our worst instincts. That’s what the original liberalism improved with the separation of political power into executive, legislative, and judicate branches. Unfortunately, the same was not done for economic power, which - most liberal democracies - allowed to keep concentrating with few to no safeguards.
The entire point of liberal “democracies” is to provide the conditions so that capitalists could concentrate wealth and power without meddling from the nobility class of feudalism.
This is not a bad take, but I think there is no point other than propaganda for the simple structure of those who have the most get to get the most.
A great example of this is the French revolution that just transferred wealth and power from one ruling class to another. Democracy and Liberty is just a window dressing to this reality, a way to placate the masses if you will.
Not exactly. Liberals are very consistent in what they define as liberty, it’s just that this definition of liberty only matters to the wealthy. If you’re not wealthy you will suffer immensely under Liberalism. This is different than what came before Liberalism. Before Liberalism was monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. They knew they were concentrating wealth and therefore they had to provide public welfare for the peasants (nobilesse oblige). But Liberals wanted that wealth to be more fluid, to change hands, and to become a form of competition where the best could win their fortune and do what they pleased with it. They really did think that not being able to buy a castle for cash was a reduction in liberty and an affront to universal human rights. But they also thought that nobilesse oblige was also an affront to individual autonomy. They wanted all peasants to be “free” to work for whoever would pay them the most, and whoever paid them would have zero obligation to them at all.
And that’s what they got. The rich and the poor alike are free now. Free to sleep under a bridge or to buy a private island. Free to trade their labor for a wage or free to invest their fortunes in weapons manufacturing and hedge it with commodities in oil, gold, and food. Free to send their children to enriching experiences all over the world or to have them working two jobs and failing school to help the family survive. Free to work in coal mines or uranium mines or to buy and sell coal mines or uranium mines.
Freedom. Liberty. Achieved. Liberalism actually really believes that.
But yes, they also used it as propaganda to get the peasants to fight on their behalf.
I really like what you have to say here. I have often wrestled with the real meaning of liberty that explains what the rhetoric really means. I think liberty is the absence of rules, laws, and regulations. Freedom from these things but not really freedom as most people have come to believe its meaning. This is a toxic form of freedom that informs us we are only free as we have money.
We even have sayings that support this worldview like “Fuck you” money. The type of money that would allow you to walk away from any situation. It is the ultimate in freedom in US society. This says a lot about our culture.
Distributism is interesting on this front I think, it’s sceptical of power and wealth being concentrated by anyone public or private and instead advocates widespread ownership of the means of production.
This is why you have to insure the alignment of direct stakeholders and not overly broaden it above those who are directly impacted. You never want the same guy selling your food to be the same guy that verifies that it is safe.
A Stakeholder Socialist system, I think, is that ideal as it utilizes coöp commonwealths, democratic workerplaces, muti-stakeholder and syndicated ownership models, and federated levels of oversight such that power only escalates for things necessary and narrowly at that scope like interconnected grids or safety in international food trade.
I’ve been listening to The Dawn of Everything, a New History of Humanity the past couple weeks and it’s been quite interesting. Particularly relevant to this topic is how many societies we have evidence for — through actual contact and documentation or through archaeological findings and anthropological research — that either consciously did not develop or later abolished a ruling class, whether as devolved cultural groups or even in cities of tens of thousands. Examples are given for cities in Mesopotamia, Yucatan, iirc north of the Black Sea, and other areas.
Lots of interesting stuff on personal freedom, collective decision-making, community care, agriculture and conscious lack thereof, etc.
Communism promised abolishing classes, but failed.
Capitalism promised protecting the elite class above all else, and succeeded.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Marxism. While a communist society is indeed classless, it can only be achieved when there is no need for a state to defend the people from capitalist reaction, ie when communism is the globally dominant system. Until then, communist counties practice socialism, where the state is controlled by the working class, with the goal of increasing global worker power and eventually achieving the conditions where communism can exist.
Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control. We desperately need something modern to look up to and we should drop Marxism in the dustbin of failed historical movements. A great idea for its time.
A nation guided first and foremost by Marxist philosophy (with a lot of modern development for sure) is currently #2 by GDP and is poised to be the main driver of human development in the next half-century at least. But sure, it’s only a mental exercise.
