Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      I’m not really talking about Marxist communism. See my other comment, but in any realistic scenarios, communism is unlikely to form spontaneously as the first form of government in a new society.

      And since revolution on a large scale requires centralized coordination and leadership, there will always be someone or some group given centralized power that is unlikely to allow for decentralization to happen on a large scale and is actually more likely to grab the power of the previous government system and keep it centralized, “for the good of the people” or “to defend the people” or whatever. Even well meaning revolutionaries are highly likely to crave control and be unlikely to want to allow “someone else” to change what they put in place. This then leaves in place the centralization indefinitely and never leads to communism.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 days ago

        Communism is centralized. Central Planning and Public Ownership are the core foundations of the economy in Communism. You’re talking about Anarchism as though Marxists were trying to achieve that, and you’re calling Anarchism “Communism.”

        • irotsoma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 days ago

          But communism is less centralized than representative democracy or dictatorship or whatever the pre-revolution government likely was. These portions of the government must decentralize as part of the process of moving between government types. That decentralization is essential or it’s not true communism, it’s the fake things that pretend to be communism like PRC, USSR, DPRK, etc.

          The only way that some amount of decentralization doesn’t need to happen is if were talking about a society with no previous need for government forming into a communist state, which is what I mentioned was extremely unlikely, even if there were societies isolated enough to still exist without any form of centralized government.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            14 days ago

            No, Communism is centralization. It isn’t less decentralized than pre-revolution government, but more. That’s the point, to fold the entire private sector eventually into the Public, with Central Planning. You keep saying “decentralization is essential for Communism” but that’s Anarchism. AES are examples of Socialist States trying to work towards Communism.

            Where on Earth are you getting your ideas? It certainly isn’t Marx.

            • irotsoma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 days ago

              No, now you’re talking only about Marxist communism. Communism as a whole does not state that a single central power owns everything or that individuals can’t own property. Marx was very much against almost all personal property, but communism is simply about making the means of production owned by the people doing the production and not a small subset of individuals. That doesn’t mean ownership by a single entity. That very much could be local community governments that own each factory or power plant or whatever. And it’s only about the “means of production” not the products necessarily. People can still own the products in many forms of communism. Communism doesn’t necessarily dictate a specific economic theory beyond the idea that entities that produce goods that are to be owned by the people, should be owned by the people making the goods, not individuals, and especially not individuals who don’t participate in the production, only in the sale and profit of the goods they don’t produce.

                • irotsoma@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  14 days ago

                  No there are many forms of communism besides Marxist. None have been successfully implemented, including Marxist communism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies

                  Socialism, specifically in Marxism, is one of the steps of economic change between capitalism and communism. But yes it has many different forms outside of Marxism, just like communism has many different forms outside of Marxism.

                  But I’m talking about communist ideology overall which in a very broad sense is designed to transfer power and economic control from the elite and/or wealthy to the general population, which by definition is a decentralization of power and wealth. Marxism starts with a centralized government designed to gather up all of the resources and power from those elite classes and redistribute that to the people, so while it starts out centralized, centralization is not the goal even in Marxism. But that’s the only step that has ever been implemented, so many people mistake it as the only step.