Full communism is shit because by definition a few people decide what acceptable for everyone to live
Where is that definition? The way I understand “full communism”, is basically anarchism and equality, absence of private property. Common means of production I.e. (and this is probably why it’s having a bad reputation) the opposite of autocratism as you seem to define it.
I even dare to say we never had anything close to it on a bigger scale (probably because it doesn’t fit in human nature).
Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally, anarchism is more about horizontal communalized production. They have different analysis of class and the state and thus Marxists take the position of historical materialists. To the contrary, communism absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally
quoting wiki:
A communist society entails the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state.[7][8][9]
For me the result is among others anarchism (absence of state/money). Anarchism itself is probably not communism per se, but I consider it a part of “full communism”.
absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
I really would like that to be true, but I don’t see how…
As I said, we never had anything close to it, whereas we had/have something very close to pure capitalism (looking at you USA…), fairly stable (not a good thing, IMO, as we see especially currently with climate-change and growing inequality). Also for China: autocratic State-capitalism (mostly at least), probably better than whatever USA currently is, but still capitalism, and definitely not communism.
What I meant with “doesn’t fit in human nature” is basically described in https://lemmy.world/post/50376887/25196710
So yes for small-scale, very likely no at (especially) a global scale… The egoism and hunger of power of a few manipulative individuals will likely always prevent this unfortunately, also the “fear” of foreign stuff (like people/migrants), and the difference of global (natural) wealth, like fertile soil etc. I think having social contact with most people within such a society is almost a requirement (i.e. trusting individuals of the society), which is why I don’t see how we can achieve something like that globally, distrust and (often irrational) fear is probably the deal-breaker per se for that.
What Marxists consider to be the state and what anarchists consider to be the state are different, because both have different analysis of class. For anarchists, all hierarchy is inherently a class based distinction, but this isn’t the case for Marxists, ergo stateless society in Marxism has administration and vertical organization.
China is socialist. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the working classes control the state. It isn’t a fully collectivized society yet, but it’s on the road towards it.
Ultimately, you are applying criticisms more applicable to anarchism to Marxism, which isn’t really a developed reasoning against communism.
The goal is a voluntary state of self-governance, however at a large scale there is usually some committee or authority that is “supposed” to direct everyone towards that.
Historically that power has always been corrupted by the few and communism is never achieved.
Yeah true, I don’t deny that, I’m even so pessimistic, to say that even if we have a benevolent dictator giving up dictatorship when the goal has been achieved, that the system is too unstable to exist for a longer time…
So IMO while we should navigate towards a system that is very close to communism, we should probably at least factor in game theory, and try to avoid means that are fundamentally opposed to communism (or at least anarchism), like autocratism (as we have seen multiple times in the past).
anarchy as a model of government in a scale of 8 billion people makes no sense and would be basically the most violent ends up getting everything. As a mental experiment in the rainbow and lollipop world is alright and I would definitely be onboard, but in practice it makes no sense because you need too much power to enforce it, and that is where the corruption would originate.
But my main point was not to only criticise communism, but also capitalism. I don’t think communism is achievable and I don’t think pure unregulated capitalism is the only crap we can aim for. Hence middle point or just nuance.
Online people, specially online USA people, are very prone to “choose a team and die for it” or “we have to go full communism or it doesn’t make sense” or “communism is bad so let’s do 100% uncontrolled capitalism”. There is no middle point for these wankers (which is very convenient for the politicians and wealthy people, as they get to abuse the argument of reducing everything to the absurd)
That is why I said “doesn’t fit human nature”. At least on a bigger scale, probably too much encoded “survival of the fittest” (group of humans if you will) , that seems to clash with real communism (when trying to explain it based on evolutionary terms). This can and does work on a smaller scale though (might’ve even be a thing evolutionary, hunter gatherers etc.).
Btw. Reality is already more nuanced, as there’s no pure *ism, it’s almost always a spectrum of various idiologies. Even USA, although it’s probably closest to what most understand of “capitalism”.
