For one thing fascism was always a failure mode of democratic societies while communism was a failure mode of feudal/agrarian/autocratic societies. Maybe the Communists could have won electorally in Germany in the 1920s but it wasn't close anywhere else.
Marx predicted that workers would rise up in factories and seize the means of production but realistically Communist took over backward countries, killed the landlords and starved the peasants to fund rapid industrialization and sorta succeeded at it.
Zohran Mamdani says he wants to have government run grocery stores but that's not seizing the means of production it's seizing the means of distribution. I want to say it's beyond the pale but I grew up in "live free or die" New Hampshire where the state owned the liquor stores and it didn't seem like dangerous communism but the people in tax-a-chusetts were always complaining that we sold cheap booze.
gsf_emergency_2•5mo ago
I think Communism could have worked out in Japan post WWII .. due to the Weber-like work ethic :)
>The organization was able to mobilize a large section of white-collar workers in government and civil service sectors. Salaries in the public sectors were about a half of salaries in the private sector, a fact that enabled the public sector to become a centre of radical trade unionism
(See comments for nuance "from the ground". Fictionally, I recall that communist vs fascist sympathies were a backdrop in Murakami Haruki's earlier work.. he sneered at both)
>Writing in the 1920s, Kondratiev proposed to apply the theory to the 19th century:
-1790–1849, with a turning point in 1815.
-1850–1896, with a turning point in 1873.
As to the failure/distrust of (mature) institutions.. my latest hunch says it's somehow hard (="complex") for a bunch of hominids to collectively decide whether they want to solve a strong link or weak link problem. How does this turn into a cybernetic mechanism?
PaulHoule•5mo ago
Marx predicted that workers would rise up in factories and seize the means of production but realistically Communist took over backward countries, killed the landlords and starved the peasants to fund rapid industrialization and sorta succeeded at it.
Zohran Mamdani says he wants to have government run grocery stores but that's not seizing the means of production it's seizing the means of distribution. I want to say it's beyond the pale but I grew up in "live free or die" New Hampshire where the state owned the liquor stores and it didn't seem like dangerous communism but the people in tax-a-chusetts were always complaining that we sold cheap booze.
gsf_emergency_2•5mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanbetsu
>The organization was able to mobilize a large section of white-collar workers in government and civil service sectors. Salaries in the public sectors were about a half of salaries in the private sector, a fact that enabled the public sector to become a centre of radical trade unionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Socialist_Party#Katayama...
this explains why it was okay to "renazify" Japan eg Abe's granddad
https://youtu.be/5_-Ac68FKG4
(See comments for nuance "from the ground". Fictionally, I recall that communist vs fascist sympathies were a backdrop in Murakami Haruki's earlier work.. he sneered at both)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi
Sorry to glaze over the cybernetics earlier here is something I revisit from time to time that you might also find interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave
(Which points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_composition_of_capital
Rhymes with enshittification.. )
>Writing in the 1920s, Kondratiev proposed to apply the theory to the 19th century:
-1790–1849, with a turning point in 1815.
-1850–1896, with a turning point in 1873.
As to the failure/distrust of (mature) institutions.. my latest hunch says it's somehow hard (="complex") for a bunch of hominids to collectively decide whether they want to solve a strong link or weak link problem. How does this turn into a cybernetic mechanism?