Honestly, no I'm far from an expert in political or economic matters. I'm just yet to see a system proposed that could work in reality given how complex humans are and how "value" is almost impossible to define when everyone sees it differently.

Plenty of countries have tried though and none have made it work from what I've seen. This is possibly (probably) a gross oversimplification but ultimately someone (or some group) ends up at the top of the tree and unless that group is uncorruptable forever it ends with imbalance.

Asking everyone to share as needed and own nothing would be great if everyone wanted everyone else to be equally happy and nobody was trying to take more for themselves (and if everyone had the same idea of what everything is worth). I think at the very least we can agree that some people are more selfless than others and other people will always exploit that given an opportunity.

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How deep of an understanding do you have of these supposed proposed systems? As a leftist, the vast majority of mainstream leftist tendencies have strong theory that specifically deals with what you consider to be their ultimate flaw: an assumption of human good. It's hard to actually answer for every single leftist Tendency, because you haven't really given any specifics.

As for your second paragraph, there have been remarkably few countries that genuinely have tried Socialism, and all of them were developing countries. Don't take this to mean that I'm a fan of Marxism-Leninism, but there are two prominent examples of countries that most would consider did in fact "work," those being the USSR and China.

Again, not defending the USSR or China overall, but asking for clarification on your definition of working, as they were and are economically strong.

Your point about the top of the tree is, bluntly, extremely bad. You offer no explanation why a Socialist or Communist structure cannot be democratically accountable to any lesser degree than Capitalist structures, and assume absolute power. This goes directly against all leftist theory, even Marxism-Leninism, which is centered on the principles of Democratic Centralism.

Your point about Communism being "sharing everything and owning nothing" is also entirely incorrect, and further proves my point. The entire final paragraph is so divorced from any sense of actual leftist theory, that it can only be a product of someone fully believing a right-wing pundit's propaganda, and not the actual primary sources for leftist tendencies, to the point where I'll break down each sentence.

Communism, principly, is a far-future status by which the whole of the productive forces can meaningfully provide whatever anyone wants at any time, and work is done for the pleasure of working, rather than for the necessity of being. As such, it must be built towards over a long period of Socialism, which is chiefly Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. Communism and Socialism are built on the idea of earning what you actually work for, rather than allowing individuals to own the products of other's labor via ownership of the tools they use. You make the error of assuming immediate implementation of Communism, rather than gradual.
We can partially agree on your second point, but given the actual structures proposed by various leftist tendencies, it doesn't matter for this conversation, and you've yet to prove why.

Sorry for the wall of text! I truly think that you should talk to leftists, actually read some Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Lenin, Luxembourg, and so forth, and actually get an idea of what the various leftist tendencies are actually saying. You don't have to be a leftist, but you absolutely should understand leftism before attempting to disavow it entirely.

[+] Globulart@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lack of acceptance for what? Leftism is a group of ideologies, and not necessarily one built around tolerating that which they oppose out of a sense of moral superiority.

I was just asking for what you've seen that points to Communism working in theory and not in practice, because so far you've explained exactly none of that.

I've found a good start for your lack of understanding, though! You completely misinterpret the definition and conflate private property with all property, when it is specifically referring to tools and industry, ie the Means of Production. You absolutely own things in Communism, like your house, toys, games, books, etc. You just don't own Private Property, like factories, restaurants, etc. The definition of Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society, and you make the error of pretending to know what exactly that entails by your own worst imagining of your own worst interpretation of said phrase.

Your next paragraph is also very enlightening, you assume Capitalist Mode of Production with Communist consequences! This is precisely what I'm getting at, you believe things like Companies would exist in Communism, when Communism itself is anti-market, and you're again making the assumption that we can just turn on the big red Communism button and get there, when it must be built over a long period of time, with structures such as worker councils.

Your question about bullshit jobs has numerous solutions, actually. First of all, you're assuming Communism in modern society, rather than the future, after lots of automation. Socialism would have monetary rewards, even lower stage Communism as well, for performing this labor. Eventually, it would be like your current life. Who cleans your house? You and your roommates, whether that be your friends, or family. In a Communist society, likely everyone would take turns, for whatever bullshit jobs haven't already been automated away. In lower stages, they would be paid more money until this becomes possible.

Your points on the USSR and China are also wrong. In the USSR, wealth inequality was magnitudes lower than it is in their current oligarchic hellscape, and the Workers actually had a lot of say over how their life went, assuming they didn't criticize the Politburo. This was referred to as Soviet Democracy, by which worker councils called Soviets decided things democratically at the local level.

No, I wouldn't live in the USSR or modern day China, because they are developing countries with authoritarian leadership. However, you'll find that is true across the board for developing countries. Perhaps if the USSR or China ever fully developed and became more democratically accountable, I would choose to live there, but for now you'll find that quality of life follows development more than structure.

Both Maoist China and the USSR had far less wealth inequality than they have today, both doubled life expectancy, and the USSR had close to 0 homelessness with fully free education and Healthcare. They also lacked luxury goods and had an Authoritarian party controlling the state, but you're demonstrably wrong about wealth inequality.

I am not a tankie or a supporter of the ML form of Socialism, if it needs to be restated.

If I point to Hitler's Germany, Pinochet's Chile, and Batista's Cuba, does that mean that Capitalism is great in theory and doesn't actually work in reality because it results in Authoritarianism? The answer is that you must state the why and how this came to be, so as not to repeat it.

Do you genuinely think the USSR and China are the only forms of Socialism that could ever exist?

Please, just read some leftist theory or watch some YouTube videos. All of your false preconceptions are easily debunked even by looking at historical records and doing some light critical thinking. I know you mean well, but you could genuinely have improvements in your understanding.