Also victims of communism: anyone aged 1-99 who happens to be the wrong family, who practices wrong think, who has family members who practice wrong think, who have an opinion, who like to be different, and I can go on for a while....
People like you should maybe watch 'the chekist". Once you're done and not crawled up in fetal position while crying maybe you can think for a little bit about what it is that you really want.
Seriously, you tankie types are nauseatingly naïeve.
Rent seeking behavior is wrongthink.
Being Royalty is practicing wrongthink.
Communism is built on Critical Theory making criticism of society its bedrock. I dont consume propaganda, I try to stick to primary sources as close as possible and make my own.
Seriously you Capitalist Apologists are so brainwashed by literal Cold War Propaganda its pathetic.
The USSR did good things and bad things but reactionaries like to pretend it was all bad. There are hard numbers about life expectancy increasing, better life for women, research achievements, general quality of life and happiness metrics, and more that increased. There was lots of bad parts, but same in the US.
There were anti gay laws on the books for the US, and towns you couldn't even walk in while black. Hell, there are still some sundown towns in places in the US. If you just point out that stuff, or if you lived in such a horrible area or had family who did spreading their stories, then it will just come off as a hell hole. The US does suck, but it's not just Skid Row, the projects, lynch mobs, coups, wars, etc. Same for the USSR. There were good things we can save and build on, and bad things we need to avoid for future socialist projects.
It's not like the first attempts for democracy went well, either. But I wouldn't diss it in the Middle Ages and say we can only do monarchies, the pinnacle of political achievements, just because " it never succeeded. It fell in Greece and the Roman Republic and every other time it's been tried, and has never worked ever and thus is always doomed to fail."
My problem with people citing those metrics is that they are true for Russia itself while ignoring that a large reason for those improvements was colonialism done to the occupied regions. Industrialisation was another thing that improved those metrics but that was hardly unique to the USSR. Some of those regions may have had benefits but here in Estonia it was pretty much all around bad. After the occupation ended the quality of life here improved rapidly.
As far as examples for socialism I'd say the USSR was an all around failure but people still defend it and even Stalin who basically guaranteed it's failure as a socialist project. In the baltic region the word communism is basically poisoned because of the USSR.
You need to look at the referendum to maintain the soviet union before you say shit about imperialist Russia. Non-russian SSRs were most enthusiastic about keeping the USSR around.
The one boycotted by 6 of the 15 territories? Or the ones that followed in each that led to them declaring independence which in turn led to the collapse of the soviet union?
The baltics were 3 of those boycotting territories and we had similar referendums for independence which, I'm pretty sure, all got over 70% support.
That's the one, where Russians had less interest in the USSR than the participating territories.
Or the ones that followed in each that led to them declaring independence which in turn led to the collapse of the soviet union?
Sure, and not the presidential coup. Get real.
The baltics were 3 of those boycotting territories and we had similar referendums for independence which, I’m pretty sure, all got over 70% support.
And the Baltics are doing so much better now.
I'm reminded of a story of Lithuania charging holocaust survivors for fighting as partisans against the nazis in WW2. It happened in 2009. They've gotten more fascist since. Wonder what itd be like if the USSR was never overthrown.
And a lot of attempts have also been great at raising the standards of living for the general population, as well as for economic development in a relatively quick amount of time.
In the USSR those improvents were for Russia, not so much for their colonised regions where they exported resources from. Industrialisation also helped but that's not really unique to anything.
And socialist nations like the GDR were better on gay rights in the late 80s than capitalist nations are now.
And Cuba has the most lgbt equality of anywhere right now
And China is opening state sponsored trans Healthcare clinics, including for children
Meanwhile in the US if you're trans you can't live in half of the country and you're worried about getting hatecrimed in the other half. And you have pundits of the capitalist class calling you pedophiles and "the jews of gender"
Also, gay liberation movements in the imperial core were mostly led by communists, you can't give credit to capitalism for being forced into granting concessions.
Somehow I assume you don't associate capitalism with chattel slavery and apartheid. But you do associate corrupt authoritarianism with economics when it is system that you don't like.
I think they are very much capitalist. And then surely the Civil War that poors fought on plantation owners' behalf should also be blamed on capitalism?
What is it with people here thinking that earning a wage is slavery? That requires either a complete lack of understanding what slavery or just some serious impressive mental gymnastics.
I associate corrupt authoritarianism with communism because it's an inevitable outcome. Communism only works of you remove individual freedoms and force people into it. This, by design, requires a dictatorship. Dictatorships foster corruption because you can't have transparency.
Keep in mind that many Americans don't know Socialism from Communism, as they've been schooled that everything responsible for happy Scandinavians is somehow bad.
Should I also keep in mind that most people don't know how nice Communist counties were to live in? Seriously, give me one, just one country that did communism successfully and where all the people could live in freedom and pursue happiness. Just a single example.
Is there a Capitalist country where all people can "live in freedom and pursue happiness?" What does that even mean? What are the solid metrics by which you track that, so you can say a country passes or fails that?
Yeah, try just about all northern European countries. Are there people that have fallen off the band wagon? Of course there are, shit happens everywhere. However, everyone there loves better and more meaningful lives than in ANY communist country.
I don't recall the last time in northern Europe (second world war aside) where literally everyone except a few elites (hello Russia) had to stand in line for hopefully some food
Why do you believe Northern European countries have it better than AES countries? Do you believe if an AES country copied the Northern European model, their metrics would match Northern European countries?
Why do you believe inequality is rising in Northern European countries and safety nets are being cut over time?
There's no country where every single person lives in freedom and happiness. But there are numerous countries that have significantly improved the quality of life for the vast majority of people compared to what they had before, including Cuba, Vietnam, and China.
It may be true that in some cases the quality of life is higher in capitalist countries. But there's a good reason for that! Historically, the countries most prone to socialist revolutions... were countries with some of the lowest standards of living in the world!
Despite this, China has recently eclipsed the United States in life expectancy. If you compare the two countries' life expectancies before the Communists came to power, no one would expect that to happen! Why? Because for the average rural Chinese person, their way of life was virtually unchanged since ancient times with a life expectancy of 35, comparable to that of the Roman Empire.
Anti-communists would have us compare communist countries against either an imagined utopia, or against countries starting from a significantly higher level of industrial development. But those comparisons are not relevant to the question at hand! In order to evaluate the efficacy of socialism, the relevant comparison is the system that actually existed before, and what it was on track to do! And in cases like China, we can clearly see that the quality of life was miserable and stagnant for the vast majority of people, until the communists came to power!
Why do Westerners fail to account for this vital evidence? Because people used to a higher standard of living would take these improvements for granted! For a village tailor, being able to afford a sewing machine could be life-changing - but someone living in the imperial core would have no relevant experience to relate to that! The only thing they would notice is how poor the person still is, regardless of how much or how quickly their life is improving!
First of all, communism isn't utopian. Even communists don't think it will be some paradise where all worries disappear. You'll still have to fight racism, sexism, bad weather, famines, etc.
But it's often better for an average person from a country of a starting equal level of economic development. You've got to give it the "If I was reincarnated in a random person's body, where would I want to be?" test. US is a good answer, but it's got a way higher level of economic development with a big headstart. Even then, you could end up in the hood and die early and stressed. When you give the test comparing countries of equal starting economic development, it becomes a lot more muddled.
Like, would you rather randomly live in Cuba, or Somalia? The place where you get free education, health care, etc or a place that is also extremely poor but you don't get that stuff? You could reincarnate as some rich, warlord there, but would you want to take that chance when you could reincarnate in Cuba as literally anyone and not be worried about ending up homeless? When giving realistic comparisons like this with proper historical context, and you do it over and over again, they tend to come out on top.
People fleeing communist countries en mass sure is a mystery. Who could ever know why they built the Berlin Wall or why Cuban families risk their children on rafts to get to a capitalist country
So did the United States untill very recently, what is your point? Advocating for Communism isnt Advocating for a return of the USSR you absolute ham sandwich.