Oh fuck, I hope to God your not talking about China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year. The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets. They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
China who has pumped out more billionaires than the US for the third straight year
They also have about 4x the population.
China’s mixed model does unfortunately still allow haute capitalists to spring up in certain industries. However the worst offenders are regularly captured and imprisoned, their wealth redistributed.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
The one that used a planned economy to corner the global markets
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
They are so far from Communism or Socialism it isn’t funny.
They are really far from communism as Marx defined it still. But they do have a working “mixed” system, with workers principally in control of the state, the state planning the economy, and the state directly controlling most important industries including finance, with regulated&limited capitalist development strategically allowed in some sectors of economy in order to advance the productive forces. This is consistent with (initial stages of) socialism in the most commonly understood Marxist-Leninist sense, similar to NEP if you’re familiar with the history of USSR. It is not socialism in the Stalinist or classical Maoist sense but I don’t think you are advocating for either of those.
They are not socialist or communist period. They have some socialist policies but they are ruled by an oligarchy and are more fascist than the US.
Also, bad when US corners market on China but good when China does similar. Pure garbage.
China is verifiably a socialist country in Marxist-Leninist sense. Unless you also want to claim that USSR under NEP was not a socialist country in a Marxist-Leninist sense in which case cool, you know Marxism-Leninism better than Lenin, congrats.
If you want to critique China there are hundreds of ways to do so, from human rights to urbanism to policing issues, but the economic equality or non-adherance to socialist principles is far down the list.
They also have about 4x the population.
But the amount of billionaires the US is printing is already problematic and that’s a capitalist country. The US should not be a country to compare to. It’s like if someone said “Well the Rwanda genocide actually caused more deaths than the Israeli one against Palestine”. Like yes, technically true, but the fact that there’s even a comparison to be made should be a big enough red flag.
When was the last time a US or EU billionaire went to prison for any serious length of time and got their wealth confiscated?
Unfortunately doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should, but with China since they seem to prefer executing them, I do suspect they’re largely political opponents they’re trying to keep quiet for good, not just criminals.
Oh no, a centrally planned & industrialized economy works better than unplanned, de-industrialized and over-financialized economy. Evil asians are cornering the market!
You DO realize China uses underhanded tactics, right? Subsidizing goods to be sold overseas is called dumping and there’s a reason the EU throws tariffs on tons of categories of goods from China. If it costs 20€ to make something in the EU but 15€ in China and then the Chinese government throws in another 5€ so the company could sell it even cheaper, that’s a bit of an issue for the EU’s industry.
But the amount of billionaires the US is printing is already problematic and that’s a capitalist country.
Yes, fully agreed. China is producing haute capitalists and it’s a problem they need to deal with.
The US should not be a country to compare to.
Both China and the US are global superpowers so a comparison is a necessary tool.
Out of two bad things, I will choose the less bad one.
they seem to prefer executing them
If you actually look at the last decade or so, they don’t actually execute most of them and it’s pretty much a “life without parole but you shouldn’t be naughty in prison”. I am also against capital punishment in all forms, and most prisons, I believe that even the worst billionaires can be reformed if you give them the chance. So this is indeed a valid criticism of China and I hope they can improve on that front.
largely political opponents they’re trying to keep quiet for good, not just criminals.
Yes, capitalists are the natural political enemy of the working class. You do not earn a billion dollars, you rob others of a billion dollars, and it’s only natural that people who did that will not have the best political intentions in mind. They all need to be kept at bay (actually just stripped of wealth and sent to do community service for a long time or smth).
Subsidizing goods to be sold overseas is called dumping
China is subsidizing its economy primarily to develop productive forces which is seen as a necessary step towards communism. This means also that it will be more competitive at the international stage; this is primarily just socialism winning in the “free market of ideas”.
there’s a reason the EU throws tariffs on tons of categories of goods from China
Or, hear me out, they could also subsidize their industries where it matters. But they can’t really because most of that subsidy will be promptly absorbed by the capitalist in charge, and that is primarily the point.
Like, think about this on a global scale. If every state stopped subsidizing all industries, we would only be left with what’s most profitable or the most popular with the working class, depending on the dominant mode of production. If everyone subsidized the industries necessary for human development, we would get human development. How is that not a win?
Ahistorical and incorrect. Marxism has never been more relevant.
Sure whatever you say /s
“Marxism has never existed outside of mental exercise. Every single time it has been imposed it has failed to do anything but act as a rhetoric for power and control.”
This, as the last commenter said, is completely ahistorical and incorrect. Every society in which Marxists have come to power was previously unequal, impoverished, unindustrialized, and most of the time a colony of another power. Every time this has happened the countries end up industrializing and eliminating severe poverty within a few decades, as well as providing housing, healthcare, food, transportation, work, and every other basic necessity for each one of their citizens. This can be seen with a simple look past the cold war rhetoric and into the actual history of the world.
Communism was also the primary force which defeated fascism everywhere that it popped up up until the 80s or 90s.
I am not counting a bunch of olgiarchy’s that used communist rhetoric to enrich themselves while never even getting close to actual communism or socialism. Please try again. Where is the shinning example of any of these nations? What is that, they all failed and became fascist… That is right kiddo!
Defeated fascism, oh wow you have got to be fucking joking me right? By what measure has fascism ever been defeated and please do not list Germany or Italy as the US industrialists helped bankroll both countries before WWII. Fascism has never been defeated. Some nations that are fascist have fallen, but not specifically because of fascism.
So liberal democracies promised universal rights and utopia. Instead each Liberal state produced between 100 and 150 years of abject poverty, massive wars, and domestic repression of labor movements with the military or paramilitary police.
Communism promised universal rights and utopia. Instead they produced about 10 - 30 years of major famines and poverty and displacement and then after that initial period eliminated abject poverty while speed running industrialization without creating a class of robber barons that ran the government.
Fascism was defeated in its objective of destroying the world’s first workers’ state. The US and UK supported the rise of the Third Reich and Germany fielded the most powerful military ever fielded at that time. The USSR lost 7M people fighting all the way across Europe to sack Berlin and end the Nazi project. And for that, they will never be forgiven.
Failed as in transforming lives of billions of workers and giving them path towards liberation of mankind
Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is scientific and hence it is the TRUTH.
You are speaking of it being more along the lines of religion. I reject this. He had some interesting things to say for his time and that is about it. We desperately need something modern and frankly Marxism fanatics are never going to move the needle.
the fact that something was written 150 years ago doesnt make it outdated, you have to prove with facts as to why you think its outdated. Something isnt always something better
We either go marxist, or we perish.
But it does, listen to yourself. 150 years ago still relevant to this day! A lot has changed since then and no one cares about Marx except fanatics. The time has passed and you need something new to remain relevant.
“No one cares about marx”
buddy, the whitehouse is putting up deranged tweets against communism and kamal herself called trump a communist dictator. Communism is very well alive
Buddy. People are still invoking John Locke’s concepts of private property that he penned in the 1600s. What are you talking about Marx is irrelevant because a lot has changed in 150 years. You think Marx’s arguments are based on the level of technology at that time? Hell, the US constitution is 250 years old and it runs the country. The Doctrine of Discovery is based on the papal bulls from the 1400s and RBG cited them in the mid 2000s to explain how the USA’s claim to territory is fundamentally based on those documents.
But Marx is relevant for more reasons than just that his writing is recent. Hundreds of millions of people in China study Marx every year. It’s part of the core curriculum, it’s part of business theory, it’s part of their economics writing, their political writing, it’s part of party entrance exams.
Yes the books Marx wrote are dead and old. But the ideas are very much alive and adapting today just like the ideas of Locke and Burke.
I know it’s hard for Americans because their country is so young, but ideas don’t become irrelevant just because they age. Ideas that maintain their life despite their age are the most relevant ideas of our society. And Marx’s ideas inform so much from politics and economics to psychology to sociology to media and journalism.
In Hungary, healthcare privatization got called “communism” every time someone thought about doing it. Even Fidesz got called “communist” for not doing what the Reagan-era capitalism was in theory, but what the Reagan-era capitalism was in practice.
The Republicans seem to be stumbling around helplessly trying to explain why they should get votes, but they keep using descriptions that could be turned around on them.
I’m thinking of Vance’s comment at President Pedo’s, circle-jerk-a-thon:
“The contrast in this election, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not about this or that policy. It’s about the party of common sense vs the party of the crazies.”
He’s 100% correct there.
I don’t like communism. I don’t like capitalism. I don’t give a fuck about your petty squabbles and philisophical debates.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
But I do find the imbalance of wealth power concerning and I’m supporting whoever will do something against it.
