Cowbee

Cowbee , vor 25 Tagen

It's less that Communist States have massive intelligence networks on their own populace because they are Communist, and more that states kinda just do that. American privacy violations are horrifying.

The "difference" largely comes from bourgeois media overplaying the bad elements and underplaying the good elements of Communist projects, while downplaying the bad elements and overplaying the good elements of Capitalist projects.

Combine this with the widespread fact that the US intentionally infiltrates and destabilizes states that even flirt with Socialism in the Global South, with hundreds of assassination attempts on figures like Castro, and it starts to seem more reasonable.

Cowbee , vor 24 Tagen

Did I at any point say they didn't? I was explaining why that happens, lmao.

Cowbee , vor 24 Tagen

Because the genie agreed and didn't think of it as a chore to do in any way.

Cowbee , vor 25 Tagen

The only valid price for a coat I'll accept.

Cowbee , vor 28 Tagen

Borzshwah

Cowbee , vor 27 Tagen

Marx believed this unresolved phenomena would lead to violent revolution, Lenin only added his analysis of Capitalism's evolution into Imperialism, and his theory of Revolution, which focuses on the idea of the most radical workers forming a vanguard to bring the other workers up and help direct them. Marx believed the Revolution would happen and from it Socialism would emerge, hence him advocating for "siezing the Means of Production." He also pointed directly to the Paris Commune, a hostile takeover of government aparatus, as the Dictatorship of the Proletarait he advocated for in action.

Lenin wasn't just "hey, let's ignore Marx and do this at gunpoint," it was more "hey, let's listen to Marx, and do this at gunpoint." Lenin actually addresses this utter de-fanging of Marx in bourgeois society in the opening section of The State and Revolution:

"What is now happening to Marx’s theory has, in the course of history, happened repeatedly to the theories of revolutionary thinkers and leaders of oppressed classes fighting for emancipation. During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it. Today, the bourgeoisie and the opportunists within the labor movement concur in this doctoring of Marxism. They omit, obscure, or distort the revolutionary side of this theory, its revolutionary soul. They push to the foreground and extol what is or seems acceptable to the bourgeoisie. All the social-chauvinists are now “Marxists” (don’t laugh!). And more and more frequently German bourgeois scholars, only yesterday specialists in the annihilation of Marxism, are speaking of the “national-German” Marx, who, they claim, educated the labor unions which are so splendidly organized for the purpose of waging a predatory war!"

As for the USSR, it wasn't totalitarian. Workers did have control, there were no real bourgeois elements, no competing markets, and the state was not an "other" compared to the Workers. They had democratic measures in the form of Soviets, and the consequences of this were free education, healthcare, high home ownership rates, and so forth. Was the USSR perfect? Absolutely not, but it was history's first major attempt at Marxist Socialism, and we can study it for that. The revolution wasn't "hijacked," it was led by the Workers and continued to be until corruption took hold over time and the USSR collapsed, being hacked up and sold for parts as a part of "Shock Doctrine," plumetting life expectancy, GDP, and causing 2 million excess deaths.

Co-operatives are met with hostile action because it's easy to crush them when you have the state and monopoly on your side, hence why they will never likely be a leading force for Socialism within Capitalism, even if they should still be supported by Socialists everywhere.

Cowbee , vor 29 Tagen

Yes, self-criticism is A-Okay and is encouraged.

Cowbee , vor 29 Tagen

Not only that, but Reddit refugees too idealistic for Reddit, but without niche interests guiding them to a niche instance, plus a desire to not even be federated with Marxist instances.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I assume they are asking for a source of there being violence on the square itself, and not the surrounding areas. Nobody denies that hundreds of people were killed, what's controversial is whether or not this violence happened on the square itself or in the surrounding areas.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I assume they are asking for a source of there being violence on the square itself, and not the surrounding areas. Nobody denies that hundreds of people were killed, what's controversial is whether or not this violence happened on the square itself or in the surrounding areas.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Gwangju was less of an uprising and more of a directed anti-communist slaughter. Calling it a massacre is more appropriate.

To this day, Gwangju is looked down upon by the rest of South Korea due to this massacre.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I didn't say it was better. I can't speak for the commenter, but I imagine it's in relation to the mass amount of misinformation spread about what happened in 1989, like the widespread myth that Tank Man was run over.

Personally, I think it's important to both recognize the state violence and also acknowledge how Western Countries have propagandized the event beyond what actually happened.

Additionally, I do think it's important to recognize that other massacres have happened in US-allied states like South Korea. The 1980 Gwangju Massacre is almost unheard of in western countries despite western estimates for civilians killed being higher. I didn't see any commemoration on its anniversary last month.

