this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
222 points (97.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43394 readers
1360 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PineRune@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I think most real-life examples have been plagued by corruption to the point that they fall into a different category altogether.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Historical examples, like Revolutionary Catalonia for Anarchism, and the USSR, Cuba, Maoist China, Vietnam, etc. for Marxism-Leninism, absolutely count as Socialist and should be learned from, both the good and bad.

If you dismiss them as "not real Socialism," you fail to learn from what did work in those instances, like literacy rates and life expectancy skyrocketing. If you dismiss the bad, you make the equal mistake of not accounting for the flaws in systems like Soviet Democracy, which resulted in a corrupt Politburo with outsized power.

Study them in detail and find what to take and what to leave behind.

[–] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago

communism is a classless stateless moneyless society. is that how you'd describe any of those societies? i wouldn't. because it's not true. but there are certainly anarchist and communist societies that have existed.

[–] UnrepententProcrastinator@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think we should learn from that. Maybe all forms of power solely resting within the governing function invites corruption.

I haven't given up yet on it because capitalism is definitely not working right now but there is a form of communism that you can have an informed and rational fear of.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Generally, if you have a system where more powerful people are more influential, you invite yourself to corruption.

In Capitalism, this expresses itself in Capitalists buying politicians.

In Marxism-Leninism, this is expressed in the upper Soviets becoming more entrenched and corrupt.

The solution for Socialism is to make the upper rungs directly accountable to the masses. The solution for Capitalism is to abolish Capitalism.

[–] nitefox@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The solution to corruption is to stop being human. There, I said it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Nah, just make systems that are resistant to it and more accountable to the masses. Simple.

[–] nitefox@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Like ancient Athens! It failed obviously.

Or like Ancient Rome! It failed, obviously.

Or like any modern democracy! It failed, obviously.

The problem is that “masses” are truly a reflection of their government and vice versa, more so in a democracy. You take for a given “the mass” takes good decisions but this, again, works only in the ideal world.

And if you think things are better than the past, think again: internet and social media spread so much crap and allowed people to talk too freely, so now you get Joe the Farmer believing he is some sort of genius cause he knows that there is big plot and the corps are covering it up; you get Dalila the economist believe she knows anything about software development; you get Dario the cheese eater believe he is a medievalist just because he read (and ate) “the cheese and the worms”. And all of this people wouldn’t give shit about the “so-called” experts, cause they studied it on eatashit.altervista.org so they must know better than the college-cuck

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The problem with democracy isn't democracy, but allowing people with entrenched power to control the flow of information in their favor, vs the masses. Democracy is a good system.

[–] nitefox@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with you but how do you prevent misinformation, manipulation and polarisation?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

Remove power structures that are inherently unjustly hierarchical, and remove the profit motive in general.

People profit from misinformation and entrenched power, if they don't have that then democracy works better.

[–] nitefox@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

That goes for anything, every system ever made by humans. Even the first forms of democracy, including direct democracy, falls under this umbrella. After all in the theory-world, where everything is ideal, humans do behave good so communism (but any form of good government is possible, even anarchy or a good autocracy).

In the real world, though, humans behave like humans so you get corruption and weird power play. So even if you got a nice working system where every human support society, it will inevitably fail under corruption after the first generations of those who put in place such a system die; which is exactly what happens throughout history each time, even in Athens.

Tldr: theoretical perfect system cannot exist in practice since we are flawed creatures