Yeah, I remember how my grandfather and everyone he knew fought tooth and nails just to stop America from dismantling communism in eastern Europe!
Oh, wait, he didn’t. Everyone celebrated when it fell.
Because no one who experienced it thought hmm is briliant, yeh nah, socialist policies are needed but not any form of totalitarian communism
Most people actually preferred Socialism over modern Capitalism in post-Soviet states. Socialism works better than Capitalism, and was more democratic.
Find me an old person anywhere that isn’t nostalgic for their youth.
Considering that once Capitalism was restored wealth inequality skyrocketed, 7 million people died, and previously relied on safety nets were destroyed or sold for parts to Capitalists, I don’t think it’s something that can be attributed to simple youthful nostalgia.
And then 7 million people died, and most people feel they were better off under Socialism and wished it continued.
It’s easy to say if one has never lived under communism rule. Stalinism caused the Holodomor in Ukraine and starved to death 2-7 million people. Mass deportations of people in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and many other countries in Eastern Europe. Federated platforms? Forget about it. Everything is controlled by the state. Do you want to say something that the government doesn’t like? You can, but then you are off in a concentration camp (gulag) or sent to Siberia. Almost every family has a history of one of its family members being sent or imprisoned because they said something bad about communists / had a farm and could feed themselves with the products from their farm or land. On the contrary I would recommend to read the Animal Farm by George Orwell. - “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
The famine in the 30s was caused by natural causes and spiraled to greater heights because of collectivization, but this ended famines.
The Soviet system was similar to federated platforms. It was government controlled, in a somewhat federated manner. Read Soviet Democracy.
The GULAG administration was a prison system, not concentration camps. Read Russian Justice.
Orwell was a fan of Hitler, hated workers, and in Animal Farm specifically his biggest critique was that Russian Workers are stupid and destined to be taken advantage of. Read On Orwell and A Critical Read of Animal Farm.
Oh yes, my friend, I knew someone would repeat me this soviet narrative. I urge you to read about Mr. Jones or watch a film about these events. Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis. They also claimed it was just for labor, you know. I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
No, now you’re doing holocaust minimization by supporting Double Genocide Theory. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
I urge you to read about Mr. Jones
There have been millions of Mr. Joneses so you’ll need to be more specific. In the meantime,
- Domenico Losurdo, 2008, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
- Grover Furr, 2014, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False
.
Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis.
I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
Those aren’t arguments, they’re vague, empty rhetoric.
“Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power — till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter — I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.”
liked hitler is not exactly true, he just found him charismatic, I think saying he liked him is rather misleading
Given that he was wildly aristocratic in demeanor, looked down on workers, and even wrote an entire book that spends time after time talking about how stupid Russian workers are and thus are destined to be taken advantage of by bad actors, I don’t think saying “like” is wrong, here. The Anarchists he fought alongside in Spain even questioned why he wasn’t fighting for the fascists. There’s also the issue of Orwell’s antisemitism to contend with.
Orwell says he would have killed Hitler had he the chance, but still clearly found him appealing.
In this case, I think saying he liked Hitler is actually weakening your argument, even if it’s completely true, it’s clear from the reading that he wished he could personally kill hitler, but found him charismatic, and is saying that charisma is what his success was found on.
All of what you said there might be true, and all of that makes your case that he was a bad man better, but doesn’t make the case that he liked him better. At the end of the day, you don’t like someone you wish you could have killed. Saying he liked hitler when the reading makes it clear he wished he could kill him makes your other claims more dubious, not stronger, you should probably refrain from that in the future if your goal is to convince people.
All of those things may be true bad things about orwell, but none of them means he was clearly a fan of hitler.
Furthermore, I think antagonizing orwell, even if he was bad is just bad praxis for convincing people to be anti-capitalist.
I suppose it’s more of a different stance on the use of the word “fan.” Saying you would feel no personal animosity for Hitler while killing him goes quite a lot beyond simply finding him charismatic. I can say Trump can be funny, but I hold a great deal of animosity towards him despite that.
