>>32655520>they blame people for taking certain liberties away while actively trying to limit your freedom of speechThe left isn't some uniform ball of authoritarianism, and I find liberals (more than communists or anarchists) tend to oppose freedom of speech. I mean, the best-known and most highly regarded left communist (anarcho-syndicalist) Noam Chomsky has come under fire from liberals and conservatives alike for coming out in support of, say, Holocaust deniers, who he staunchly disagrees with -- still, he believes they ought to have the same right to speech as anyone else. He's also firmly opposed to antifa, censorship in universities, etc.
>I never made the "not real communism" argument so I'm not 100% why you included the second paragraph I forgot to reply to the other comment.
>the people in charge become too greedy and fuck it up even more (kickstarting the oligarchy that Russia is today)You're not seriously suggesting communism is responsible for the disastrous capitalist reforms in Russia, are you?
>muh human natureHumans are heavily conditioned by their material circumstances -- if you place a bunch of people into systems that disproportionately reward greed, you can't be surprised when greedy people pop out. Capitalism is no more the result of human nature than, say, manorialism or slave societies
More than this, if human nature is truly the sort of avarice you claim it to be, you of all people would oppose capitalism on the basis that it inevitably turns into oligarchy or kleptocracy.
>limited socialism can be ok, full-blown communism doesn't workAll I'm arguing for (and all the bulk of left-communists argue for) in our current historical moment is a shift in power from capitalists to workers. I think we should push reform as possible and only resort to revolutionary or violent tactics when the vast bulk of the population 1) understands the limits of capitalist reform, and 2) comes to see these tactics as necessary.