People move to areas with better material conditions. Assuming that is the fault of Socialism and not of countries being in different stages of development is immaterial and ignores the trajectory of nations, as well as the geopolitical landscape.
For example, in the GDR, education was high quality and free, but wages were lower than in West Germany. Many highly educated people in GDR attempted to leverage their free education for higher wages in the West.
As for Cuba, people fleeing are typically the people prosecuted during the revolution, ie plantation owners. People still flee from less developed to more developed countries, which is why people flee from Capitalist states to other Capitalist states.
Living conditions for the majority of the population in Cuba are far better than in any capitalist Latin American country. This is despite the brutal blockade on Cuba by the burger empire. Please go make a clown of yourself elsewhere.
im on latin america and despite being bad over here, i'm a bit skeptical on this one. the blockade is currently making sure cuba can't even get basic medication in sufficient quantities.
i'd say its safer to say they are much better in some aspects, the ones they can control.
The kind of abject poverty you see in Latin American countries simply does not exist in Cuba. Everyone has access to basic necessities, education, and healthcare. Cuba has even higher life expectancy than US.
when it comes to inequality i can agree its probably among the best, if not the best.
but despite efforts to provide it, they don't always get basic necessities because of the embargo. there is a not insignificant amount of poverty in cuba too.
Of course, the blockade is doing incredible amounts of harm. My point is that even despite that, Cuba manages to do a better job ensuring a minimal standard of living than capitalist countries in Latin America. What this shows is that communism performs better under extreme stress than capitalism does under best conditions.
I think human nature is inherently greedy and selfish, and capitalism is best equipped to use this in a way that benefits society. Workers are motivated to work harder and learn new skills to find the most rewarding job they can. Businesses are motivated to create products and run as efficiently as possible. Consumers are motivated to get as much value as the can out of their money. Everyone in the equation is acting selfishly and in their own self-interest (which I believe humans are inclined to do anyway) but when applied on a societal level, everyone benefits.
However I will concede that this is a balancing act that requires some level of government regulation to maintain.
On the other hand, I think communism only works when everyone acts altruistically. Which is noble, but unrealistic.
I agree. Businesses and owners have too much influence. I want more unions, trust-busting, and consumer protections. Workers seem to be organizing more at least, which is a good start.
It's the inability to see the forest for the trees. We were raised in a capitalist economic system, as were all of our past family members. The failings of capitalism appear to be the failings of human nature. In reality, meta analysis of multiple studies on human greed show that people will be inherently more kind to each other than be cruel. Quick search will bring up many articles on these studies. Plus, exchanges in material goods within communities where money hadn't been invented would show that people didn't barter, they gave their goods away to their neighbors, and the good deed would be remembered and reciprocated in times of need. You can look up "Gift Economy" in Wikipedia.
I also highly recommend reading or listening to the audiobook for The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity by David Graeber and David Wingrow. It is extremely interesting and eye opening.
Human nature is co-operative and altruistic, there's evidence going back to barely recognisable AS human and it's literally a key reason why we're the dominant species.
@Taleya Is there any scientific material on this? I've had this discussion again and again with my family, from the far side of ultimately altruistic to vastly egoistic... and if there is (hopefully unbiased) scientific material on this, we might settle this argument.
off the top of my head there's the ancient remains found multiple times of disabled and/or badly injured hominids who were treated (signs of healing) and lived long into adulthood despite requiring extensive care from others, the fact an extended childhood in our species means that our young are vulnerable for a far longer period than any other animal (a necessity since you can't fit a fully formed adult brain through a human pelvis) and require cooperation with others to raise and continue the species, the fact we have developed specialised skillsets (that are shared between us rather than developing and being held isolate and then lost when the person who holds then dies).
When you have a group that works together go up against one that doesn't, the former comes out on top. When this competition is for resources and survival, it becomes an evolutionary pressure.
If you do a quick googs you should find scores of whitepapers - but the egoistic argument falls flat on its face out of the gate because we have the word 'sociopath' and it's not considered something to emulate. Neither is 'egotistical'. We've literally got coded into our language that isolation, self-absorption and 'self serving at the cost to others' are bad concepts. Being a self absorbed shithead is documented as wrong as far back as our tales can possibly go.
Not going to downvote, but I do think you're lacking quite a bit of insight into the reasons human society exists at all. Cooperation is the reason human society exists at all, so saying we're inheritly selfish is kinda laughable in that context.
I would encourage you to look up information on dialectical Materialism and the necessity of capitalism as a stage in that dialectical.
Capitalism had a purpose, and it's past time for us to move on.
Explain open source, free software, linux community, lemmy / the fediverse, and many many other things not formed around profit, largely maintained by people in their free time motivated by community over profit.
People aren’t inherently greedy. People are born into a system that rewards greed, and punishes altruism. There have been many different societies with many different political and economic systems, and capitalism is a fairly new one all things considered.
Rational self interest is irrational. If only a few can succeed, chances are you fail. If everyone only looks out for themselves, then everyone fails. Humanity’s biggest strength — what set us apart from many other animals — is our ability to work together and look out for each other.
Capitalism doesn’t work, and is destroying the Earth.
Freeloaders, like large corporations taking open source and then not giving back, is yet another symptom of a system that rewards extraction and self interest.
FOSS exists despite capitalism. The fact that people are willing to work on something out of their own passion, or sense of community, directly contradicts the fundamental assertion of capitalism.
Fuck that, I do not concede the point. At least, I don't concede that humans are /more/ selfish than we are compassionate. Our emotional wiring evolved for hundred-human tribes that required a lot more empathy and cooperation than competition.
You don't have to go so far as to disincentivize greed. Greed is socially useful in small doses. Adam Smith wasn't a total idiot. Just stop letting the people who shape society make it so only the greedheads survive.
You’re preaching to the choir. “Concede the point” is a figure of speech which means the speaker is going explore an assumption despite not believing it themselves.
My point is that the whole “capitalism is the best economic system we know about because humans are greedy” argument is sophistry. It doesn't even make sense in the context of its own flawed premise.
Even if it was true that human nature was inherently greedy and selfish then it would be an argument for creating systems that discourage such behaviors. What you're arguing is akin to saying that you should encourage a person struggling with alcoholism to drink more.
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
Human nature is not inherently greedy and selfish because human beings possess an inherent capacity for empathy, cooperation, and solidarity, which when nurtured within equitable social structures, can create a collective ethos centered on mutual aid, communal ownership, and the pursuit of the common good, transcending the narrow confines of greed and selfishness perpetuated by systems of exploitation and inequality like capitalism.
Greed, selfishness and our hyper-individualism is a product of our society, not society as a product of our nature
These sentiments are something encouraged by those in power as it is advantageous for them to have the masses in want
There are underlying instincts for survival and dominance that have manifested today as greed and selfishness, but that is something an equitable society can address given the chance
To suggest otherwise is incredibly degrading humanity
@Gigan@SouthEndSunset
There is nothing bad about the collective ownership of the means of production. I can, however, think of many things that are bad about one person owning the entire means production despite not doing any work, which is what exists under capitalism.
Dialectical Materialism. Right now, they are. You either work towards communism or capitalism moves towards consolidation of capital. Those are your choices.
thats not a mix though, it was just a bandaid over capitalism, borrowed from socialistic ideas. the capital accumulating class was never extinguished, eventually leading to the same problems today all over again.
hence why we advocate for a systemic change, if you can't accumulate capital, you can't buy back the system again like it is rn. this is pretty much the crux of the issue here.
I mean, it's just literally what they call themselves. Sure, they lie or don't know what the fuck they're talking about, but that's kind of their whole deal.
Power dichotomy will always slander any "third option". They'll even say something dumb on its face like third way is "x".
