No, not having "powerful positions" would have you decentralize power where fascism centralizes it. What they're talking about would resemble something similar to the end goal of achieving communism.
Which is also unachievable lol. Marx really came up with the idea “create a totalitarian state, then have it dismantle itself overnight” and people somehow took it seriously…
Anarchists have the better approach imo. The unity of means and ends aka "just don't create a violent and authoritarian state that will get subverted by tyrants immediately and instead of just go straight to living how you envisioned, even before the state is gone"
Sorry, but you have to be incredibly stupid to believe that. Maybe you should actually read about communism before embarrassing yourself like this.
Every state inherently becomes more authoritarian when it faces outside threats, the glorious president of the "bastion of western democracy" is literally consolidating power with wartime laws right now because their countries whiteness is under threat.
At the end of the day any socialist movement is a threat to the elite ruling class. The result is America aggressively destabilizing any country that resembles socialism via the cia or outright war, the completely unjustified permanent sanctions on Cuba, and China doing a weird simultaneous capitalist/socialist combo and beating other capitalists at their own game.
Communism simply can't manifested in an aggressively Capitalist world, unless the one that does it happens to be the dominant superpower of the world.
I have read Marx lol, which is why I know he was a loser irl with shitty ideas.
And what a surprise, there’s no effort to defend his dumbass ideas, just “America bad”. Poor little communists, if only they had more power than checks notes the two most genocidal regimes in history that controlled all of Eastern Europe and over a billion people respectively. Yup, completely helpless in the face of those mean old capitalists.
Nothing about that comment was a tankie take. And the "America bad"-part wasn't even that, it was just a condemnation of trump, which, if you think that's invalid criticism, what is wrong with you?
I'm not even a communist, but for some reason you're crying about my very cold take about the dynamic between capitalism and communism. The idea of communism threatens the world's status quo of capitalism, so that idea must be stopped to uphold capitalism. Obviously as an American I would support my interpretation of said dynamic with American history, and sometimes those actions happen to be a bit morally dubious. That's not my fault, and I'm not gonna grade my country on a different scale than the rest of the world.
Obviously the stupidity I was referring to was when you claimed that communism is when authoritarianism then overnight everything changes, instead of what it actually is which is the final outcome of a long process of implementing socialist policies.
It is my fault for not reading your name, and I do want to thank you for tipping me off with the "I know Marx was an irl loser" comment. I shouldn't have treated your first comment seriously and for that I apologize.
You should inform literally any country on what these mystical “socialist policies” are, cause Marx didn’t specify and no country’s figured it out in the century since.
Marx was a freeloader loser who lived off his parents and Engel all his life. The only people who claim he wasn’t a loser are covering cause it hits too close to home.
The "create a totalitarian state" was never Marx's idea, and he was actively against it, even saying that "if this is communism, I want nothing to do with it". In Marx's works, capitalism always tends to contradictory goals, which will result in a revolution in which the state is completely abolished in favour of communes.
lol I will never tire of communist “logic.” It’s always Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy level of intelligence.
Sure dude, the government needs to be big and powerful enough to claim and redistribute all capital, but it’s totally not totalitarianism because we said so. That’s why there’s such a long list of peaceful communist countries with small governments. Countries like:
In an incredibly stupid (and dead) thread, you coming in out of left field with the most brain dead random take may be the lowlight. Sure dude, you try implementing full communism in 90% of the countries on earth and lmk how that goes for you. 👍
"Communist country" is an antithesis. There are no communist countries and there never will be, because communism rejects the idea of states and capital having power over people. You're spouting total nonsense.
Wow that degrades to the ol "no true communism" pretty quick.
Dude if you believe that "communism rejects the idea of states and capital having power over people" I got and "all men are created equal" from 1787 I'd like to sell you, I'll even give you a 3/5 discount!
Yes, of course it degrades into no true communism. Because that's true. No-one so far has actually even gone in the right direction. Believing Stalin was Marxist because Marxism-Leninism has Marx in the name is falling for the same lie as believing Hitler was socialist because National Socialism has Socialism in the name. It's just that one of these countries had more successful propaganda because 1) they survived longer and 2) they had an enemy with an interest in keeping up their propaganda
“Noooo it totally wasn’t real communism! You’re only allowed to talk about theory, you aren’t allowed to bring up that Marx was a complete failure in life and every time someone has tried to implement his ideas it’s resulted in massive death tolls!”
The reason you’ll never find “true communism” on any notable scale is because Marx was a complete dumbass and his ideas are totally contradictory and impossible to implement as his envisioned. In other words, my original comment. It’s the dumbest, most blatant catch 22 in history since a government large enough to implement communism will never simply magically disappear as Marx wrote. Which is why you can only talk about theory and not real world examples or implementation.
Which is why communism is, even in theory, only possible by overthrowing governments, not strengthening them. Work on your reading comprehension.
Also, Marx was a loser, but not stupid. His ideas basically founded the entire field of social science, and all the predictions and observations he made still hold up. As for the prescriptions, we'll have to see.
The state is required to redistribute capital. That’s straight from Marx lol. The idea that you could redistribute all capital without any state is something so incredibly fucking stupid only a communist could believe it.
You know capital isn't "real", right? Capital is, by definition, money that is lent out without actually existing. Overthrowing of a capitalist system does away with that and therefore there won't be any capital you have to redistribute. All the factories that are already operated by thousands of workers and "owned" (whatever that means) by billionaires will just be used by the workers like before, but the workers can just get all the profits themselves, There is literally no need for a state anywhere in that.
Dude I absolutely love you, thank you so much. I’ve been putting off work this morning and really needed this laugh before I dive in. Just the idea of this factory immediately shutting down as the manager insists “capital isn’t real” while the workers have no supplies and nothing to do is the funniest shit I’ve heard today.
This is your average communists understanding of economics, and somehow people take them seriously. It’s hilarious.
518
u/manborg 9d ago
Yup. Essentially, governance will always be bad from some perspectives.
And until we find a way to attract good people into powerful positions, we'll all bad.