Just my 2 cents.
can communism survive in a single country was always a big question.
I think the original idea was to try a world revolution but that didn’t work out.
Us is the main holdout. Russia is basically socialist, EU is basically socialist. China is communist.
Us is the only serious holdout
All communist states were/are dictatorships (Soviet Union, China, North Korea).
What the society really needs are strong democracies with a free, well regalemented market and strong social welfare (mixed economy). This is already happening in northern europe with great succes.
This isn’t true, actually. AES states are democratic, you should read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
Northern European countries aren’t role models, either. They depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets, and are dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie, hence why their safety nets are declining.
so by the definition of true communism, they arent adhering to the marxist definition of communism, its merely a show of democracy controlled by an oligarchy with a single party system in the case of russia.
i dont think any monetary economic system can work long term in balance with human needs and the need of the planet to sustain us. its just not possible when there is an imaginary incentive in the form of value in 1’s and 0’s or paper, that alters our actions based on accumulation of wealth for the individual and their “tribe”, and whatever form that may take. family, friends, companies, shareholders, class, nation etc etc.
unfortunately its hard to draw a line between automated post monetary, post scarcity, post political, post religion, and a science/ fact/resource based economy/utopia, similar to the venus project, and a technofascist authoritarian state, which is seemingly where we are heading now with how AI is being used by the powers that be.
human error and our limited willingness to understand the needs of the many in the future, vs the needs of the few now will always be a buffer that keeps us behind in terms of societaly advancement in the form of full economic freedom and change, for the betterment of man, and the planet, in harmony.
the only way to advance past that is either to manipulate the genome of humans, or to merge with machines and AI so that our decisions are based on scientific merit and logic towards a value of united progress, over individual success. essentially we would have to sacrifice what makes us human, so humanity could survive in an alternate form. or become some sort of digital hive mind. or some other weird and horrifying scifi trope that i hope i never live long enough to see.
im not advocating for this, im just saying this is where the world is likely moving if we dont blow ourselves up first or wipe the slate in some way.
feel free to disagree, i love having these kinds of discussions.
They are adhering to Marxism, I am curious why you say they aren’t, and if you are getting that from Marx, or second-hand interpretations of Marx. I don’t want to get into the rest of your comment until we get past the part where you think there’s such thing as a “true communism” that, say, the PRC is not genuinely working towards.
Modern Russia’s elite and government are about as Marxist as a billionaire cosplaying as a factory worker for a photo op. Marxism is about the abolition of class hierarchies, worker control of production, and a stateless, moneyless society. Putin’s Russia? It’s an oligarch-run, state-capitalist machine where wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few, and the state operates more like a mafia than a workers’ paradise.
Instead of “dictatorship of the proletariat,” they’ve got a dictatorship of the oil tycoons and ex-KGB buddies. Instead of “seizing the means of production,” they privatized them into the hands of a few ultra-rich insiders. It’s not Marxism—it’s authoritarian crony capitalism wrapped in Soviet nostalgia.
as for the PRC, thats simply a similar version of state controlled capitalism, not “traditional communism” its just rebranding. nothing like what marx describes in action, unless this would be considered the necessary evil portion of the grand master plan by the powers that be, to honour a dead author and create a post scarcity communist utopia.well… i find that hard to believe, but if the people under it believe in it, i guess thats enough for them to keep the gravy train on its tracks a bit longer.
We weren’t talking about the Russian Federation, but Soviet Union. The RF is Capitalist, sure, but the USSR was absolutely Socialist.
As for the PRC, it *is" Socialist, and does follow what Marx described. Are you getting this from actually reading Marx, or second-hand?
For starters, Marx described the economy of a post-revolutionary state to nationalize the large trusts and gradually fold the smaller firms once they get large enough. This is mentioned many times, from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, to my favorite concise explanation in Engels’ Principles of Communism:
Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
The PRC mirrors this. The vast majority of large firks are under public control, and the vast majority of the private sector is made up of self-employed people or small firms. If the CPC attempted to forcibly acquire them without letting them develop, they would be committing an error by Marxist standards, unless they truly had good reason.
