While I agree that human corruption is the most direct contributing factor to authoritarianism, I do think communism leaves itself much more open to such corruption compared to a democratic system of government. Communism isn’t merely an economic system; it is also a system of government, and the two cannot be separated and still be communism.
As I said, I’m all for socialist elements being incorporated into our governmental policies, provided they do not infringe upon democracy, but communism’s “transitional” one-party government is a horrid idea and a definite “no-go” when it comes to government. As it is an essential element to communism or the attempt to create a communist society (however you choose to think of it), I reject it outright as an inherently authoritarian system that should be fought against tooth and nail.
I honestly agree, a major issue with a planned economy style is that it is heavily regulated by the government and easily lends itself to some form of dictatorship thanks to the high levels of control in who or what is allowed to do things. Although I don’t think a one party “transitional” government is essential to communism itself, I think it also wouldn’t work in a multi-party system due to bickering amongst the parties, once again leading to the authoritarian issue.
I’m all for whatever system works, so long as it helps people first and foremost. IKEA was originally conceived by a man inspired by the socialist revolution in Sweden, who had the idea that furniture should be affordable for everyone, not just the rich, and is blacklisted to this day by most lumber vendors in Sweden as a result, forcing them to outsource their lumber from other countries. That’s my kind of thinking. A massive company founded on the idea of helping the common man, not the rich.
Although I don’t think a one party “transitional” government is essential to communism itself
I’m not sure what version of communism you’re working with here. A transitional government is essential to any stated form of communism that attempts to achieve what communism purports to: a government-less society that can somehow manage an egalitarian economy. This is a fairytale. Economies always have to reckon with greed as a factor, and our best-constructed systems for doing so are government regulation by a government that is democratically elected. Do we have a corruption-proof system of government that can do that yet? Fuck, no. But democratic governments are much more equipped to do so than governments that rely on systemic oppression of alternative ideas, which communism is. Capitalism needs caps, that’s undeniable, but communism does not provide said caps, it merely provides a system that is duly equipped to do via government authority what capitalism does via the free market. Neither are aceptable forms of economic management.
While I agree that human corruption is the most direct contributing factor to authoritarianism, I do think communism leaves itself much more open to such corruption compared to a democratic system of government. Communism isn’t merely an economic system; it is also a system of government, and the two cannot be separated and still be communism.
As I said, I’m all for socialist elements being incorporated into our governmental policies, provided they do not infringe upon democracy, but communism’s “transitional” one-party government is a horrid idea and a definite “no-go” when it comes to government. As it is an essential element to communism or the attempt to create a communist society (however you choose to think of it), I reject it outright as an inherently authoritarian system that should be fought against tooth and nail.
I honestly agree, a major issue with a planned economy style is that it is heavily regulated by the government and easily lends itself to some form of dictatorship thanks to the high levels of control in who or what is allowed to do things. Although I don’t think a one party “transitional” government is essential to communism itself, I think it also wouldn’t work in a multi-party system due to bickering amongst the parties, once again leading to the authoritarian issue.
I’m all for whatever system works, so long as it helps people first and foremost. IKEA was originally conceived by a man inspired by the socialist revolution in Sweden, who had the idea that furniture should be affordable for everyone, not just the rich, and is blacklisted to this day by most lumber vendors in Sweden as a result, forcing them to outsource their lumber from other countries. That’s my kind of thinking. A massive company founded on the idea of helping the common man, not the rich.
I’m not sure what version of communism you’re working with here. A transitional government is essential to any stated form of communism that attempts to achieve what communism purports to: a government-less society that can somehow manage an egalitarian economy. This is a fairytale. Economies always have to reckon with greed as a factor, and our best-constructed systems for doing so are government regulation by a government that is democratically elected. Do we have a corruption-proof system of government that can do that yet? Fuck, no. But democratic governments are much more equipped to do so than governments that rely on systemic oppression of alternative ideas, which communism is. Capitalism needs caps, that’s undeniable, but communism does not provide said caps, it merely provides a system that is duly equipped to do via government authority what capitalism does via the free market. Neither are aceptable forms of economic management.