In a naive attempt to “meet everyone’s basic needs” sure, but in practice it would almost certainly end up enriching and entrenching a new ruling class, or collapsing under external pressure even if there are some early wins.
Many things sound simple from the outset. But tearing down and rebuilding an entire society isn’t something you do without significant (and often lethal) force and with plenty of intended and unintended casualties along the way (and there’s still a very good chance we’d screw it up).
If it’s not “the good guys” wielding overwhelming force, it’ll be “the bad guys” stepping in. Every political system ultimately rests on the realistic threat/application of force; the only question is who controls it and how accountable they are.
I’m not inclined to trust anyone waving guns in my face, nor encourage situations that make that more likely. So, things would have to get a lot worse for me (and I’d venture most people) to want violent overthrow of my current (far from perfect) political and social system. That said … at some point, for many people in many countries, it may be too late. Apathy isn’t appropriate either.
I couldn’t agree more. Although I’ll add that education and basic health/social support is also needed for long term stability, or large swathes of the population will be manipulated by fear and dis/misinformation, and will likely end up voting against their own interests. Social cohesion is important, which is why it is used as a weapon by nation states and other political actors.
but in practice it would almost certainly end up enriching and entrenching a new ruling class
Damn, seems like real-world data contradicts your preconceived notions. Now, as a responsible adult, you’ll surely retract and reflect on why you’ve been misled to believe that communism perpetuates inequality, right?
Are you trying to say that communism leads to a failed authoritarian state resembling the US in terms of income inequality? Do you have the same stats for wealth inequality too?
Do you have the same stats for wealth inequality too?
I don’t but they’re irrelevant. The only possible way to get money in the USSR was through labor and income, since there was no capitalist accumulation or return rates on investment by design. The highest paid individuals in the USSR were actually highly trained professionals such as university professors, members of research institutions and high profile artists and media personalities.
Are you trying to say that communism leads to a failed authoritarian state resembling the US in terms of income inequality?
No, that’s what the end of communism leads to, to a return to capitalism. That was only possible because communism began in a 400-million pool of people in backwards and unindustrialized Eastern Europe, the cold war was uneven from the start.
I’d love to see a utopia, but I don’t see communism making any sustainable inroads anywhere in the world… that is, unless things get much much worse, to the point that your average man is willing to pick up a pitchfork (or other weapon of choice) and participate in overthrowing ruling class by force… but nowadays the masses are so divided and confused that they’ll probably start killing each other for scraps of food rather than the billionaires for a life of dignity. Even then, it’s just temporary until capitalism and/or authoritarianism takes hold again.
Who talked about utopia? The USSR was far from a utopia, it was a state with flaws and lots of mistakes were made in the process. It is still demonstrably significantly more fair, egalitarian and less exploitative than anything we have in the west, which relies in the exploitation of the global south to sustain itself.
The whole “Utopian socialism” thing is a 200 years old argument that was dismantled back then, by the way. Engels himself has an essay called “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”, explaining how early branches of socialism followed utopian goals and methods, but Marxism is scientific socialism based off historical materialism and empiricism. If you look at my comments above, I’ve talked about historical evidence with hard data, not about good wishes for the future.
I don’t see communism making any sustainable inroads anywhere in the world
That is if you ignore the main industrial powerhouse of the world (China), the island of Cuba, or the nations of Vietnam and Laos.
unless things get much much worse
As if, for example, the west started to support a genocide that murders over half a million people (most of them children), or if militarized police started kidnapping and disappearing random citizens without due process in the USA, or if fascist governments linked to Nazism and Fascism started to win elections in Italy or Germany?
Even then, it’s just temporary until capitalism takes hold again
To quote Ursula K. Le Guin: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings”
The USSR is dead and cold, replaced by an authoritarian warmongering machine. It had its moment in the spotlight, but it failed, and it failed its russian and former citizens.
China promotes many good principles (in many ways so did the USA, cough cough), but it is heading in the wrong direction under Xi. It’s Communism with a human exploitative flavour, with the occasional public fig leaf of justice. That said, it could offer an umbrella of security for some more interesting experiments in the years to come. Watch this space, I guess.
Circling back to my original point, I maintain that communism isn’t going to gain popular support so long as the only viable way to achieve it is through violence and oppression, and so long as it buckles so easily under the pressure of outside forces.
I will continue voting and protesting for sensible left-leaning policies that promote fairness and well being for all, while steering clear of the extremists and simpletons who promote hate or explicitly or tacitly support genocides, wars of aggression, etc. The scales may tip enough one day to justify radical action, but not today - the risks of it going terribly wrong are too high.
