Thanks for the reply and I hear what you’re saying however I think the issue with that argument is that each federated community still has centralized admins with authority. For example Ruud at lemmy world could wake up one day and impose some crazy shit. Or he could give his friends better moderating positions than others, etc.
Yeah it’s not a perfect metaphor. Though, I guess even if an admin is terrible and abused their power, it has way less influence on Lemmy as a whole than if Spez abused their power on Reddit. Also, you’re free to create and host your own instance and run it however you’d like.
To make the metaphor more apt, every member of the server would own a part of the server and could vote democratically on how they want the server to run. It would involve no hierarchies of power, so there’s no mods and admins. Though, I really don’t know how this would work technically in regards to having thousands of people own a server (or if it’s even possible).
So like the Lemmy platform, communism would be easier to manage the less people are involved. That’s why people say that communism only works in tribes and small villages. I’m not under the illusion that it wouldn’t be difficult, and I think communism would lead to a bit more of an insular society as a whole, but I think that if everyone had realistic expectations and goals, it definitely seems more ideal that the current situation where we’re just being yanked around by the whims of ultra rich people trying to skim more from the top of the people doing actual work.
Seems like an analogy to help you understand, not an argument. No analogy is perfect.
My point is that even in community based organizations you still have human administrators who have to make decisions for the community which ultimately leads to corruption of the system. That’s what my original argument was.
Edit: will go ahead and add that the same thing happens in capitalism however the huge difference is that there any many capital owners to distribute resources (ie companies, corporations, the state) VS in communism it is only the state that distributes the resources.
How does the state distribute resources if the state doesn’t exist under communism? I think you might be misunderstanding the basics of communism.
Maybe so. But, in reality every communist country has a state. I get that could be the “transitory” stage between capitalism and pure communism, or a tainted form of communism altogether. Cool. Let’s assume we get past that and are able to get to that idealized version of communism. Let’s have a thought experiment. Let me preface by saying I am not trying to have a gotcha moment, but honestly think this through out loud. In pure communism, who manages the water utilities? Like, who makes sure that water is delivered to the people and that it is safe to drink?
I don’t really think you need a state to have administrative powers over large things like food production, power, and other utilities. Ideally the communities would be fully self sufficient in power, food, water, housing, etc. Big power plants that supply power to a massive amount of people would be difficult to set up, but is still possible with enough community effort.
The biggest threat to communism and socialism is that capitalist countries will starve them out of international trade (or do more active things to try to prevent a successful communist movement) because they won’t play ball. It would be extremely easy for a capitalist team to destroy a few small crops and kill any chance of self sufficiency- meaning they’d have to depend on trade with those capitalist countries.
