• fuklu@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Relatively speaking, I’d say yes.

    The communist systems I’m aware of have failed hard on these due to not having built in outlets for negative human characteristics.

    • m532@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seems like your understanding of communism comes from cold war propaganda

      • fuklu@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually from people who lived through it in the eastern bloc… the propaganda was mostly right.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, we tried communism, the weird dielectric system of government that Lenin came up with.

      Communism, the market ideology, can exist within a capitalist framework - all we have to do is say “companies are owned and operated by employees. From now on, we cap ROI when loaning money, no more infinite payout because you provided startup capital”.

      Communes and entirely employee owned/operated companies exist, and they do well. They just don’t grow until they implode - they grow to a point and then stop letting people in

      Communism is a market system, not a system of government. It doesn’t need to be centralized - and centralization is the real problem IMO

      • fuklu@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, agreed. I don’t think purism in either direction is great. To me well regulated capitalism with strong unions seems like a good balance.