Do the people saying that communism is bad think capitalism is good?
Some do
you knoe there isn’t only 2 choices right? Thay can both have good and bad sides. Maybe try some mix of it fisrt
Dialectical Materialism. Right now, they are. You either work towards communism or capitalism moves towards consolidation of capital. Those are your choices.
Imma be real, chief, I don’t think DiaMat is going to work on Non-marxists, even if I agree.
also there are more than 1 proposed way to achieve communism, even though i tend to favor socialism.
Imma be honest chief, pulling out DiaMat with non-Marxists is going to fall on deaf ears. I agree, but something softer might work easier.
there’s capitalism and its variants (the current system), and there is anti-capitalism in various flavours. (socdem, ML, anarchism)
you can choose your favorite flavour, but its either moving towards capitalism, or moving away from it.
I would like a third pill.
Feudalism?
Traditionally the “Third Way/Position” is fascism. So, ultimately, kinda, but with race science.
fascism isn’t a third way. It’s liberalism in crisis
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.
fascism is just extreme capitalism
Ok fine, 4th pill then. The nerve them ! Nazi think they own the idea of rejecting the current order and its ditect opposition.
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.
its take it or leave it i guess.
At least we’ve still got cyanide pill when red or blue doesn’t cut it.
Yes. It’s just those are the two mentioned, and I’m slightly communist. So there’s some bias.
We did that already. We could do it again.
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.
No
deleted by creator
Can’t we just nuke people we don’t like….like my neighbour or Elon Musk?
As usual the best answer lies somewhere between the two extremes
we tried that before though, improving things temporarily, but it will never be permanent until we extinguish the owner class.
The trick is not falling for the lie that social democracy is meeting socialism in the middle.
Social Democracy is just liberalism with enlightened self interest. Is it better than other capitalists models?
Sure. That doesn’t make it the end goal.
you put it in better words than i did.
Yes, we must have a middle ground between having parasites and not having parasites. Thank you enlightened centrist.
I think capitalism is good, but not perfect. Communism is bad.
Why do you think that way?
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.
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.
You brought up open source and linux, but how many are maintainers vs. freeloaders?
If communism could be upheld by a select few and enjoyed endlessly by everyone… Utopia.
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.
Humans are not inherently greedy.
Nope.
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.
Capitalism rewarding sociopaths is the outlier
@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.
@Taleya Will traue this to start the discussion again, maybe thanks. 🙏
See “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution” by Kropotkin
Lol, lmao even. Capitalism rewards greed it doesn’t mitigate it. You’ve got it twisted.
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.
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.
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.
Let’s concede the point: humans are inherently greedy and selfish.
But greed and selfishness are bad, right? We want less greed and selfishness in the world.
Given these two assumptions—humans are greedy, greed is bad—shouldn’t we architect society to explicitly disincentivize greed?
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.
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
Thank you for answering. The problem with capitalism is it’s got out of control.
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.
Delaware gave corporations the right to vote…
@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.
@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.
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.
shock therapy was not a socialist, but a capitalist plan after the ussr ended.
Yea, no shit, nothing to do with what I said though.
shock therapy happened upon the collapse of the ussr
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 think we are talking about different things here
Yea and I was commenting on how things were in a country under the occupation of the USSR. So both temporally and geographiclly unrelated.
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.
I was literally talking about the time before the USSR collapsed also it was applied to Russia, not to the countries it occupied.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
Wow they sure got a lot of landlords
People are starving every damn day under Capitalism and there is no famine going on. This isn’t the dunk you think it is.
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
Communism would work if it weren’t for people trying to co-opt it for power
As long as there exists a way to gain power over others, someone will do it. That’s just the reality of our nature, unfortunately.
No it isnt.
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
Depends on Mode of Production. Roman society was still a class driven society.
“No, Wrong”
Thank you Donald, very cool!
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.
That’s such a wide eyed idealistic view of the world. Let’s all come together and sing kumbaya.
All people throughout history have always tried to just help each other out, right?
“Nuh-uh!”
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?
China has over 3 million starving homeless people.
https://havanatimes.org/cuba/child-beggars-a-growing-problem-in-holguin-cuba/ Cuba has a huge child starvation problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66924300 Laos has a huge poverty and homeless problem.
Vietnam has over 23k homeless street children https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/05/saving-hanoi-street-children-vietnam-from-abuse-hunger-and-self-destruction
So to answer your question, every current communist country has a huge poverty and homeless problem.
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.
Lol, you extreme communists are hilarious.
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.
Those famines happened every 10 years before communism, they happened ONCE during in each location and not again since.
In the meantime capitalism had that death total due to forced starvation every 7 years on average.
Famines happen regardless of political system.
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.
And here’s the list of 3.3 million landlords killed by communism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Theoretically, anyway
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.
Stalin: “Why not both?”
He did adopt a tougher stance, because of the looming world war. However, Stalin wasnt nearly as much of a tyrant the west paints him to be. Not to the honest working class.
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.
That’s just regular authoritarian statism, tribalism and human herd behaviour.
