• cenarius871@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    What really matters is that it is clear what MLs want and what anarchocommunists want and that it is clear what they mean when they use the words “communism” and “socialism”. And if what anarchocommunists mean with “communism” is real communism and what MLs mean is fake communism then so be it. Thats something i dont care about. I was not trying to gaslight you.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Stuff means things. We don’t get to redefine it as we go.

      But let me put this forward…

      common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.

      This is a general characterization of communism. How can a “state” be stateless? Is this Schrodinger’s communism?

      The problem with Marxist leninism, and why it will never achieve communism. Is because they simply expected the state to wither away. Because as any serious students of History knows. No one has ever fought wars. Everyone always just gives up power without a fight. When you centralize power. The people who have it are always eager to give it up. <Oprah> you get power! And you get power! Everybody gets power!! <Oprah />

      The reason Marxist leninist States always develop into capitalist fascism or other brutal authoritarian concepts. Is because of the centralization of power. Those with the power covet and protect it. They will have to be overthrown themselves before and there will ever be a possibility of communism.

      The reason ml will never defeat capitalism. It’s because they are a lateral move compared to capitalism. Capitalists don’t stand to benefit from it. They would lose power. The People Under The capitalist understand that they would not be any freer. In fact they would lose freedom. There’s no visible benefit.

      The truth is capitalists will likely tear themselves apart before long. Things are already highly toxic. And with increasing automation soon will become untenable. China is starting to decay badly already as well. ML speed run that part. We’ll see if the man who made himself president for life then moved into the Forbidden City does the right thing. Or does what anyone in that situation would do. Leave the power to someone in his family. Or a loyal sycophant.

      • cenarius871@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        As more of a maoist i would not say China today is socialist with those billionaires owning stakes in those chinese companies and influencing the state to have this high income inequality there now and not offering everybody a job as they used to under mao etc. . Automation has been going on since the 19th century and has not overthrown capitalism and unemployment is not any worse than it was during the great depression. Things are not any more toxic and untenable than during the gilded age in america. One big change now is that there are forums like reddit and lemmy were people get access to statistics like life expectancy which was not the case in the gilded age were the 99% only would read the biggest newspapers which were controlled by the top 1%.