• 0 Posts
  • 57 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 13th, 2023
  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.worldtoCanada@lemmy.ca•Communism
    8·
    2 months ago

    Real communism doesn’t need a single leader to maintain control or tonact altruistically. Real communism doesn’t have a single leader at all. Resources and control are shared by the citizenry, decentralized to the community, thus the name. I’m by no means an expert on the ideal workings of a national scale communist control structure, but the point would be to form a stateless nation without any bourgeoisie in control anymore, but rather everyone would be of the proletariat and the proletariat would share control.

    But you have hit the nail on the head of the problem with the transition to communism that I was alluding to. Normally it requires a populist party to overthrow or fundamentally reform a national system of governance. They take total control of the government and then total control of the nation’s resources, factories, properties… the “means of production”… from the bourgeoisie. That part has happened several times in history. It is the rest of the transition that has failed to occur every time. What is meant to happen next is that they then relinquish those means of production back to the proletariat, set up the means of self-governance, and then dissolve themselves and the central government. That has never happened.

    The problem is that, once the nation falls under the control of one party, it does require the leader(s) of that party to act, as you said, with pure altruism and willingly give up absolute power. And typically people that become party leaders are the kind of people that seek power and that do not like others having control. The problem is that the process as described requires people that are driven and insentivized to lead a major national reform. And then it needs those same people to act against their own nature and self-interest for ideology and the greater good. This is why that power had never been decentralized in any real world example of a transition to communism. That is what is meant when we say that there has never been a real communist country. There has never been one without a single party/dictator is control. There has never been a decentralized control of resources and power on a national scale. Those things have only ever been achieved on a community level to this date, and those communities struggle as they still must function under and within a capitalist system.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.worldtoCanada@lemmy.ca•Communism
    767·
    2 months ago

    They really really don’t like the fact that a real communist state has never existed. They don’t like that they have to understand what communism (or any unfamiliar concept to them) actually is, and they can’t just point at a failure of a state and use it to paint the entire concept with that failure brush. There is a fundamental flaw with the prescribed process of transitioning to a communist state that makes creating an authoritarian dictatorship that prevents the final transition almost an inevitably. That flaw is real and has been demonstrated many times. But that doesn’t mean that the basic concept of a communist state is bad, just that the process that’s been attempted is. I’m not even in favor of communism, myself, but I do find it annoying when my father-in-law uses it like a slur when he doesnt even know what it really means, and reduces it down to stealing from the rich like this guy. Communism is actually a lovely idea on paper, and a true communist state, should one ever arise, would likely be a nice place to live. But I don’t know for sure because a real communist state has never been formed.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.worldtoAndroid@lemdro.id•Why I refuse to upgrade - 8 minutes video explaining why it's not that interesting to upgrade phones nowadaysEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    10+ years ago, it was very common to get an upgrade to your phone ever two years (or less). And at the time, there was a lot more variability in phones. And I mean in more than just battery life, storage capacity, camera quality, processor, etc. There used to be a variety of form factors to consider, sizes, genuinely different features and functionalities. The iPhone came about in 2009, and other smart phones soon followed, but even then there were still phones with physical keyboards, digital keyboards with stylus typing, flip phones, etc. Once smart phones completely dominated the market and all the manufacturers started just copying each other’s features and designs, eventually we got to the status quo of today where they’re all essentially the same. The only major difference now is the OS, and that’s largely just down to iOS vs Android.