I'm in support of Warren, I'm in support of Bernie. I want to see the US move to a more Canadian (or better yet, European) style nation with a stronger social security network and less corporate corruption.
But when I see people saying "Let's install Communism", I can't support it. While the current Oligarchy is awful and must be replaced/reformed, Communism has always lead to fascism and oppression in an even more direct and bloody way.
I've push a merge request for the installation problems with Communism, but I'd like to urge caution until we've modernized our workflows to use CI and significantly improved the coverage in our test suite
At the risk of invoking the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, where the word Communism could be replaced by the phrase "Communist State," you're not talking about the same thing that most people in the fedi mean by Communism. In nearly all cases, we're talking about an end to an economic system defined by exploitation that leads to ending the necessity of a State to enforce its demands. It's very much in bounds to have a reasoned and evidence based discussion about the means of ending the oligarchy and achieving an equitable society, but uncritically repeating misrepresentations of other's positions isn't
Also, the bit about fixing the install scripts and improving test coverage isn't entirely a joke. That's actually what I'm working to do. Community consensus is trending towards dual power strategy, which is analogous to dual booting a PC. My work on games and social networks, at least since the 2016 Democratic National Convention, has been oriented towards designing a way to try social and economic systems the way you might run Ubuntu from a USB stick
@yaaps I've read your reply a brunch of times and I can't parse it. I don't know what the distinction that you're making between Communism and a Communist State is, and I don't understand your build/test analogy.
If you want to elaborate, that's cool. If not, that's okay too.
It's hard to be succinct with clarity, so thanks for making the effort to understand my attempt
Communist States represent revolutions that failed to achieve their ends. You can't just call a government "The People's Government" while it's still run by corrupt bureaucrats or raise 2 generations under dictators and expect to achieve the goal of Communism, which is freedom from the demands of capital and the state violence that enforces it. It's not going to happen
"Install Communism" is a joke that exists because the oligarchy, which is what's left when the power of the bourgeoisie is sufficiently concentrated, has installed a locked bootloader. It's not just that the State monopoly on violence protects capital, but the United States global marketshare of military power prevents most other nations from refusing to comply with demands for labor and resource extraction. The idea of processes analogous to test driven development and continuous integration for economic and political systems comes from the observation that this dilemma is an application of game theory
As a consequence of the human cost of civil war and the lack of positive outcomes, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to develop models and test alternatives to violent outcomes for class conflict. I want to use games to test social, political, and economic theory and to gather data, not only on the playes' responses, but on the expectations of theorists
@yaaps I see. I understand where you're coming from, I just come to a different conclusion.
The problems I see with Communism (or as you'd say, State Communism) is twofold:
1. Corruption and power
You've already addressed this issue, but it bears mentioning because every time a nation moves to Communism as a form of government, we see the amplication of corruption, but then without the checks and balances of other parties. It's simply too dangerous.
2. Centralized models of production don't historically do a good job of being nimble. They don't reward innovation. Furthermore they often fail to anticipate emergencies or other edge cases.
I'd call what you're calling Communism "communal production", and we can look at, for example, the Kibbutz movement.
I think that this is totally 100% legitimate if someone wants to self-organize this way.
My concern is one of safety, which largely only applies at the nation level.
there's a difference between a centralized organization attempting to operate for the benefit of "society" and people organizing themselves for their own benefit.
The former is state communism, the latter is communism.
At least, that's the argument these days. I personally think it's just an attempt by people who want to be anarchists to become anarcho-syndicalists without having to give up their label, identity and subculture.
You were doing so much better than me until you got to the last paragraph 😎
But I actually mean testing in the plain sense of conducting research with explicit assumptions, documented methodology, and repeatable outcomes. If it happens to be unethical to do this with real people in their country of residence, consider using volunteers in a simulation - a game
@emacsen I think the problem is twofold.
1. communism isn't designed for highly centralized government, so highly centralized governments aren't great at implementing it responsibly.
2. Communism is new enough, that it hasn't had much chance to get implemented effectively. Since the fastest way to change a government is force, most communist governments were imposed by force and thus highly willing to use it.
This isn't a communism problem, it's government problem.
> This isn't a communism problem, it's government problem.
I sympathize with the ideas of reconsidering the role of money and profit in society, but I wouldn't call myself a communist (partly because I'm from a country where a lot of really bad stuff happened in the name of it).
I'm curious though - how the idea of a revolution is related to communism? Does it justify force?
emacsen.net is one server in the network