But then he’s valued more and gets tax breaks if he allows others to make him more money by producing value for him. Then he’s a job creator for having ownership of the means of production.

That’s the dream of both systems. Historically one has had ulterior motives because of the horrible track record of the Bolsheviks. Spain and Russia’s revolution itself, and then post war all spent time with the heavy hand of hierarchy dominating those under them. Trials, executions, and treachery. Constant propaganda and a total lack of comradery between the anarchists. George Orwell spoke of the constant push to present the anarchist militias as the problems in Spain. In Oppenheimer (didn’t expect to read it here too) one person becomes an officer in the Spanish republican army and hears word that before his squad even started fighting there would be a cleansing of anarchist members of their group.

I’m not saying every attempt at Maxist Leninist communism is somehow going to turn into this but it does seem like the heavy hand of the state begs to be used to dominate.

Did anyone actually say they wanted specifically Bolshevik communism? Personally I just want to be free of all hierarchy which is almost like the absence of dogmatism in my opinion. Coercion still exists in social democracies by the way but I agree it’s much better than the US.

And then you look at their business and a portion of their work is simply trying to make sure the hired workers don’t ever stop working. The main reason being is because they want every last drop of productivity from their workers. The worker is not a person, they are an asset. Even if there’s nothing left to do their job is to then hastily grab the broom or something.