There are only two solutions, "with us" or "against us". Anything outside these choices is literally unthinkable for the power structure. The power structure cannot imagine a future where it does not exist. If you ask the unthinkable alternative, they will default to "oh you must be one of the enemy". We know that category well. They stand for every thing we don't stand for.
Describe what you consider the "third way" that isn't capitalists owning the means of production, workers owning the means, or the state owning the means.
No, I asked for a third pill. I didn't say "take my third pill". I also hope we can escape the narrow minded concept of a society centered on the tug of war to "own the means".
I'm pretty sure the leftcommunists and anarchists and worker councils requesting for power to be really handed to the soviets which were purged by Lenin and Trotsky weren't actually landlords. But you never know, people from .ml may think people unwilling to obey the bolsheviks get labeled landlords too.
When your purges actually violate literally every Marxist principle and sabotage the revolution, isn't it kind of fair to accuse Bolsheviks, or at least the leadership, of being fake communists?
Stalin was a counterrevolutionary, die mad about it, we're Menshevik posting in this bitch.
If you didn't willingly ignore the sins of "your side" that'd be valid.
Meanwhile, the only criticism you launch at the Mensheviks is... They wanted to keep fighting the imperial powers?
Don't get me wrong, it was just a bad decision, but it wasn't, ya know, genociding fellow socialists.
I'd personally criticize them for thinking they needed to follow the traditional Marxist thought that economic liberalism was a required stage on the path to socialism.
The imperial powers that were direct threats to the revolution and they were already fighting, buddy, aka the Ottomans and the Germans. Hey, remind me how that worked out in the end? Did the People's Government get a seat at Versailles? No? Had to fight a war against fucking Poland first and then get even more people killed by Germany later?
And your argument is "the decision was unpopular," not that it was wrong.
You also find that they were not overthrown. Their political alliance was couped, like what happens in a "real democracy" when you push an unpopular policy. Even then, they supported the Bolsheviks anyways in the civil war.
Generally speaking, it's considered rude to murder all of your fellow socialists anyways if that happens.
Hey, remind me how that worked out in the end? Did the People’s Government get a seat at Versailles? No? Had to fight a war against fucking Poland first and then get even more people killed by Germany later?
And your argument is “the decision was unpopular,” not that it was wrong.
Wait are you out here arguing that Russia should have continue fighting ww1? Seriously? And that refusing to fight the war led to nazi Germany and their exterminationist war against the soviet union?
Sure bro. I'll stop thinking "Russia having a seat at Versailles would have changed history" because it would somehow not change history, and that's something you can objectively prove, lol.
I'll tell you what definitely wouldn't have happened though.
The repeated Bolshevik genocides of Jewish people.
I'll not comment on your apparent belief that Nazism was some fated historical inevitability, which sure seems like something a Nazi would believe and not a Marxist.
and that’s something you can objectively prove, lol.
Weren't you literally just claiming that if Russia stayed in the war the nazis wouldn't have happened?
Bwahahaha
The repeated Bolshevik genocides of Jewish people.
As someone who had jewish family which survived the holocaust, lol, wtf? The worst instance of antisemitism in the USSR was the doctor's plot, which wasn't a genocide.
I’ll not comment on your apparent belief that Nazism was some fated historical inevitability, which sure seems like something a Nazi would believe and not a Marxist.
Nazijacketing me for thinking that Russia staying in ww1 wouldn't have stopped the rise of nazism? Wow.
When your purges actually violate literally every Marxist principle and sabotage the revolution, isn't it kind of fair to accuse Bolsheviks, or at least the leadership, of being fake communists? Stalin was a counterrevolutionary, die mad about it, we're Menshevik posting in this removed.
I don't think the Mensheviks were the good guys either. Mensheviks would allow a way out for the old elites to remain elites if they kept on with the times (from aristocracy to bourgeoisie), the Bolsheviks just laid the way out for new elites (party apparatus) by choosing not to empower the working class. The leninist model followed somewhat similar structures everwhere from Hungary to Vietnam, and they always ended the same way: with the party elites opening the way to privatization after one or two generational changes and the heirs of the new system realizing that they'd get more material privilege by establishing capitalism, and without an organized, conscious working class capable of stop them.
I agree. A viable long-term economy needs an organized working class that isn't sleepwalking through life. Would be cool to make the economic system not inherently hierarchical also.
The SRs were agrarian socialists and supporters of a democratic socialist Russian republic. The ideological heirs of the Narodniks, the SRs won a mass following among the Russian peasantry by endorsing the overthrow of the Tsar and the redistribution of land to the peasants.
In the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly held two weeks after the Bolsheviks took power, the party still proved to be by far the most popular party across the country, gaining 37.6% of the popular vote as opposed to the Bolsheviks' 24%. However, the Bolsheviks disbanded the Assembly in January 1918 and after that the SR lost political significance. (...) Both wings of the SR party were ultimately suppressed by the Bolsheviks through imprisoning some of its leaders and forcing others to emigrate.
Following Lenin's instructions, a trial of SRs was held in Moscow in 1922, which led to protests by Eugene V. Debs, Karl Kautsky, and Albert Einstein among others. Most of the defendants were found guilty, but they did not plead guilty like the defendants in the later show trials in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and the 1930s.
Note that these guys won the elections because they were the actually existing socialist movement in Russia and had been for decades. Lenin only led the government instead of them because he had the organization to overthrow the Mensheviks, not because the Bolsheviks were a better representative of socialism.
That's not true at all. The Mensheviks wanted to cooperate with the bourgeoisie and were therefore a bad representation of socialism. Lenin formed the Bolsheviks because the Mensheviks were being stupid. The country was also fractured after the revolution and many groups of counter-revolutionary groups were trying to overthrow the barely formed government. Meanwhile famines were ravaging the country. Understanding the historical context of Russia in 1917 and the economic struggles the people were dealing with is very important to understanding why things happened the way they did. Looking at the aftermath of a revolution where everyone is vying for power and killing each other doesn't automatically make the winner of that power grab the bad guys.
It was many factions. I'm just saying all of them were trying to have third revolutions while the people starved to death. At some point, revolutions end with a unifying government that isn't trying to murder each other. Lenin was not the villain you're painting him to be.
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.
Yes, which is and has been practiced in AES countries. Just because higher-stage Communism, ie a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society hasn't been reached globally yet doesn't mean we don't know if it will work or not.
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It also keeps being built in third-world countries, usually blockade, sanctioned, or regime changed by Western countries so it's also hard to tell without those variables. Although so far it has a pretty good track record for equal levels of starting development.
Real everyone-eats-ice-cream-and-dances-all-day hasn't been tried either. Just because you describe a set of circumstances doesn't mean those circumstances can exist, and it especially doesn't mean they can be stable long term.
Scarcity is a fact of nature. You cannot rationally distribute scarce things without knowing people's preferences, so you either need to continuously solve the economic knowledge problem (which requires a huge state apparatus, which will be taken over by a dictator), or a means of exchanging goods between people to better suit their preferences (at which point you have invented capitalism).
I know, also I didn't say I'm a communist fan, all I'm saying is that they rebranded totalitarian form of governments under communism so we don't actually know if Marx communism works or it's a flop
The Western concept of totalitarianism was constructed by Hannah Arendt, who came from a wealthy family and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. It’s a bourgeois liberal, intentionally anticommunist construct that lumps fascism and communism in the same bucket.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
The "black book of communism" includes german soldiers who died during WW2, it includes people who might have had 4 kids but only had 2, it includes victims of the US in vietnam.
Communism is a bit different than what those “communist” countries had. If anything it was socialism, but that still doesn’t fit completely. These “communist” countries are just one-party states in which the government controls the economy. The idea of putting the working class in power is useless if you create a government that can make decisions against the opinions of the working class. Socialist one-party state ≠ Communist democracy
Do you have a real-world example of a successful communist state? Because you may not like it, but those "communist" countries are humanities best attempts at enacting communism and they resulted in millions of people dying.
