Prunebutt

Those instance randomizers seem like a good idea, thanks!

I don't know if I'm doing them a favour by increasing their traffic, so I'd rather not say. ;)

Let's not act as if it's wise to be hopeful that any successful company can have decent politics (maybe if it's a worker coop). Spineless liberals is the best we can hope for.

It's just like with Valve and Nintendo: Companies are not your friends!

But let's also not act as if any political issue can be fought only in the language of consumerism. Stop falling for that "vote with your wallet" BS if you want to stop falling for these liberals.

So it provides, absolutely no control over those making decisions abusing that power power for personal gain.

In what way is democratic control (i.e. worker ownership) "no control", exactly? If the workers (or rather: the people affected by a decision have a say directly proportionional to how much they are affected by that decision) have control over decisions: how exactly will that power be "abus[ed] for personal gain"? How is that supposed to happen? Also: Why is that supposed to happen? What is the personal gain to even be achieved?

In fact even less so though capitalism...

In capitalism, you have exactly 'ero control over what the boss wants you to do in his company,as lono as they don't break the law (which they can lobby for with their capital). How is that more control than all companies being democratically controlled by heir workers?

That she's based af?

If propaganda is your concern, communism relies on complete altruism of EVERYONE just to get off the ground.

Why would you think that? Communism doesn't require "altruism". Yes, the pro-social tendencies inherent in the species is supposed to be used for bringing humanity forward. But in the end, communism is focused on cooperation (rather than competition in capitalism). cooperation and altruism are different things.

I recommend this video if you're actually interested what communism means instead of relying on strawmen

And then it is a free for all to who grabs power first and turns into a dictatorship...

Nothing in communism implies that there can't be guardrails against power grabs. Quite the contrary in anarcho-communism, in fact, where the socialeinstitutions are to be set up specifically to prevent these kinds of things.

And discussions comparing it other systems are useless, because people end up comparing a real system to the ideal theory of communism.

So? Why can't you discuss systems in theory? I don't really see the problem.

Because it's never worked.

There have been ample historical and contemporary examples of "it" working. Socialism (i.e. worker ownership of the means of production) and communism (a stateless, moneyless society) has no precedent of collapsing due to internal conflicts. Only through external pressure.

And even if: Let's say he first few attempts at conducting a liberal democracy have failed (not a historian, but it seems very likely that you could argue that was the case). Should humanity have abandoned the project of liberal democracy, then?

Then show me a place where it worked.

Define "worked". 1930s Catalonia had a good run. So did anarchist Ukraine. Also: about the majority of the time humanity existed "worked" without private property, money and modern nation states.

I prefer our social democracy.

"Your" social democracy is most likely currently in the process of giving power to fascists (depends on where you live, exactly. But all of Europe for example is pretty much the boiling frog meme of turning fascist.), or preparing to start WW3.

As I said: full of propaganda.

You're the "Communism is bad" guy. In the lower panels.

The thought that communism has been established in USSR, China, Cuba, etc. and has proven to be horrible for human florishing is the propaganda.

You didn't get the comic. It's a critique of mainstream propaganda. Not an endorsement of the "free thinking" argument.

How did the anarchist collectives "[fail] for human dickish reasons"? Is outside pressure from fascists a problem inherent to socialism?

The left needs a religious strategy

That only works for so long, because the system isn't stable that way. Capitalism requires some sort of exploitation. If that exploitation is hindered for too long, capitalism will become in crisis.

This chapter explains why that deal didn't continue in Europe

Also: if you tax the rich too much, they will conduct a capital strike, where they stdpinvesting in the country, or move their business somewhere else. That bit isn't just a bogeyman from conservatives. It has some merit. Social democracy just isn't a stable system.