• CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    There were no actual efforts to establish communism in eastern europe. Only autocratic regimes backed by soviet russia.

    • InternationalBastard@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.

      When people proclaim to be something doesn’t make it true.

    • dub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no too learned in the subject but what would “true” communism even look like on the large scale like a country? Would it even be feasible?

      • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True communism in a country is impossible.

        You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.

        A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

        To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.

        That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.

        • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.

          There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).

          There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.

          That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.

          It’s… complicated.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.

            It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.

              different approaches carry a different name

              Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …

              So, which one of those is the true communism?

              Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.

              • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.

                Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.

                He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory

                • Funkwonker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one “true” communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what “true” communism even is.

                • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)

                  But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                  Aha, is that so?

                  I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well

                  Yeah, you could say that!

                  So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.

                  And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔

                  Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?

                  Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.

            Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.

            Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.

            • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anarchist checking in, so, y’know, bias and all that. But I’d say it’s just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I’m an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We’ve had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn’t function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it’s scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it’s scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can’t have a fully anarchist society until it’s global.

              Which all just means that I’m an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.

      • IDriveWhileTired@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.

      • kilinrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.

        Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).

      • cryball@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t critizise something that has never been tried! Also we already got a comment critizising capitalism as a counter argument :D

    • lieuwex@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.

      If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.

    • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh here we go with “That wasn’t real communism!” as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.

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

        I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.

            • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.

              The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.

              Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.

              The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.

          • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, because that’s not the topic of discussion. Not here to entertain projection and whataboutism as a defense mechanism of hurt feelings.

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

              Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.

              A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”

              Just IMHO.

    • Polydextrous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There were no actual efforts to establish communism

      Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I literally pissed a slow day at work away pointing out the many, many flaws in the USSR to a lemming whose primary response was LALALALA I CAN’t HEAR YOU, GO READ THIS BOOK

      There is definitely a cadre of extremely disillusioned and extremely ill informed users who think the USSR was legitimate sunshine and candy communism

    • ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.

      Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.

        And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.

        This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s funny because I do easy work for a great paycheck yet we have a harder time hiring than in my previous job which didn’t pay as well and was harder.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m in my mid thirties, my current job (first time for this employer) is the best paid and offers the best conditions and is the easiest one I’ve ever worked and they need to give us a retention bonus so people don’t leave for another department.

            I’ll leave it at that so I don’t dox myself.

            Edit: Don’t know why people are downvoting? It’s an office job that requires a high-school diploma, I’ve worked physical jobs before that paid less and where we weren’t short staffed as we are in my current job. Happy?

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.

          Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.

          The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism economy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.)

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Crony capitalism is just capitalism. The agorist free market capitalism is just starting the whole thing over under the mistaken belief that it’ll end up different.

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

                I know you’re trying to use sarcasm, but communist countries don’t generally repeat the mistakes of other communist countries. They famously at least try to share knowledge openly with each other.

          • Tvkan@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            According to https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.

            The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.

            That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.

  • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US political spectrum is leaning so far to the right. A US left is a France center or moderate right. So what Americans consider communism is merely what French consider moderate leftist.

    • I’m French living in the US
    • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it’s basically “If you keep calling all of the stuff I like ‘communism’, then I guess that makes me a communist.”

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Hell even Obama was right wing to many countries.

      …this was before we all dove headfirst into facism as a trauma response

    • gxgx55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but the meme refers to the communities on the internet that unironically go full tankie, praising Stalin and Mao.

      Worst of all, tankies tend to inflitrate sane leftist spaces and slowly transform them. I’ve witnessed it many times, and that just makes me think that Marxists-Leninists are just the most dominant form of leftism on the internet, which is horrible.

        • gxgx55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t, but in this thread’s we see a simultaneous claim of “We aren’t tankies, of course Stalin and Mao are not good examples of communists” and “Eastern european people were better off under the USSR”. Of course, I don’t think the same people are making both claims, but just the fact that some people can claim the latter and not get collectively shunned is indicative of a huge problem in leftist spaces, it’s disgusting frankly. Tankies are significant force, at least partially representing leftism to everyone else.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think a lot of people give Mao a bad wrap.

