- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
- cross-posted to:
- memes@lemmygrad.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Workers of the world unite!
Edit: not that I’m into that sort of thing… I’ve taken history classes, I’ve read about, I’ve watched documentaries, I understand that communism is not to be desired or
Communism is to be desired, though it’s understandable that you’d be opposed if your major exposure is through western education and western documentaries.
Haha
Yeah communism isn’t any better so the both can fuck off
Communism is absolutely better 👍
yeah all of the mates I have from Latvia, Poland, Ukraine, Hungary… they really lived through it and tell me is shit so I’m just going to go ahead and believe those who have lived under it rather than a random dude on the internet who’s just a lumpen
The vast majority of post-Soviet citizens believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.
Don’t know why you’re calling me a lumpen, tbh.
Removed by mod
Ah, the good 'ol “facts and data don’t matter, actually, because I said so” special. The fact that Socialism was better than Capitalism is today isn’t just in some studies, but repeated over and over again. It’s thoroughly well-documented.
Further, you have no real proof of anything. Why on Earth would the sharp increase in poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, crime, wealth inequality, homelessness, and starvation occur because of the previously stable system? The dissolution of the USSR was driven instead by numerous complex factors:
-
Liberal reforms that gave the Bourgeoisie power over key industries
-
A firm dedication to planning by hand even as the economy grew more complex and computers too slow to be adapted to the planning mechanisms
-
A huge portion of resources were spent on maintaining millitary parity with the US in order to dissuade US invasion
-
80% of the combat done in World War II was on the Eastern Front, and 20 million Soviets lost their lives, with no real economic support from the West in rebuilding despite taking the largest cost of war
-
An enclosed, heavily sanctioned economy relied on internal resource gathering, closed off from the world market
Countries like the PRC have taken to heart what happened in the USSR. As an example, the PRC shifted to a more classically Marxist economy, focusing on public ownership of only the large firms and key industries, and relying on markets to develop out of private ownership. This keeps them in touch with the global economy without giving the bourgeoisie control of key industries, and thus the bourgeoisie has no power over the economy or the state.
Further yet, your casual queerphobia, assertion that I am both somehow lumpen and bourgeois, the incorrect claim that I’m a college student, and more baseless insults really just adds to the fact that you have no counter to the hard data, so you resort to personal attacks.
The fact is, under Socialism, necessities were taken care of, and luxuries were shorter in supply. Luxuries increased for those who could afford them after Capitalism came, while many of those who couldn’t enjoyed their new “freedom” starving to death. You insult them.
Unsurprisingly, you defend the fascist Bukele here. Entirely unsurprising, the anticommunism from you suddenly clicks when we see what makes you cheer.
-
Sad to say, but humans are the root of evil. Atrocities have been done in the name of all sorts of things, but it’s always humans carrying it out.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml i feel like you’re dancing around the issue of authoritarian abuse and centralization of power.
you can’t seriously defend the DPRK Il regime as being good for the workers.
do you think it’s good that Xi has made himself president for life? Is that the mark of a functioning democratic system of the people?
my biggest issue with Leftists is their seeming need to defend totalitarians instead of just writing them off and admitting, “ok, yeah, they suck, but communism could still work!”
It’s not really about defending the bad stuff. It’s about trying to get some more nuance on perhaps the most propagandized topic of the 20th century.
There are all sorts of interesting discussions to have about the various failings of these countries amongst other leftists who have the relevant context as a starting point for a reasonable discussion.
But when talking to libs/conservatives, they’re coming into the conversation with an already extremely warped, un-nuanced perspective. “These are all evil dictatorships that were also super incompetent and that shows why communism is bad.”
Some of the stuff they base this on is either exaggerated or just straight up wrong. Some of it is completely valid criticism, but without the context to understand the issue or provide a useful critique.
How do you have any meaningful conversation about these countries without acknowledging things like:
- All of these countries were previously agrarian, un-democratic societies.
- Most of them were formerly exploited colonies who had to fight fairly brutal wars for their independence.
