I am sure that is why the Ukrainians starved during the Holodomor and the Russians did not. The tyranny of the majority still exists. It becomes far worse in a less efficient system with no economic outs for the state oppressed.
Communism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. It puts more power into the hands of those who control the government/decision making. There is nothing inherently less prejudiced about said government than any other but it does provide a documented incentive to oppress the opposition and the ultimate economic means to do so.
Theoretically, a liberal economic order with the only central government mandate being protections for equality and justice is the only truly egalitarian solution that is not fascism.
Your first step is to educate literally everyone on how a stateless society works for it to work. Next you have to convince them it will work. I've known a lot more anarchists than you think. If you cannot convince literally everyone to play along, anarchy fails. You've already failed because you cannot convince me and likely will always fail for roughly 30% of the population about any topic. Counter culture will always exist. If your system does not allow for it, you have set yourself up for failure. You have set us all up for failure.
The USSR attempted to decentralize initially and it failed miserably by their own metrics. The CCP looked at what they became and said they didn't do it right because they centralized. They starved and then centralized planning. Now you are telling me that there's never been an attempt. I'm good thanks.
You are actively hurting people by sabotaging liberal systems that do work in favor of radical change towards a system that has absolutely literally been tried at scale. It fails and then becomes oppressive against minorities and inefficient due to not allowing dissent.
I'm perfectly happy in a liberal mixed system where capital is owned privately and profits are shared amongst those who buy in. If you want to start an organization that shares value equally, start a co-op. Unlike anarchist systems, liberal ones allow for you to do that. Just don't expect to use the power of the state to force it on everyone else.
That is a result of the perception that those groups work against the state, not a requirement for fascism. Communist systems have just as bad if not worse a track record in regards to minority oppression as fascist ones.
Just like the Soviets and CCP attempted to do before they learned how poor decentralized planning was without incentives. The CCP literally complained about how the Soviet Union wasn't following the true path of decentralized communes as their people starved. This is literally history. You can argue all you want about how what the Soviet Union and CCP became wasn't true anarchism but they literally tried it initially and it failed miserably.
Even Karl Marx said that his intent was more of a direction than blueprints because he didn't have it all figured out. He also said that allowing opposition parties couldn't be allowed within any socialist system which cements the concentration of power and eventually consultation.
All this is why the Western left turned to liberal reform approaches in the 50s.
Yes, they were trying to build a state. Building systems is a natural progression within human nature. You can try to decentralize it all you want but it just enables optimism. Anything that counts that would require centralized education, aka requiring a state to function and enforce.
Government provided healthcare is not inherently communist or socialist. I'm not the moron here. You aren't even talking on close to the same level. Also, the American Democratic party is not left. Not even close.
I understand the definition of fascism. You are missing the portion by which corporations are not allowed to exist if they do not further the efforts of the state. Basically exactly the same as Marx advised towards the end of his writings. Nothing is allowed to exist in a socialist system if it is perceived to work against the needs of the people (state)
There is functionally no difference between corporations that do not control the means of production even if they are charged with running it and a state fully owning the means. It's just middle management.
I think the point is that giving them full economic power would not make the situation better and once the politicians are solved, we wouldn't need the economic change anyways.
Decentralization in true left states results in starvation every single time. Centralization results in oppression. The USSR and the CCP went through each of these phases but almost every smaller example does too. The negative relations between the USSR and the CCP even started out as a disagreement around the USSR not following true decentralization until the starvation started.
I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that it has been tried. It is not a matter of states failing to follow Karl Marx' best guidance around decentralization. It fails that quickly.
Bosnia, Rwanda, and multiple acts carried out by the Janjaweed to name some of the more recent ones. Most of the other more recent ones were perpetrated by states against stateless peoples which also shouldn't speak too kindly to your narrative.
The true marxist based left is not woke. It never was. There's a reason that the western left turned liberal in the 50s and 60s and focused on reform. The CCP killed any thought that decentralized communes could be self-sufficient and centralization killed any concept of liberalism and a responsive command economy. If the majority can vote their way into resources, minorities suffer. With no opposition checking the ruling party, corruption sets in.
If you are referring to the American Democratic party, they are liberal and not left.
Giving full economic power to the state does not make you less fascist. It actually makes it much worse.
Just a reminder to the true leftists who think they can force through their better society by giving society more power over the individual without changing the culture in the first place.
An improvement on capitalism because surplus production was enjoyed by the political elites instead of the capital owners with no chance to gain it without gaining the favor of the party. This cronyism still survived in the largely centralized Russian and Chinese corporate systems to this day. The initial years were attempts to achieve that idealized form of decentralized communism which is why it resulted in famine. The centralization under a single party made it fascism without the corporations, aka totalitarianism. The primary burdens of a centrally dictated economic system is not suffered by the majority but minority regions. This is why Russians look back fondly on communism and every border partner in the union cannot get away from them fast enough. They were able to control not only the means of production, but the goods and surplus produced for their benefit. A system where the means of production are privately owned has a natural resistance to that.
Totalitarian slavery of the minority is what ultimately results from even a democratic socialist system. Any sufficiently decentralized system is eventually forced to centralize and locals lose their power to determine what they produce and where it goes. True socialism and communism at scale has been tried and it fails to take care of its people at the smaller level.
Centralization results in centralized autocracy, militarism, forced suppression of opposition, and the subordination of individual interests to that of the state every time. Yes, it's literally the definition of fascism and it's a powerful thing. Terrible, but powerful.
I'm happy in a liberal society that accounts for capitalist externalities with social programs. I'm quite happy owning my tiny portion of the means of production as things rapidly become more decentralized and artisanal these past few decades. Most people are okay leaving a little on the table for people that make things possible instead of everything on the table to be wasted by the state or for corrupt bureaucrats. We have enough of an issue with them in their limited capacity now. You won't make them better by giving them more power.
Correct, once they shifted from smaller communes where people were free to do what they wanted and shifted to directed labor, they solved their productivity problem. Slaves do make for greater production.
I am sure that is why the Ukrainians starved during the Holodomor and the Russians did not. The tyranny of the majority still exists. It becomes far worse in a less efficient system with no economic outs for the state oppressed.
Communism is the exact opposite of egalitarianism. It puts more power into the hands of those who control the government/decision making. There is nothing inherently less prejudiced about said government than any other but it does provide a documented incentive to oppress the opposition and the ultimate economic means to do so.
Theoretically, a liberal economic order with the only central government mandate being protections for equality and justice is the only truly egalitarian solution that is not fascism.