        For what it’s worth, Stalin is a monster, and the state of China right now is repugnant.

        Mao didn’t intentionally lead tens of millions of people to starve in the same way Stalin did. Mao was trying to revolutionise agriculture (The Great Leap Forward) but didn’t understand the ecological and logistic principles required.

        I’m convinced his intentions were good, he just wasn’t educated enough to implement something like this.

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

      Also a terrible person. The world’s big enough for there to be many terrible people in it. You need to create a very robust bureaucracy to keep corruption out and maintaining one is a very unglamorous job. Revolutionaries rarely have that skill set.

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    More like: People on the internet being critical of the current system, Americans on the internet saying “COMMUNISM BAD” as if USSR style state capitalism is the only other possible option.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      How else would it work? You need some power structure that actively forbids a free market and private ownership. And that power will sooner or later be abused.

      You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.

      • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The core tenant of every form of Communism, regardless of if said party or organisation follows it, is as follows: that the means of production should belong to the workers who work them. If the means of production are not in the hands of the workers, then they are not communist. If they are in the hands of a CEO or a corporation, you have private capitalism or market capitalis like the US. If you put them in the hands of a state, they are in the state, you get state capitalism ala China or the USSR.

        The power structure of the state protects an upper class, be it billionaires or “the party”. If you abolish the state, but not capitalism, capitalism will rebuild the state (which is why Anarcho capitalism fails every time) and vice versa (which is what happens with Marxist Leninism).

        For a Communist or communalist society to work it needs to be Anarchist or classically Libertarian (aka like Bakunin or Kropotkin proposed, not “money first”). It needs to have a horizontal and democratic decision making process that is decentralised, federated, and involves all the members of the community or communities effected. If there is to be a state, it should be to facilitate the colaboration of communities in a bottom up manner. These are the features of almost every single effective or successful Anarchist or Socialist movements from Rojava or the Zapatistas, as well as non-political movements like the Open Source Movement, railway preservatiion movement, and even the early RNLI.

        The power structure thant would forbid a free market would be the collective weight of everyone else rather than a state that, sooner or later, becomes the jackboot of capital.

        • Num10ck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          how would such an anarchist/liberal stateless communist organization defend itself from invasion?

          • melek@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            So the first thing to consider is that anarchy is a very diverse field of thought, so there isn’t one answer to questions about it.

            An anarchist society faced with violence from outsiders could:

            • Form militias on a voluntary basis. Transitive hierarchical structure can be voluntary and compatible with anarchism (think of a volunteer fire department). Remember, the key is such efforts are not coercive in an anarchist community, they are voluntary and collaborative so they require the community having the will to organize for its own defense.
            • Employ decentralized resistance / guerilla warfare. This can be extremely effective.
            • If allies and neighbors are watching, engage in nonviolent resistance. This is difficult and requires getting the message out to other groups and the attacker’s constituency to pressure them.
            • Diplomacy. Anarchists generally don’t support representationalism and prefer consensus, but communities can choose to empower diplomats and make deals with others when the time calls for it. This could be with other anarchist communities, other states to ask for aid, or even with the attacker. Building solidarity with like minded and compassionate communities can endanger the attacking group’s reputation and resources, and can be a powerful deterrent to an aggressor.

            Remember that an attacker wants something. If they aren’t getting what they want out of a conflict, or if the costs are greater than what is gained, they are likely to stop pursuing it. Anarchist communities likely have different values, and resource extraction is the most likely reason to attack such a community; making it extremely difficult or impossible to do that is something an organized community can achieve.

            Think about Vietnam; while Vietnam was and is not anarchist or non-hierarchical, a decentralized military strategy with deep support from the population led to victory over a technologically superior invader. For an example closer to anarchy, you can read up on the Zapatistas, who employed decentralized resistance to the Mexican government and won.

