385
submitted 2 days ago by robinoberg@feddit.uk to c/economics@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world -3 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

We need a real path to communism. That means we need to completely control the population. It can be a mix of manufactured support and oppressive support, it doesn't matter too much. Any deviation from the path needs severe punishment.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Why does any of this "complete control" need to exist? Genuinely, what do you even think Communism is?

[-] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

A stateless and classless society can't come about without major conditioning. We are on a very short timeline and we can pussyfoot around with half measures.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago

What do you mean when you say we are on a "short timeline" for reaching statelessness and classless society? Such a society can only be achieved gradually through a long period of Socialism. Revolution is necessary, but afterwards we must build towards it.

[-] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Our capitalistic tendencies is our killing our planet. I'd estimate we have about 200 years to change or risk real extinction. I'm firmly in the anarchist camp but we don't have the time to gradually fit a form we're not naturally attributed to.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

Climate change is addressible through Socialism, we don't need to reach full statelessness and classless society to consider Climate Change conquered. Look to the PRC, which appears to be leading the charge in tackling Climate Change, it's still Socialist and yet is making major strides.

[-] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

I didn't say we need communism now. I'm saying we need a strong cohesive collective to address most of our sociological problems. It would be a form or socialism by name.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

You imply that we need strong and oppressive measures to get there. For the bourgeoisie, yes, but not for the proletariat. I think that's a bit odd to come from a supposed Anarchist.

this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
385 points (91.9% liked)

Economics

1877 readers
274 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS