Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

3

Defasher wrote (edited )

And yet despite all that, they still failed to achieve communism. State communism doesn't work because the state is always under attack from external forces.

Decentralise and there's nothing to attack.

Install a ruler, and the ruler will be corrupted every time and when the ruler fails, the entire society fails. It's basic logic. Centralised power structures are doomed to fail.

0

SpiritOfTito wrote (edited )

My problem with your assessment is you seem to say "there was no point trying".

You seem to say it didnt end in utopia so it wasnt worth it. It wasn't worth the bolsheviks ending world war 1 and installing a genuine democracy (so afraid were the bourgeois by that revolution pretty much all capitalist nations gave men the vote the following year).

You seem to say it wasn't worth castro lifting up the poorest in his country from the illiterate, starving, gambling, prostitute and sex destination for bored middle and upper class americans it was under Batista.

Which I profoundly disagree with

2

Defasher wrote (edited )

I didn't say it wasn't worth trying, but what's the point of repeating the same action again and again when it always results in failure? Humans are too flawed to be trusted with ultimate power. Statism has never resulted in communism, so try something else.

And there will never be an utopia. Only permanent revolution.