Because every time it has existed it just leads to a huge amount of government power without actually empowering the people. The people may be protected from corporations but they are not protected from their own government.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The government is run by the people, it's a complete restructuring away from Capitalist ownership into public ownership. The people are not distinct from the government.

Shifting from an economy run by competing warlords to one owned and run by the people is indeed a vast improvement.

[–] Strocker89@beehaw.org -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And how is that worked out? Every time it's been tried the people who are in the government take all the power and rule with tyranny over their citizens. Communism only empowers the people in the minds of idealists who think that it works. Every time it's actually implemented it's just dictatorships under fancy names.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

None of what you just said is historically accurate. The USSR, for example, had Soviet Democracy in place. Yes, the government did have the power, because that power was taken from Capitalists and given to the public, which was managed by a Worker State. The idea that the USSR was a "dictatorship" is wrong, even the CIA said that the idea that the USSR was run by 1 dude and his whims was false (pdf download link, fair warning).

An excerpt from said doc if you don't want to download it:

"Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the statue of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership"

The idea that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. are/were just "Dictatorships with fancy names" makes no attempt to do actual, material analysis of the structures in place in these countries.