It's more to highlight how historical events have been exaggerated and minimized based on what is convinient for the media, you can see this minimization happening in Gaza right now.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Do they excuse dictstorship? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

More than the US? The country that maintained slaves for many generations, on land taken from slaughteted and genocided indigenous peoples? The country that is to this day actively supporting genocide purely to protect its economic interests via Imperialism?

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

You may want to look at the actual numbers, rather than relying on vibes.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I'm not skipping over China. You're getting upset that someone is correctly calling out the United States.

Genocide of Indigenous Americans resulted in 4-8 million murders.

American slavery resulted in dozens of millions of deaths and forced labor.

The entirety of Iraqi infrastructurw returned to pre-industrial levels specifically to make the Iraqi state more liable to respond to US Demands on false pretenses.

260 million bombs dropped on Laos on mere suspicions of pro-Communist activity.

Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians murdered via napalm, agent orange, and raw gunfire.

Unwavering support for Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians via a genocidal Aparthied regime

Many massacres of both North and South Koreans during the Korean War, installing a far-right dictator in the Republic of Korea who murdered his own citizens regularly

Unwavering support for a fascist, slave-owning regime in Cuba to protect US interests

Countless more. Do I really need to go on to illustrate just how evil the American Empire is, and why pulling a whataboutism to distract from this might be seen as insensitive?

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Where was China or the USSR mentioned on this post? Purely in the comments section, and purely to assert that the US's crimes are not as bad.

This post isn't saying that the PRC and the USSR have never performed crimes. It isn't avoiding their missteps, the purpose of this post is to talk about by far the worst Empire. Saying that the PRC and USSR also have committed atrocities only serves to minimize US atrocities here.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Maybe for you it seems that way. I think it's perfectly acceptable to believe the US and Capitalism are horrible, without considering these views to be "an agenda."

Do you have an "anti-China and anti-USSR agenda" by criticizing them when not involved? That's a silly way of framing political views.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Who has those views?

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

We need more shorter games, made by happier devs paid more to work fewer hours, with worse graphics.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Discussion tends to be much better here though, I don't miss reddit at all.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

What right wing media advocates for Communism? Hating democrats and republicans is a very leftist thing to do.

I get what you're trying to do for OP, but I find it highly unlikely that they are a fox news viewer, or otherwise.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Wage Labor and Capital is a good start.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

That's not entirely true.

Capitalism itself is unsustainable, so as time goes on, the temp rises towards the boiling point. Bread and circuses delay this boiling point, but do not stop it. As long as the temperature continues to rise, so to speak, so too will the boiling point be approached.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

What's unclear?

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

):

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Any kinds of social programs, generally, are concessions.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Communism can only be truly global. You can have worker coops in a servive economy, which is a form of Socialism, but depending on the production outsourced in Capitalist manners means the economy overall contributes to global Capitalism, which can eventually take on the character of Imperialism.

Most 1st world economies are in fact Imperialist, they cannot exist in the manner they do without hyper-exploitation of the global south.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Everyone pollutes, Capitalists drive the systems that pollute the most and force users to pollute.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Capitalism drives pollution because the cheapest path to profit is also destructive towards the environment, and legislating against the profit motive is difficult because the state serves Capitalists.

Socialism fixes this by valuing needs and uses over profit.

The Soviet Union failed to properly implement environmental protections because climate science wasn't as developed and the Soviet Union was a developing country.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

The USSR was a Worker State, it was Socialist. It was a highly flawed Socialist State in many ways, but it was still fundamentally Socialist.

On what grounds do you believe the USSR was not Socialist? We can certainly debate effectiveness, but I haven't seen a genuine Marxist argument for why the USSR wasn't Socialist.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

It was a planned economy by the workers, expressed through the party. This is not bourgeois rule, that's vibes-based analysis. The Workers fundamentally had control, even if flawed.

It was corrupt, correct. That doesn't make it Capitalist.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat (Bearbeitet vor einem Monat)

The state was run by the party, and the party was run and elected by the workers. The concept of a dominant political party is in line with Marxism, and is not indicative of Capitalism.

The workers elected the people making decisions. They did not vote on the decisions themselves, correct. The USSR was not a direct democracy. Direct Democracy is not a requiremeny for Socialism.

I think it would do you good to revisit Marxism and better understand what a Class actually is. Yes, the USSR was flawed, but it was also Socialism. The former Soviet States are now Capitalist at best, and fascist at worst, and function completely differently from when they were in the USSR.

Additionally, unless you're extremely old, you experienced the period of liberalization before collapse, not the peak of Socialism.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

That goes directly against historical records.

1. The party was of the workers and had open elections among the workers. Opposition parties were banned, but that does not mean it wasn't open.

2. The Party was absolutely not Bourgeoisie. The fact that workers owned the state and the party ran the state does not mean that the Party were bourgeois. This is a ridiculous notion, akin to saying middle-management in a Capitalist enterprise are bourgeoisie because they run much of Capitalist companies.