Key industries like finance and steel are publicly owned as well, if you control the rubber factory you control the rubber ball factory without needing to own it directly.
What would you have the PRC do instead?
Someone who’s so ignorant of geopolitics that they don’t know about the fall of the USSR should not be so arrogant
i really shouldnt have to explain to you the difference between marxism, marxist leninism, and stallinism, and how those differentiate, and how the bastardisation of marxism lead to a different form of “communism” and the beaurocratic centralisation of power in the USSR, and how that corruption lead to the fall of the USSR. the very fact that they did not operate under the pure principals of marxism, but used it as a cover to centralise power, using it as propaganda for the people to feel united, drives my point further.
the USSR did not operate off of pure marxism. please read into this before making swathing statements about my “ignorance”
marx wanted the means of control, controlled by the proletariate, not the state. which is what happened in the USSR. so, not marxist communism, just a bastardised alternative to convince the people to hand over power to the state.
however we are talking about modern russia. not the USSR.
Again, we were talking about the Soviet Union. You misunderstood and pivoted to the Russian Federation without telling anyone, but if you go up the comment chain the original comment was about the Soviet Union. Anyways…
Marxism - The overarching family of Marxist tendencies chategorized by Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Scientific Socialism, and Marx’s Law of Value.
Leninism - The term for the specific strategic and tactical advancements of Lenin upon Marxism, such as analysis of Imperialism, the Vanguard party platform, national liberation in the Global South, and much more.
Marxism-Leninism - The subset of Marxism that accepts Lenin’s contributions and upholds AES. By far the most common form of Marxism.
Stalinism - usually a reference to support for Socialism in One Country over Permanent Revolution.
Either way, you’re entirely wrong about what led the USSR to dissolve, and the nature of its economic model.
The USSR was Socialist, because Public Ownership was primary in the economy. The Proletariat controlled the Means of Production through the public sector. Marx was not an advocate for decentralization, but centralization over time as large industry formed and could and must be planned centrally.
The USSR dissolved for numerous reasons adding up, some of the larger reasons were the liberal economic reforms of Gorbachev and later Yeltsin, as well as needing to spend a much larger portion of their GDP on the millitary to keep parity with the US.
Your central argument is genuinely that the Workers in the Soviet Union, despite being taught Marxism in school, were too stupid to realize that they were not living in a Marxian system. This is wrong on both fronts, the Soviet citizens had a much better understanding of Socialism as people living in it, and the system itself did follow Marxist principles.
The State is the only method for which all of property can be held in public. “Statelessness” refers to the stage in upper-Communism where all property is publicly owned, and the elements that reinforce class society like armies and private property rights no longer have any reason to exist. Government will continue to exist even in Communism, as will social workers, yet this would be considered “stateless” by Marx as the oppressive elements of government whither away by virtue of having no reason to exist.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
Given your demonstrable lack of knowledge about the basics, you shouldn’t be trying to opine on that kind of thing.
well, we are talking about modern russia, mainly. however the USSR operated under a hybrid system of marxist-leninism, with some very key changes. it was dubbed “Stalinism” a system which did not reflect in action, the ideals of marx, nor lenin, and was a system built for beaurocratic and state ownership of the means of production, not the proletariate as defined by marx or lenin. again, this is a form of state capitalism. not marxism in action or by defintion, nor leninism.
it still operated under a form of state capitalism under stalin, and through changes in leadership after stalin, had some ideological back and forth changes between stalinism and more liberal marxist leninist policies during the kruschev thaw, which then, under new leadership after kruschev, fell back on neo stalinist policies, before being dismantled by gorbachev during his resignation in 1991, thus ending the USSR, or the soviet union.
during this entire period, and through into today, it is more accurate to define russia and the USSR as a state capitalist society with power being held by beaurocrats and oligarchs. they were never able to create a marxist or leninist, socialist, communist society by the original definition, merely the ruse of one. the proletariate never ended up owning the means of production at any stage.
please refrain from using insults during discourse, this isnt reddit. this is a place of learned doctors and scholars! lol.