            Last, I want to add that the above is more or less true of any community or country that is attacked by a larger force, whether they are communist, or capitalist, or stateless. Economic and social structure are not going to protect any group from being attacked, and doesn’t guarantee victory no matter how organized the defense may be.

        • MostlyBirds@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The system you describe cannot exist. An anarchist or libertarian state in the real world can neither regulate nor defend itself from other states. It’s a fantasy that would collapse immediately upon implementation in all possible real world circumstances.

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

        You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.

        Those are the anarchists (usually, definitions get fuzzy)

        Most communists recognize the need for a transition state, we call that Socialism.

        This isn’t a utopia we’re pitching, it’s hard work, and there will always be controversy, and people will have to work, we will just work less, and we will strive toward working even less over time.

        And that power will sooner or later be abused

        There’s LOTS of evidence that, right now, under capitalism, that abuse is veeeeery bad. We can learn the lessons of previous socialist attempts, but capitalism? That’s shown to be corrupt and beyond repair.

        As well, right now, under capitalism, your politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists. Power is already being abused beyond control. Under a socialist system, it would be illegal to donate to politicians. Political campaigns would run within a short, standardized window of time, with equal funding, and commercials would be illegal, it would just be a platform of ideas and opinions. The people would vote for the person who best represents them, normal people.

        This exist in Cuba, right now. It’s SO much harder to take power from a system that actually represents regular citizens, instead of a system that is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

  • sweet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    boomers destroyed the earth beyond all belief, poisoned everyone with sketchy ass chemicals, destroyed the economy more than once (twice in my life), most of us will NEVER own a home because the housed your grand pappy paid 100k for is now worth 2.5 million and average yearly wage is less than 30,000… among a million other things. The greed and entitlement is baffling, mix that in with delusional red scare propaganda that a ton of people fall for and yall mfers spending time defending all this insane shit.

    we effectively live in a corporate government where what the people want doesn’t matter alongside the million other ways we are lied to and exploited. Billionaires and trillionaires run the world and they keep pushing for “the next thing” like the metaverse, blockchain and going mars while most of us cant even afford to fucking eat. Suck it. I guarantee that you cant even define communism and point out how it differs from social policies even on a very basic fundamental level. Fuck dude

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And Soviet communism was… better how? Just as (if not more) destructive to the environment, and their “billionaires” were called “party members” instead. What an improvement! Now they can jail/deport political dissenters without even having to pretend to hold a fair trial.

      Now of course this is where communists usually go No True Scotsman, but consider for just ONE MOMENT that the concept of wealth inequality is not, in fact, unique to capitalism. Any economic system is vulnerable to greed. And that the countries with arguably the strongest social welfare, highest human development, etc. are… the Nordics. Hardly capitalist, hardly hellholes.

      This is why people say communists are angsty teenagers. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, but all of what you just pointed to is, in fact, not unique to capitalism. That’s just Americana. Pointing to the U.S. as a reason why “capitalism bad” is just as silly as pointing to N.K. as a reason why “communism bad”.
      Typical American with a viewpoint so narrow you can’t see further than your nose. I’ve had lots of interesting discussions with French communists, and I agree with some of their viewpoints, but to start with you have to realize that capitalism is not the root of ALL evil, only of some specific systemic issues, which are only a small part of what’s wrong with the US.

  • EnnuinerDog@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How dare teenagers not become Neoliberals while growing up in a late capitalist hellscape where climate change can’t be taken seriously because it isn’t a profitable problem to solve.

    • HRDS_654@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn’t mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.

      • Spinnyl@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Communism is an economic fairy tale, not policy.
        It would be nice if it were possible but with the current state of the world, it is not.

        Social democracy is a reasonable compromise.

        • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is true Communism even possible if it’s being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn’t matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.

