Corporate Capitalism is not compatible with Democracy.
FTFY.
There is no "Corporatism" or "Crony Capitalism". There is just Capitalism in varying stages of inequality.
8
Valmond @lemmy.world - 4mon
Well, neither is communism, so kind of curious why you posted it here?
Edit: you all are illiterate lol
-28
Cowbee [he/they] - 4mon
Communism is inherently democratic. Socialism is as well, though it's democracy for the working class, unlike capitalism which is democracy for the capitalist class.
25
mathemachristian[he] - 4mon
How is communism not democratic?
17
Valmond @lemmy.world - 4mon
How is communism democratic?? It's like saying an apple is a banana. Communism is dictatorship of the proletariat, or at least that's what Marxism-Leninism defines it as.
Yes, the proletariat dictating how things are to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't democratic. DotP is scary when you simply read "dictatorship", but if you think about it, dictatorship of the vast majority of people is not as scary.
The Greek city-state has been cited time and again by historians as the birthplace of democracy. And yet, on reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that in fact this was a democracy only for a “charmed circle of the privileged,” while the slaves, who did the work of the community, “had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled.”
The classical example of democracy was, then, a democracy only for certain people. For others, for those who did the hard work of the community, it was a dictatorship. At the very birthplace of democracy itself we find that democracy and dictatorship went hand in hand as two aspects of the same political system. To refer to the “democracy” of the Greek city-state without saying for whom this democracy existed is misleading. To describe the democracy of the Greek city-state without pointing out that it could only exist as a result of the toil of the slaves who “had no political and hardly any civil rights” falsifies the real history of the origin of democracy.
Democracy, then, from its origin, has not precluded the simultaneous existence of dictatorship. The essential question which must be asked, when social systems appear to include elements both of democracy and dictatorship, is, “for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”
Explain that to all those who downvote me :-) but it seems they are not interested in meaning of words.
-14
Cowbee [he/they] - 4mon
I think you're confused, everyone here is agreeing with what comrade Edie is saying here. Communism is democratic, foundationally, and socialism is democratic for the working class, the vast majority of society. True, equal democracy for all is only possible in classless society, ie communism, until then we must settle for democracy for the working class.
16
Grapho - 4mon
How are you calling anybody else illiterate when you can't even read a single paragraph. You deadass saw "yes, it's a dictatorship" and went straight to "oh so we're in agreement against these dumb commies, no need for the rest of the comment, the dumb commies should read it instead".
15
Cowbee [he/they] - 4mon
The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the proletariat, and suppression of the bourgeoisie. This is in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, democracy for the bourgeoisie and dictatorship towards the proletariat.
Further, the DotP isn't just an ML thing, it began with Marx. MLs just agree with Marx.
17
chuckleslord @lemmy.world - 4mon
MLs interpreted Marx to create the idea of a vanguard party and a two-stage revolution (second stage whenever the party wants aka never).
By formalizing a form of government on top of a transition period, ML nations basically guaranteed they would never make it to actual communism. As evidenced by none of the remaining ML countries having committed to step two. Vietnam and China have even embraced capitalism in recent years.
-10
Cowbee [he/they] - 4mon
No, the idea of a "2-stage revolution" doesn't exist. You are fundamentally confusing the Marxist theory of the state with the anarchist theory of the state. Communism, in the Marxian sense, is a fully collectivized global network of production, distribution, and management, not a decentralized network of communes. When the state whithers away, administration and accounting will remain, ie what we think of as public services. There is no "second revolution."
Eventually, in the far future, administration will gradually become enforced as habit, and not as much as formalized structures. The idea of government will also gradually wither as the division between mental and physical labor diminishes, and labor itself becomes more exchangeable and less divided. This highest phase of communist society is of the far future.
Markets are not capitalism. Public ownership is still the principle aspect of the economy of the PRC and Vietnam. If socialism was defined as an economy absent of private property, then there has never been a socialist state. This also would apply in reverse to capitalism, there has never been an economy where there was only private ownership.
