deleted by creator
Erm akshutally how is it possible to care for human life without maximizing shareholder profit, in this 10,000,000 page peer reviewed study (sponsored by megacorp™) I will prove that you are wrong and I am good
It wasn’t by megacorp, it was by a think tank sponsored by a consultancy hired by megacorp to do exactly that. Stop blaming megacorp for everything. You people are so fucking conspiratorial.
Oh sorry, I will stop asking questions and keep consooming product™ from megacorp™
erhm i’ll let you know that the soviet onion killed six hundred million bajillion stalinnion people so ☝️🤓
Carl Mark keel 10,000 Marxillion people venevuala no iphone north corea
I love that you misspelled Marx but then wrote Marxillion, I live for shitposts like this lmao
last week, i was queer tankie for interjecting on anti-chinese pink washing propaganda
fortunately, i’ve learned what to expect from the diet-reddit instance of the lemmyverse and it so bizarre that pink washing works for china, but not isreal when it comes to palestine.
As much as we might disagree about things and eventually have to kill each other when you inevitably betray the revolution and try to kill me for not being reactionary enough, I’d far prefer your world to theirs.
It wasn’t the Marxists betraying the revolution, though. There’s genuinely no need for anarchists and Marxists to kill each other, the idea that Marxists always “betray” anarchists comes from the examples of some anarchists choosing to take up arms against socialist states and being killed by the Marxists. There are numerous examples of the opposite happening, and many of anarchists joining the bolsheviks and other communist parties out of sheer practicality. The subsection of anarchists that were killed by Marxists weren’t killed “for not being reactionary enough,” but for quite literally being reactionary and choosing to attack socialist states.
Yeah you’re right I guess words don’t mean things.
Words do mean things, I don’t know what you’re getting at here.
deleted by creator
Missing the point.
deleted by creator
The point is you’ll backstab us?
Real.
deleted by creator
These propagandized individuals are emotionally manipulated to hate communists and see them as dangerous by capitalist institutions, but they are in no way, shape, or form exposed to the ideas that communists express in an impartial manner.
I’d argue that it is rare that understanding is properly conveyed through labels. People attach their own understanding to labels - and these propagandized individuals are conditioned to believe they understand communists, but in reality they are just trained to dehumanize and hate communists. They don’t understand.
So, how does this dynamic shift?
What seems to work best is being honest, consistent, and up-front about our views. We must never tire of explaining the same basic concepts. When orgs try to distance themselves from socialist countries, or labels like “communist,” they come across as dishonest when their views are exposed, backfiring.
When the conditions of capitalism and imperialism decay, more and more of the working classes become less opposed and more open to socialism and communism. Our job is to try to bring these newly radicalized people to proper orgs and proper study. I made an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list for just such a purpose.
I argue that the first steps to creating broad coherence with others involves encouraging independent thought/critical thinking, emphasizing our shared humanity and desire for a better world for everyone, and subtly working to reduce polarization (such as conditioned fear/hate/dehumanization of others) in any way possible.
I understand this is a ML space and I respect your ideology, but I have to point out that it isn’t the only socialist ideology - and it’s a fairly polarizing one at that. What could be done to help bridge the gap among socialists, even just here on the fediverse?
Critical thinking is necessary, but that’s not really something we socialists have any power over in the broad populace. It’s largely a product of education, combined with the lessons being in a given class teaches us. I try to do my best to explain that I want a better world, but that also requires being honest and forthright with me being a communist, and explaining exactly what that means and why.
As for Marxism-Leninism, I’d argue its controversy mostly stems from it being the branch with the most actual existence in the real world. Bridging the gap to other socialists, for me, involves demystifying it and trying to explain the basics of it theoretically. I try to explain what I can, where and when I can, and that has seen a good deal of success.
Critical thinking is necessary, but that’s not really something we socialists have any power over in the broad populace.
I believe that we all have the power to educate others to think for themselves and to think critically. It may not be as substantive and impactful as we’d like from a single interaction, but it’s nothing to write off. I feel that there is a lot of untapped potential for all of us to realize, especially with the use of modern technology.
The internet is an truly an amazing thing for humanity. I just have to point out the work r/LateStageCapitalism has done to educate and inform others over the years. Many people have likely been radicalized due to their work (i.e. encouraged to think for themselves and see beyond mainstream narratives) and I’m pretty sure it’s a ML space, as well.
