• anonfopyapper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    il y a 7 heures
    1. Oligarchy is not caused by capitalism. These are different things. I’m not really sure if capitalism really caused it - it could just accelerated it. Bad people would so evil things in any system unless regulated

    2. Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy - which never worked. About utopian communism: 2.1 USSR - failed on the way to the communism due to economic reasons. The system wasn’t able to handle it all, and USSR had huge deficits and poorness. 2.2 China - “a communistic” country. Which is not really anymore. It just masks itself as one to still have a single leader (in their case a single party) 2.3 about Cuba I have no idea, no experience

    3. That is unfortunate. But this social guarantees are being removed by rich and power hungry people that are trying to aggregate more power. And power is money. Imagine money = capitalism = bad. But if we will remove money from the system - bad actors could still abuse their power in different ways (political weight, connections)

    Im downoted to hell for a different opinion from lefties, righties and centrists. Cool. I love society. But it is not a reddit and no karma, so it doesnt matter :)

    • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      il y a 2 heures

      Communism requires state. Otherwise, it would be an anarchy

      So is anarcho-communism an oxymoron for you then?

        • Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          il y a 2 heures

          Your thinking of written history, almost all of which was written by slavers and lords to justify them doing nothing and getting all the stuff.

          The vast majority of human existence, from when we first diverged from apes until the agricultural revolutions, was organized around anarchic tribes and clans where they shared there resources and the leader “ruled” at the discretion of the tribe.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            il y a 48 minutes

            These were not benign, cooperative social structures. They were tiny dictatorships. The leader controlled the “discretion of the tribe” by eliminating dissent. The controlling principle of was “might makes right”.

            Other words for the broad concept you are describing are “harem” and “cult”.

    • RmDebArc_5@piefed.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      il y a 7 heures
      1. You have no idea what communism means. It is not anarchy, but mainly due to the difference in the way and not the goal. Saying communism requires a state is like saying water atoms require more than one proton and electron. It is literally the definition of what communism isn’t is.

      2.1 The USSR had economic problems, especially near the end, but it also had achieved great economic progress. If you consider the full existence of USSR it’s economy grew equally to that of the West. The USSR however had a way worse start as it inherited a feudal society that had just lost a war and was attacked immediately by capitalist nations such as the USA. Other countries that had similar starting conditions grew significantly less than the West or USSR in the same time period. The USSR saw a significant increase in life expectancy: Graph showing the life expectancy in Russia from 1900-2020. It’s economy later declined due to mismanaged and a expenditure for the military that wasn’t feasable, but all in all I don’t think it’s fair to call the USSR a economic failure.