          • tara@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s about incentives. Worker oppression in Monarchy requires a bad King, in Feudalism bad lords, in Capitalism bad shareholders, and in Socialism self-hating workers. If you shared your workplace, would you push to remove your rights? Or to screw over your customers? And then argue for that against everyone else you share power with? The incentives are plainly better in a worker owned economy.

            • Rheios@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Respectfully, I can easily see a shared workplace at least encouraging screwing over customers. To me its an even more intense instance of the shareholder problem. Shareholders are obsessed with the money they’re getting back with no real work but the risk inherent in the bet they made. The workers are working, for a livelihood, and of course will want to improve their quality of life. They’re even more motivated to do so. And some of the best ways to do that, in the “make monkey brain happy” obvious short-term are the same policies the shareholders are already pushing. Will there be some pushback? Definitely, but you only have to sell a bunch of people on short-term easy money. And the lottery isn’t popular because people are smart about this stuff.

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I guess the main issue is with the government having absolute control over the economy. I would not want the most prominent politicians in my country having control of the economy. No matter how much I dislike capitalism.
        Just put the people who work for a company in charge of the company. Have them elect who calls the shots. Also have them directly benefit from the company doing well. I guess that is like end-stage unions or smth. All power to the workers. Should be doable within capitalism, maybe, probably.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “All power to the workers” is a communist principle, though. It’s the main political slogan of the communist manifest by Marx and Engels.

        • pitninja@lemmy.pit.ninja
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, any economic system that concentrates power into one group is bad, whether it’s corporate monopolies or a single government (which ends up kind of like the ultimate monopoly in a communist state). Communists IMHO have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and how incentives can be exploited for the benefit of everyone. We need a form of capitalism that promotes competition (because profit is possibly the most powerful motivator of innovation), but also keeps companies in check with strong regulations, strong workers unions, and profits taxed appropriately. It’s also important to recognize that some basic needs should be met by the government like public education, public utilities, correctional systems, national defense, welfare, healthcare, etc. But even with public services, there should be room for private companies to innovate and provide premium alternatives to keep the government in check (with exceptions obviously, we don’t want private military and private prisons for example).

      • Yendor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You can’t have a communist economic policy without being authoritarian. It’s human nature - once money is removed as a motivator, society breaks down unless you motivate people some other way (not being sent to the gulag).

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

        Don’t forget the times dictators try to enforce communism onto nature. Mao’s Great Leap Forward killed tens of millions.

          • BobGnarley@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The introduction of mandatory agricultural collectivization and outlawing of private farming led by the Chinese Communist Party wasnt communist? That is an interesting take.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eeehhhh there are plenty of Tankies around here that unironically simp for Stalin and Mao, (never Pol Pot for some reason though), and those regimes were frought with corruption and are often called “red fascism,” so I wouldn’t be so quick to say “we” here. “You” maybe, “me” definitely, but “we” is too strong of a word when there are plenty of people doing just that on lemmygrad right now, and lemmy.ml being a marxist instance some there as well (though the refugees mostly drowned them out now).

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

        Mao and Stalin (though to a noticably lesser extent) actually had insightful things to say though. Mao’s essays on epistemology are genuinely really fantastic. And that can be true alongside all of the show trials and sparrow murder which was genuinely really fucking bad.

        Pol Pot meanwhile admitted to never having really ever read Marx, and his faction of the Communist Party of Cambodia was more concerned about Khmer ultranationalism and anti-Vietmamese sentiment that had been brewing over the course of French colonialism, then with anything to do with building socialism.

        So, I guess what I’m saying is that we ought to take a nuanced, grounded view of historic socialisms that accounts for their success and failures, and doesn’t fall into either mindless exoneration of awful shit, nor reflexively screeching “TANKIE TANKIE!!!” Every time anything vaguely socialist oriented comes up in discussion.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stalin botched Marxism into an authoritarian system that suited him. It was successful and he sponsored other authoritarians that liked his ideas. Those are all about the concentration of power and have fuck all to do with Marxs ideas.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Mao and Stalin (though to a noticably lesser extent) actually had insightful things to say though. Mao’s essays on epistemology are genuinely really fantastic.