It’s easy to see that traditional institutions are losing trust broadly and that mainstream media is falling off. The narrative seems very difficult for those currently in power to both spread and control the perception of.
I try to do my best to explain that I want a better world, but that also requires being honest and forthright with me being a communist, and explaining exactly what that means and why.
I value your example and honesty. I have witnessed many interactions between you and other people on the fediverse and I applaud your efforts and diplomacy.
As for Marxism-Leninism, I’d argue its controversy mostly stems from it being the branch with the most actual existence in the real world.
Most people here on the fediverse loosely agree on what needs to change, but most of the disagreement I feel comes from the methodology of bringing about that change. I’d say there is a time and place to discuss methodology or introduce people into specific ideology, but getting people to realize a better world is possible is something we can all work broadly work towards and I feel there is a lot of value in that sort of action.
I absolutely agree that online spaces are an excellent way to educate and radicalize. Agitprop is extremely useful, in fact I support trying to move people from corporate media to federated, FOSS media as we can’t be as easily censored here. I don’t think skills like critical thinking can be taught online without the person already trying to develop such skills, but agitprop helps them reconsider if they need to research more.
As for the fediverse, I think the big 3 positions are anarchism, liberalism, and Marxism-Leninism, at least on Lemmy. Some people sit on the outskirts of those, but ML has a supermajority among Marxists here, as an example. I think it’s best therefore to be upfront and not try to cage my views, obscure them, etc, but to try to meet people where they are at and gently push them to where they can learn more if they so choose. That’s the best way I can think of.
Thanks for engaging, I largely agree with you and really appreciate your responses. I’m glad we finally had the opportunity to talk.
No problem, thanks for the convo!
So, how does this dynamic shift?
One key point is to break conformism. People were and are brainwashed to hate “communism” on top of being brainwashed to conform to society. To hate the enemy is a recurring theme in the system, in our case it takes the form of communists but it can be anything else.
deleted by creator
Pretty much yeah
Honestly I don’t see what’s wrong with a mixed market economy
It depends on which aspect is principle, private ownership or public. All economies are “mixed,” even the DPRK has instances of private ownership in their special economic zones like Rason, but we can tell if a country is capitalist or socialist by which controls the commanding heights of industry in that country.
The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue. Capitalism itself is unsustainable.
The PRC is socialist, on the other hand. Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results. Where the Nordics are declining, the PRC is rising rapidly.
We can’t perpetuate private ownership forever. It trends towards monopoly and enshittification. Even if it’s handy at low levels of development for rapid industrialization, it quickly loses steam and then monopolist mechanics come into play, at which point public ownership is far more effective. Socialism allows us to control this development, prevent its worst excesses, and harness that growth while smoothly transitioning it into a part of the planned economy.
The Nordic countries, for example, have private ownership as principle. As a consequence, their safety nets are eroding, and they depend on imperialism to continue.
I would say their mistake was putting so many chips on the future of fossil fuels. Sweden and Norway both derive enormous amounts of their state revenue from their state-run O&G companies. Venezuela tried a similar move under Chavez back in 2002. As the cost of producing gasoline has risen and the barrel rate has stagnated, their ability to self-finance a socialist state decayed.
Though it relies heavily on market mechanics, the difference is stark when it comes to long-term planning and development, and the gradual collectivization of production and distribution in an increasingly planned fashion has produced incredible results.
I would say the most pivotal policy of the Chinese state revolves around the condition that any business must be majority owned by local people. That includes patents. That includes physical capital. That includes intellectual property and commercial redistribution rights. The Chinese people own the Chinese economy. And this insourcing of legal ownership is what has resulted in the Chinese economic miracle.
By contrast, states like India and Indonesia continue to outsource much of the legal ownership of their work products to western banks and oligarchs. Similarly, the post-Soviet Eastern Bloc dissolved all its state institutions of domestic ownership and outsourced the rent-seeking portions of their economy abroad. The result has been a steady flow of wealth out of the country and a spreading poverty at home.
While westerners often debate the finer points of socialism in theory, the socialist movement in practice has always been first and foremost anti-colonial. Commanding your own wealth, whether you’re a North Korean adherent of Juche trying to build a fully self-reliant industrial interior or a Cuban trying to do Caribbean mutualism with your island as a center of medical R&D, is at the beating heart of Actual Existing Socialism.
The Nords did do that in the 1960s/70s with energy nationalization. But they failed to expand public ownership to non-petro sectors.
