• 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

      I think that article is inaccurate. I’ve always seen communism described as a state-less society.

      • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ugh… Who wrote that… “Communism is when you have a communal toothbrush”…

        “All property is communally owned”, said literally no socialist ever in history. It’s always funny to show the home ownership rate by country to people who claim “you don’t own anything in socialism”.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Marx specifically refers to the elements of government that uphold class society as the “state.” Communism, in the Marxist sense, has a government, central planning, and administration. The “state” whithers away via replacing elements of Capitalism with Socialism, removing aspects like Private Property Rights.

        You may want to read Critique of the Gotha Programme, where Marx describes the transition from Capitalism to lower-stage Communism (Socialism in modern lingo), to upper-stage Communism.

    • areyouevenreal@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      I wouldn’t be using the online version of the history channel. Also communism has no state and therefore no single centralised government.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s Anarcho-Communism, not Marxism.

        Communism in Marxism still has a government, just not what Marx called “the State.” The State, for Marx, is made up of the elements of government that uphold class society, ie Private Property Rights. Central Planning is a core concept of Marxism, and Marxists see administration, elections, councils, and so forth as necessary functions of society.

        I recommend reading Critique of the Gotha Programme

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yep, I like to talk about gaming and cooking, but the sheer amount of ill-informed takes on Marxism that are entirely unsupported by Marx’s writings is overwhelmingly popular on several Lemmy instances.

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      It sounds great on paper but it seems to rely too much on hoping everyone from the ground up isn’t going to get greedy and skim or give themselves and friends a special deal. Humans aren’t selfless. Even Gene Roddenberry gave up hope on his idea of a future, socialist humanity, because he realized humans are too selfish to establish a system like that. We should still try though. Better than then we have now

      • Tamo240@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think it is generally because of our deeply capitalist society and upbringing that we are told to believe people are greedy and selfish, therefore we must be greedy and selfish ourselves in order to not get taken advantage of, or replaced.

      • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think humans in general are more equipped to have empathy for a smaller tribe compared a whole Nation, let alone to billions of people world wide. It’s easier to share what you have with your neighbor rather than someone you have never met.

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        impossible not to have greedy people with high drive, they have always existed and will always exist. And given that greed and high drive is a very explosive combination they will always wreck these systems.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It sounds great on paper but it seems to rely too much on hoping everyone from the ground up isn’t going to get greedy and skim or give themselves and friends a special deal.

        What on Earth are you referring to? How would one “skim?” What structures do you think exist in Communism that would allow this?

        • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Huh? Do you think the people on top aren’t going to get more money, better food, better everything? That’s been proven over and over and in America? That would be abused immediately. Do you think things work for free in a socialist society? If there’s money, there will be skimming. And we’re talking about socialism. Not communism. I’ve lived under a communist regime, it’s not good. You young North American people shouldn’t dream about that shit.

          Socialism is good. Communism has been bastardized and corrupted beyond repair.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Huh? Do you think the people on top aren’t going to get more money, better food, better everything? That’s been proven over and over and in America?

            Historically, disparity drastically decreased in AES countries. Additionally, America is Capitalist, not sure what your point is.

            Do you think things work for free in a socialist society?

            No, workers still work, but collectively own and control the production and distribution.

            f there’s money, there will be skimming. And we’re talking about socialism. Not communism. I’ve lived under a communist regime, it’s not good. You young North American people shouldn’t dream about that shit.

            This post specifically is about Marxism, it’s Communist. Additionally, if you don’t mind, where did you live, and what happened?

            Socialism is good. Communism has been bastardized and corrupted beyond repair.

            Socialism is the path to Communism, it’s difficult to untie the two.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s a decent write-up, but has some issues like:

      "[China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam] can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. "

      Uh… in every country the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. In a standard western democracy like say the UK, the government passes laws which regulate the economic and political system. They may choose to be hands-off when it comes to certain things, but ultimately they’re in control. At any point a law can be change, or a court decision can be changed so that what was once hands-off is now regulated.

      What would it even look like for a country to not fully control all aspects of the economic and political system? IMO that only happens in a failed state when the government simply lacks the power to enforce laws. The difference between China and the USA is just a matter of degree. In China there are more regulations in general, and there are more state-owned enterprises.

      Also, Social Democracy describes the US. It’s again a matter of degree. Yes in the Nordic countries there are more state-owned things, and more public benefits. But, in the US, even though ambulances are mostly private and for-profit, fire trucks are not. Privately owned toll roads exist, but they’re rare. The government pays for and runs schools. Potholes are filled by government employees. Mass transit is almost always city-owned. And, instead of the Pinkertons, cities use police forces where everyone’s a government employee. There are a lot of things that could be privatized in the US, but almost nobody actually wants everything to be a privately-owned for profit capitalist enterprise.

    • volodya_ilich@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      And socialism in pure form sounds like utopia

      Sorry mate, that argument is already 200 years old. There’s a difference between utopian socialism (English Owenists or Russian Socialist Revolutionaries were good examples of this), and scientific socialism. Engels wrote an essay about it called, well, “Socialism: utopian and scientific” around 150+ years ago. Tl;dr: Marxists aren’t utopians, as proven by the success of the Russian Revolution or the Cuban Revolution in establishing long-lasting, stable political systems, with a total and complete absence of exploitation of the surplus value of workers by a capitalist class.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The only problem with implementing it is a lack of genuine compliance from the first few generations. If they can be compelled to contribute, to get it all stable and done and show why it’s good, then their children will reap the rewards of that success. That’s why some socialists see a driven party in it for the long haul to be necessary to get there.

      Besides, your comment is literally against rule 3. I’m reporting you.