view the rest of the comments
No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
That's kind of just socialism then.
Edit. Misread op comment.
No, I find socialism and markets to be a capitalist compromise that still breeds wasteful middlemen. More regulated middlemen, but still. Communism is an economic framework, not a governmental one.
For sure socialism is a step up from cpaitalism, but I don't think it's enough.
I've never heard of communism being an economic framework before, I thought it just meant a system without capitalism or a state. Do you have something short I could read about communism being an economic framework?
Assuming you're genuinely asking, Communism isn't so much a "status" as it is a strategy for reaching the famous "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society" it is often shorthanded as. It involves smashing the existing state, and replacing it with a state-as-non-state, ie a form designed to wither away once global class antagonisms are made redundant.
Economically, it is centered around collectivization of the Means of Production, Centralization, and Central Planning.
That sounds like nonsense without reading theory, unfortunately, but if you want something short, Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme goes over what a transition to Communism may look like. Lenin's The State and Revolution also goes over what that looks like, it's roughly a quarter Marx and Engels quotes and he analyzes how Marx and Engels changed their views after the Paris Commune, and how this change was obscured by Reformists and Opportunists like Kautsky of the Second International.
If you don’t understand socialism, sure.
Thats... kind of the opposite of socialism. Socialism, at least the ideal form, is when the 'workers hold the means of production', with no figure heads. This is closer to authoritarianism, with a charismatic leader commanding people to do things.
See this just reads as a complete misunderstanding of what communism is. The word Communism is derived from the word Commune, in which there is traditionally no standard power structure. Too much red scare propaganda. To me of the most prevalent feelings of authoritarianism in my life has been the boss/underling dynamic in the workplace under capitalism.
I'm pro communist economics and pro democratic governance. There is a reason the movement here in the US is towards "democratic socialism", because they are two separate facets of a country. The governance (democratic) and the economic (socialism).
I'm a democratic Communist
I'm not sure if you are saying what i said (that someone in charge sending his minions to harass someone is closer to authoritarianism), or him is a misunderstanding of communism.
I definitely should have used the word "communism" in my sentence, but since he used socialism, I didn't want to change the subject from socialism to communism.
Being from Canada, and a huge proponent of social services and crown corporations, I'm definitely a socialist myself.
I think there was a misunderstanding based on the context of the post above? Sorry. I thought you were talking about my views as being authoritarian.
Edit: dumb voice to text software
Nothing you've said seems objectionable, I can't imagine what set them off.
Do you consider the party apparatus of say, Cuba, where every position is elected and has instant recall, and their last constitutional referendum passed with 90%+ approval, to be democratic?
I would definitely want more parties in Cuba on the governance side. One party is ripe for abuse. Generally the more the marrier.
Right now I think thier government is too large. Large isn't necessarily bad, but a government should only IMO be as large as it needs to be to help its population. Of course on a political compass, I'm more on the libertarian end in terms of governance.
I think the economics of Cuba would be better if the US would stop senseless embargo.
Again, ideally we want strong communist economic and social fabric AND a thriving democracy to pick leadership. I think they are struggling on the latter.
Of course my perspective is the strict embargos are in place solely because the US really doesn't want communism to work. If it worked somewhere, then it makes US capitalism look quite bad.