This is an issue related to the political and economical system that you said you don’t care about
You don’t understand.
80% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for communism.
60% of people will think you’re an idiot if you advocate for capitalism.
90% of people will agree with you if you tell them the growing power of elites and the gap between the rich and the poor is a problem.
If you’re trying to convince people that communism is a great idea, you’re fighting a lost cause. If you use either the word communism or capitalism, you have already lost the argument and people’s attention. On the other hand, if you address actual problems, people will support you. Language matters!
(Btw, I pulled these numbers out of my ass. But you get the idea.)
The majority of people a century ago though you are stupid if you support women voting. It is a shame that most people has no principle anymore and abondon easily when something is too hard
It’s two sides of the same coin.
Anarchism is the best solution for everyone but i think this is only feasible in a planet where everyone shares the same values, customs and norms. To allow mutual trust and respect not to pilfer and attack each other. The best example is in Dune with the Fremens. Each communities is still have local quirks and there is slight cultural differences between the Northerners and Southerners but they all aid each other and identify as one people. The threat is from outside Arakkis. So, even anarchist values would have to extend universal wide for anarchism proper to work.
anarchism is idealist bullshit debunked by engles himself in 1st communist internationale. Cry
Ahh yes, the workers should have just subjugated themselves to the authority of the steam engine.
Why do you take the word of someone whose ideology collapsed under its own weight? Cope.
“collapsed under its own weight”
JFC go read history blud.
Cope
amrikkkans and europeans after invading, bombing and overthrowing every single socialist experiment:
See socialism doesnt work
dumbfuck
Russkies after invading and bombing and overthrowing every small countries and then collapsing anyway.
See socialism indeed does not work.
Simperialist.
You hate everyone cos you lost. That’s why you invaded a country 1/5 your size and into day 1,664 of three day special operations. You enjoy being a cuck and that’s why you are letting Putin sell your kids and grandkids to CCP vassalage.
Old clown yells at clouds! 🤡🤡
guy who thinks communists support modern russia or russian invasion of ukraine
dumbfuck, russia is literally a liberal bougeosie state, it came into existence due to cooperation of western libs and russian nationalists lmao
Under Communism, Man exploits Man, but under Capitalism it’s the other way around!
(Sorry, I’ll return this joke to the museum now)
Don’t most communists claim they want to eliminate class though? Capitalists enbrace it while communists pretend that their government gets rid of class, so this framing is misleading.
What happens is that authoritarians wrap their fake promises in “communism” because it’s what actually appeals to most people, only to drop their facade once in power.
Then idiots point and say Ha! See? Communism evil!Kinda an inevitably under communism though. If the people who run a communist government stops actually believing in communism after being a couple generations removed from the revolution, what is exactly going to oppose them when they absolute power over their citizens?
Thus why the communist governments we’ve seen end up being contradictory. You could argue that we try to achieve communism by establishing a stateless society like marx adovcated for, but then how is communism going to be enforced without a state? With a state though, they end up being the very upper class that communism seeks to eliminate but this time with a centralized force of power.
Capitalist ideology sees class as unavoidable and so it strives to make it meritocratic and unstable. This was a radical idea in an era of nobility or castes, but ultimately resulted in the merchant class basically seizing control of society.
Communism strives to eliminate it entirely, but you wind up with some leaders being insincere or incapable of letting go of power. But you also have the fact that it’s difficult to completely eliminate class.
Yes that’s… what this post is about.
I dunno, it seemed like the post was arguing in favor of communism to me, but I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time I misintrepreted something and got everyone to turn on me, lol
Do not delude yourself into thinking the class divide in the US is as bad as in the east block countries.
Elon Musk has a trillion dollars. I’m pretty confident that the class divide has never been this bad ever.
Nah, because there are plenty of powerful middle class in between him and a homeless person.
What power do you think the middle class wields? Our paltry life savings can’t buy us a politician or a judge, but to the billionaire elites, it’s pocket change to do so.
There are only two classes in America. The Owner/Donor class, and everyone else. If you aren’t one of the upper echelon, any power you wield is illusory and can be revoked at any time as soon as it is no longer convenient for you to exercise it freely.
And you think this difference is on the level of the USSR
God looks like Marx