USA is a sad example of propaganda, probably because of late stage capitalism messing with the reward system (e.g. social networks), leading to among other things, polarity…
Where is that definition? The way I understand “full communism”, is basically anarchism and equality, absence of private property. Common means of production I.e. (and this is probably why it’s having a bad reputation) the opposite of autocratism as you seem to define it.
I even dare to say we never had anything close to it on a bigger scale (probably because it doesn’t fit in human nature).
Communism is about fully collectivized economy globally, anarchism is more about horizontal communalized production. They have different analysis of class and the state and thus Marxists take the position of historical materialists. To the contrary, communism absolutely fits with human nature, which itself is malleable and depends on given material conditions.
quoting wiki:
For me the result is among others anarchism (absence of state/money). Anarchism itself is probably not communism per se, but I consider it a part of “full communism”.
I really would like that to be true, but I don’t see how… As I said, we never had anything close to it, whereas we had/have something very close to pure capitalism (looking at you USA…), fairly stable (not a good thing, IMO, as we see especially currently with climate-change and growing inequality). Also for China: autocratic State-capitalism (mostly at least), probably better than whatever USA currently is, but still capitalism, and definitely not communism.
What I meant with “doesn’t fit in human nature” is basically described in https://lemmy.world/post/50376887/25196710 So yes for small-scale, very likely no at (especially) a global scale… The egoism and hunger of power of a few manipulative individuals will likely always prevent this unfortunately, also the “fear” of foreign stuff (like people/migrants), and the difference of global (natural) wealth, like fertile soil etc. I think having social contact with most people within such a society is almost a requirement (i.e. trusting individuals of the society), which is why I don’t see how we can achieve something like that globally, distrust and (often irrational) fear is probably the deal-breaker per se for that.
What Marxists consider to be the state and what anarchists consider to be the state are different, because both have different analysis of class. For anarchists, all hierarchy is inherently a class based distinction, but this isn’t the case for Marxists, ergo stateless society in Marxism has administration and vertical organization.
China is socialist. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the working classes control the state. It isn’t a fully collectivized society yet, but it’s on the road towards it.
Ultimately, you are applying criticisms more applicable to anarchism to Marxism, which isn’t really a developed reasoning against communism.
The goal is a voluntary state of self-governance, however at a large scale there is usually some committee or authority that is “supposed” to direct everyone towards that.
Historically that power has always been corrupted by the few and communism is never achieved.
Yeah true, I don’t deny that, I’m even so pessimistic, to say that even if we have a benevolent dictator giving up dictatorship when the goal has been achieved, that the system is too unstable to exist for a longer time…
So IMO while we should navigate towards a system that is very close to communism, we should probably at least factor in game theory, and try to avoid means that are fundamentally opposed to communism (or at least anarchism), like autocratism (as we have seen multiple times in the past).
anarchy as a model of government in a scale of 8 billion people makes no sense and would be basically the most violent ends up getting everything. As a mental experiment in the rainbow and lollipop world is alright and I would definitely be onboard, but in practice it makes no sense because you need too much power to enforce it, and that is where the corruption would originate.
But my main point was not to only criticise communism, but also capitalism. I don’t think communism is achievable and I don’t think pure unregulated capitalism is the only crap we can aim for. Hence middle point or just nuance.
Online people, specially online USA people, are very prone to “choose a team and die for it” or “we have to go full communism or it doesn’t make sense” or “communism is bad so let’s do 100% uncontrolled capitalism”. There is no middle point for these wankers (which is very convenient for the politicians and wealthy people, as they get to abuse the argument of reducing everything to the absurd)
That is why I said “doesn’t fit human nature”. At least on a bigger scale, probably too much encoded “survival of the fittest” (group of humans if you will) , that seems to clash with real communism (when trying to explain it based on evolutionary terms). This can and does work on a smaller scale though (might’ve even be a thing evolutionary, hunter gatherers etc.).
Btw. Reality is already more nuanced, as there’s no pure *ism, it’s almost always a spectrum of various idiologies. Even USA, although it’s probably closest to what most understand of “capitalism”.
USA is a sad example of propaganda, probably because of late stage capitalism messing with the reward system (e.g. social networks), leading to among other things, polarity…