We were talking about the Soviet Union, that’s the one the original commenter said wasn’t democratic and that’s the one I responded to. You disagreed with my comment, but without actually pivoting the conversation to the RF at all, just assuming we were talking about the RF and not the USSR.
Either way, the Soviet Union was Socialist. It was not a divergence from Marxism or Marxism-Leninism, the foundations of the economy were in public ownership of the Means of Production. “Stalinism” generally refers to advocacy for Socialism in One Country as opposed to Permanent Revolution, not the entire economic foundations of the Soviet Union.
The Proletariat owned the Means of Production through the Public Ownership model. This is Marxism not from Stalin, not from Lenin, but Marx and Engels themselves. Marx was not an Anarchist that wanted decentralization, rather, Marx advocated for full centralization of the Means of Production.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, as you certainly have a confused understanding of Historical Materialism and Scientific Socialism.
Those aren’t/weren’t communist so per the post their leaders worked for the CIA
All communist states that survived early CIA coup plots were/are dictatorships
Not true, really, they tend to be some of the more democratic states for the Working Class.
lemmy.ml moment
What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?
In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).
I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.
It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn’t hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn’t enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).
Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.
I know I’m an idealist, but I’d like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).
We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.
We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.
We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.
There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.
Communism isn’t bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.
I’m not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)
Any one party political system can either fail or be maintained through violent oppression. People need to have a say in who represents them and what their values are.
A more sustainable solution than soviet style communism is to have proportional representation and work on instilling socialist virtues such as kindness, social responsibility, and fairness in the population. over time, the people in government will start to reflect those values.
If it’s not the CIA it will be a coup from some smart ass****e high ranked in the military/party.
Humans are to greedy to live in a socialist peaceful world.
That doesn’t make any sense, though, greed has a larger impact on Capitalist systems as its the main mover and driver.
Yes, exactly! For all the noxious effects of greed, it drives competition which drives evolution.
Even if a utopian communist/anarchist society were able to stabilize on its own, it would inevitably be overcome at some point in the future by a more competitive society that had martially evolved beyond the utopia’s understanding.
Whether its right or wrong has no bearing on the entropy of it.
Marxists are anything but utopian, and I think you’ve bought into the just-so stories of bourgeois ideologues like von Mises, Hayek, Rothbart, and Greenspan.
To the contrary, competition eliminates its own existence, eventually all markets will coalesce into large trusts that can be publicly owned and planned.
Well, competition has been going pretty strong for the last four billion years; time will tell.
Not exactly, it’s increasingly disappearing in favor of monopoly.
The health of the current system is undenianly declining, absolutely. But competition is eternal and non-optional, so systems that seek to eliminate it are intrinsically doomed.
Competition can’t be eternal, otherwise monopoly wouldn’t exist.
Have you considered a world where power is based in social welfare instead of capital?
Would be nice, but it just never going to happen.
We’ve been there already.
So no, you haven’t.
Literally any socialistic country turned in a shitty dictatorship. Do you still need further investigations?
The biggest example is China. They opened to capitalism in order to let the greedy comrades survive in their power and what you have know? Chinese are free to earn tons of money, but not to say what they think.
It’s the biggest paradox of the world.
In the biggest socialist country capitalism is tollerated more then free speech.
Everything you know about these “shitty dictatorships” has been told to you by a media and a government that has a direct monetary (and by extension, power) interest in maintaining and legitimizing the current system you live under. They are free to lie to you as long as they make it believable enough. Not to mention how the ruling class would have profited immensely from assimilating the resources and labor of these “shitty dictatorships”. When that fails, they will profit by generating war and weapons contracts.
