communism in theory is vastly superior to whatever we have now. But in practice it’s entirely inept for the human race.
I’m assuming that what you are referring to as ‘communism’ is actually Marxism-Leninism, they’'re different things. Yes, state socialism (Marxism) has proven that it can end badly, but it’s not the only way to implement socialism, others have proven or are proving they can work.
Maybe we should consider some sort of meritocracy
Real meritocracy doesn’t exist, not without real communism first. Each generation inherits a set of inequalities from the previous one, ignoring them to only focus on achievements becomes a tool for the powerful to justify their power (I received a small loan of a million dollar and did fine, that means I deserve living life on easy mode; meanwhile the poor guy that dropped out of school to pay the bills didn’t work hard enough to lift himself out of poverty).
Revolutionary Catalonia existed for weeks and really shouldn’t be used as an example of proving the success of anything. It simply wasn’t around long enough for if to do much.
While the Kurdish groups are interesting they exist within a larger state that is taking on several roles of the state, such as maintaining the larger economy, so that the Kurds do not have to do so. Thus the Kurds aren’t proving the efficacy of their system independent of a capitalist system as it is in a capitalist nation-state.
More like 2-3 years. Yes, it’s still not much, but not mere weeks either. There were also other anarchist territories at the time and they all worked under socialist principles, none of them caused famines, deportations nor genocides; they don’t exist anymore because they got betrayed and hunted down by the soviets, which were authoritarian since day 1.
While the Kurdish groups are interesting they exist within a larger state that is taking on several roles of the state
The Syrian state? During a civil war? Like, what roles?
And is it actually the state taking those roles? At the end of the day, all politicians do is sign papers, the world is shaped by the workers. It’s workers that build and run hospitals, railways etc. If workers under the Syrian state can make the electricity run, why would the same workers suddenly not be able to anymore “under” the kurds?
I don’t think you have good examples here.
How about the Zapatistas, then? They’re around since the 90s and they’re independent from the Mexican state.
I’m assuming that what you are referring to as ‘communism’ is actually Marxism-Leninism, they’'re different things. Yes, state socialism (Marxism) has proven that it can end badly, but it’s not the only way to implement socialism, others have proven or are proving they can work.
Real meritocracy doesn’t exist, not without real communism first. Each generation inherits a set of inequalities from the previous one, ignoring them to only focus on achievements becomes a tool for the powerful to justify their power (I received a small loan of a million dollar and did fine, that means I deserve living life on easy mode; meanwhile the poor guy that dropped out of school to pay the bills didn’t work hard enough to lift himself out of poverty).
Revolutionary Catalonia existed for weeks and really shouldn’t be used as an example of proving the success of anything. It simply wasn’t around long enough for if to do much.
While the Kurdish groups are interesting they exist within a larger state that is taking on several roles of the state, such as maintaining the larger economy, so that the Kurds do not have to do so. Thus the Kurds aren’t proving the efficacy of their system independent of a capitalist system as it is in a capitalist nation-state.
I don’t think you have good examples here.
More like 2-3 years. Yes, it’s still not much, but not mere weeks either. There were also other anarchist territories at the time and they all worked under socialist principles, none of them caused famines, deportations nor genocides; they don’t exist anymore because they got betrayed and hunted down by the soviets, which were authoritarian since day 1.
The Syrian state? During a civil war? Like, what roles?
And is it actually the state taking those roles? At the end of the day, all politicians do is sign papers, the world is shaped by the workers. It’s workers that build and run hospitals, railways etc. If workers under the Syrian state can make the electricity run, why would the same workers suddenly not be able to anymore “under” the kurds?
How about the Zapatistas, then? They’re around since the 90s and they’re independent from the Mexican state.