Comment

Comment on What’s the difference between communism and socialism?

schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

The countries that were ruled as single-party states by communist parties in the 20th century, including those that survive until today, called themselves “socialist” and called the goal they were supposedly working towards “communism”.

Of course all of this ideology was always nonsense. The liberal revolutions of the centuries before that were all about taking power away from the (monarchical/aristocratic) government in order to establish a society in which the government was elected by, and served, the people, and there were no longer any formally defined classes and all inequalities that remained were about income and property, which were (at least ideally) possible to overcome through one’s own achievements… why did communists ever think that the next step after that might be to once again establish a powerful government that serves as the only (or only major) employer, that’s a movement precisely in the other direction, not the natural next step…

So as much as communists may mock the idea that “socialism is when the government does stuff, the more stuff it does the more socialist it is, and when the government does everything it’s communism”, I think that (while very simplified) is certainly a more accurate description of things than what communists claim their movement is about. Government and people are never going to have the same interests and it’s generally a good thing to take power away from the government and let the people handle things through free association; it’s a bad thing to do it the opposite.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Government and people are never going to have the same interests and it’s generally a good thing to take power away from the government and let the people handle things through free association; it’s a bad thing to do the opposite.

I think you gave a good explanation however, I disagree with your conclusion; it’s a shame you’re down voted because of people disagreeing (probably) with this statement (or because they’re .ml tankies)

Democratically elected government should have the people’s interests in its core, since you know, it’s democratically elected. Obviously propaganda and sociology exist; but those problems are problems no matter what organizational structure you are in.

source
- schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  The point of democratic elections is, in my mind, to somewhat tame the natural tendency of government to work against the interest of the people. We still need to remember that even a democratic government isn’t the same thing as the people themselves (who for the most part want to live a life where they can do what they like as long as they aren’t harming anyone else), and has its own interests that may be quite different from that of the people… it’s better than a dictatorship, no doubt!
  
  We currently have a very good example of this: a lot of governments around the world are currently passing laws requiring age verification on social media. Did the people ever ask for this? Is it in the interest of the people to have that? Is it harmful to anyone if young people are using social media? No: it’s in the interest of governments to be able to identify people posting on the Internet, it’s in the interest of governments if there aren’t too many different social media sites operating so that they have an easier time monitoring what’s going on on them… it is, I guess, also in the interest of governments that young people aren’t having too much fun and don’t hear too many diverse voices so that school is the main source of information for them and they don’t get distracted too much? Nobody can tell me that any government that’s doing this is acting in the interest of the general population, especially not the ones affected!
  
  source
  - a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    Nobody can tell me that any government that’s doing this is acting in the interest of the general population, especially not the ones affected!
    
    Here in Canada the current gov is looking to pass age verification laws and polls show that they have like 70% support from the general population. I’m not saying these laws are a good thing, but I think it’s more complicated than a simple story of government oppression.
    
    source
    schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    holy shit not Canada too >:(
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

The liberal revolutions of the centuries before that were all about taking power away from the (monarchical/aristocratic) government in order to establish a society in which the government was elected by, and served, the people, and there were no longer any formally defined classes and all inequalities that remained were about income and property, which were (at least ideally) possible to overcome through one’s own achievements… why did communists ever think that the next step after that might be to once again establish a powerful government that serves as the only (or only major) employer, that’s a movement precisely in the other direction, not the natural next step…

Because the liberal system leads to concentration of wealth and allows for outsized political influence by the rich (which leads to wealth becoming even more concentrated). The rich also have significant influence over people’s lives as employers, outside of the political sphere, and they are accountable to no one. The fact that “ideally,” on an individual level, anyone could hit it big does nothing to address those systemic problems.

The state, as an employer, is more accountable to the people than a private individual or company is, because it has to answer to the voters. Naturally, that also depends on taking measures to prevent the bourgeoisie from exerting their outsized control on said state.

There are advantages to having private companies and competition, but those advantages tend to disappear as the economy becomes more developed and saturated, and the tendency of the rate of profit to decline kicks in. Once companies can’t increase profits by expanding in productive ways, all they do is enshittify their products and look for new and innovative ways to fleece their customers. In such cases, the profit motive causes more harm than good, and the industry would be better off run by the state.

source
- a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  There are advantages to having private companies and competition, but those advantages tend to disappear as the economy becomes more developed and saturated, and the tendency of the rate of profit to decline kicks in. Once companies can’t increase profits by expanding in productive ways, all they do is enshittify their products and look for new and innovative ways to fleece their customers.
  
  This is a good point
  
  source