          And Hitler was a Vegetarian. Does that mean vegitarians should simp for Hitler because “he had at least one good idea?” I should hope not! Furthermore if they do, even if they only simped for his vegetarianism and not his “political career,” it is gonna come off a bit different than they intend to most people.

          By all means, keep those subs dedicated to defending all those atrocities and simping for despots, but people likely won’t be fooled into thinking they only care about epistemology while they say nothing happened in Tienanman Square without a shred of irony.

          LOL I see I struck a nerve. Keep downvoting, the salt seasons my post.

          • SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And Hitler was a Vegetarian. Does that mean vegitarians should simp for Hitler because “he had at least one good idea?” I should hope not! Furthermore if they do, even if they only simped for his vegetarianism and not his “political career,” it is gonna come off a bit different than they intend to most people.

            Hitler being a vegetarian had nothing to do with his fascism. Mao’s Epistemology was built on Stalin’s synthesizing of Marxism-Leninism from the works of Lenin and the experiences of the Russian Civil War, etc.

            There’s actual political philosophy here that we can think through, debate, apply, update, and revise. Mistakes or outright malicious behavior can be learned from or discarded as necessary, because Marxism has within it mechanisms for self criticism and recitification.

            You can ascribe to that philosophy or not, I don’t care. But this kind of kneejerk reaction isn’t in line with the way these discussions actually happen within Marxism.

            Do dogmatic Marxists who blindly defend bad shit exist? Yes. But they’re commonly denounced and criticized for their garbage analysis.

            You’re taking a small subset of, mostly online weirdos, and stawmanning my position, and an entire branch of political philosophy.

            By all means, keep those subs dedicated to defending all those atrocities and simping for despots, but people likely won’t be fooled into thinking they only care about epistemology while they say nothing happened in Tienanman Square without a shred of irony

            Buddy, I’m not trying to pull wool over your eyes or be sneaky. I literally said to not do this shit. I’m trying to get people to engage with these topics with nuance and critical thinking skills. Not blindly screech uniformed praise or condemnation based on kneejerk, emotional, preconceptions.

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

              It’s difficult for people. When Mao/Lenin/Stalin or even Marx are discussed they all go to the “takie” slur. Their brains turn off and all they can think about is their propaganda.

              Everyone is so quick to write off the atrocities of the USA and Europe. Japanese internment camps, destruction of democracies and creation of fascists dictatorships. The funding of terrorists (before and after we called them terrorists), the destruction of the environment in pursuit of profits, child labor and slave labor also in pursuit of profits.

              But damn, because communists took businesses away from their oppressors, they are just as bad as fascists. /Shrugs

              People gotta read more books.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok so the analogy isn’t the best, but the point still stands that simply because they did a good, that doesn’t mean that simping for them and ignoring the bad is a good idea, nor does it mean that those simping for “the guy” will be taken as simping only for “the good” and not also “the bad” he did. Those subs/instances I mention and the people that populate them are literal genocide denialists, they aren’t posting on “c/epistemology” and they aren’t talking specifically about epistemology, they are denying the holodomor, the armenian genocide, and the tienanman square massacre, among other things they support like China’s current Uyghur genocide because “America did an Iraq, and while we said that was bad, China is good for doing the same thing, because America did the bad” which is among the dumbest circular logic available to be found on lemmygrad.

              Yes yes, but the people I’m complaining about aren’t doing that, they’re simply doomposting about late stage capitalism and denying genocides, simping for their preferred cults of personality. In essence to use my bad analogy, it’d be like if an instance of nazis doomposted about communism and denied the holocaust, but it was fine because they could sometimes also discuss his vegetarianism if they so chose, they just happen to not do that very often.

              In “marxism,” or on lemmygrad, “internet marxism?” If you suggest these things are different, maybe, but if you’re suggesting that I’m wrong about the specific people I’m talking about, I’ll have to disagree having seen it for myself.

              Do dogmatic Marxists who blindly defend bad shit exist? Yes. But they’re commonly denounced and criticized for their garbage analysis.

              Again, on lemmygrad or somewhere else? Because I’m complaining about the Tankies on lemmygrad specifically and all who think as they do, and they certainly do not denounce and criticize that garbage analasys, rather they encourage and fester it.

              You’re taking a small subset of, mostly online weirdos, and stawmanning my position, and an entire branch of political philosophy.

              Again, do you mean a small subset of lemmygrad, or do you mean marxists as a whole? In any case, I’m actually inclined to believe the subset isn’t quite as small as you believe, or would like others to believe. I run into those people all the time and rarely your camp, suggesting either they are more numerous, or they are more loud, in which case I’d suggest your camp attempt to be louder to drown those crazies out, because they’re doing a pretty good job at convincing people they’re the bigger camp.

              That’s great that you’re trying to do that, but the people on lemmygrad still exist, and hand waving my complaints about them away as simply nuance saying they’re just discussing epistemology is patently false. You’re basically just saying “not all communists” here, like “not all men.” Well, as the “not all men” camp was told, “it’s enough that it’s a problem, and you need to teach men communists not to rape deny genocides.”

            • Catweazle@social.vivaldi.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @SpookyBogMonster @ArcaneSlime, I’m a left commonsensist in my ideology, and I only can say, that any system which lacks of the sovereignty of the people, based only on a leader or a small elite, be it from the right or the left, necessarily becomes a fascist and corrupt dictatorship. It is irrelevant if it is called Stalin or the fat boy of North Korea on the left or banks and multinationals in capitalism that make the rules, the result for the people is the same. Fascism

  • Flinch@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Redditors try not to froth and post anticommunism for 120 seconds challenge (impossible!!!)

  • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Communism isn’t the issue the same way Capitalism isn’t the issue, the issue is rich people abusing working class and poor people. Removing democracy from these systems just make them absolutely horrid in the long run. Also China isn’t communist it’s state capitalist dictatorship.

  • BurnedDonutHole@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fuck Communism and fuck unchecked capitalism. People deserve basic human rights. Free heallthcare, education, insurance and liveable basic income is a must. It doesn’t make your society full of freeloaders instead it gives all the people a chance to become what they want in the society. I hope that people can see this basic difference and we can work towards for a better future as humanity instead of whatever country title.

    • geissi@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck Communism and fuck unchecked capitalism

      Interesting how capitalism needs the qualifier ‘unchecked’ while apparently communism has only one possible form.

      • Gork@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But is it Communism’s Final Form? I think Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism is the best form.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The very concept of a free loader best represents the ruling class of capitalists interests. The ruling class does not contribute in any way to society, and instead steal billions of dollars of labor value from the working class and use it in ways that benefit only themselves. Allowing people to survive even without providing a capital benefit to the ruling class wouldn’t enable free loading, it would mean society actually does what its supposed to and looks out for the wellbeing of all people.

      You shouldn’t have to work to exist. You shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be a part of a community. Food and shelter are human rights. Water is a human right. Healthcare and education are human rights.

      Toppling capitalism and wage slavery is the only way to a just world. Socialism doesn’t inherently belong to the soviet union. And the soviet union did not categorically fail at every single thing they did. Don’t mistake my words for endorsement of stalinism or of any of the many horrible things they did. But there were other aspects of their society and governance that were actually pretty great. Its not all black and all white. Life isn’t that simple in reality. A flat condemnation of communism is rooted in propaganda more than it is in reality.

      And I’m an anarchist, before you accuse me of being a tankie. I do not advocate state communism. But to say “fuck communism” and be done with it just shows your bias towards socialism.

