Abolishing private property isn't about equalizing power, necessarily. It's to end Capitalist production, which is necessarily exploitative and results in Monopoly Capitalism, aka Imperialism. Abolishing Private Property allows us to produce based on needs, not profits for a few individuals.

we class of people to maintain public ownership

Communists advocate for the abolition of classes.

After all, how can we enforce public ownership without a more powerful class of enforcers?

That's a pretty terrible misreading of Communist structures. Communists advocate for abolition of the State, via creating a government as an "administration of things," similar to how the Post Office functions, but for all of production. The goal of protecting the revolution is done by the Proletariat, the most advanced among them making up the Vanguard. There isn't a separate "class."

[–] stingpie@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You say it's the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution's failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois. You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal. You talk big about helping the individual, but cannot see beyond their class. The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the "revolution" over the life of his sick daughter? Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You say it's the goal of the proletariat to protect the revolution, but why would they? Each proletariat would benefit from the revolution's failure- they could live better lives as the bourgeois

This is absurd. That's like saying the French Revolution should've been sabotaged because the Proletariat would have fared better as nobility.

You talk about the proletariat like they are some monolithic entity, with a single mind and goal.

No, I do not. I speak of the Proletariat as a class, which shares class interests and class dynamics, ie they are all workers who create the value exploited from them.

The proletariat is a person, with needs, desires and opinions. What father would hold the abstract ideals of the "revolution" over the life of his sick daughter?

What is this wild tangent? Why do you think a father would side against his and his daughters interests and continue to live in sqaulor? Do you think revolution is an aesthetic choice, and not a practical conclusion?

Any father I know would do anything for the safety of his children, even hoard life-saving medicine from others.

Revolution is when no medicine for sick daughters

[–] stingpie@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Ok. I'm getting tired. You bested me this round. Have a nice day.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)