That’s a good point, but it’s also important to recognize the role of private capital in the failures of the Nordic economies. Venezuela is more principled, and doesn’t depend on imperialism either, unlike the Nordics.
Venezuela’s more brown and lacks the benefit of the Cold War to play both sides against the middle. I don’t think its a matter of principles. Maduro has been more than happy to broker deals to lift sanctions and reopen international exports with capitalist states, he just hasn’t had the same opportunity to make deals that the Nordic States have had with BP, Shell, and Exxon.
Hell, the Chavezmos didn’t even try to nationalize their economy. They built everything socialist out in parallel with the spare oil cash. At least the Nords had the good sense to nationalize health care and education.
Being forced into being more correct out of circumstance has also led to more developments of actual ideological growth.
Ngl, been waiting to see more back and forths from the both of you!
We have to break through liberals’ woke mind virus someday /s
🫡
This is an incredibly well written response and I apologize in advance if my response comes across as overly cynical or perhaps dismissive.
My main concern with the complete abolition of private property is that unfortunately I don’t have enough trust in most governments to fairly distribute resources. Therefore I think a mixed market economy with a strong social welfare system is the most feasible method. Through this, we can gradually work towards socialist principles without completely alienating a large section of the populace. I don’t think a direct transition would be sustainable in the long term unfortunately.
Private ownership, directed for the purposes of profit, is inherently “unfair.” Markets have utility in finding demand at low levels of development, but in terms of accountability and fairness, directing production for the purposes of profit rather than the satisfaction of needs will always inherently trend towards conflict between workers and owners. Even the most benign “owner” is still going to be producing for profit, trying to maximize production and consumption, all in an incredibly inefficient manner in order to line their pockets.
Collectivized production can be more transparent and directly accountable. Full abolition of private property into collectivized production and distribution is a gradual process, but it’s one that marches on as development continues. Since all markets are “mixed” right now, it remains important that we identify where the power lies in the system and ensure that’s in the hands of the working classes.
deleted by creator
How do you force people to give according to their ability? What if they don’t want to?
That’s not what people mean by saying “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.” There’s no Robin Hood figure robbing people at gunpoint. What it means is that all of production and distribution is collectivized and run according to a common plan in order to satisfy everyone’s needs.
That’s a pretty rose tinted view. It is, generally speaking, “collectivized” at gunpoint.
Yes, capitalist property is hostorically siezed by the people through force, just like feudalism was ended by force. I don’t have rose tinted glasses, I know force is required, I just see it as necessary and the outcome extremely positive.
That’s a fine perspective to have. But it is the textbook definition of robbing someone at gunpoint.
They have something of value that you want, you don’t want to exchange said value for it, so you take it by force… at gunpoint.
Maybe there’s a moral justification for that. Maybe you think they don’t deserve it, or you need it more, or you think their ownership of it represents it’s own form of theft… But they’re definitely getting robbed at gunpoint.
Capitalists already steal value from workers by paying them less than the value they create. One short bout of “theft” to take back what was stolen over centuries isn’t really theft, it’s returning what’s owed.
That’s what I was getting at. Don’t soft pedal it.
“There WILL be a Robin Hood type taking shit at gunpoint”.
You’re mixing up the revolution and ensuing socialist period with the communist, fully collectivized period. “From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs” applies to the fully collectivized communist period, and doesn’t need to be “enforced at gunpoint,” it just exists without capitalists anymore. The revolution does have appropriation from capitalists, as well as the socialist period of gradually collectivizing society’s production and distribution.
Oh no! How dare the peasants rob the nobility at gun point of their rightful fiefdoms!
I’m not taking a normative position here. I’m not saying anything about morality, or good guys and bad guys. I’m offering up moral frameworks to justify those actions. My takeaway from Robin Hood wasn’t that he was the villain.
I just don’t get why you’d act like the idea is NOT to take from the ownership class at gunpoint when that’s the whole idea. None of the rest of it works unless you do that. Just say it with your whole chest. Don’t bitch out.
That’s the singular aspect I’m judging.
This question comes from the “what if everyone just wants to do nothing” to justify the existence of a system in which if you are not able to work you die.
Everyone is guaranteed a job, so if they don’t want to then they will just have less money to go around, or maybe they wouldn’t even need to if what they did is automated. However, regardless of whether they work or not, they are guaranteed food and housing. So they just get to do whatever they want. In a communist system someone livelihood is not tied to a job.
