• HRDS_654@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn’t mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.

    • Spinnyl@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Communism is an economic fairy tale, not policy.
      It would be nice if it were possible but with the current state of the world, it is not.

      Social democracy is a reasonable compromise.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is true Communism even possible if it’s being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn’t matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.

        • tara@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s about incentives. Worker oppression in Monarchy requires a bad King, in Feudalism bad lords, in Capitalism bad shareholders, and in Socialism self-hating workers. If you shared your workplace, would you push to remove your rights? Or to screw over your customers? And then argue for that against everyone else you share power with? The incentives are plainly better in a worker owned economy.

          • Rheios@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Respectfully, I can easily see a shared workplace at least encouraging screwing over customers. To me its an even more intense instance of the shareholder problem. Shareholders are obsessed with the money they’re getting back with no real work but the risk inherent in the bet they made. The workers are working, for a livelihood, and of course will want to improve their quality of life. They’re even more motivated to do so. And some of the best ways to do that, in the “make monkey brain happy” obvious short-term are the same policies the shareholders are already pushing. Will there be some pushback? Definitely, but you only have to sell a bunch of people on short-term easy money. And the lottery isn’t popular because people are smart about this stuff.

    • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess the main issue is with the government having absolute control over the economy. I would not want the most prominent politicians in my country having control of the economy. No matter how much I dislike capitalism.
      Just put the people who work for a company in charge of the company. Have them elect who calls the shots. Also have them directly benefit from the company doing well. I guess that is like end-stage unions or smth. All power to the workers. Should be doable within capitalism, maybe, probably.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “All power to the workers” is a communist principle, though. It’s the main political slogan of the communist manifest by Marx and Engels.

      • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninja
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, any economic system that concentrates power into one group is bad, whether it’s corporate monopolies or a single government (which ends up kind of like the ultimate monopoly in a communist state). Communists IMHO have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and how incentives can be exploited for the benefit of everyone. We need a form of capitalism that promotes competition (because profit is possibly the most powerful motivator of innovation), but also keeps companies in check with strong regulations, strong workers unions, and profits taxed appropriately. It’s also important to recognize that some basic needs should be met by the government like public education, public utilities, correctional systems, national defense, welfare, healthcare, etc. But even with public services, there should be room for private companies to innovate and provide premium alternatives to keep the government in check (with exceptions obviously, we don’t want private military and private prisons for example).

    • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t have a communist economic policy without being authoritarian. It’s human nature - once money is removed as a motivator, society breaks down unless you motivate people some other way (not being sent to the gulag).

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget the times dictators try to enforce communism onto nature. Mao’s Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions.

        • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization and outlawing of private farming led by the Chinese Communist Party wasnt communist? That is an interesting take.