L court.

Many MLs believe that communism ends on a stateless goal but that it requires a state to get there

Is that not true?

Ok so the points coming to mind areas follows: The censorship in the USSR.

This doesn’t seem to align with my understanding of the USSR. Didn’t the USSR fail horribly, leading to its collapse? Bureaucratic corruption, inefficiency, not being able to compete internationally, and the oppression of marginalized populations (such as queer people ) had been my impression of the USSR’s legacy.

As for the last point, that comes off as hypocritical since communist countries do the same thing. North Korea has executions and Cuba throws journalists in jail.

It’s related to the subject of fascism and censorship

That’s the socialist definition of class, that is not how I understand class.

I didn’t say it’s like “starting a new club”.

Calling bureaucracy “nebulous” doesn’t invalidate any of the reasoning I provided.

Suggested approach: anarchism.

I didn’t disregard the importance of understanding class, merely that I disagreed with the reductive socialist definition of class.

Didn’t they ban factions (perhaps this was Stalin’s time)?

Definitions don’t mean anything if they don’t represent how it functions in practice

The state will never dissolve itself.

You need a state for communism, no?

Any historical examples as for what communism actually is?

Except in practice it’s not proletarians doing these things, it’s bureaucrats who end up forming their own class and class interests in the name of the proletariat. The average proletariat isn’t actually the one who makes these rules or checks or applies censorships. See China, USSR, Cuba.

There shouldn’t be classes to begin with. Eliminating hierarchies in lieu of anarchism deals with the issue without it being “another dictatorship”

Appreciate the perspective. Thanks for posting.

For sure— I’m not saying freedom of press actually exists under capitalism.

My point is that socialism doesn’t have freedom of press either. Censorship and surveillance by the vanguard state (see China, Cuba, historical USSR) is routine.

“Dictatorship of the proletariat”. Unfortunately, dictatorships do not have a tendency to allow for freedom of press.

If only they expanded on what those patterns tend to actually look like (besides merely mentioning that popular words are found with other popular words) in a way that could be used to inform language learning

Weird how you’re getting downvoted when it’s just facts. No reasoning or anything either.

Good good. Keep emptying your workforce until there’s nothing left but AI slop that crumbles under its own weight.

Valid criticism, but let’s not pretend socialism leads to better outcomes for freedom of speech or press either.

Zakat is probably the most progressive thing from within that system for its time, but note that banning interest doesn’t automatically make it better in that regard — shariah-compliant options still need to manage risk and they do that by simply charging higher upfront (compared to interest options), amongst other means.

Metaphysically, poor people have also had the religion weaponized against them by saying that they are poor because of their actions or those of their forefathers, etc, and that this is divine judgment. It was essentially used to justify the riches of the rich.

Paywalled.

Patriarchy and religious institutions occur to me as the most immediately obvious answers, but otherwise I’m not sure.

There are “less” hierarchial countries?

Except there’s nothing to stop people from doing those things even without those laws.

The laws against violent hate crime make a more compelling case than employment laws imo.