Removed by mod
“A good example is [made up bullshit]”
Wow, very compelling.
Great reply, no worries they removed my comment so you can feel safe now.
Good. Go back to Reddit
I never was on reddit.
You’d like it
Don’t you mean genocide? Lazy liberals can’t even keep their made up zenz story straight.
What happens when someone doesn’t pay taxes today?
They get elected President.
I think you are missing a lot of steps in between.
Then they can go live in a country where you can take from society and contribute nothing back.
I want to create a world where each person give according to their ability and take according to their need.
I don’t like the way that line is phrased.
This can very easily lead to overexploitation of all those who are honest and sincere, while helping those who can easily lie. How so?:-
I don’t need an air cooled room or even electricity at my house
-
I don’t need to have good food, as is proven by me surviving 3+ years overpaying for shitty food
-
I don’t need access to the Fediverse, or to be able to discuss things with people across the world
-
I am able to work 13+ hours a day
-
I am able to work in a place full of toxic fumes, until I die early because of it
-
I am able to shut up while the politicians masquerading as engineers, dump all the consequences of their wrongdoings onto me
And guess what, so can you, but those who are good at lying, can easily convince the system otherwise.
So while I would want to live a better life, eat better food and do some work for myself, I can’t, because I can, “not do it”.In the end, it’s all up to execution and there will always be those, who would like to twist the words to get their way.
Communism as an economic system isn’t some genie you have to trick into giving you stuff, or else you’ll be swindled by malicious compliance simply based on the phrase “according to need.” It’s a mode of production characterized by collectivized production and distribution according to a common plan, not a game of semantics.
But people game it nonetheless, one way or another.
As I said, it’s all about the execution. If enough people decide to stop being vigilant, the people that come to replace them will be those, actively sabotaging the system. And after that, vigilance won’t be enough.
-
deleted by creator
Class struggle is intrinsic to communism, it’s important to show the working classes that our collective enemy isn’t each other, but the capitalists and the capitalist state. We need to align the working classes against our shared class enemy, not try to ally with those who support the systems supporting our class enemies.
deleted by creator
I’m referring to communism as the movement, not as communism the mode of production. In the far future where communism is achieved, there wouldn’t be individuals propagandized against communism, the lengthy process of getting there is through socialism by which point those contradictions are worked out.
In the present day, capitalists are the enemy of the working classes. Trying to unite the working classes against them and their enablers, ie the GOP, DNC, etc, is a progressive struggle.
deleted by creator
You’re entirely confused. I live in the US Empire, of course I know people raised in capitalism. I’m not calling the working class my enemy, I’m calling for the working class to directly combat the DNC, GOP, and the entire capitalist class. I’m not conflating those who side with the capitalists despite being working class with the capitalist class, but recognizing that we need to do our best to show them who their actual enemies are and organize them.
deleted by creator
It isn’t demonizing them, but explaining that communists are hated just for wanting a better world, which is true.
I think you misunderstood what they meant, when they said “capitalists” they meant those who own the capital and such, not people who believe capitalism works and socialism doesn’t. Propagandized individuals are only capitalists if they own capital.
deleted by creator
I agree with you, but also the communist bad vs capitalist bad meme war and the corresponding comments are the only reason I’m still on the fediverse.
With no conservative presence to speak of, you get to see why no unity is possible between groups of any significant size. Leftists will continue to shatter into smaller groups and those groups will vie for dominance inside of the movement. Each group will develop purity tests to identify members.
Even amongst groups of capitalists, even amongst groups of communists, even amongst groups of lgbtq+ people and the sub groups to which they apply. Especially when those groups interact.
The human animal is amazing! The only thing most people agree on is violence is required to move society in any significant direction. That tells you everything you need to know about humans.
Removed by mod
the social Democrats enabled fascism the whole way; they literally had right wing paramilitaries kill their left wing opposition.
you clearly would rather be goose stepping
Removed by mod
“literally” lmao - spoiler they didn’t
The SPD endorsed the ‘lesser evil’ conservative candidate who went on to hand over power to Hitler.
They also killed a ton of communists, all of the above is probably why you have a soft spot for them
Removed by mod
Look up some Ernst Thalmann quotes.
feel free to provide them.
I don’t mind communists, just tankies.
Well I don’t like social democrats at all because they’re always contriving new lies and smears to divert attention from their awful pro-capitalist politics.