      • MostlyBirds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Communism and socialism are completely different things. At least learn what they are before spouting nonsense about them

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

          Not sure how you are defining them, but they are, and aren’t, the same. Socialism is a transitionary government to communism. It isnt the ‘exact’ same thing, but when a communist party is in charge, they create socialism, with goals to move towards communism.

          Socialism is also a lot of things, but all those things are considered communist.

          Democratic socialism is what Cuba has for example. Socialism run by a democracy.

          Socialist democracy is what Sweden has, currently. It’s still capitalist, so is not communist at all, but regulates capitalism better than America and most of Europe does. They are slowly loosing the fight to Nazis though. Like literal Nazis, they call themselves nazis, That’s not a joke.

      • two_wheel2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        you shouldn’t have to work to exist, you shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be part of a community

        While I largely agree with your points (or at least some of the core of them) I think you’d have to flesh this out. For anything alive to exist, work needs to be done. And for anyone to be in a community people must mutually agree on membership. The “freeloader” problem isn’t a problem of ability where individuals “not useful” (and that gives me chills as much as it probably does you) to society can’t work, though it’s often framed that way to varying extents from both sides. I feel that it’s a problem where a large enough segment of the population would not be productive at what they could be doing simply because they don’t have to.

        Our brains are literally wired to seek out more for less energy.

        Again, I agree with most of your points, but these two could probably use a bit more explanation (at least to me)

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          We live in a time of unprecedented efficiency and automation. We over produce how much we require massively. Optimized, no not every human has to work. Work should be voluntary and without exploitation. Food water and shelter should be shared resources that no one is deprived of. We have the abundance to do this, we only don’t because of the capitalist economic political and social systems which promote wage slavery (the concept that you don’t deserve to live if you’re not capable of producing labor value for capitalists).

          Everyone should be encouraged to work and contribute. But no one should face death for being unable to do so. All work should be voluntary and people should be encouraged to work for their benefit, their family’s benefit, and their community’s benefit. Universal basic income should exist (in our society today) so that if you’re being exploited you don’t face either further exploitation or literally death. Supporting yourself and your family and society should be done because you believe in those things and you see the direct benefits of your contributions. The problem is capitalism has indoctrinated people to believe that work is not a mechanism of direct survival. It is a mechanism for attaining capital value, which is traded for direct survival.

          It goes beyond that even, they indoctrinate us to believe that:

          1. Capitalism is natural and can be found in nature.

          2. Human beings are inherently uncooperative and hate each other. Plenty of human beings are uncooperative, but capitalism literally makes people uncooperative by continually reinforcing the hopelessness of helping others. How can you cooperate when your own survival solely depends on you being willing to give your labor value to capitalists in exchange for indirect survival?

          3. The homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, all those who are unable or unwilling to give up their labor value to capitalists - they’re all the picture of sin and vice and they are to be derided and hated for their inability to provide labor value to capitalists. That they are worthless, and should be treated like wild animals.

          4. On that note, they also indoctrinate us to believe that homelessness is natural. That its a personal failing.

          When examined separately you can see that they pre-construct people’s opinions to cooperation among the labor force. “Don’t be a failure by not giving us your labor value.” “Don’t help those who we deem failures.” “Being a failure, by our definition, is a personal choice and not a product of exploitation.” “Our system is natural, the natural world has capitalist-type hierarchies. So it is unchallengable.”

          Bear in mind that politically I am an anarchist. In my eyes no society has ever done nearly enough to create real equality. And I fundamentally disagree with all social hierarchies.

    • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuck centralized power. By definition true communism shouldnt have any of that, and anyone considering the systems equal is butt chugging propaganda

  • Tvkan@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    western teenagers praising capitalism

    the children sewing their clothes, harvesting their food, mining their metals, …

  • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    To be honest, I’ve been using Lemmy for a week now, and I’m kind of concerned with all the communism stuff around here.

  • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Top: Filthy rich capitalists and Boomers that lick up their cool aid

    Bottom: Global South that produces both their wealth

    Blocking you I don’t want another reddit experience