@Gigan
There are none! There's a reason pure communism is called a utopia. Because it is! While it may work for a small community of like-minded individuals, is just not scalable. The more people there are the more difference of opinion there is. @RmDebArc_5
Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.
There's a reason that all past attempts at the establishment of communist states have failed. Lenin, Mao, et al, had grand ideas steeped in Marxist teachings. All of them ended up in an authoritarian state. Cuba, North Korea, China, USSR. All failed because of the human factor.
Contradiction refers to the remaining vestiges from Capitalism, ie a State, Class, and Money. I suggest reading up on Historical Materialism and Dialectics.
Secondly, failing because of "the human factor" is a purely idealistic outlook and not a materialist analysis, you're arguing off of vibes.
Yes, you are quite literally an idealist by citing "the Human Factor" as a necessary reason for issues faced by AES countries.
Idealism proposes the idea of unchanging Human characteristics, Materialism proposes the idea that environments shape ideas. The former is undoubdtedly unscientific, while the latter is scientific.
Fighting for a goal is not what I am referring to as Idealism.
Communism only works on paper because it assumes that the people in power are going to just happily share everything equally. Humans don't work that way, we're selfish, greedy, and will hurt others to get ahead. There is no difference between a capitalist and communist leader. They both live better, eat better, make more money. There's no equality there
Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.
It's the sociopaths who seek power that don't work that way. The biggest success of capitalism is that the sociopaths have normalized their behavior and cast kindness as a flaw or disorder.
It’s not propaganda to acknowledge shitty people exist and will try to take advantage of any situation, it’s just basic reality when you’re out from behind a keyboard.
That's an astonishingly immaterial, idealistic analysis.
Communism assumes people work in their best interests, and because ideas come from material environments and not from some idea of "spirit," Humans are more cooperative in cooperative systems and competitive in competitive systems.
A Communist leader is one that is democratically accountable and production is owned by the state, therefore all "profits" are reinvested into the economy for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few. Corruption is possible, yes, but so too is legislating protections against Corruption. In Capitalism, this corruption is required to function.
No. But that doesn’t mean something like a socialist democracy couldn’t be achieved. Socialism isn’t bound to have a certain type of government and if we get rid of capitalism I would still like to have a say in what happens next
Millions less than the previous government forms, like Feudalism. Famines disappeared quickly and industrialization allowed for life expectancy to double in the USSR and Maoist China, despite issues like Civil War, World Wars, and so forth.
Did a lot go wrong? Absolutely. Were they massive improvements? Also yes.
ew a revisionist, it was REAL socialism led by REAL communists and it was based as fuck and the one that are still around are real and they are based. also theres no such thing a one party socialist state that is a myth at most u could say past and present socialist countries has a dominant political party but by no means was there only one, and other parties were and are allowed in those countries.
Yeah. You don't get to revise away anything uncomfortable. USSR and China were socialist experiments that succeeded in raising quality of life and transforming rural countries into industrial, scientific states. If people wanna talk about what went wrong, great. Pretending they "don't count" just puppets capitalist apologia and doesn't help
From a theoretical point, they don't count as communist. They entirely dropped the all-important aspect of giving power to the working class.
Both the USSR and China, in their self-described "communist" periods, were ruled with absolute power and directed by a head of state. The USSR collapsed, and modern China is about as communist as North Korea is democratic.
i was a little worried there comrade but im glad to see u have a good unstanding of just how great the PRC is, after all what could be more the democratic than the glorious DPRK.
Communism is a society without social classes, money, or a state.
Feel free to name one so-called communist country that implemented that.
The eastern block was as communist as North Korea is democratic.
They did however socialize ownership of factories etc, so they did have an authoritarian form of socialism.
Name a real-world implementation of communism that either isn't Marxist–Lenninist, or one that is and has moved beyond the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage. I'll be waiting.
That's different, because of reasons. When someone dies within a communist system that is communism's fault. When someone dies in a capitalist system, that's their own fault for not tugging on those bootstraps.
@Gigan@Grayox
No one died under communism because communism has never been achieved in the modern world. People died under state capitalist and state socialist authoritarian governments that people mislabel as communist because they don't know what communism is.
AES countries were and are legitimate attempts at building Communism. People have died in these countries, but at the same time many saw drastic increases in quality of life and industrialization. Dismissing AES is usually a sign of not understanding Marxism.
@Cowbee
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.
@Cowbee
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.
@Cowbee
Achieving a global, worker-owned republic without class, money, or a state while capitalist states exist presents significant challenges. It would require widespread international cooperation, grassroots movements, and a shift in global consciousness toward socialist ideals. International solidarity, mass education and organization, and an immediate introduction of a communist economic model would make it much easier.
Yes, so I am not sure why you are criticizing AES countries for leading the effort but not achieving them yet. This is anti-dialectical reasoning, which goes directly against the philosophical aspects of Marxism.
There was not a new "beaurocratic class." Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a "new class" but an extension of the workers.
The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesn't mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.
Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.
I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.
There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.
@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.
@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.
The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.
It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.
Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.
@Cowbee
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...
@Cowbee
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.
Classes are social relations to the Means of Production. The goal of Communism is not equality! Instead, the goal is proving from everyone's abilities to everyone's needs.
@Cowbee
The goal of communism is equality and anti-hierarchy, quite literally the creation of a classless, stateless society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled by the workers, and resources are distributed according to need. True equality and freedom for all individuals is the goal, where everyone can contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.
Again, I am going to recommend Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Marx specifically states that humans are not equal, else they would not be different, and thus have unequal needs and abilities. It is because of this that the goal is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." This quote specifically comes from Critique of the Gotha Programme.
Hierarchy is unjust if it is in contradiction, if it is through a worker state it ceases to be unjust, and merely becomes what must be done. Engels elaborates on this im On Authority.
Marx was not an Anarchist, he was accepting of administration and a gradual buildup towards Communism.
@Cowbee
Please stop recommending Critique of the Gotha Programme. I've read it and I don't agree with it. I disagree with Marx's emphasis on the state, centralized planning, and his advocacy of the use of labor vouchers, preferring a decentralized approach to decision-making and resource allocation, where communities and workplaces have autonomy and agency in managing their affairs and creating a culture of mutual aid, solidarity, and voluntary cooperation instead of relying on labor vouchers.
You could've said that from the start, that you aren't a Marxist.
I don't believe you can say that Marxism is a betrayal of Communism any more than you can say Anarchism is a betrayal of Marxism. If your entire point is that Marxist societies were not authentically Anarchist, then I am not sure why we are having this conversation. It's both obvious and silly.
@Cowbee
Marxism, at least in its historical implementations, does deviate from certain communist principles, but it's not an entire betrayal of communist principles as a whole. There's no doubt that the unique aspects of Marxism (its reliance on the state, central planning, and vanguardism) led to authoritarianism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few individuals, which made achieving communism under those conditions impossible.
Fundamentally, I believe we disagree on Communism itself. The USSR was honestly pursuing Marxist Communism, and was not a betrayal of such values. However, you believe Communism to be more pure, more anarchic, and thus see the USSR as a betrayal of those values.
I believe we should judge the USSR along Marxist lines, rather than Anarcho-Communist lines, as the USSR never claimed to be Anarcho-Communist (though they revered Kropotkin and named the largest train station, Kropotkinskaya, after him).
@Cowbee
I see it as more practical to judge any communist movement, whether Marxist or Libertarian, by how effective those movements are at achieving communism. Libertarian Communism so far has not been successful, but it also hasn't been given a proper chance so it's impossible to label the methodology a failure. Marxist Communism, on the other hand, has had dozens of opportunities to achieve communism in multiple countries during the last century but always resulted in the creation of...
@Cowbee
...authoritarian states that were anything but communist and all but a handful of them still exist, the rest collapsing due to various reasons.
