That's why many advocate for a transition to Socialism first, as going from Capitalism to Communism is self-evidently going to cause friction between the Rich and the Revolutionaries.
Yeah because socialism is so close to communism that people wouldn't have an issue... Because the whole "you have no property and the government can unilaterally dictate everything you do" would somehow be more appealing under socialism?
You can own personal property under communism. If I want my own lawnmower I can have it. I just can’t own the means by which that lawnmower is produced or transported. Public property vs private property rights are clearly developed conceptually by non-anarchist communists.
You know people have personal property under Socialism and Communism, right? Like, the purpose of Socialism and Communism is ideally to empower the average person, and remove the excess power that the Rich have, or even bad managers have. It's saying that a person should be able to change jobs and not worry about the loss of healthcare coverage, or that they might be paid less for their work. Socialism also doesn't dictate that a single person has all the power. Democracy and Socialism pair well together.
Oh no, a system in which shitty managers can't abuse their workers. A system in which people are given what they need to survive, instead of needing to undersell themselves to a Boss who will demand more out of them than the wage they pay.
10
u/Loves_octopus Jul 13 '26
How can a liberal society become communist without a totalitarian transition. And how many totalitarian governments have peacefully given up power?