- Even after leaving, the imperialists kept messing with them through economic and diplomatic isolation and espionage including supporting right wing coups.
We don’t have the counterfactual where we see what these countries would have turned out like without these challenges, but it’s an incomplete analysis to not at least consider the ways which they impacted both their economic success and their political developments. Maybe you could argue there were better ways to respond to all of this, but hindsight is 20-20.
No actual leftists want to have to argue “authoritarianism was good actually.” But it’s hard for the conversation not to appear that way when we’re arguing with people who’ve been conditioned to think they’re somehow as bad or worse than Nazis and ending the thought there.
communism isn’t bad, it just doesn’t scale up. after awhile someone wants everyone else’s stuff. When enough people gather together then anonymity becomes a thing. then those people start taking everyone else’s stuff and we end up with Russia.
Great comment! You hit the nail on the head, proper conversation requires a factual starting point, and just conceding to conservatives and other anticommunists off the bat just so they are less hostile to you just hands them free rhetorical wins on that very basis.
you need to know who you are talking to. you’re already assuming a position of hostility and conflict at base.
I did not call you a conservative, if that’s what you’re implying. My point aligns with theirs, in that demonization of AES is usually a result of accepting bourgeois narratives uncritically. To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves), we need to dispell the thick layers of Red Scare fearmongering first.
Dispelling myths and finding the hard truth is where we can look at what went right and what went wrong, not just agreeing that Socialism is when everyone starves or other such nonsense. Why support an ideology that truly is as bad in practice as anticommunists say it is, after all?
no, i’m not implying that. it would also be fine if you did. depends on the day and topic.
“To be truly critical in an honest manner (which Marxists are, all the time, among ourselves)”
lol XD it’s saying shit like this that tells me you’re not connected to reality.
even so, i hear what you’re saying. my feedback, as an outsider, is you’re overcompensating. imo, it would go a long way to start with presenting a fair view of a couple pros and cons, acknowledging the concern of your interlocutor. what i see instead, almost universally, is kneejerk defense of AES and leaders, and just telling non-Leftists that they’re wrong, stupid, propagandized.
You’ll find me critical of AES all the time, but I won’t cede ground for what I know to be false just for optics. I take a rigorous approach to rhetoric, I cede no ground that isn’t rooted in fact, and I do my best to encourage accurate critique. When you see me defending AES and seemingly not critiquing them as much, it’s usually in the context of someone repeating the same bog-standard state department anticommunist mythos that have existed for decades, and thus should be treated as such.
Go ahead and ask me for critiques of AES, and I can do so, but I won’t lie about them either.
that’s good. don’t lie, have standards.
i wouldn’t say it’s for “optics,” but you have to know your interlocutor. if the person is nervous about legitimate abuses in AES, acknowledging failures openly is more honest and real than dancing about to make excuses for them. owning failings is human, and would be a distinct departure from capitalism, that’s for sure.
but i get you, capitalism as a system is unironically constantly using force to extinguish you. i get it. it’s not an enviable position.
i hear what you’re saying.
what i’m saying is, for myself, and at least a few “Left-curious” neo/libs/progs, we don’t want to trade one shit tyranny for another. and it’s obvious, documented history of some pretty glaring failures in AES. if you like, think of ppl like us as trauma victims. it’s probably true anyway.
it can go a long way to offer the olive branch and reassurance that, yes, you don’t want to just “red-wash” that all away, or that you aren’t just enamoured with Red aesthetic and lip-service while being YET ANOTHER group of mastubatory elitists who will trample the out-group-du-jour given the opportunity.
The problem typically arises from the necessity for confrontation of anticommunist myths about AES. Anyone growing up in the West is bombarded with Anticommunism, and simply being aware that that process exists doesn’t actually make you immune to it. Confronting the myths surrounding Communism is an important first step. “Red-washing” is a much, much smaller problem than you likely realize.
cool bro. you do you. you’re just not the guy i’m looking for, i guess. maybe the next one.
