You're viewing a single thread.
So the tens of millions of people that died under communism were all landlords? Wow, what are the chances of that
What is with the tens of millions dying under capitalism
In fairness, everyone dies in every political system. Yes I'm fun at parties
No they die under F R E E D O M.
Freedom to die on the street baby
That's different, because of reasons. When someone dies within a communist system that is communism's fault. When someone dies in a capitalist system, that's their own fault for not tugging on those bootstraps.
Is that what you saw or are you just parroting 1950s propaganda?
No alot of them wete Nazis.
The "black book of communism" includes german soldiers who died during WW2, it includes people who might have had 4 kids but only had 2, it includes victims of the US in vietnam.
Communism is a bit different than what those “communist” countries had. If anything it was socialism, but that still doesn’t fit completely. These “communist” countries are just one-party states in which the government controls the economy. The idea of putting the working class in power is useless if you create a government that can make decisions against the opinions of the working class. Socialist one-party state ≠ Communist democracy
“Communism but not like that. Or that. Or that. Or….”
Communism is a society without social classes, money, or a state.
Feel free to name one so-called communist country that implemented that.The eastern block was as communist as North Korea is democratic.
They did however socialize ownership of factories etc, so they did have an authoritarian form of socialism.“Not like that either… or that.”
Name a real-world implementation of communism that either isn't Marxist–Lenninist, or one that is and has moved beyond the "dictatorship of the proletariat" stage. I'll be waiting.
Exactly.
There isn’t one, because it doesn’t work.
ew a revisionist, it was REAL socialism led by REAL communists and it was based as fuck and the one that are still around are real and they are based. also theres no such thing a one party socialist state that is a myth at most u could say past and present socialist countries has a dominant political party but by no means was there only one, and other parties were and are allowed in those countries.
Yeah. You don't get to revise away anything uncomfortable. USSR and China were socialist experiments that succeeded in raising quality of life and transforming rural countries into industrial, scientific states. If people wanna talk about what went wrong, great. Pretending they "don't count" just puppets capitalist apologia and doesn't help
From a theoretical point, they don't count as communist. They entirely dropped the all-important aspect of giving power to the working class.
Both the USSR and China, in their self-described "communist" periods, were ruled with absolute power and directed by a head of state. The USSR collapsed, and modern China is about as communist as North Korea is democratic.
i was a little worried there comrade but im glad to see u have a good unstanding of just how great the PRC is, after all what could be more the democratic than the glorious DPRK.
Ew an ML. It's hardly revisionist history to say that Maoist China and Stalinist/Leninist USSR were authoritarian states
I really can’t tell if this is /s. Could you please clarify
Do you have a real-world example of a successful communist state? Because you may not like it, but those "communist" countries are humanities best attempts at enacting communism and they resulted in millions of people dying.
@Gigan
There are none! There's a reason pure communism is called a utopia. Because it is! While it may work for a small community of like-minded individuals, is just not scalable. The more people there are the more difference of opinion there is.
@RmDebArc_5Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.
@Cowbee
Resolved how? Did I somehow miss a memo?There's a reason that all past attempts at the establishment of communist states have failed. Lenin, Mao, et al, had grand ideas steeped in Marxist teachings. All of them ended up in an authoritarian state. Cuba, North Korea, China, USSR. All failed because of the human factor.
Contradiction refers to the remaining vestiges from Capitalism, ie a State, Class, and Money. I suggest reading up on Historical Materialism and Dialectics.
Secondly, failing because of "the human factor" is a purely idealistic outlook and not a materialist analysis, you're arguing off of vibes.
@Cowbee that's funny, you calling me idealist, and you proposing classless, stateless society.
Hilarious.
Yes, you are quite literally an idealist by citing "the Human Factor" as a necessary reason for issues faced by AES countries.
Idealism proposes the idea of unchanging Human characteristics, Materialism proposes the idea that environments shape ideas. The former is undoubdtedly unscientific, while the latter is scientific.
Fighting for a goal is not what I am referring to as Idealism.
Millions less than the previous government forms, like Feudalism. Famines disappeared quickly and industrialization allowed for life expectancy to double in the USSR and Maoist China, despite issues like Civil War, World Wars, and so forth.
Did a lot go wrong? Absolutely. Were they massive improvements? Also yes.
