>>1870749Basically, capitalism was useful for getting out of feudalism, but it has overstayed its usefulness and now we have people deliberately restricting growth in the interest of serving their own private profit interests and they can do this because they own the means of production, giving them all the power. This is why the wealthiest country on Earth can have people going hungry or enslaving people to debt as the tech bros, CEOs and bankers get bailout after bailout and parachutes and ect ect ect.
Communism is a steady process and is the name of the idealistic outcome and considered by Marx & Engels as the next stage of human development that's focused on growth, production, technological advancement and so on. An example of why Capitalism fails at this is America forgetting how to make boats or their total failure in the green energy sector because they're busy funneling money into Musk so he can make bad cars for rich people. Some socialist countries will have elements of capitalism in it, like the USSR did under Lenin, because it's a process. There is no communist country, they are BUILDING communism. The most important method for this is the dictatorship of the proletariate, where the proletariate class get the power to rip industry from the interests of private profits and then can focus on production, production, production. Like how China basically produces the entire world's steel.
Read Principles of Communism first and then go from there. Eventually read the State and Revolution to understand the USSR better.
One last thing, most of your anti-communist thoughts most likely come from "it's always failed" but that's propaganda. If you look at the economic development, socialism uplifted 10s of millions of people in an extremely short amount of time. The USSR took 30 years to become the second largest superpower in the world. It took America 200. There have been mistakes, this is a dumb argument because every country makes mistakes, but objectively speaking, it's successful and it's just restrained under the threat of bombings and sanctions from liberal countries.
Also Anarchists are not Communists so don't use them as an example. This is because they're "utopian" meaning they don't care about material conditions, aka reality, and just exist to wave their finger at socialists. Marxists are stringent m
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.