In a naive attempt to “meet everyone’s basic needs” sure, but in practice it would almost certainly end up enriching and entrenching a new ruling class, or collapsing under external pressure even if there are some early wins.
Many things sound simple from the outset. But tearing down and rebuilding an entire society isn’t something you do without significant (and often lethal) force and with plenty of intended and unintended casualties along the way (and there’s still a very good chance we’d screw it up).
If it’s not “the good guys” wielding overwhelming force, it’ll be “the bad guys” stepping in. Every political system ultimately rests on the realistic threat/application of force; the only question is who controls it and how accountable they are.
I’m not inclined to trust anyone waving guns in my face, nor encourage situations that make that more likely. So, things would have to get a lot worse for me (and I’d venture most people) to want violent overthrow of my current (far from perfect) political and social system. That said … at some point, for many people in many countries, it may be too late. Apathy isn’t appropriate either.
You always have this problem if you have people with concentrated power aka a “ruling class”
Only way to prevent this is transparency and tools that the people of country can control the ruling class
Very important for such a setup is, that politics, media, law enforcement and courts are separated and controlling each other
And that private companies are not allowed to fuck with the system
I couldn’t agree more. Although I’ll add that education and basic health/social support is also needed for long term stability, or large swathes of the population will be manipulated by fear and dis/misinformation, and will likely end up voting against their own interests. Social cohesion is important, which is why it is used as a weapon by nation states and other political actors.
Absolutely agree 🙏🏻
You guys are talking about basic capitalism, right? You all understand that, don’t you?
I may have got carried away in my response to a one line quip. 🤣
Look, nobody here knows what the fuck we’re doing anyway.
Damn, seems like real-world data contradicts your preconceived notions. Now, as a responsible adult, you’ll surely retract and reflect on why you’ve been misled to believe that communism perpetuates inequality, right?
Are you trying to say that communism leads to a failed authoritarian state resembling the US in terms of income inequality? Do you have the same stats for wealth inequality too?
I don’t but they’re irrelevant. The only possible way to get money in the USSR was through labor and income, since there was no capitalist accumulation or return rates on investment by design. The highest paid individuals in the USSR were actually highly trained professionals such as university professors, members of research institutions and high profile artists and media personalities.
No, that’s what the end of communism leads to, to a return to capitalism. That was only possible because communism began in a 400-million pool of people in backwards and unindustrialized Eastern Europe, the cold war was uneven from the start.
I’d love to see a utopia, but I don’t see communism making any sustainable inroads anywhere in the world… that is, unless things get much much worse, to the point that your average man is willing to pick up a pitchfork (or other weapon of choice) and participate in overthrowing ruling class by force… but nowadays the masses are so divided and confused that they’ll probably start killing each other for scraps of food rather than the billionaires for a life of dignity. Even then, it’s just temporary until capitalism and/or authoritarianism takes hold again.
Who talked about utopia? The USSR was far from a utopia, it was a state with flaws and lots of mistakes were made in the process. It is still demonstrably significantly more fair, egalitarian and less exploitative than anything we have in the west, which relies in the exploitation of the global south to sustain itself.
The whole “Utopian socialism” thing is a 200 years old argument that was dismantled back then, by the way. Engels himself has an essay called “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”, explaining how early branches of socialism followed utopian goals and methods, but Marxism is scientific socialism based off historical materialism and empiricism. If you look at my comments above, I’ve talked about historical evidence with hard data, not about good wishes for the future.
That is if you ignore the main industrial powerhouse of the world (China), the island of Cuba, or the nations of Vietnam and Laos.
As if, for example, the west started to support a genocide that murders over half a million people (most of them children), or if militarized police started kidnapping and disappearing random citizens without due process in the USA, or if fascist governments linked to Nazism and Fascism started to win elections in Italy or Germany?
To quote Ursula K. Le Guin: “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings”
The USSR is dead and cold, replaced by an authoritarian warmongering machine. It had its moment in the spotlight, but it failed, and it failed its russian and former citizens.
China promotes many good principles (in many ways so did the USA, cough cough), but it is heading in the wrong direction under Xi. It’s Communism with a human exploitative flavour, with the occasional public fig leaf of justice. That said, it could offer an umbrella of security for some more interesting experiments in the years to come. Watch this space, I guess.
Circling back to my original point, I maintain that communism isn’t going to gain popular support so long as the only viable way to achieve it is through violence and oppression, and so long as it buckles so easily under the pressure of outside forces.
I will continue voting and protesting for sensible left-leaning policies that promote fairness and well being for all, while steering clear of the extremists and simpletons who promote hate or explicitly or tacitly support genocides, wars of aggression, etc. The scales may tip enough one day to justify radical action, but not today - the risks of it going terribly wrong are too high.