What would the person you’re looking for, so to speak, do that I’m not?
81·12 hours agobe an an anti-communist.
Seems like it, sadly.
they would be able to engage me, the human in front of them, without all the baggage of the movement establishing preconceptions.
In an ideal world, the Red Scare would not have existed, and we could discuss the genuine merits and struggles faced internally and externally in AES without that clouding discussion. Its why I prefer talking with comrades about the shortcomings in AES, as I know they aren’t doing it to undermine the achievements but to legitimately identify problems to solve.
I think, despite all of the struggles, that I do an okay job with engaging people open to listening.
I’m not dancing around anything, if you want to discuss, then please, do so.
The DPRK is far from a paradise, but at the same time, much of its issues are externally driven.
Xi is not president for life. Term limits are removed, but he can also be removed. He’s overwhelmingly popular among the party and people.
For your last point, I recommend you read Marketing Socialism. I defend what is misrepresented or demonized unjustly, because these are problems every Socialist project recieves, to varying degrees.
i read your Marketing Socialism post. It just seems beside the point and is looking for a way to justify itself when all you have to do is admit that tyranny and gulags bad. It’s not a big ask. The fact that it is TAKEN to be a big ask, is a massive, if you will, red flag. XD
The problem arises when people distort quantity or quality of struggles in AES states that would logically exist in any Socialist state. Ie, all Socialist states will have prisons, and all Capitalist countries are going to do their best to portray them in as negative a light as possible, no matter what they look like in reality.
i get, but it’s not a NECESSARY component of communism. the DPRK is shit for a lot of reasons, mostly due to the consolidation of power in the hands single insane family. trying to rehabilitate their image or reclaim them is fucking insane. XD and just not helpful to the cause, imo. i certainly makes me care less about everything you’re trying to say, and i’m really giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
What, specifically, is not a necessary component of Communism? The version of AES that exists in your mind, full of anticommunist prejudice and red scare mythos clouding your judgement, or the version that exists in real life, with far more nuanced issues applicable to all of Socialism, past, present, and future alike?
Further, the Kim family does not have all of the power in the DPRK. A critical examination of the structure and history of the DPRK proves that isn’t true. That’s like saying the Bush and Kennedy familys have all of the power in the US.
Authoritarianism and imperialism, concentration of power are the root cause, money is just a symbol of power, under stalinist russia this nefarious corrupting power had another symbol, shape but this society was just as helpless toward this tendency of power, you can see the end point of passive demobilisation and assassination of the few how dare oppose it today in Russia.
I think there needs to be constant pressure of deterritoroalisation, of putting decision and responsibility in the hands of the people, always at the smallest scale that it can be realistically pushed down.
And that’s not the individual if that’s not an individual matter. The level at which decisionnal responsibility is dependant on the context of tgat decision rather than agglomerated bodies of decision when power naturallies tries to concentrate.
It should always be easy for lower echelons of power and locality to repatriate a delegated aspect of their life.
(Then I stuffed this line of thinking into chatgpt to take it further)
https://chatgpt.com/share/6803f4ba-eebc-8005-919f-3b896dce2e0f
I don’t think you’ve actually backed up your thesis, just asserted it. There’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” there’s evidence that systems like Capitalism reward corruption.
I think the concept of positive/negative externalities could serve as a north star in deciding the all important question of the appropriate scalevat which a discussion is taken.
While I think we shoild try to empower and give autonomy to the local they always are within a larger community of externalities. The local should also no to inform and defer to a higher scale when their decision is “larger then them”.
The local is not thought as isolated or unaccountable, but it is given preference as a scale. We want the local to choose how to live in harmony with the whole and their neighbours.
All this is well but it would be really easy to fall back into the grooves of individualist isolationnist and collectivist absolutist.
I don’t think the ideal exist at the middle of these extremes but rather toward tge lower scale without bottoming out
“Far from paradise” seems pretty generous for what i perceive as a dystopian nightmare state. they are cut off from outside information. there is retribution on families if ppl try to leave. also, you can’t leave. this is insanity. outside forces don’t make them behave that way.