The social democrats were murdering the communists, while the KPD stood firmly against Hitler and the Nazis. The SPD endorsed Hindenburg, who won, and subsequently gave power to Hitler.
Anybody have any meme community recommendations that are funny and not just communist propaganda
Sorry, only fun communist memes here.
The problem is not the communist utopia, is how the means to build it will always end up in a totlitarian police state. Because we can’t have nice things.
This is just a red scare caricature of socialist societies from the perspective of capitalists. For the working classes, socialism has brought dramatic increases in freedom and democratization.
So I will admit that I am ignorant of a method of attaining Communism that isn’t at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature (and fully accept that, to a degree, Capitalism is also at the end of a gun, but typically less overt, or often directed without instead of within). The only nations I’ve seen flying the red flag have appeared highly authoritarian (and I’m not going to get drawn into a “USSR and PRC aren’t/weren’t authoritarian, and DPRK is actually a utopia!” discussion, so if that’s the direction this is going, let me know and I’ll politely see my way out).
I’ve seen in the lower comments that Socialism would be used as a gateway to Communism, but I am unclear about the transition from “everybody’s basic needs are met via taxation and distribution” to “personal property is abolished” (as I understand Communism to mean, please correct me if I’m wrong). Plenty of European countries have had (for the west), strong seemingly socialist systems, but they don’t seem to be deliberately angling toward Communism, for example.
So I’m curious what this peaceful Capitalist to Communist timeline would look like.
The transition from capitalism to socialism will nearly always be through revolution. It simply isn’t feasible to ask the ruling class to give up the very system that entitles them to their plunder, elections are carefully controlled so as to not allow genuine socialist or communist victory. Even when communists like Allende won in countries like Chile, they are couped, just like the US is attempting against Maduro. Revolution is authoritarian, it’s the forceful will of the majority against the minority. As Engels put it:
Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is. It is the act by which one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannons — by the most authoritarian means possible; and the victors, if they do not want to have fought in vain, must maintain this rule by means of the terror which their arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if the communards had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach them for not having used it enough?
Historically, revolution has unfolded the same way, as the majority enforcing its will upon the minority. The French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, Korean, etc have all been such examples. They have been enormously liberating for the working classes, and terribly authoritarian towards capitalists, landlords, fascists, colonizers, etc. I’m not going to erase that that violence happened, but I’m not going to minimize that these were and are popular movements supported by the broad majority either. None of these countries are utopias, but all are real, with real working class victories.
Socialism is a mode of production, characterized by public ownership being the principle aspect of the economy. The western European countries don’t have socialism, they have social safety nets within the boundaries of capitalism. They fund these safety nets with the spoils of imperialism, ie international plunder of the global south, not through their own labor. The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, etc are socialist, not western Europe, and moreover do not depend on imperialism for their safety nets. Western Europe is not moving onto communism because it isn’t even socialist yet, and is under the dictatorship of capitalists.
Communism is a mode of production where all of production and distribution has been collectivized and run according to a common plan. It’s stateless, classless, and moneyless. It is post-socialist in that socialism is where production and distribution are gradually collectivized, erasing the basis for class, and the basis of the state as a consequence. Personal property remains, ie you can keep your toothbrush, but production and distribution are collectivized.
If you want a good introduction to Marxist theory, I wrote an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list. Feel free to check it out!
I appreciate the write-up, thank you! I feel like a lot of this is semantic differences. I’ve always thought of socialism as any public funds used specifically to help citizens (e.g. social security, medicare, unemployment, UBI, etc) and Communism to be the public owning and running the means of production, and distributing goods thereof, and the stateless, classless, moneyless society to be the ideal utopia it aspired to (similar to Star Trek). From your comment, I see that what I call Communism, you call Socialism (which explains a lot of confusion from discussions in the past with self-described Communists I’ve known), and the nameless Star Trek post-scarcity system you would call Communism.
Do you think it is possible to slow-roll the transition peacefully, though? If, for example, instead of the government bailing out industries, they bought out industries on the cheap, slowly growing and monopolizing like Google or Amazon have? Or do you think the rich would simply block that from happening?
No problem!
To answer your question, Marxists analyze the state as an extension of a given ruling class in society. In capitalism, that means the state is under the control of the capitalists. Capitalists would never allow their sole sources of plunder be gradually taken from them unless the state had supremacy over them and was under the control of the working class.