Marxism is, as I am sure you know, an ever-evolving theory. If we look at these states dialectically, we can see unresolved contradictions that did indeed lead to collapse in the case of the USSR, but we can also point to rapid progress and enlarged social safety nets.
I believe by "Libertarian Communism" you are referring to a far more limited government, yet you also appear to desire an elimination of money on an almost immediate timeframe. You also quote Marx, in the Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society as well as from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, yet reject Marx's descriptions of what those accomplish and look like.
Honestly, I believe you are making the same philosophical error as the metaphysicians, looking at a concept from one side devoid of the other, at a static, fixed point, rather than dialectically as it changes and resolves its contradictions. The USSR was making advancements, until it killed itself. We should learn from this, rather than reject it wholesale.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism doesn't advocate for a limited government, but for the complete absence of the government, rejecting the idea of a centralized authority altogether, seeking to create a society based on voluntary cooperation and collective ownership of resources. In my criticisms, I'm not just referring to the USSR, but to all of the attempts at authoritarian communism and how most of them collapsed, and how the only remaining 5 still have not achieved communism.
@Radical_EgoCom@Cowbee
I am sorry to disagree. Authoritarianism has been very successful during history. It is a very stable system because it is based on the widespread use of repression and force. And that's why we need to be vigilant.
@Radical_EgoCom@Cowbee
Sorry, you are right. I missed that part of your thread.
And of course, how can you have the means of production if you don't have the ownership of your own government?
So what's the difference between Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism?
Either way, you're being extremely vague. Communism is impossible in one country, it must be global, and as such it must be protected. What length of time is enough to suggest a Socialist state has "failed?" What metrics determine AES countries have "failed?" How quickly must they achieve global communism to be a success? These are rhetorical questions, you don't have to answer them all, but they do point out more of your idealism, rather than materialism.
Secondly, and the question I do want an answer to, what method do you believe can succeed in a measurably more successful way? Simply stating Libertarian Communism isn't truly sufficient, as you have already said, Libertarian Communism has never once lasted more than a couple years, in Catalonia, or in Primitive times.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism and Anarcho-Communism are just different titles for the same ideology.
I disagree that communism has to be globally achieved and can't be achieved in one country. If a country can create a strong enough decentralized military and has access to the necessary resources for their survival then communism can be achieved in one country.
As I've previously stated, Libertarian Communism hasn't been given a chance to be properly implemented, mostly due to the...
I believe at that point you are making a semantical argument on what is considered centralized vs decentralized, and what is and isn't a state. A fully unified army of similar power would defeat a decentralized army, which necessitates some level of democratic centralism, by which point you have a state. Additionally, how do you see abolishing money while being invaded by Capitalist neighbors, as has happened to all AES countries?
I don't believe Anarchism is more likely to succeed than Marxism in establishing Communism.
@Cowbee
A military being decentralized doesn't mean that it won't be fully unified. A decentralized military doesn't imply disorganization; rather, it allows for localized decision-making while still creating a cohesive unity through collective goals and voluntary cooperation.
The abolition of money would still be possible even with threats of invasion or outright invasions by capitalist governments. In fact, removing the incentive for profit-seeking and resource exploitation inherent in...
@Cowbee
...monetary systems would strengthen defense against aggression by creating genuine solidarity and more of a focus on mutual aid and collective security.
I believe this is just vibes-based analysis that dismisses what has materially been seen when attempted in real life. I won't say that Anarcho-Communism isn't more beautiful of an idea, but I also don't believe it to be practical at the scale required to defend a revolution from outside aggressors.
@Cowbee
Libertarian Communism can be practical at a scale required to defend a revolution from foreign defenders due to its emphasis on decentralized, community-based defense strategies that empower individuals to protect their communities collectively, which in turn creates a strong sense of solidarity and resilience against external threats.
This was tried and lasted merely 2 years in Catalonia before more organized millitaries handily beat the Anarchists. The strength of worker-movements lies in unity, not individualism. A strong sense of solidarity is nice, but ideals cannot beat proper organization.
@Cowbee
I know that the strength of workers' movements resides in unity, not individualism. Libertarian Communism, or at least Platformism, is an ideology of ideological unity first and any individualism is within the context of the greater working-class movement. It's also important to note that the Catalonian anarchists were defeated for various reasons, including external military pressure, internal divisions, and the challenges of implementing radical social change amidst broader...
@Cowbee
...political turmoil and counterrevolutionary forces. It's not correct to conclude that the Catalonian anarchist were defeated simply because their military was decentralized and that hierarchical organization is superior to non-hierarchical organization simply from this very narrow view of the conflict.
Of course they faced numerous other issues, my point is that it seems that by holding to their ideals over what is practicible, they opened themselves up to failure.
On theory vs practice, it is important to test theory against practice and adapt theory to fit practice. What remains beautiful in theory must be measured by its practicality.
@Cowbee
But they didn't hold their ideals over their practicableness, and in fact that may have been the reason why they were ultimately defeated. During the Spanish Civil War, the(CNT) and (FAI) were part of the broader Republican side, which included various leftist and anti-fascist groups. While the anarchists were initially wary of collaborating with the Republican government, they did participate in the anti-fascist coalition and the Republican government in Catalonia, known as the...
@Cowbee
...Generalitat. However, the relationship between the anarchists and the Republican government was complex and often strained. The anarchists sought to maintain their autonomy and implement their vision of a decentralized, self-managed society, which sometimes clashed with the goals and methods of the Republican authorities. There were instances of collaboration, such as the participation of anarchists in the government and the militia forces, but there were also conflicts and...
@Cowbee
...disagreements over issues such as the militarization of the militias and the centralization of power. It is completely possible that had the organization of the military been unified in a decentralized way they would not have been defeated.
@Cowbee
I haven't based a single thing on idealism or "vibes". I examined the historical events and inferred a logical conclusion based on the facts, and the facts are that ideological unity was indeed lacking and necessary among the Spanish Revolutionaries, but nothing suggests that their unity had to be based on hierarchy and centralized planning, nor does anything suggest that the CNT-FIA's methods of the organization were inferior simply because they lost because other traditionally...
@Cowbee
I never said ideas create reality, however, I do believe that ideas can shape reality through the actions of those who hold those ideas, and I completely agree with the concept of unity through organization, again, never stating the contrary.
You were idealistically stating that more decentralization would have helped the Anarchists despite material evidence to the contrary. Hierarchy is not a bad thint, unjust hierarchy is.
@Cowbee
Hierarchy is a bad thing as it perpetuates inequality and oppression by allowing certain people to have more power than others. Not only would a system where power is decentralized be better in terms of eliminating inequality and oppression, but such a system would be more in line with communism's goal of creating a classless society.
Hierarchy does not perpetuate inequality, accumulation does. Hierarchy without accumulation and democratically accountable does not perpetuate inequality.
A decentralized system is not necessarily better at addressing systems of inequality or oppression.
Decentralized or Centralized makes no difference on creating a classless society.
@Cowbee
Hierarchy is the accumulation of power in the hands of a select minority of people. Even if there are safeguards to prevent too much power going to the top there will still always be an accumulation of power at the top of the hierarchy, thereby creating an inequality of power amongst the population. The only way to not have inequality of any kind is to get rid of hierarchy.
Hierarchy is not an accumulation of power, but authority vested in individuals. Democratically accountable, there isn't anything inherently wrong with it.
Additionally, inequality is not an enemy of Communism. Communism is about providing for everyone and giving everyone a dignified life, not about making everyone equal. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" inherently accepts inequality of circumstances and outcomes as acceptable as long as everyone's needs are met, which is impossible in the contradiction of Capitalism.
@Cowbee
I'm not able to take anything you say seriously. First, you claim that individuals having authority over others isn't an accumulation of power even though a person with authority would have to have power over others to have authority over them, and then you claim that communism is compatible with inequality, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard a communist claim. You sound like a revisionist.
Accumulation means increasing, it does not mean static power vested democratically. Capitalists accumulate via an endless cycle of M-C-M', which in turn swallows everything else. Elected representatives can be recalled, and even if they never are, they do not infinitely profit off the labor of others.
Please explain how "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" implies the goal is equality, and not satisfying the needs of everyone. Equality is idealist, satisfying needs is materialist. Marx explains precisely what he means:
"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
If anything, you are the revisionist, promoting half of Critique of the Gotha Programme and rejecting the half that isn't Anarchism-friendly.
No it isn't, but it does highlight the main issue:
Communism would work if it weren't for people trying to co-opt it for power
Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism is the end goal (since, it being automated, means there should effectively be no way to hijack it), but we ain't getting there for a long time. Let's go for socialism first and work from there
That's just human nature unfortunately. We like to help one another and hate to see another human being suffering because we know that could be us. But capitalism has conditioned and limited us out of our human nature to help one another, because either there is no profit in helping the poor or destitute, or we lack the means to help.
People are products of the environment. These influence the ideas people have, who then shape their environment which in turn further influences the ideas people have.
Being conditioned by the material conditions of Capitalism is the opposite of Idealism, it's Materialism.
Its a realistic view of humanity, not a realistic view of the world we have allowed the greediest among us to create. You should read The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, it goes extreme in depth to explain just how wrong your nihilistic view in humanity is, cooperation is the norm, what Capitalism has created is the anomaly.
This goes into a fight over philosophy of human nature. However, since the days of the Roman republic over 2000 years ago where capitalism wasn't even a concept, people have used political systems to consolidate and gain power over others. It is undoubtabele that there will be people who try to co-opt the system for their personal gain
I've been to Capitalist countries, I've been to Communist countries.
Guess which system has their people immigrating to the other system on rafts with their children, just to try the other system. Guess which system builds walls to keep people IN, guess which system has beggars asking for milk for their children instead of money.
Your comment isn't the dunk you think it is when it brushes up against the harsh truth that is reality.
Bruh I've seen families begging for food outside of grocery stores in the United States of America. Now what communist countries had beggers asking for milk?
Every source i can find puts homelessness rates in China at max 1,000,000 and all of them say that they live in shelters, not on the streets.
Cuba had been under embargo from the USA since 1962.
Laos has a massive poverty proborm because of debt which is a capitalist construct.
That statistic on Vietnamese homeless Children is 16 years old, and every source ive found states they have been making great strides since then to fight poverty and homelessness.
You Capitalist Apologists are so blind to reality it is pathetic there are 18 capitalist countries with higher homeless populations than China. You literally have to divorce yourself from reality to attack Communism. You might as well be covered in shit, while mocking someone for having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.
Socialism is usually built from the remains of a previous brutal regime. Starvation doesn't end overnight.
This is the case for both Russia and China. After stabilizing they had an unprecedented improvement in nutrition, longevity and such.
The same can't be said for the vast majority of capitalist states, who still experience starvation despite being perfectly capable of feeding everyone.
I was in my early 20s when the Soviet occupation collapsed here, the victims here were everyone not high up in the party.
Sure, capitalism fucking sucks but pretending the USSR was anything other than just bourgeoisie rule is delusional. The oligarchs were just called the communist party then.
Not really. You're talking about what happened after the USSR. Which yes, was horrible for the quality of life of people who lived in numerous countries all over the globe, but that's more of an indictment of capitalism than communism. The looting of the government coffers to privatize everything and create oligarchs was a result of the post-USSR shock therapy.
Ah, I misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. But it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about without more details. Afghanistan, maybe? I get if you don't want to dox yourself, as someone privacy minded, but it's hard to know how to respond without more context.
Estonia but it's not like that was not the case elsewhere in the occupied areas. Russia mostly exported resources out of there to benefit itself which is a large reason how it raised quality of life in Russia itself.
Oh ya, I should have guessed. There are a couple Baltic states that did increase in living standards and make some rapid industrialization improvements, but they also made some definite mistakes with handling some things there and trying to do some Russia centralization. It made some of those places very right leaning, which is unfortunate.
At least it generally shared technologies improvements and such with those places. It doesn't make the USSR worse than the US, for example, which ruined basically all of South and Central America even worse than the USSR did for its neighbors. I want to emphasize that it made some big mistakes, but for some reason people contribute those mistakes to communism, when the US and other capitalist countries had even worse occupations with even worse exploitation, but for some reason that never leads to people saying capitalism is terrible and awful, etc. The world is just too propagandized by the West. The difference is that imperialism and exploitation is basically required by the capitalist system, while it's a side effect of militarization under a siege mindset for communism. It happened, and will probably continue to happen as long as communism requires capitalism characteristics to jumpstart production, but it's not a constant requirement of the system like capitalism's necessity for the line to go up leading to always finding new markets and resources to take.
I never said the US was better than the USSR, I don't really give a shit about the US. One shit country being slightly better than another one does not make it good.
I like how you characterised it as "some mistakes" . The whole famine business that ravaged the USSR was caused by sheer incompetence. A guy appointed by Stalin to manage agriculture came up with a fun idea of "communist crops won't compete for resources" and forcing farmers to plant crops way too close. I'd say that was one of the greatest mistakes. There was also some killing the gays and some ethnic minorities but I think those were intentional.
I also don't attribute anything to communism, only the USSR, communism hasn't existed. I also attribute being the worst advertisement imaginable for communist to the USSR. They kinda ruined it for everyone else by calling themselves that.
You should look into south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA's unrestrained human experimentation in the regiom perfected this ideological soft power superweapon or "strategic ideological construct". Trying to find exactly what these kinds of things are called.
I don't understand why anything anti capitalism these days is automatically communism. It's such a large swing from one side to the other. I just want my taxes to pay for healthcare, infrastructure, and education instead of wars and prisons. I want to stop getting fucked by corporations that have infinitely more money than I can ever imagine. I don't think that makes me a communist. I'm just anti-fucking-the-people. Capitalism can fuck people. Communism can fuck people too. I support Corpo-Politico-Celibacism. Stop the fucking.
Edit: Okay, fuck the people. You guys must have this figured out.
No. Moving goalposts means there is no definitive measure of completion. Communism has one. If you've read anything at all about it, you would know that. But hey you were told it was bad in school, and thinking for yourself is difficult. You do you.
That's not how words work. Things mean what they are used to mean.
Y'all understand this perfectly when describing "capitalism." That word becomes synecdoche for every level and aspect of modern reality. By definition, capitalism is only really the part where having money makes money, but nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean when you refer to its consequences and implications. Nor would you respect if libertarians split hairs about "corporatism." Like oh, this isn't capitalism, because it lacks X and Y and Z, which have never existed, so how dare you talk about bad things that actually happened.
It's more that anticommunists judge Socialist states by their inability to fulfill Communist ideals at the level of development AES countries are at, as though they exist in a perfectly frozen picture absent history and trajectory.
Yeah sure dude, existing in a context is why people condemned police states.
'People who don't know the difference between these terms must be using the more-recognizable one as an oblique criticism of the gap between theory and practice' is the most .ml take I have ever seen.
Condemning the USSR and PRC for not achieving a global stateless, classless, moneyless society is ridiculous. This isn't a gap between theory and practice, lol. Communism isn't anarchism.
Yep, but I also understand what Communists actually advocate for and understand that countries building Communism should be judged like every society: with respect to trajectory, not as a snapshot.
Communism isn't a goal because it is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Rather, Communism is a goal because the process of getting there is to create a society benefitting all and directed for the working class, by the working class.
You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what people are doing and why, to instead engage in scoffistry at opinions sourced from the vicinity of your pelvis.
Repeated efforts to highlight how that's what you're doing, and get back to what people say and mean, led you to dismiss people entirely. "Perhaps what you mean isn’t worth much?" is a confession.
