Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Influence. I want to be able to convince everybody with power around the world to actively support a transition away from a system that's based on hierarchy and coercion to a decentralized and cooperative one.
I could get behind that.
But wealth is power, and power does not corrupt so much as it attracts the corruptible. You would need to work with all manner of sociopaths and malignant narcissists. And these are people who have the least justification for existing in a polite society.
Plus, they would also continue to be parasites on civilization, and continue to pathologically hoard more wealth than they could possibly spend in a million lifetimes.
Honestly, a guillotine is a lot simpler and a lot faster. Take out the top 0.01% of civilization, and the remaining members of the Parasite Class will not fight when you implement 99% top-tier tax rates, close all of the high-wealth loopholes, and build proper social frameworks that benefit everyone.
And this starts with the political system, with a high-tech direct-participation democracy which eliminates all politicians in favour of letting everyone vote on all issues. This requires a foundation with a population that is well educated in critical thinking and bullshit detection (which would destroy all conservatism in the first place), and an economic system (even modified capitalism) that meets everyone’s needs so everyone would have the headspace to deal with societal questions without being forced to always focus on economic survival. Without this political framework, socialism/communism of any form would continue to be corrupted and co-opted by strongmen and tyrants.
Because when you look at any attempt to implement communism in the past, it never survived beyond a few months to maybe a year or so. Sure, Russia had its revolution in 1917, but by 1918 Russian communism was effectively dead; taken over by an authoritarian kleptocracy no different than a feudal system.
We're talking anarchism, not communism
Communism can very much be decentralized, and in fact a correct implementation tends to be exactly that.
Because that’s where “communism” the term comes from - community, communal, etc..
In practice, it isn't, usually. None of the communist states extant today or historically had a decentralized system without hierarchies.
Which is why these were never communist states, any more than North Korea is democratic, or the old East Germany was a republic.
Just because these states wore the word “communism” like a thin veneer of legitimacy, does not a communist state make.
Well I'm glad you can say that.
In my experience there are people who defend both China and "DPRK" as a communist paragon with reasoning that is although extensive dodges any real criticism of China (from either an external standpoint, or from within a communist pov).
It was my impression that such "tankies" are the primary base of communists (or common enough for it to be a problem), which pushed me away from it.
Real communism has a massive flaw in that it is too idealistic and fails to account for human corruption and the pursuit of power. Especially since communism is all about equalizing power among the people. Which is also how it has always been co-opted and destroyed from within shortly after it has been implemented.
This is why I fight against calling any current country “communist”, because those countries so severely violate everything that makes a state communist. These are authoritarian kleptocracies, nothing more. They use “communism” as a thin veneer of legitimacy over a fetid, rotting carcass of dictatorship that violently oppresses the people.
Thats kind of why I am skeptical of any communist movement that isn't explicitly also anarchist (i.e. intending to destroy hierarchy). It leads to what you described
And I see hierarchy as essential and required for anything beyond a small, isolated community of 50-200 people.
The difference being, through technology we can make despot-proof hierarchies that self-prune away those who hunger for power and influence.
For example, direct-participatory democracy is literally political communism, and totally eliminates all politicians. What remains is a network of functionaries and bureaucrats (invariably in meritocrally-elected boards of limited duration) whose sole employed purpose is to action the will of the populace in whatever ministry they occupy. There literally is no one single person in any position who can take any kind of control, and powerful checks and balances exist throughout the system to permit an effective and efficient but subservient state that can deal with issues at scales that small communities cannot.
The downside being that truly effective direct-participatory democracy requires three foundations to be in place:
Once these three are solidly in place, direct participatory democracy can be implemented, and it is only after it has been, that communism has any chance of surviving.
Except technology will be used instead for the exact opposite — techno-fascism.
AI and technology at large are funded and developed by the corrupt elite abusing power and their position in the hierarchy, further entrenching the hierarchy and their ability to abuse it for their own interests.
Although it is possible for tech to be used for good, that is an idealistic outlook that's unlikely to occur in reality (at least in the sense of it doing away with abuse of hierarchy).
I think that bureaucracy is inherently problematic (corrupt).
I'm fairly familiar with the notion of a direct democracy and can get behind it otherwise.