• rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Communism isn’t bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.

    I’m not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This is literally the opposite of true, it’s true of highly heirarchical systems, not true of communism.

      Socialist systems actually seek to decentralize power, meaning you need to be less reliant on people being saints… not more.

      I don’t see why you believe that at all.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 minutes ago

        This is kinda nitpicky, but Marxists do want centralization, they just also want democratization. All of large production would be in the hands of government. The difference is that it would also be democratized, meaning this centralization works to extend the reach and influence of the average worker over a Capitalist system.

        Anarchists, meanwhile, do want decentralization, but I would not say they are the only forms of Socialist.

        This is very nitpicky and I’m sure you meant what I said, but I have had to explain to far too many people who thought Marx wanted essentially Anarchism but on a different time scale, so I figured I’d add this note to your good comment.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      AES leaders have never been “saints,” no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn’t call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.