Anyone unfortunate enough to have lived through high school knows how dangerous the little human empires are.
Yeha, I could also point far right authoritarian governments and say that capitalism is bad… But that would be stupid.
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.
Slaves are e human capital. So by definition weren’t plantations capitalist?
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.
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 had a minimum sentence of 5 years of forced labor for being gay. Being gay is also apparently wrongthink.
Between 1907 and 1937, over 30 U.S. states passed compulsory sterilization.
Woops, wrong thread.
>whataboutism
I was using the same implied argument he was, bud
That’s been an issue in constant capitalist countries, too. That’s not an issue of communism and is an unrelated complaint.
Yea, I know, I’m not defending capitalism. I’m saying every attempt at communism has been fucking horrible for not just landlords and capital owners.
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.
The complete lack of self awareness is truly astonishing
Removed by mod
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.
Advocating for Communism is not Advocating for the USSR.
You say that but there are numerous people in the comments defending both the USSR and Stalin.
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.
Let’s see: Communism A system of government where the country’s wealth is concentrated into a small, ruling class of billionaires, who use the media they own to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money.
Oh wait. that’s capitalism. I don’t know how I got those two systems confused.
I’m sure they were able to pick themselves up by the bootstraps right?
Nice…
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.
Removed by mod
Yeah continue ww1, so fucking based
When people complaining about your side latch onto factions that they know nothing about it is kinda really funny
deleted by creator
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.
Meanwhile, the only criticism you launch at the Mensheviks is… They wanted to keep fighting the imperial powers?
Bwahahahaha yeah that’s why Tsarist and Kerensky Russia was aligned with France and England
Bwahahahaha
At some point you gotta just come to the conclusion that you haven’t read enough on this topic and pick up some books instead of speaking garbage.
Also “the only criticism” that’s the fucking big criticism that got them overthrown, which you’d fucking know if you studied history.
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?
Bwahahahahahaha
Eh, as you mentioned, it was deeply unpopular.
But yes. It would have.
Why would you think changing history would not change history?
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.
Weird, I was under the impression that the purges happened after Lenin died. Can ghosts lead a purge?
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror#Industrial_workers
Do also take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election
And this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Party
Selected quotes:
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.
How about you read anything of what I’ve sent you and you realize that I’m not talking about the Mensheviks
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.
Removed by mod
Bruh i see people starving in the streets of America every damn day.
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.
You could do that with any country that’s had famines and disasters.
United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Ireland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
Removed by mod
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?
Nobody starves under capitalism /s
Removed by mod
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.
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 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
Read ‘State and Revolution’ by Lenin. It’s quite short and not that bad a read. Addresses exactly what you are talking about.
I thought I was still on Lemmy.world and was wondering why this thread was going so hard on theory. Carry on.
Upvote for fartweasel.
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.
Without regard for the political content (which I agree with), this is a very bad and unfunny meme.
I don’t disagree but this meme is ass lmao
memes are usually all ass
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.
Which is probably why they often confuse Socialism with Social Democracy.
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.
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!
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?
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.
So the tens of millions of people that died under communism were all landlords? Wow, what are the chances of that
What is with the tens of millions dying under capitalism
In fairness, everyone dies in every political system. Yes I’m fun at parties
No they die under F R E E D O M.
Freedom to die on the street baby
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.
Is that what you saw or are you just parroting 1950s propaganda?
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
“Communism but not like that. Or that. Or that. Or….”
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.“Not like that either… or that.”
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.
Exactly.
There isn’t one, because it doesn’t work.
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.
deleted by creator
I really can’t tell if this is /s. Could you please clarify
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.
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.
@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_5Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.
@Cowbee
Resolved how? Did I somehow miss a memo?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.
@Cowbee that’s funny, you calling me idealist, and you proposing classless, stateless society.
Hilarious.
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.
Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.
And also opportunists that will take the opportunity to loot and steal, then happily abandon anyone behind them still in the disaster.
If your baseline assumption is reliant on people doing… well, much if anything outside of being self serving it will break down fast.
That is exactly the sociopathic propaganda I mentioned, that simply isn’t backed by evidence, but casts people with empathy as ignorant.
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
No alot of them wete Nazis.
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.
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.What “core principles of Communism” were abandoned?
Why do you believe a country can achieve a global, worker owned republic without class, money, or a state while Capitalist states exist?
@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.-
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
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.
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’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.
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.
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?
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.
Neither the USSR or China fulfilled Dialectical Materialism yet either. That’s a prerequisite for the ideals of communism.
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.
I’m not defending capitalism in that comment. Communist is also more than an economic model.
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.
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.
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 suggest reading Marx.
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.
In what sense is this semantics or bad faith? I meant this sincerely.
fine ill humor ur bad faith argument.
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.
Basically, I think you’re doing this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/average_familiarity_2x.png
it WAS real communism
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.
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.
first anyone who would call themselves a pinko isnt a communist, ur probably a rad lib
Gatekeep harder
Just… no. Coming from an anarchist communist
