• 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    20 hours ago

    No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.

    1. Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.

    2. Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.

    “The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.

    • Sedan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      No, the government. “The government” as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components. Thank you for enlightening me, Comrade…

      Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.

      Yes, that is exactly what I said: for a government to function effectively in the sphere of social development, the dictatorship of the proletariat is absolutely essential!

      The right to vote on state decisions belongs to representatives drawn from the people—those elected at the local level. The right to a real vote. That is how it worked in the USSR during the 1930s.

      The only catch—as you well know—is that in the 1980s, the clause regarding the “dictatorship of the proletariat” vanished from the CPC Charter…

      “The oligarchs” (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes.

      And in socialist countries?.. )))

      The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains

      It was an agonizing process; to achieve this, the USSR had to pass through “War Communism.”

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Socialism has worked in every country it has been established in. They have all had their own problems, but these generally pale in comparison to the fundamental structural contradictions in capitalism, and have been some of the fastest developing countries in history.

      • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        China, Vietnam, the DPRK, Cuba are all in the process and have benefited massively from the workers having seized the state. The USSR also benefited massively before it’s illegal dissolution and the people suffered greatly when they lost control of the state. It’s only fantasy if you’re a massively ignorant pillock.

      • test_@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Modern capitalist economies are already massively centralized and planned – see “The People’s Republic of Walmart.”

        Socialist countries fail because they are embargoed, which stifles their economy, which then stifles their legitimacy.

        • diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Exactly my point. It doesn’t work. Humans are the problem that will not allow a society to flourish. By nature the worst will always rise to the top.

          • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Desperately trying to justify your refusal to contribute to anything with boring fatalism. By that logic, we’re all gonna die so why bother commenting?

          • Dessalines@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            15 hours ago

            People are not inherently evil. Your pessimism was indoctrinated into you, and you can be undoctrinated from that wrong view.

            • diabetic_porcupine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              Are you kidding me? Look around you. How much evil do you need to see? As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them. This is all dreamworld bullshit

              • Sleepless One@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                47 minutes ago

                As long as people like this exist nothing good can coexist with them.

                That’s what the reeducation programs and firing squads are for.

              • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                5 hours ago

                We have world historical leaps in life and happiness to back up what we’re saying, while you just have mopey, navel gazing teenage bullshit about this fallen world and how people are shit, man.

                Our beliefs are backed by experience, yours by learned helplessness.

              • 秦始皇帝@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                13 hours ago

                You’re right better isn’t and has never been possible everyone is evil and greedy and we should all just kill ourselves.

                Edgy teenager nonsense. Grow up.