The PRC actually kinda does what you’re talking about, but they can only do this because they implemented a socialist system following a revolution. The commanding heights of the economy are overwhelmingly publicly owned, and the state exerts strong control over the medium firms as well. As these firms develop, they become easier to fold into the public sector, and thus are absorbed or more directly controlled.
16·4 months agoThe problem here is your understanding of socialism. European countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway (etc.) have not had socialism. They have had social democracy, capitalism with social safety nets.
at the end of a rifle, and thus authoritarian by nature
Abolishing slavery was authoritarian by nature, says local liberal.
They would have preferred to continue the institution to this day, while making unconvincing noises about “incrementally stepping away from an unpaid workforce based economy” while profiting from it and calling the US the best system in the world.
Socialism, probably yeah. But here it’s communism thats displayed
All countries headed by communist parties have all been, at most, socialist. Communism is a post-socialist society devoid of classes and a state, where production and distribution is fully collectivized and oriented towards satisfying needs. All communists understand that socialism is the process necessary to build socialism, and that therefore communism has yet to be achieved while socialism has been.
Not true communism™
They were and are truly attempts at building communism. They were “true communism” in that sense. At the same time, they have yet to reach the stateless, classless, moneyless society stage where production and distribution is fully collectivized and oriented towards satisfying needs that communists call “communism” as a mode of production.
The “not true communism” argument more refers to those that incorrectly deny the USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc as validly socialist states working towards communism, not those that acknowledge them as genuine.
You literally said:
Socialism, probably yeah. But here it’s communism thats displayed
That person explained why that’s a flawed way of understanding previous socialist experiments and that the distinction you’re making doesn’t make much sense, and instead of listening and admitting you don’t know much about the topic you decided to accuse that person of a logical fallacy that doesn’t even apply.
(Looks like the comment I replied to got deleted, so mind the context was in response to “Not true communism TM”)
This is an ignorant way to respond, although I can appreciate these terms have several meanings that can be difficult to follow.
Communist parties of the 20th century knew and openly stated that what they had built was a socialist system and communism was the endgame. The goal of 20th century socialists was to gradually progress to that point that scarcity is abolished and distribution follows the principle of need. At which point they might declare communism achieved, so long as other things have happened like completing the (gradual) dissolution of the state.
It is not an attempt to distance from a bad word - we/Marxists/Communists don’t see it as a bad word.
And the 20th century movements & their states were “real communism” in that they were a genuine expression of the movement for communism, and furnish us with both positive and negative examples.
deleted by creator
No. The people making these criticisms like the totalitarian police state part. It’s the communism that pisses them off.
Like, idk what % of local and national resources went to cops/domestic intelligence operations in the USSR on its worst day, certainly too fucking much, but I bet it wasn’t half what american municipalities and fedgov spend right now.
Removed by mod
The USSR and PRC are some of the most successful socialist states in history, and have done far better than western countries in creating equitable, worker-focused societies. Not having a western “enlightenment” didn’t stop them.
Not even two comments in and it’s already full on white supremacist “barbaric hordes” talking points
Least chauvinistic liberal
Thats moving the goal post. You’re saying communism yields benefits everyone, I tell you it hasn’t , and you’re saying those places don’t count.
deleted by creator
Communists have been responsible for the greatest eradications of poverty in history, massive gains in quality of life metrics, and working class control. Communists currently run the world’s largest economy, which itself is making dramatic improvements year over year. Capitalism is a pure failure that has committed countless genocides.
1000 nazis
1000 landlords
1000 slaveowners
1000 colonialists
1000 cia agents in 2012
All dead
Meanwhile capitalism caused both world wars and causes millions of excess deaths per year. Capitalism as a Suicide Cult
I agree, I despise the communists and fascist. They placed corruption on a new level and murdered everyone who disagreed.
Corruption was far higher in pre-socialist countries, and in countries that pivoted from socialism. It wasn’t the communists that murdered everyone who disagreed, but the capitalists and imperialists.
Yep, exactly!
Wrong, I have relatives that lived in the former East Germany (DDR).
Cool, anecdotes don’t amount for much. Nazi Germany was far more corrupt and slaughtered millions of people, and modern Germany is an imperialist country that supports the genocide of Palestine more than most European countries do.
Wrong, I ate apfelstrudel once.
And that proves that corruption wasn’t higher in pre-socialist countries… How?
Using present tense imply they weren’t killed, making even your vague anecdote wrong.
