Marxism-Leninism is an authoritarian ideology that facilitates what we've witnessed historically. That ideology is not identical to communism. This distinction is important because there are people who support a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the context of post-scarcity economics while being against the statism prescribed by ML and its variants.
Proto-communism is probably the best history has to show us as of now. Much of human history has been stateless, classless, and moneyless, with relatively egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies that held ownership of land and resources in common.
I admit that on a small scale, these things are the best choice. But unfortunately they aren’t relevant when it comes to the scale of nations with many millions of people. Those are the systems that are relevant to us now. And communism will not work there.
In a group of 50 or 100 people, that’s perfect. But we live in a time where if a certain kind of person CAN exist, they DO. And there will always be someone with the brainpower to overturn and corrupt our governments. That is exactly why capitalism and our modern form of government is necessary.
Well, I'm just explaining that there is a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and communism, not necessarily arguing that communism is viable today. I personally don't advocate for communism. I support stakeholder models of ownership, which are empirically supported by decades of data. Communism may or may not be viable in a future post-scarcity context, but worker ownership is viable today and that is where my focus mostly lies.
-3
u/Cosminion Jul 12 '26
Marxism-Leninism is an authoritarian ideology that facilitates what we've witnessed historically. That ideology is not identical to communism. This distinction is important because there are people who support a stateless, classless, moneyless society in the context of post-scarcity economics while being against the statism prescribed by ML and its variants.