Xi: whether that popularity is real or not is a question, though, when he can push for the suppression of dissent or critique in the social sphere. one CAN’T challenge him. that doesn’t seem legitimately representative.
i’m looking over your reading list. we can add that to the list. but there’s a reason i block hexbear and lemmygrad but not .ml. tankies fucking suck and i Socialism will never be taken seriously as long as it’s important to ppl to defend fucking Stalin.
See, the problem is that you’re generally wrong, factually, which is why you have such knee-jerk reactions to people saying that maybe AES states aren’t hellholes, actually. As an example, it’s mostly western sanctions that limit freedom of movement from DPRK residents, and the myths about collective family punishment are largely unsubstantiated. Repeating Red Scare myths uncritically is a huge problem.
People can challenge Xi, what they cannot do is use large private media apparatus to push anti-government propaganda.
Regarding your last point, you’re generally wrong. Socialism is increasing in popularity globally, including Marxism-Leninism. Funny enough, Nia Frome, the author of “Marketing Socialism,” has another quick article called “Tankies” that would be perfect for you to read, IMO.
mate, i know ppl who literally risked their lives to flee from the USSR. your talking points are just academic. the reality is otherwise. trying to paint legitimate observation of tyranny in AES as some kind of capitalist conspiracy only makes you look more insane offputting.
i’m literally TRYING to reach you, and all Leftists can do is bend over backward to defend tyrants.
The vast majority of post-Soviet citizens believe they are worse off now than under Socialism, which makes sense because the reintroduction of Capitalism resulted in skyrocketing rates of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, homelessness, and an estimated 7 million excess deaths around the world.
AES states are not perfect, I don’t paint all critique as Capitalist conspiracy, only what I know is in fact a myth based on the sources I have provided. You uncritically accept the bourgeois narrative despite mountains of evidence to a more nuanced position than “every Communist leader ate spoonfuls of babies for breakfast” or other nonsense.
I’m hoping I reach you too.
“You uncritically accept the bourgeois narrative”
you don’t know anything about me to make such claims.
citizenry can feel nostalgia for lots of reasons, and i’m not defending capitalism here. but that doesn’t erase the real lived trauma of the ppl in my life who have fled both the USSR and Venezuela.
I know that based on the hard data I’ve seen, the people I have spoken to, the history and critique I have read, that a good amount of what you have said is disconnected from reality, and closer to what the US State Department claims is the truth. I understand that you may have anecdotal experiences shaping your opinions, but I also know that it isn’t simple nostalgia like the Wikipedia entry suggests, but coincides with the massive increase in poverty and the difficulty of life in a Capitalist world after the dissolution of Socialism.
I call bullshit on this one
Its actually pretty smart if you think about it. Some flowers bloom at the end of their lifecycle. Nazism is at the end of capitalism’s lifecycle. But if you only hack off the visible parts of the flower, it will come back next year. So the flower is capitalism and the soviet union only managed to hack off the upper part, nazi germany, while the lower part, the capitalist empire was still there. Now 80 years later, the flower blooms again, this time as usa, and the picture suggests we rip it out at the root by destroying the whole system, instead of just hacking it off by, like, occupying washington or something.
Comunism is trash.
Nope!
Socialism allows for both public and private ownership, individual freedoms, and democratic decision-making, while still aiming for social equality. Communism, in contrast, tends to involve total state control and often limits personal freedoms.
Tell me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists without telling me you’ve never read anything about communism that wasn’t written by anti-communists.
The state owning the means of production means the people running the state have a shit ton of power. Just takes a handful of bad people to turn that into oppression as we’ve seen in the USSR and China.
If you disagree feel free to explain your reasoning.
The bourgies owning the means of production means a handful of evil vampires have all the power
Makes it always shit
Jesus what a mess of a sentence. You really tried to hamfist that one in there.
tell me you’re 16 without telling me you’re 16
Well I will agree that your average 16 year-old is more well read then the person I replied to.