This is accomplished by lying and manipulating half truths in order to call them “shitty dictatorships” that need to be dealt with through military action (and destabilization via propaganda and collective punishment to make conditions favorable to accepting capitalism as their way of life). They must justify their actions to the American people in order to generate the least friction within their system, but when it does generate friction, they do it anyways, because their power ultimately lies in capital and not in the people’s opinion of them. This is often when things turn to fascism, but let’s be honest, it’s not “not fascism” just because it’s done in the light of polite society.
This is unique to imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, which “shitty dictatorships” like China do not practice. China takes advantage of western capitalist’s greed to fund their socialist project, but they are not themselves capitalist. They are in what they define as their first stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which has already lifted millions out of abject poverty. The presence of a market-based economy does not make a system capitalist, just as the presence of social welfare does not make a system socialist. Being openly vigilant (which likely means far less than you imagine it does) to intentionally subversive western propaganda does not mean they can’t be democratic in far more meaningful ways, without the burden of constantly re-hashing information that has already been proven faulty.
We are the last people that should be telling China how to run their country and media. Because, in contrast,
Americans are, of course, the most thoroughly and passively indoctrinated people on earth. they know next to nothing as a rule about their own history, or the histories of other nations, or the histories of the various social movements that have risen and fallen in the past, and they certainly know nothing of the complexities and contradictions comprised within words like ‘socialism’ and ‘capitalism.’
Chiefly, what they have been trained not to know or even suspect is that, in many ways, they enjoy far fewer freedoms, and suffer under a more intrusive centralized state, than do the citizens of countries with more vigorous social-democratic institutions.
This is is at once the most comic and most tragic aspect of the excitable alarm that talk of social democracy or democratic socialism can elicit on these shores.
An enormous number of Americans have been persuaded to believe that they are freer in the abstract than, say, Germans or Danes precisely because they possess far fewer freedoms in the concrete.
They are far more vulnerable to medical and financial crisis, far more likely to receive inadequate health coverage, far more prone too irreparable insolvency, far more unprotected against predatory creditors, far more subject to income inequality, and so forth, while effectively paying more in tax (when one figures in federal, state, local and sales taxes, and then compounds those by all the expenditures that in this country, as almost nowhere else, their taxes do not cover).
One might think that a people who once rebelled against the mightiest empire on earth on the principle of no taxation without representation would not meekly accept taxation without adequate government services.
But we accept what we have become used to, I suppose. Even so, one has to ask, what state apparatus in the “free” world could be more powerful and tyrannical than the one that taxes its citizens while providing no substantial civic benefits in return, solely in order to enrich a piratically overinflated military-industrial complex and to ease the tax burdens of the immensely wealthy.
Also *waves generally at the current state of things in the US*
Worker owned cooperatives would go a fair way to seizing the means of production.
Kinda. They are nicer to work at, but aren’t what Marx is talking about, as they still retain classes due non-coop people having different property relations to those in the coop.
I wonder if anyone ever said “Democracy would never work, just look at what happened to Athens”.
Socialism and communism are relatively new ideas. While I don’t believe communism is an effective form of government, it’s still kind of silly to write it off so quickly.
Luckily the US is dismantling the CIA so that’s good news for communism!!!
I am a communist by heart, but I know that social market economy is the way to go, at least for now.
Kinda? China has a Socialist Market Economy, and this is building up the productive forces dramatically, but not every country will work the same way or have the same path.
I want that Star Trek future, please!
whoops, brazil. we had a budding workers movement that was absolutely crushed by the traitorous brazilian military, in the name of the US of course.
that hasnt stopped syndicalism to take root here and improve our lives a bit, but the communist organizations responsible were all crushed and we see our rights being taken away ever since because no one is left to defend them. we are scrambling rn to see if we can stop fascism.
This is a good example of one of things people hate about lemmy.
Communism fan boying, implicit denial of genocides committed by communist powers, out in the open on the front page.
Death to America
