balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.
That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.
Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.
The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.
The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Not entirely accurate. The collectivist movement in Spain did not involve installing a dictator, though it was vulnerable to being dissolved by outside forces, and this unfortunately did happen.
Also look up MST in Brazil, which afaik involves no dictator and is not an authoritarian movement.
There’s also the Sandinista (FSLN) party in Nicaragua, which still exists but would have probably been more successfully without the US trying to derail it every step of the way.
I mean now that I think of it – the Zapatistas in Mexico.
Not sure all these groups would use the term “communism,” but they all aim for a stateless, classless society, so I fail to see how that’s not a fundamentally communist goal.
I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.
By installing a dictator…every time it’s attempted…
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It’s much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let’s try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it’s still a boot on my neck.
That is a problem of how revolution works, not a problem of communism.
Create a power vaccuum, and those who had the most power will STILL have the most influence. Even if you literally killed all the old power, you would be immediately creating an authority structure with the legal authority of capital punishment, which many, MANY communists wouldn’t agree with.
The problem is horrible people exist, NOT the concept of communism. For every reason people shit on Communism, there are twenty valid reasons to shit on capitalism. Neither system works in the real world on its own. To pretend like capitalism is magical in comparison is literally failing to observe reality.
The rich and powerful constantly shit on political action because it IS effective. They do not enjoy going through the effort of retaining power through internal conflicts and ESPECIALLY not actual revolutions. Why would they EVER tell you the truth?
Not entirely accurate. The collectivist movement in Spain did not involve installing a dictator, though it was vulnerable to being dissolved by outside forces, and this unfortunately did happen.
Also look up MST in Brazil, which afaik involves no dictator and is not an authoritarian movement.
There’s also the Sandinista (FSLN) party in Nicaragua, which still exists but would have probably been more successfully without the US trying to derail it every step of the way.
I mean now that I think of it – the Zapatistas in Mexico.
Not sure all these groups would use the term “communism,” but they all aim for a stateless, classless society, so I fail to see how that’s not a fundamentally communist goal.
Even the fucking CIA isn’t dishonest enough to say such things
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf
Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn’t have dictators every time a revolution occurs?
Because short man special!
/s (do I even need this? This one HAS to be so absurd as to make the “/s” superfluous)
HE WAS AVERAGE HEIGHT FOR THE TIME PERIOD!!! (I miss overlysimplified so much)
Those have been tried, but they often tend to get liberated by the CIA. Or in some cases, the KGB / Red Army.
I’m certainly not advocating for toppling other countries’ governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Rojava wants a few words.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It’s a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.