That doesn’t even make sense…
😘 be well
You should go back to Reddit, you’d be happier there
be better
Both Capitalism and Socialism have room for public and private ownership, the difference is which sector controls the state, large firms, and key industries. The Nordic Countries are dominated by Private Capital, ie it is Capitalist, while the PRC is dominated by Public Ownership, ie it is Socialist.
Communism limits the personal freedoms of the bourgeoisie. All Communism is, is a more developed and global form of Socialism, where the small firms that once were private have all grown into the public sector or collapsed.
Limits personal freedoms only for the owning class. If you’re not a landlord or ceo you have nothing to fear.
All this things sound great, we just need humanity to not be shitty to each other.
I thought memes were supposed to be funny… this just looks like a propaganda poster
That’s the .ml experience
Thank god I’m not the only one.
Communism is a shitty alternative.
In what way?
Capitalism is a system and just that, it has no moral, therefore cannot be evil. The red hand without the ussr symbol would make this image more unified.
I’d say 1 person owning most of the money made at the company is the problem
To solve it everyone just needs to form or join a private unionized cooperative that doesn’t go on stock market for sustainable growth and so everyone at the company is making a lot of money too
Then collectively you all grow the pot that is available for all of you. Better to all be making 1,000,000 each and then grow it together to become 10,000,000-100,000,000+ for each of you
That is the root issue. Not enough of that
This doesn’t solve the systemic pressures within Capitalism, nor does it describe how to get from A to B. Your idea still depends on your one firm outcompeting other firms, which is difficult in saturated markets.
I recommend you look into Marxist theory, I have some recommendations I can make.
Removed by mod
That’s the plan! Though I want to aid in turning my own country Communist, as that would benefit the most people globally, or at least take down the US Empire.
Ableism aint cool either.
Read my comment on this post. Think Capitalism mixed with Socialism would be good alternative for everyone
I responded to it, but I want to respond to this as well. There’s really no such thing as “mixing” Capitalism with Socialism. Private and Public property can be mixed, but what determines Capitalism or Socialism is if the former is the principle aspect of the economy, or the latter. By principle, I mean which controls the state, large firms, and key industries.
That’s what most European countries (social democracies) are doing. Safety net so you don’t randomly become homeless (you keep getting a part of your salary for a while, and even without any money there are enough places to sleep for all homeless people, at least in Austria), free healthcare, …
There’s no socialism in social democrats, only capitalists doing concessions so the people don’t demand socialism
I’m going to university for 27€ per semester while getting free healthcare and subsidised housing and lunch. If I were to become homeless I could go to a shelter for sleeping and food. Additionally you get a certain percentage of your salary (starting at ~80%, becomes less as the months pass, but it’s plenty of time to find a new job) after getting fired. Schools are free and there are basically no private schools because there’s simply no need, public education is good. After childbirth you also get money until you can work again, for up to 3 years. There are regulations against monopolies and cartels. Etc etc.
imo this is the ideal system
"My men enslave people in africa to get rubber and murder them if they dont gather enough rubber and then we ship it here and then we have lots of rubber in belgium and the suffering happens somewhere else where I’ll never be
imo this is the ideal system"
- king of belgium, probably
What about not enslaving people?
And of course people in weaker economies get paid less, they also need less since everything is cheaper.
The whole problem is that your system is built on the backs of super-exploiting the Global South. You’ve exported the bulk of the hard labor that allows you to live comfortable lives, and maintain it through the domination of private financial Capital.
And communism doesn’t work because we’re selfish
If someone is selfish and global working class and class conscious, they’ll work towards communism for their own selfish gain.
If we accepted the arguments that humans are selfish, then it’s an argument for communism and not against it. We should be creating social systems that encourage socially positive behavior and inhibit socially destructive behavior. Capitalism is like taking a drunk to a happy hour at the bar. The fact that people keep repeating this trope shows complete and utter lack of critical thinking on their part.
Why?
Removed by mod
Why?
