Anonymous #2 6w

You must not know anything about what you’re talking about because communists are fundamentally anti-state

6

Anonymous #1 6w

Is communism not defined collective ownership and leadership? My understanding is that it’s designed to put all people and equal footing socially and economically. Following that logic, it would need a collectively controlled government, therefore the ownership is by the same people who run everything

6

Anonymous #2 6w

The state mediates class struggle and represents the interest of the capitalist class. It grants concessions to the workers if they’re angry enough, but the state itself helps uphold the current relationship between labour and capital. Marxist-Leninists are a type of liberal that believes in state owning and coordinating everything. Ends up just doing capitalism 100% of the time

3

Anonymous #1 6w

Then are you proposing Anarcho Communism?

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Not proposing anything because we’re talking about a change in the mode of production. The change from feudalism to capitalism wasn’t voted for nor did people one day decide to riot for it, it developed over time based on material circumstances. Also anarchists are kinda dumb

4

Anonymous #1 6w

Ok, and I agree that Anarchy is a pretty stupid concept. In that case I don’t fully understand what you mean. You’re saying that a government inherently prevents aspects of communism but aren’t saying you side with anarcho communism so I’m curious if you could explain the type of system you’re talking about?

1

Anonymous #2 6w

It’s undefined on many levels, there are only predicted aspects of it such as collective ownership of capital. It’s not clear how it will come about or what it will look like. But it will develop out of the collapse of the current capitalist system, it will become preferred when the internal contradictions become too much for a critical proportion of people to bear. And it probably won’t happen everywhere all at once

9

Anonymous #1 6w

That’s fair, personally I’m of the belief that the system can still be fixed and improved but I can fully understand and respect people who don’t think that

3

Anonymous #2 6w

That makes you a liberal. If you identify as a dem soc, then we ultimately want the same things, the only difference being whether or not the current system will get us there. I'm curious why you think the system capitalism created would ever allow you to reform the system to the point to where it serves the people instead of the rich. It hasn't done a single meaningful thing to serve the people for over 40 years, maybe longer.

6

I can't tell who you're talking to. Which group are the ignorant people with horrid ideologies?

1

Anonymous OP 6w

I believe there is an ongoing shift in people’s understanding and feelings towards how our world operates. The corruption manipulating it is being shown for what it is and people on both sides hate it. I’m not so much of an optimist as to think it’ll fix itself overnight with some miracle worker, but I think the success of people like Mamdani shows how non-capitalist systems can benefit people, and what it looks like when the government does serve the people. He’s not perfect, but he’s better

1

Anonymous #2 6w

The problem is, you cannot just vote out corruption. The corrupt people are in control. They will not give up their power without violence, or the threat of it, at least. No one from a third party has ever won anything higher than a mayoral race AFAIK. Democrats support capitalism. Capitalism will keep rotting this country to its core for as long as it is allowed to exist.

1

Anonymous #2 6w

Like, when a real threat to capitalism emerges, capitalism eliminates the threat. Anyone who poses a real threat to capitalism will be assassinated, end of story. This is why we need mass revolution. It's the only way out.

1