• Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not interested in any political system where I can’t criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family’s safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages…

      • Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist, I’m against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.

        But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of “leaders” who have no inherent right to do so in the name of “society” or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don’t fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.

              • Akasazh@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.

                All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).

                The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it’s obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you’re debating.

                  • Akasazh@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Doesn’t north Korea’s dynastic autocratic rule appear slightly monarchistic to you? Autocratic would be a better word than monarchistic in general.

                    But there isn’t a single ‘communist’ state where the prolitariat do the ruling