Yeah. Nobody’s ever done real communism on a national scale. As in, not just being a dictatorship in charge of everything that funnels money and power to the top while giving communism lip service and the people get screwed.
Ah yes, my grandparents, the landlords. Wait hol' up, they were working people, not landlords. GDR fucked them regardless.
"bUt tHAT wASn'T rEaL ComMunIsM"
If neither the USSR nor China could achieve true Communism, then maybe it isn't so much a realistic goal as a utopian ideal, a convenient justification for all kinds of crimes against humanity that occur in its pursuit.
It wasnt the GDR, it was the totality of global Capital conspiring to defeat the biggest threat to their power structure. What did the GDR do specifically that 'fucked' your grandparents?
It's weird, we tried having a small group of people control the flow of capital and it was unpopular each time. Let's try it again but call it something different or say it was something else when we tried it before.
The thing is, both USSR/China and USA don’t fit the ideals of Communism. While in USA suffers from the gap between rich and poor, USSR/China suffered from the difference between the people and the government. Just because you get rid of economical suppression doesn’t mean you can’t have political suppression. Sure these countries had economical problems but a lot of their problems could have been avoided if the government would have actually worked for the people and not for themselves.
it WAS real communism and ur grandparents probably deserved it. absolute worst case senario no system is perfect and good people still get fucked over sometimes for no good reason, difference is under capitalism it is constant under socialism it is rare.
As I understand it, "real communism" is supposed to be some kind of stateless society. As the GDR was, well, a state, it clearly did not achieve that. Nor would it ever have been likely to, as actually doing what was ideologically promised would have required those with power within that system to relinquish that power, which is incredibly rare as it conflicts with human nature.
Communism is not anarchic. Stateless with respect to Communism refers to instruments of government by which one class suppresses another. Communism was always meant to have a world republic.
i wonder what planet u came from; clearly u arent human cuz any human would understand the context here. actually u are human (probably) and u are just making a meaningless semantics argument in bad faith.
when left leaning libs defend their ideals from right leaning libs by saying "it wasnt real communism" like in this case. they mean that the thing being talked about did not adhere to communist ideals.
when u say that "it wasnt real communism" u mean that there is a distinction between communism and socialism or lower stage communism as marx called it.
the gdr was a socialist country led by communist with the goal of establishing communism when they original lib said it wasnt real communism what he mean was that "the gdr was not a socialist country and it wasnt led by communist", then when i said it was real communism i meant to re state the fact that the gdr was a socialist country led by communist. so it is self evident that ur argument is irrelevant no one was actually talking about where the gdr was a stateless, money less, classless society, we were talking about whether the leadership of the gdr truly adhered to communist principles.
as to why ur argument looks to be in bad faith u would have to live under a fucking rock not understand this context or far more likely u are arguing in bad faith.
I think you have an unrealistic estimation of how much most people understand the topic of communism, if you think not labelling different types of communism as the same ideology is living under a rock. More than half the country doesn't even realize that socialism and communism aren't complete synonyms, and a good fraction think paradoxically that center right liberalism is somehow communist.
Real Communism, along Marxist lines, has a government. Marxism isn't anarchic, the "stateless" part is specifically referring to instruments of the government by which one class oppresses another. Marxism has always been about achieving a global Communist republic.
Take it from a self-identified pinko commie and someone born in one of those regimes, it was not real communism. It was authoritarianism with a strong (but at times selectively applied) social safety net. To say that their grandparents deserved it when you know nothing about them is fucking absurd. You're not helping your point or cause. You're just being a child.
first anyone who would call themselves a pinko isnt a communist, ur probably a rad lib. second do u truly think that some lib the grandchild of gusanos can even be convinced by a random person on the internet to be a communist im not helping my cause sure, this is just for fun but if i had wrote some essay pointing out why the gdr was a real socialist country led by real communist which really adhered to communist ideals and said that its unfortunate what happened to his gusanos but that bad shit still happens everywhere i wouldnt be helping anything either.
I mean, it wasn't, at least not according to the actual people who ran those governments. The USSR and the CCP were/are revolutionary governments, real communism happens when/if the revolutionary governments succeeds and transitions the means of control back to the proletariat.
and ur grandparents probably deserved it.
Really working hard to build those bridges of mutual respect and cooperation I see. This is one of the key reasons the USSR imploded in the first place.
The expansion of Soviet influence happened under the influence of Russian chauvinism, a major contradiction with the more successful maoist ideology today. Instead of allowing communism to be shaped by individual ethnicities or nations they did their best to russify or simply purge the base of power in the country, bolshevists or not.
Stalin and Beria did a whole bunch of purging of leftist to secure their control over the party. If you actually think everyone the Soviets killed deserved it, please go read about the Makhnovist, the Mensheviks, the Georgian bolshevist, hell go read what the Soviets did to the original leftist leader in North Korea.
difference is under capitalism it is constant under socialism it is rare.
Unfortunately that's just not true. Revolutions are highly hierarchical due to their inherent need to react to militant reactionaries. As they begin to solidify their revolution and take over the responsibilities of the state, this hierarchy gets transferred from the the state.
Authoritarian governments are highly efficient, but are extremely hard to get away from once established. Often times the militant leader of the revolution is not the guy you want to be in complete control of the state after establishing a revolutionary government.
Mao was decent enough to accept this after the failure of the cultural revolution, Stalin on the other hand......
saying that lower stage communism as marx called it or socialism as we call it today wasnt real communism is meaningless, and at best petty. the argument was never a semantics one about the specifics of what communism is and where the lines between socialism and communism are, what was said when they said it wasnt real communism was that it wasnt led by communist and that it did not adhere to communist ideals and goals which it did. u would have to be some kind of alien lizard to not understand the context here which is why i know u are arguing in bad faith.
also some idiot lib going around saying that the gdr wasnt real communism because their ancestors had a bad experience with that system (or more likely they were landlords or capitalist and go what they deserved) isnt gonna change their mind cuz some random person on the internet told them otherwise nor do i care to make that argument.
saying that lower stage communism as marx called it or socialism as we call it today wasnt real communism is meaningless, and at best petty.
The problem is that the Soviet Union couldn't even be correctly defined in Marxist terms to be socialist. Socialism according to Marx was a lower form of communism, one described as a transition from democratic capitalism to communism. The Soviets did not transition from a democratic state to communism, there were no valid democratic election from 38'-89'.
what was said when they said it wasnt real communism was that it wasnt led by communist and that it did not adhere to communist ideals and goals which it did.
I mean I still think there's room for debate depending on who you're talking about. I tend to think that the most simple definitional test whether or not you are adhering to communist ideology is to examine how the means of production is being managed.
Has the state expanded the means of control over the production to the workers in an equitable manor? Is the equity created by the workers being shared to the entire population of workers? By what means do workers negotiate their control over the means of production?
My arguments against Soviet communism is that workers had no meaningful control over the means of production. Groups of workers had no real access to influence the government such as voting as Marx described. The equity created by the workers was not shared equitably throughout the Union, with non ethnic Russians generally acting as a resource to be extracted from.
u would have to be some kind of alien lizard to not understand the context here which is why i know u are arguing in bad faith.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that when Marx was dreaming of a communist nation, he was not thinking it was going to start in Russia. It was an absolute shock when the 1rst country to commit to communism was autocratic Russia instead of Democratic Germany. Meaning a lot of Marxist writing isn't really applicable to the Soviet State, Marx didn't think about revolution occuring in a authoritarian state.
also some idiot lib going around saying that the gdr wasnt real communism because their ancestors had a bad experience with that system (or more likely they were landlords or capitalist and go what they deserved)
Or, they were one of the tens of thousands of leftist that were purged by Beria or Stalin. Pretending that the Soviets only killed landlords is not only academically dishonest, it's harmful to future leftist endeavors. Self criticism is essential to eliminating internal contradictions from arising within the state.
