• TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn’t which “-ism” is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It’s a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an “-ism” and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.

      • Kalkaline
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The important part is it’s not an authoritarian running the show and calling it “communism” or " democracy" when the reality is it’s just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.

      • SuperDuper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses

        But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP’s point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn’t matter what the “point” of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis

      • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone’s equal.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses

        By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…

        Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.

        • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.

          Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.

          The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.

          The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn’t have dictators every time a revolution occurs?

            • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              HE WAS AVERAGE HEIGHT FOR THE TIME PERIOD!!! (I miss overlysimplified so much)

        • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴.

          Those have been tried, but they often tend to get liberated by the CIA. Or in some cases, the KGB / Red Army.

          • rchive@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.

            • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well, that’s the problem with bottom-up government, isn’t it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.

              If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.

      • jeansibelius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just look at “balance power away from 1%” in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should read capital volume one, it will explain how the problem actually is capitalism

      • Jungle@linux.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, the problem is homelessness.

        The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).

        Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.

    • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is there so much communist propaganda on Lemmy? Could it be that reddit is actually good at filtering out state-sponsored content farms?

      • Cowbee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Decentralization appeals to leftists, as that’s the principle of the ideology, away from bourgeois interests.

        I haven’t seen evidence of state-sponsored propaganda, though there are people that simp far too hard for China and the CPC on Lemmy though.