Yeah, there’s nothing worse than a bunch of billionaire shitheads, using the media they control to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money. Oh wait, that’s what’s going on Russia, too.
There are no “good guys” here. Just billionaire assholes exploiting everybody.
The Russian Federation ceased being Socialist in the early 90s, the Hammer and Sickle is a symbol of Marxism. Not sure what your point is.
The point is that it’s a class war. It always has been. It’s not about “socialism vs capitalism” or “liberals vs conservatives” or The Romulans vs The Federation. It’s about billionaires vs everybody else. It’s about the cluefull vs the clueless.
The hammer and sickle in the picture stands for the working class and the dollar and swastika for the owning class
Class War is a fundamental part of the Socialist canon, though, while Capitalism affirms that it is unnecessary.
Further, a bit nitpicky, but I don’t like framing it as “cluefull vs clueless.” People’s ideas are a product of their material conditions, we shouldn’t downtalk those who don’t know more.
The people who told you what socialism or capitalism is, LIED to you. “The good of the people” is a noble-sounding goal. But the reality is that the people who deliberately seek power are . . . for the most part . . . vain, greedy, brutal assholes.
I don’t think Marx, Engels, Lenin, etc were lying to me when discussing what they wanted to implement and how Socialism and Capitalism function. I don’t think reading speeches and writings of Deng Xiapoing, Xi Jinping, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, or other leaders of AES states were lying about their intended goals or economic policies either.
I genuinely don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Are you rejecting analysis of Political Economy, in favor of vibes-based social movements? Genuinely.
Karl Marx said a lot of things about socialism and collectivism a hundred years ago, but he’s not in charge anymore. The rich oligarchs who replaced him are saying this. You keep saying “but they SAID they were SOCIALISTS” and all I see is Sponge Bob’s eyes, filling up with tears because he just can’t believe that some rich assholes are lying to him.
We have people in this country who claim to be “christians” who literally elected the anti-christ. Trump embodies ALL the seven deadly sins, but those folks are just fine with it. So let’s quit pretending that belief systems can’t be exploited.
Karl Marx was never “in charge.” He developed a framework for analyzing Political Economy in a manner useful for the Proletariat to identify the manner in which we are exploited, and how we may go about defeating the Bourgeoisie. There are no rich oligarchs replacing Marx.
Belief systems certainly can be exploited, but that isn’t the point you are making here. Your point is that we should disregard analysis of Political Economy in favor of vibes-based action. If you don’t do the effort of studying Political Economy, any conclusions you come to will be based on shaky foundations, rather than throwing theory aside, we need to weild it to guide correct practice.
Funny enough, Mao described your error over half a century ago, in On Practice:
The second point is that knowledge needs to be deepened, that the perceptual stage of knowledge needs to be developed to the rational stage – this is the dialectics of the theory of knowledge.[5] To think that knowledge can stop at the lower, perceptual stage and that perceptual knowledge alone is reliable while rational knowledge is not, would be to repeat the historical error of “empiricism”. This theory errs in failing to understand that, although the data of perception reflect certain realities in the objective world (I am not speaking here of idealist empiricism which confines experience to so-called introspection), they are merely one-sided and superficial, reflecting things incompletely and not reflecting their essence. Fully to reflect a thing in its totality, to reflect its essence, to reflect its inherent laws, it is necessary through the exercise of thought to reconstruct the rich data of sense perception, discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from the one to the other and from the outside to the inside, in order to form a system of concepts and theories – it is necessary to make a leap from perceptual to rational knowledge. Such reconstructed knowledge is not more empty or more unreliable; on the contrary, whatever has been scientifically reconstructed in the process of cognition, on the basis of practice, reflects objective reality, as Lenin said, more deeply, more truly, more fully. As against this, vulgar “practical men” respect experience but despise theory, and therefore cannot have a comprehensive view of an entire objective process, lack clear direction and long-range perspective, and are complacent over occasional successes and glimpses of the truth. If such persons direct a revolution, they will lead it up a blind alley.
Yeah it’s the super rich vs everyone else.
