this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
49 points (96.2% liked)

Communism

10286 readers
40 users here now

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

Communism study guide

bottombanner

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml
49
A better world is possible (europe.pub)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Pierre121000@lemmy.ml to c/communism@lemmygrad.ml
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

From https://existentialcomics.com/comic/651

Mazdak was an ancient Iranian Philosopher, who believed the scriptures (Zoroastrianism scriptures, this was pre-Islam) dictated radical social equality. He thought all property should belong to everyone, and wealth shared equally. He was so convincing that he even convinced the king to go along with it, and was able to successfully implement many of his social reforms. He also believed in getting rid of clerics, because they held religious authority over the population, which he thought was illegitimate. Since they were the judges, he of course "lost", and was executed, along with thousands of his followers. As with most ages and societies, those with huge amounts of power and property have never been too keen on philosophers that want to take it away.

Eventually other rich and powerful Zoroastrian and Christian kings got wind of it, and challenged Mazdak to "debate" their clerics. These other kings were the judges, so naturally their guys won, and they brutally executed Mazdak and thousands of his followers. If Mazdak was a prototype for socialism, or even communism, I suppose you could say their reaction to it was a prototype for how to defeated socialism in the good old "marketplace of ideas".

(b.t.w., it may be out-of-topic, but it's everyday)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pierre121000@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Surgery would be done by vote.

As i said above, « [Choosing t]he solution is often a moral choice, while its implementation is often a technical one »
We ought to listen to experts obviously, who else would we be listening to apart from them, but we should be the ones deciding, not them, and we'll agree with them whenever the experts of both sides agree with each other because it's so obvious, but we'll be the ones deciding between both sides in the case of disagreement, after all we're the ones impacted from ~~their~~ our decisions.

There’s also zero reason to believe that there would be no corruption in such a system.

You can't corrupt a whole population is what i'm saying, only individuals/decision-makers.
(You can certainly still manipulate a whole population for your own personal benefits, in which case journalists ought to read the public contracts and verify stuff in order to reveal scandals)

But ok, thanks for taking the time to exchange with me :) 👍

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 months ago

But then you see how experts have to be involved at least at some point in the cycle here. For example, you could have a solution where you vote on the problems, experts come up with potential solutions explaining pros and cons for each, then you have a second vote on the approach to adopt. My key point is that understanding what practical solutions are requires experience and domain knowledge. And that's the key reason why we end up needing abstractions. You have different groups of people who focus on understanding different types of problems, and they become the best equipped people to solve these problems. People outside the domain have to delegate to the people who are the experts.

Meanwhile, when it comes to corruption, the real issue here is in economic inequality. If wealth is evenly distributed within the society, that problem largely goes away because nobody has a significant financial leverage over others that they're able to exercise. It's an issue that's completely separate from hierarchies.

And you're welcome. :)