this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
958 points (98.0% liked)
Facepalm
3081 readers
1321 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Someone working towards communism is a communist. A state that is working towards communism is a communist state.
Whether the state is actually trying to make itself obsolete is a different thing.
But that of course isn't what they said even if might be what they meant. A communist society implies it has achieved communism because language is fun.
I would argue that a state can't make that transition, as it is contrary to the structural organization and power dynamics of the state. So much so, that its effectively useless to label a state "moving towards communism" as communist. The closest a state ever got to actually doing that was Yugoslavia and that ended the minute Tito died. The term "communism" has been muddied by western propaganda and state capitalists co-opting the term. I think making the distinction is worthwhile and provides mutual understanding when people are communicating about something that has become so obfuscated
Since states aren't real things with wills of their own and there are only people and their social constructs, you're effectively arguing that it is impossible for anyone to act honestly or for altruistic purposes.
No system can withstand the people who make it up acting in bad faith. That does not mean that is impossible for systems to have integrity on the whole.
Have you met people? The largest size a communist society as defined in this thread could be is one.
I always find it fascinating how often trash tells on itself
The state and capitalism are a set of intertwined manmade abstractions that we live under and within. They provide a set of incentives for certain behaviors (competition, "hard work", the nuclear family, etc), and discourage others with the threat of violence (organizing, cooperation, diversity). Under capitalism and the modern nation, the people at the bottom are given just enough to keep the majority of us from revolting, in tandem with the threat of becoming "less than human" (eg the homeless). Those in the middle/management class are given slightly more to reinforce the myths of the system while ensuring the loyalty of this group to the status quo. Those at the top live lavishly and reap the benefits of everyone below them, they own the means and they call the shots. It is a disadvantage for those at the top to have compassion or empathy for those below them.
The system was built to simultaneously select for selfishness and corruption, and instills those values in people who don't already possess them as they progress up the chain. I'm not saying that it's impossible for people in positions of power to act altruistically, I'm saying it's not really built with that in mind and it encourages behaviors contrary to altruism. That nuance is important. Hierarchical systems are fragile, and we're witnessing the system breaking in real time. Why should we reinstate a system that will inevitably wind up putting everyone in a similar situation again? Shouldn't we be looking for alternatives to the state and capitalism?