The vanguard is just a formalized structure of the most advanced of the revolutionary class, it exists whether you formalize it or not. By formalizing it, you can make it accountable and democratic. No existing socialist country has committed to your idea of "step 2" because it doesn't exist.
14
Grapho - 4mon
You can always tell a fed reddit/worlder bc they'll start with an obnoxiously condescending yet ignorant statement then reply to every sourced comment with "lol I can't believe you're this dumb".
Go back to your eurocentrist circle jerk wondering why everything keeps getting worse if you and every other euro is so fucking enlightened.
protestation in communism
Protestation
https://lemmy.ml/api/v3/image_proxy?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdiscuss.tchncs.de%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2Fdb0d8677-977f-49c5-b1ff-27a3ff38dd46.jpegCorporateCapitalism is not compatible with Democracy.FTFY.
There is no "Corporatism" or "Crony Capitalism". There is just Capitalism in varying stages of inequality.
Well, neither is communism, so kind of curious why you posted it here?
Edit: you all are illiterate lol
Communism is inherently democratic. Socialism is as well, though it's democracy for the working class, unlike capitalism which is democracy for the capitalist class.
How is communism not democratic?
How is communism democratic?? It's like saying an apple is a banana. Communism is dictatorship of the proletariat, or at least that's what Marxism-Leninism defines it as.
Yes, the proletariat dictating how things are to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't democratic. DotP is scary when you simply read "dictatorship", but if you think about it, dictatorship of the vast majority of people is not as scary.
(Emphasis mine)
Soviet Democracy, Introduction
Explain that to all those who downvote me :-) but it seems they are not interested in meaning of words.
I think you're confused, everyone here is agreeing with what comrade Edie is saying here. Communism is democratic, foundationally, and socialism is democratic for the working class, the vast majority of society. True, equal democracy for all is only possible in classless society, ie communism, until then we must settle for democracy for the working class.
How are you calling anybody else illiterate when you can't even read a single paragraph. You deadass saw "yes, it's a dictatorship" and went straight to "oh so we're in agreement against these dumb commies, no need for the rest of the comment, the dumb commies should read it instead".
The dictatorship of the proletariat is democracy for the proletariat, and suppression of the bourgeoisie. This is in contrast to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, democracy for the bourgeoisie and dictatorship towards the proletariat.
Further, the DotP isn't just an ML thing, it began with Marx. MLs just agree with Marx.
MLs interpreted Marx to create the idea of a vanguard party and a two-stage revolution (second stage whenever the party wants aka never).
By formalizing a form of government on top of a transition period, ML nations basically guaranteed they would never make it to actual communism. As evidenced by none of the remaining ML countries having committed to step two. Vietnam and China have even embraced capitalism in recent years.
No, the idea of a "2-stage revolution" doesn't exist. You are fundamentally confusing the Marxist theory of the state with the anarchist theory of the state. Communism, in the Marxian sense, is a fully collectivized global network of production, distribution, and management, not a decentralized network of communes. When the state whithers away, administration and accounting will remain, ie what we think of as public services. There is no "second revolution."
Eventually, in the far future, administration will gradually become enforced as habit, and not as much as formalized structures. The idea of government will also gradually wither as the division between mental and physical labor diminishes, and labor itself becomes more exchangeable and less divided. This highest phase of communist society is of the far future.
Markets are not capitalism. Public ownership is still the principle aspect of the economy of the PRC and Vietnam. If socialism was defined as an economy absent of private property, then there has never been a socialist state. This also would apply in reverse to capitalism, there has never been an economy where there was only private ownership.
The vanguard is just a formalized structure of the most advanced of the revolutionary class, it exists whether you formalize it or not. By formalizing it, you can make it accountable and democratic. No existing socialist country has committed to your idea of "step 2" because it doesn't exist.
You can always tell a fed reddit/worlder bc they'll start with an obnoxiously condescending yet ignorant statement then reply to every sourced comment with "lol I can't believe you're this dumb".
Go back to your eurocentrist circle jerk wondering why everything keeps getting worse if you and every other euro is so fucking enlightened.