It'll be different this time guys, no really, just one more time guys, we'll get it right, it wasn't even a good try, let us go again, this time for real, no way it'll be anything other than a utopia guys, the people will have the power, guys.
Lol it sounds like someone trying to defend capitalism. "No, it's totally fine, we just didn't implement it right. There are certain laws and regulations that can fix it, we swear!"
Yet for some reason any flaw with a communist country is endemic to communism itself, instead of the implementation, contexts of their outside conditions, or foreign influence, or general state of economic development.
Communism isn't a series of sacrifices for an eventual greater good, Socialism is definitely better than what preceeded Socialism in Russia and China. The idea of True Communism can only be achieved globally, sure, and in the far future, sure, but Communism is about building towards that through gradual improvements.
You're implying that any progress forward is useless if it doesn't immediately achieve a far future society, it's devoid of logic.
No, I just have very different ideas what progress is.
Progress in my eyes is made when a society becomes more democratic, and when we solve conflicts without bloodshed.
In that sense, sure, the GDR was a step in the right direction, but nazi germany didn't exactly set the bar very high.
The idea of socialism is nice, but you hardly have any progress if the system (be it built on free markets or planned economies) doesn't work to improve ordinary citizens' lives, but only to keep the powerful in power.
Personaly, I don't care much about free markets or planned economies. I think the best approach, as so often, is a kind of blend, a social market economy that allows independent companies in a framework that protects workers, consumers and the environment.
Thing is, the specifics of the economic system aren't important. What matters is that the people are the ones who decide them.
There is nothing wrong with pursuing a utopian society, but ultimatly you have no control over what happens in the far future (neither should you, future societies need to be ruled by future people).
The only thing you can control is the present and the near future, so what really matters aren't the ends you strive for, but the means you employ while doing so.
Tankies have a lot of confirmation bias. Facts alternate to their beliefs that communism is the be-all, end-all of human suffering don't go over well with them.
It might be if it were actually achievable in the way it was envisioned, but ideal communism isn't the communism we see anywhere in reality.
Why do you believe Communism isn't achievable as envisioned? Is it possible that you don't actually know what is envisioned in Communism, just a few slogans and buzzwords?
Russian and Chinese famines weren't intentional though. In China, because they were literally coming out from being the hungriest country in the planet, and decided to change too much too fast, you can't really turn such a huge country around overnight. In Russia because they needed to collectivize really quickly in preparation for WW2, and the landlords at the time decided to literally burn grain and kill cattle instead of handing their big estates. The numbers offered by western authorities on both are greatly exaggerated without adequate proof.
After the tragic events, both countries saw unprecedented improvements in quality of life, nutrition and life expectancy. These events didn't really repeat after they stabilized, something that can't be said of most capitalist countries to this day.
In capitalism the owner class needs people to be in despair for them to be willing to work such shitty, desperate jobs. Millions of poor and starving people have to exist either in your own country, or elsewhere in a neocolony for one billionaire to be able to steal so much accumulated capital to himself. It's common to see them taking decisions that help with their accumulation at the expense of everyone else (eg. Oil companies covering up climate change). We are already making more food than we would need to be able to feed everyone fairly, yet capitalist countries don't.
There's never be a full communist or capitalist society. What wears arguing over how far towards either we should go. Also, FYI for those that don't know The USSR and China are not communist. Both are/were dictatorships that call themselves communist.
The problem is that you won't ever get a full communist country, at least not for a very, VERY long time, because you always get those few fartweasels who end up hijacking it and turning it into a dictatorship. You need to eliminate that problem first, and with how the world is sliding into fascism, it doesn't look like we're any where near close to solving that dilemma
Even when they don't turn it into a dictatorship, they may just turn it back into capitalism, like Russia did. And when that happens, they just sell all the old estates to the highest bidder, making them richer and turning them into oligarchs. And that becomes functionally equivalent to a dictatorship of the bourgeois.
Look up dialectical Materialism. China is 'communist' as they are progressing along the roadmap Dialectical Materialism provides towards achieving communism.
Are they making actual progress on that path, though? They have tons of billionaires, lots of people go bankrupt there from medical bills or are homeless (unlike some other communist countries). The state owns a lot of businesses, but then so does Norway. All their initiatives seem to be related to hurting gay people or making it harder for kids to play video games. They've arrested some rich people and cracked down on some corruption, but that also sounds like it could come from a capitalist country. I can't really find any sort of long-term plan.
The iPhone workers designed, workers made, workers marketed, workers transported, workers sold and "landlords" got paid for. It really is a perfect illustration of the issue.
u see im very smart if u live under a society u can not criticize it, what RIGHT does a salve have to criticize slavery when they do the masters bidding and eat the food the master provides and wears the clothes the master provides.
When you pay for a luxury brand phone it's not you master telling you too, it's you choosing. Don't come at me with the onipotent lord that control all of us.
The system IS broken, captalist is NOT the best for the people but people stiil choose.
Lmao, Capitalism practically requires a phone to get through modern society, buying a decent phone doesnt mean one casts a vote for Capitalism to continue to exist, you absolute ham sandwich.
I was told by a gamer that I'm a shill for capitalist corporations cause I like bathesda games.
I laughed my ass off, every stage of gaming from development to hardware is a capitalist machine. Don't play games if you don't want to support corporations
I don't disagree at all! But if you want to scream "milk cpmpanies are bad" don't go buing their product.
I hate people that want to support a cause on the internet but do NOTHING to change it. Usually those are the first ones in line to buy the latest trendy Iphone. Don't be a caplatist if you don't want captalism.
BTW I'm not american. I'm looking from the outside and I only see irony. My country have labour laws and consumer protection and if someone messes with it we make a huge fuzz
I think this is a more significant point than most people want to admit, it's not just iPhones, people choose status over fairness pretty much every time - they'd rather pay more to feel better than others.
The car market, computers, clothes, food - literally everything. It's true in all the porest and richest circles even when like iphones and a lot of fashion the more expensive product is objectively worse.
It's not capitalism inventing this it's always been a thing and capitalism simply leverages it. I move in probably the least capitalist circles as an open source obsessive and dev, people choosing to share their work free so others can benefit but the mentality is there too, its in the eco obsessive communities too - I don't think it's totally universal amywhere but it's prominent everywhere.
I've come to belive that the Marxist ideals don't cover enough of what people really need, they're idealistic and somewhat how we'd want to think of ourselves but it's similar to dieting, deciding in a serious mood to eat only kale and beans feels like who we want to be but when we try and live that way we realize that we're not that person.
We need to focus on achievable steps in the right direction which allow us to feel good about the change we're making while also letting us fill our needs, even those lazy and embarrassing ones that the idealized version of of lacks.
We need to learn to understand and enjoy other forms of status but also we need to learn to reward those status symbols in others just as we reward economic status symbols even if we pretend to ourselves we dislike them. People in expensive clothes get treated better because it symbolizes the power they have to make an economic difference - even the fact iphones are feature restricted money milking machines only plays into this, it signals that you've got enough money not to worry about them adding $500 to the price for no reason or stinging you for a dozen subscriptions and this makes it seem like you're the most likely person to be able to help them if they're in trouble or give them things they xouldnt otherwise have.
Yes this is bad greedy nasty thinking and no one wants to admit it's part of them but this is how the math in our brain works. We can't help it, and when we ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist or that we can wish it away that doesn't change reality.
I don't know what the solution is, I'd like to hope we can at least shift it from being solely economic to respecting skills too, I dont know but we need to make it socially rewarding to be a benefit to society rather and make good choices.
Thank you. Kids here trying to justify having Iphones when they could very well have the cheepest phone workable. They screem comunism but want to be better than others.
I don't thino there is a solution because humans are imperfect. No perfect solution will ever exist if a human is responsible for managing it.
