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

    This is fundamentally incorrect.

    In my definition, any system where the general public cannot throw out the bums without violence is authoritarian.

    Not only is it your definition, but you give no agency to the people. If a socialist state is supported by the public, then that’s a good example of a working system. I don’t know what you mean by “the bums,” if you mean opportunists then every socialist state has had mechanisms to expel party members that were more leech than diligent communists.

    The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. It just swaps distributed power for the even bigger problem of bigger concentrated power.

    This is also incorrect. Communism and socialism are both viable, and have been better at distributing power than capitalist systems, including the nordic countries. Collectivization of production and distribution spreads power out to the people, society is run both in a centrally planned fashion and from below.

    Just look at happyness indexes. We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent. Capitalists hate this and I assume communists do too because it shows neither is the way.

    You’re referring to the nordic countries. These are anti-democratic dictatorships of capital that fund elaborate safety nets using the spoils of imperialism. Capitalists love this because they retain their super profits, and communists correctly hate this model because it perpetuates imperialism.