It must be so easy being an anti communist: you can just say whatever vague and baseless bullshit you like and expect people to take you seriously
Vague and bullshit? My relatives that lived in the DDR will tell you to shove it.
Yup, vague and bullshit. “My uncle works at Nintendo” is not a compelling argument
Communist centrally planned economies suck. That’s how you end up with panicking factory and farm managers exaggerating their production to the state to not end up in the gulag. A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money to start a worker-owned co-op that produce things at quantities that people would actually want. Do that and keep the government democratic composed of different parties with socialist mindsets at their heart and things should be better for all without the baggage of authoritarianism.
Central planning has been remarkably effective at achieving economic growth while directing production and distribution to satisfy the needs of the many. The USSR and PRC are examples of some of the fastest growing economies in the world, and are both responsible for the largest eradications of poverty in history.
Cooperatives are cool in the context of capitalism, or early stages of socialism (they are prominent in the PRC currently). However, as they grow, the profit motive forces enshittification and predatory practices, which is why producing for the purposes of needs over profits is superior.
As for multi-party systems, it’s generally better to practice unity and avoid factionalism and splitting. Western democracy is notoriously terrible at providing a cohesive system supported by the many, while socialist democracies like the PRC are supported by over 90% of the population.
Communist centrally planned economies suck.
Oh, hey. I know this one. It’s the reason we’re not allowed to do anything about Climate Change.
Imagine what will happen if a President Elizabeth Warren bans fracking in places like Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania; in Texas alone, by some estimates, 1 million jobs would be lost. Overall, according to a Chamber of Commerce report, a full ban would cost 14 million jobs—far more than the 8 million lost in the Great Recession. And the environment itself would be somewhat of a loser in this game—natural gas has done more to reduce emissions than all the greens’ efforts.
Across the world, green-backed policies have hurt the working class far more than the affluent rich who most enthusiastically embrace them. The militant Extinction Rebellion—which the online magazine Spiked has described as “an upper-middle-class death cult”—has tried to disrupt commuters in Britain in their drive to “save the planet” but has earned more angry contempt than support from harried workers. Though cast by the media as heroic outsiders, greens have historically clustered in elite academic, nonprofit, media, and corporate sectors. The influential Limits to Growth, published in 1972 by the Club of Rome, was backed by major corporate interests, led by Fiat’s Aurelio Peccei. The authors’ long-term vision, based on the notion that the planet was running out of resources at a rapid rate, was to create “a carefully controlled balance” that would restrict growth, particularly in advanced countries.
We aren’t allowed to plan anything. We aren’t allowed to regulate anything. We aren’t allowed to prosecute anyone above a certain income level. We aren’t allowed to unionize or collectively bargin, especially if we’re public employees. We’re not even allowed to directly vote for the office of the Presidency, because that’s Populism and we all know what happens when popularly elected governments start managing their own economic future.
A better alternative could be petitioning the government for money
Ah yes. Just ask your team of highly placed lobbyists to get Free Money From The Government to privatize the profits and socialize the costs. When has that ever gone wrong?
So, we just ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under communism?
I mean we are ignoring the tens of millions of deaths under capitalism, so why not?
Compared to the shitload of capitalism only this year?
Communists acknowledge that excess deaths have occured under socialist systems governed by communist parties. It’s reality, after all. However, we also acknowledge that these excess deaths pale in comparison to the systemic murders and genocides propogated by capitalism, as well as the fact that socialist systems have been responsible for doubling life expectancy in many cases such as Russia and China, along with huge material gains in quality of life.
It’s true that excess deaths occured, but it’s even more true that socialism has been responsible for preventing far more deaths than it has ever caused. Deaths due to unintentional famines were common in early socialism, and systemically ended by socialists when they used to be prevalent under previous semi-feudal conditions. Communists have consistently been the ones most responsible for uplifting living standards and metrics in the last century.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Socialist states have had excesses, but they pale in comparison to the killings systemic to capitalism, and moreover socialist states have been responsible for the largest uplifting in living standards in history.
deleted by creator
All socialist states will have to use authority, though, in order to disempower capitalists and fascists, and protect the gains of the revolution. Capitalists will see this as authoritarian, but it’s also liberating for the working classes. States don’t just wield power for the sake of it, they are thoroughly connected to class struggle and as such class analysis needs to be at the core of understanding authority.
deleted by creator
Okay, sure, but we aren’t talking about capitalism but existing/formerly existing socialist states like the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. That doesn’t apply to those.
deleted by creator