3. The party had the same class interests because there was no M-C-M' circuit by which state planners pocketed all of the profits. Production was directed by the state and flowed back to the workers in the form of free education, health care, pensions, and other worker-directed benefits. It was not used among competing Capitalists to gain monopoly and increase exploitation.

You should reread Marx, your understanding of class dynamics is highly flawed.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

If you read the source you will see it continued, lol. Read the section by Pat Sloan.

Still more important, you have yet to explain why you believe the USSR was run by privatized corporations and Capitalists that competed in an open market producing commodities as the standard.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Hey, feel free to find scholarly sources, I'm down to read. Even you yourself said there were elections though.

You did say Capitalists were in power, you said the party was Bourgeoisie. That means they were Capitalists, which is obviously wrong and that's why I think you should read Marx.

Again, not saying the USSR was perfect. It was indeed corrupt and had multiple failures under its belt, but it was history's largest example of a Socialist society.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Read the Thurston quote, he directly states that while criticizing Stalin was a terrible idea, Workers had meaningful participation. Again, find sources, I am down to read, but right now it's your word vs historical evidence.

Bourgeoisie only refers to Capitalists in Marxian terms. The aristocracy was not Bourgeoisie, nor were slave owners. Read Marx, it's clear that you don't understand Class. If you refer to Monarchs as bourgeoisie then you've demonstrated that you haven't ever read Marx, because a huge amount of his writing is about how the Bourgeoisie differ from the aristocracy.

Even reading Principles of Communism by Engels could tell you that, and it's a pamphlet.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

The usage of Bourgeoisie has not changed colloquially, that's a deliberate copout. If you are okay to continue misunderstanding Marxism then that's your choice, but please don't pretend to know what you're talking about as it relates to Marxism if you're going to actively reject reading Marx.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Misusing such a basic term such as Bourgeoisie reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of both Capitalism and Socialism, and makes everything else you say suspicious. You have repeatedly stated that Workers did not own the Means of Production without backing any of that up.

It's backed up by multiple sources, hence why I told you to read the Thurston quote, not just the Sloan quote. The USSR continued to have elections and the workers had control according to historical documents, none of the documents listed stated otherwise.

Please provide a source, all you've revealed thus far is a lack of understanding of Marxism on your part.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

The dissent was about efficacy, not the actual presense of a democratic system. Reread the article, lol. Opposition parties were banned, not elections.

It does not agree with you, you misread the article. Both modern historians and opened soviet archives back me up. Since when is "Pat Sloan" and "Robert Thurston" a single historian?

You're deeply unserious.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I'm not purity testing, knowledge of the Bourgeoisie is the basic fundamental of Socialism. If you're rejecting reading and saying it doesn't matter, you probably are a bad leftist.

So now you agree with me, there were elections, and many sources support their efficacy.

You have no evidence about Pat Sloan, and given that his work was published in 1937, it's likely he was talking about the present day for him.

You are indeed deeply unserious.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

You would have to prove the party and the workers entirely distinct.

Assuming I am not involved in local politics because I am more well-read than you is a silly ad hominem attack when logic is exhausted.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Who in the party represented another class? Workers, and who else? As the USSR liberalized towards the end, there were bourgeois elements added, but for most of the USSR's existence there was no other class.

Calling correcting your misconceptions "ad hominems" is goofy, lmao.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

So it still had elections, and workers still participated, got it. Via having elections and participating in government, workers can direct production.

What royal family is as large as the USSR's Communist Party and allowed new membership?

Flawed Socialism is still Socialism.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

You did not provide sources. There are facts that they existed, and differing opinions on the extent to which workers controlled the Means of Production. The elections did not disappear under Stalin, opposition parties were banned. This means it was flawed, but ultimately still existed, which is my point.

You cannot say that the Means of Production were state owned, and elections regularly practiced, and still say it was not Socialist. We are not arguing with whether or not the USSR was Socialist, but its effectiveness in carrying out the will of the Working Class. That much is obviously not 100%, the party was corrupt, you will not find pushback from me there, but it was Socialist.

You are arguing off of vibes.

The Communist Party was fundamentally not a new class. They did not own the Means of Production any more than the average worker, any worker could join, and the party was massive. A royal family would have engaged in feudalism, but that wasn't the case.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

Your source backs me up, I read it.

Workers did have control. It was not ironclad, but there also wasn't a separate class, and the interests of the workers were advanced, such as free education, healthcare, etc.

You can repeat that you believe 7 to be equal to 0 all you want, repeating it won't make you correct.

You are arguing off of vibes.

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

I think you should look in the mirror before you attack me, lol

Cowbee , vor einem Monat

The Steam Deck is just an absolute backlog slayer, in an increasingly busy life.