Communism only works on paper because it assumes that the people in power are going to just happily share everything equally. Humans don't work that way, we're selfish, greedy, and will hurt others to get ahead. There is no difference between a capitalist and communist leader. They both live better, eat better, make more money. There's no equality there
Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.
It's the sociopaths who seek power that don't work that way. The biggest success of capitalism is that the sociopaths have normalized their behavior and cast kindness as a flaw or disorder.
Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.
And also opportunists that will take the opportunity to loot and steal, then happily abandon anyone behind them still in the disaster.
If your baseline assumption is reliant on people doing… well, much if anything outside of being self serving it will break down fast.
That is exactly the sociopathic propaganda I mentioned, that simply isn't backed by evidence, but casts people with empathy as ignorant.
It’s not propaganda to acknowledge shitty people exist and will try to take advantage of any situation, it’s just basic reality when you’re out from behind a keyboard.
It's not propaganda to acknowledge they exist.
It's propaganda to normalize sociopathic behavior as the appropriate response to sociopathy.
That's an astonishingly immaterial, idealistic analysis.
Communism assumes people work in their best interests, and because ideas come from material environments and not from some idea of "spirit," Humans are more cooperative in cooperative systems and competitive in competitive systems.
A Communist leader is one that is democratically accountable and production is owned by the state, therefore all "profits" are reinvested into the economy for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few. Corruption is possible, yes, but so too is legislating protections against Corruption. In Capitalism, this corruption is required to function.
No. But that doesn’t mean something like a socialist democracy couldn’t be achieved. Socialism isn’t bound to have a certain type of government and if we get rid of capitalism I would still like to have a say in what happens next
AES countries were and are legitimate attempts at building Communism. People have died in these countries, but at the same time many saw drastic increases in quality of life and industrialization. Dismissing AES is usually a sign of not understanding Marxism.
@Cowbee
I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren't even successful at achieving communism.What "core principles of Communism" were abandoned?
Why do you believe a country can achieve a global, worker owned republic without class, money, or a state while Capitalist states exist?
@Cowbee
Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.-
There was not a new "beaurocratic class." Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a "new class" but an extension of the workers.
-
The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesn't mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.
-
Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.
I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.
- There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.
How do you believe Marx envisaged administration?
@Cowbee
While it's true that in a socialist society, bureaucrats could theoretically be accountable to the rest of the workers, the reality in many socialist states, including the Soviet Union, was that bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the rest of the working class which resulted in a hierarchical society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism. Additionally,...@Cowbee
...the concentration of power in the hands of bureaucrats often led to abuses and corruption, undermining the democratic ideals of socialism. Thus, while bureaucrats may theoretically be part of the working class, the way power was exercised in many socialist states did not align with the egalitarian goals of socialism.
@Cowbee
2. The concept of the "withering away of the state" in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.It necessitates global Socialism to be achieved, as Capitalism stands against Socialism. The military cannot be done away with as long as there is Capitalism. Moving into Comminism without completing the negation of the negation, in dialectical-speak, is a mechanical transition that leaves the Socialist state open to invasion and plundering.
@Cowbee
3. While it may be true that the Soviet government provided safety nets and controlled wages, the persistence of wage labor and currency contradicted the goal of achieving a moneyless and classless society under socialism. The gradual elimination of money and wage labor was indeed a complex process, but the Soviet Union did not achieve this goal.The persistance of money and wages did not stand against the progress of Socialism. Again, Capitalist profit was eliminated, the state directed the products of labor, not Capitalists. Marx was not an Anarchist, he did not believe money could be done away with immediately. The USSR attempted to do away with Money, but were not yet developed enough to handle it.
@Cowbee
4. In the Marxist sense, statelessness does entail the absence of a government as a tool of class oppression. However, it does not mean the absence of any form of governance. The Soviet state, with its centralized authority and control, did not align with the vision of statelessness as envisaged by Marx.
-
@Cowbee
Achieving a global, worker-owned republic without class, money, or a state while capitalist states exist presents significant challenges. It would require widespread international cooperation, grassroots movements, and a shift in global consciousness toward socialist ideals. International solidarity, mass education and organization, and an immediate introduction of a communist economic model would make it much easier.Yes, so I am not sure why you are criticizing AES countries for leading the effort but not achieving them yet. This is anti-dialectical reasoning, which goes directly against the philosophical aspects of Marxism.