Comment on [META] Never change, lemmy.ml

• pleasemakesense@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  communism has somehow become synonymous with marxism-leninism, it’s very sad

  source

  • PugJesus@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    "Marxism" 😀

    "-Leninism" 😬

    source
  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The .ml suffix isn’t helping

    source

    • livus@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      .ml = Mali.

      I know it was the haunt of scammers when it was a free domain, but the government of Mali have reassigned management now so hopefully it will be less problematic as time goes on.

      source

      • moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        afaih, one of the reasons that lemmy.ml chose their domain suffix actually was for this reason, though I am unsure how much weight it had on their decision.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • 0x4E4F@infosec.pub ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      well, .com was already taken so 🤷.

      source
• Tedesche@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  and it’s the government model that is to blame?

  Yes, because it leaves itself so prone to authoritarian takeover. As I’ve said before, this is a feature of communism, not a bug. A single, one-party “transitional” government is intended. You might as well just put up a sign that says “Dictator Wanted.” This is why there isn’t a single instance of communism on a nation-state scale that hasn’t quickly devolved into an authoritarian state. It’s not hard to understand this. Your government model has to account for the reality that people are going to disagree on things and faction out. Your model has to be able to manage that process. Communism insists everyone adhere to the same ideology, and those that don’t just get “re-educated.” It’s a horrible ideology, a horrible government model; naïve utopian fantasy at best, cynical authoritarian scheme at worst.

  source
• Eldritch@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You are spot on on just about everything. The only thing I take issue with is saying that both werr corrupted by authoritarians. Fascism doesn’t exist without authoritarians. It’s just a shame that in America, especially as well as plenty of other places in the west, we are miseducated if we are educated at all on the subject.

  source

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think there is a model of fascism that, when a dictator is removed from the scenario, looks like a corporate autocracy. Late stage capitalism, like a corporate Cyberpunk dystopia, is what happens when power isn’t seized by a megalomaniac. Unfortunately corporations are documented to gather the psychotically inclined within its upper echelons so any and all rulings are definitely going to be corrupted. At least communism allows voting for leaders and not private decisions without review like private enterprise.

    source

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That still ends up with local dictators and oligarchs. Yes, you’re not likely to end up with one global dictator etc. but ultimately would not be all that different in the long run. It’s exactly what they want a return to. Feudalism.

      source

      • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I think fascism, actual theoretical fascism (like untainted communism), removed from the realities of human psychology, would be a conglomeration of corporate states. The decision making is behind closed doors and leadership is decided by those on the inside of the corp, so still keeping the multilayered rights structure of fascism, but distinct in that those running the business would be able to also run the state without corporate influence.

        Again, theoretical fascism is never going to happen because a business leader will steer the country to align their corporate interests instead of any public interest, but the idea is there. Fascism, uncorrupted by selfishness and greed, is a corporate state run by people who only answer to internal justice structures that are separate from public policy. But fascism is almost purpose built to give those who are least capable of thinking of others the ability to run those others’ lives so harmful people will always run things.

        Communism at least has a chance at public discourse, like democracy but more open to compromise. It’s that compromise that is diametrically opposed to the unilateral decision making (without any public input) of fascism and authoritarians.

        source
• snooggums@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Communism scales horribly and practically begs for intolerant authoritarians to take over because the structure promotes compromise and compromising with intolerance ends up with intolerance. It works well when a small group voluntarily creates a small commune and everyone is on the same page. Everyone being able to see the overall community is pretty important for them to see how they fit in.

  Capitalism also scales terribly, but when approached as a competition that requires regulation at least it can scale better because everyone can be watchful of bad actors. It still scales poorly because large companies can gain undo influence over government, but at least that influence tends to be about business and profit and not ethnic cleansing of the 'wrong people' that tends to be inherent to large scale communism. Yeah, that can also happen for profit with capitalism too, but again the acknowledgement of necessary regulations can mitigate that for the most part.

  Everything tends to fall apart at a large enough scale though.

  source

  • livus@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    at least it can scale better because everyone can be watchful of bad actors.

    I think you're talking about democracy there, not capitalism?

    If we look at a country with capitaliam and not democracy (e.g UAE) I don't think it has any protective effect of transparency.

    source
• DreamerofDays@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If the model realized at scale repeatedly results in the same or similar effects, maybe there is something wrong with the model.

  (Be those inherent mechanical flaws, flaws of ignoring parts of human nature, flaws of a model designed to work in a vacuum, or flaws of intricate and fragile necessary rules)

  source