In my experience there are people who defend both China and “DPRK” as a communist paragon with reasoning that is although extensive dodges any real criticism of China (from either an external standpoint, or from within a communist pov).
It was my impression that such “tankies” are the primary base of communists (or common enough for it to be a problem), which pushed me away from it.
Real communism has a massive flaw in that it is too idealistic and fails to account for human corruption and the pursuit of power. Especially since communism is all about equalizing power among the people. Which is also how it has always been co-opted and destroyed from within shortly after it has been implemented.
This is why I fight against calling any current country “communist”, because those countries so severely violate everything that makes a state communist. These are authoritarian kleptocracies, nothing more. They use “communism” as a thin veneer of legitimacy over a fetid, rotting carcass of dictatorship that violently oppresses the people.
Thats kind of why I am skeptical of any communist movement that isn’t explicitly also anarchist (i.e. intending to destroy hierarchy). It leads to what you described
And I see hierarchy as essential and required for anything beyond a small, isolated community of 50-200 people.
The difference being, through technology we can make despot-proof hierarchies that self-prune away those who hunger for power and influence.
For example, direct-participatory democracy is literally political communism, and totally eliminates all politicians. What remains is a network of functionaries and bureaucrats (invariably in meritocrally-elected boards of limited duration) whose sole employed purpose is to action the will of the populace in whatever ministry they occupy. There literally is no one single person in any position who can take any kind of control, and powerful checks and balances exist throughout the system to permit an effective and efficient but subservient state that can deal with issues at scales that small communities cannot.
The downside being that truly effective direct-participatory democracy requires three foundations to be in place:
A well-educated populace, that is drilled in bullshit detection and critical thinking from a very early age, so that it is very difficult to hoodwink any one significant part of the population. Likely under the Montessori style of education that has been shown to be wildly more effective than our current systems. Of course, such strong focus on effective education will also cause the extinction of conservatism, but oh well.
A strong social safety net (not even socialism, just close), such that pretty much all people are relieved from the immense stressors of poverty and economic inequality. This allows people to open up their headspace to focus on things other than their own daily struggles to survive. Such as the direction of society.
An actual separation of politics from capitalism, in that capitalism is no longer able to affect politics in any way. Powerful laws that outlaw the influence of money and other benefits to any bureaucrats in any position.
Once these three are solidly in place, direct participatory democracy can be implemented, and it is only after it has been, that communism has any chance of surviving.
Except technology will be used instead for the exact opposite — techno-fascism.
AI and technology at large are funded and developed by the corrupt elite abusing power and their position in the hierarchy, further entrenching the hierarchy and their ability to abuse it for their own interests.
Although it is possible for tech to be used for good, that is an idealistic outlook that’s unlikely to occur in reality (at least in the sense of it doing away with abuse of hierarchy).
I think that bureaucracy is inherently problematic (corrupt).
I’m fairly familiar with the notion of a direct democracy and can get behind it otherwise.
We’re talking anarchism, not communism
Communism can very much be decentralized, and in fact a correct implementation tends to be exactly that.
Because that’s where “communism” the term comes from - community, communal, etc…
In practice, it isn’t, usually. None of the communist states extant today or historically had a decentralized system without hierarchies.
Which is why these were never communist states, any more than North Korea is democratic, or the old East Germany was a republic.
Just because these states wore the word “communism” like a thin veneer of legitimacy, does not a communist state make.
Well I’m glad you can say that.
In my experience there are people who defend both China and “DPRK” as a communist paragon with reasoning that is although extensive dodges any real criticism of China (from either an external standpoint, or from within a communist pov).
It was my impression that such “tankies” are the primary base of communists (or common enough for it to be a problem), which pushed me away from it.
Real communism has a massive flaw in that it is too idealistic and fails to account for human corruption and the pursuit of power. Especially since communism is all about equalizing power among the people. Which is also how it has always been co-opted and destroyed from within shortly after it has been implemented.
This is why I fight against calling any current country “communist”, because those countries so severely violate everything that makes a state communist. These are authoritarian kleptocracies, nothing more. They use “communism” as a thin veneer of legitimacy over a fetid, rotting carcass of dictatorship that violently oppresses the people.
Thats kind of why I am skeptical of any communist movement that isn’t explicitly also anarchist (i.e. intending to destroy hierarchy). It leads to what you described
And I see hierarchy as essential and required for anything beyond a small, isolated community of 50-200 people.
The difference being, through technology we can make despot-proof hierarchies that self-prune away those who hunger for power and influence.
For example, direct-participatory democracy is literally political communism, and totally eliminates all politicians. What remains is a network of functionaries and bureaucrats (invariably in meritocrally-elected boards of limited duration) whose sole employed purpose is to action the will of the populace in whatever ministry they occupy. There literally is no one single person in any position who can take any kind of control, and powerful checks and balances exist throughout the system to permit an effective and efficient but subservient state that can deal with issues at scales that small communities cannot.
The downside being that truly effective direct-participatory democracy requires three foundations to be in place:
Once these three are solidly in place, direct participatory democracy can be implemented, and it is only after it has been, that communism has any chance of surviving.
Except technology will be used instead for the exact opposite — techno-fascism.
AI and technology at large are funded and developed by the corrupt elite abusing power and their position in the hierarchy, further entrenching the hierarchy and their ability to abuse it for their own interests.
Although it is possible for tech to be used for good, that is an idealistic outlook that’s unlikely to occur in reality (at least in the sense of it doing away with abuse of hierarchy).
I think that bureaucracy is inherently problematic (corrupt).
I’m fairly familiar with the notion of a direct democracy and can get behind it otherwise.