You're viewing a single thread.
Why a lot of people on Lemmy like communist so much? As a person who grow up in a country which is almost destroyed by the communist party in the past I don't know what to say just why?, capitalist or not it's depends on your own country's government, at least you still can talking shit about them without getting arrested and torture to death, have we not learn from the past or other communist country, why don't you live in North Korea or China and see how've you like it
I'm going to take your question as genuine and answer in equal.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.
The leftists who still prop those countries up on their shoulders are what many call tankies. Today they sing praise about Russia, China, and North Korea, but your observation is correct, they won't ever move there. These are individuals who repeat propaganda and are, ultimately, just red fascists. When you actually dig into their ideals they parallel and sometimes mirror Nazis.
I believe leftism cannot have an authoritarian element to it. I think most social hierarchies need to be destroyed. I think the only way to have a socialist society is through democratic means. Democracy in the workplace and national level. I think most of us can agree workers need higher wages and there is a wealth gap that needs to be dismantled. I think most of us believe healthcare needs to be universal, food and shelter and water, education, information (internet), speech, and much more should be free and readily available. There is this element of freedom that needs to be achieved that isn't found the countries that are "communist".
I don't want to explicitly say those communist countries wasn't "real communism", but fascists, authoritarianism, always appropriate from progressive movement. There is no freedom, especially of workers, under a dictatorship. If workers are starving, dying, being outright black bagged and killed, i don't think that can be considered communist.
The last paragraph comes across as about "no true Scotsman" as it gets. Maybe true IRL communism is as much fiction as the star trek depiction of it is.
That's the point of my concluding paragraph. I am acknowledging that fallacy. So I ask, if freedom is an actual component to socialism, communism, or anarchism, then is the USSR actually a communist state? I can easily argue North Korea isn't. China and Russia aren't socialist at all. Russia is an oligopoly and China is just state capitalism.
So what is "true socialism"? I don't think we can ever achieve. We can't have a "perfect" society, but I do think we can get close enough having workers been more in control of their labor, be more democratic, and not live in an authoritarian state. We may not 100% be able to live in a Star Trek universe but I think we can get quite close.
The former is operating illegally amidst intense violence that they have as much responsibility for as the Mexican government and the latter have committed ethnic cleansing. So I'm not sure why you think they are good examples. Unless you think socialism means people must be killed.
In the "capitalism did better than communism/socialism" debate i still feel a great lack of historical context. Eastern Europe has been largely destroyed by the Nazis. China has lived through brutal Japanese occupation and a genocide of 10 Million people. Korea has been subject to a war emplyoing terrible new weapons such as Napalm to bring great destruction.
Meanwhile the US homeland has been faring without any destruction, France surrendered quick enough to avoid most damage and the UK sucessfully fended off the Nazi attacks so the damage was limited.
Purely economically speaking the Western allies were off to a much better start than the Eastern countries. So i would argue that for the economical question, it remains impossible to claim capitalism to be superior to socialism. Otherwise authoritarianism is always to the detriment of the people.
Hello, I'd like to speak for people I disagree with
As a leftist whose platform doesn't seem to include a word about abolishing capitalism, any time I am challenged by someone to the left of Bernie Sanders, I turn into a right wing crank telling people 'if you don't like it get out'
And today I'd like to tell you about horseshoe theory
If you actually believe in horseshoe theory then I have a bridge to sell you. Are you going to tell me you're a centrist?
context clues
Yes, anti-Tankies are verry simmlar to Tankies. However, I think the commenter is coping by being an anti-tankie. Both groups can becone and come back from crazy. People can also safely hold tankie and anti-tankie like beleafs but (like a lot of ideology) run the risk of becoming crazy.
amaricentric peoples perspective (wrough draft probably wrong)
"Tankie" nationallists fail to see the raising over time evil and fantisize the good and the ones who passionately hate Tankies (im guilty of it) fail to see the good slowly rotting away. Then we say the whole country never changed throuout its lifetime, one points to the beginnigng the other points to the end.
Places like the Soviate Union from my limited knolage seem to be a nation with slowly growing leadership alignment problems, slowly using things like nationalism and subverting democracy to flip who should be masters and who should be slaves.
Can we just go back to saying communists please?
Absolutely, internal divisions suck. (What people are calling) Tankie and anti tankie ideas have the potential to be useful if and when its not an ideologial snare.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.
Most leftists are literally marxist leninists or some derivative of ML in socialist countries. I think you mean most white leftists in the imperial core when you say most leftists.
Are there any statistics on where the most (convinced) leftists currently live? Just wondering. Not talking about people who are forced to adhere to authoritarian systems to survive or further their career.
There are literally 100 million members of the CPC. If .1 percent of them earnestly believe in communist thought that is more than the total members of communist orgs in the US.
I think you might call me an FDR New Deal socialist. I'm in favor of things like social security and government public works projects.
It has been my experience as a lifelong American that "capitalism" is just feudalism, or a desperate attempt to return to feudalism. "Capitalists" aka the ruling class have all the "capital" aka enough resources to actually accomplish anything. When any normal citizen wants to start a business, they have to beg a capitalist for a loan of some type, possibly selling "stock" aka a loan that never pays to term, allowing the capitalists to leech off of your profits basically forever. Wages get lower, costs get higher, all to funnel as much wealth to a small upper class. The myth of the meritocracy, where he with the best ideas, the best inventions, the most innovation, the product most in demand is he one that succeeds...doesn't hold up in a world of patent trolling or felony contempt of business model we're currently in. Doesn't stop them from parroting it to keep the little people quiet though.
Meanwhile I'm not aware of a "communist" nation that ever actually was. I am unaware of a nation that has ever actually operated per "to each according to his ability, from each according to his need" workers owning the means of production etc. They've all turned out as dictatorships with command economies. I mean, show me a country where the workers' unions are actually the ones in power. No, you've got the likes of North Korea, Russia and China building empty skyscrapers, building entire cities that sit empty, demolishing brand new apartment complexes because the floors aren't safe to walk on. The government told us to build it, so we built it. I get punished if I don't, and I don't get rewarded for doing a good job. The man that wrote Tetris didn't earn a single kopek.
Neither seem to actually work long-term.
Okay, a "fdr new deal socialist" isnt a thing. FDR was a social democrat which isn't socialist. The new deal was a social democrat policy, not socialist.
Please consider reading "the abc's of socialism" it is a good introduction to socialist thought.
sing praise about Russia
I have never seen a communist claim that the modern Russian government is good or communist, only that it opposes western hegemony, to the occasional benefit of poor nations in the global south.
Ah yes the utopian rainbow many want, yes, #metoo
It's an unfortunately nuanced subject, where people don't agree on the underlying definitions of words. For instance, I think you're confusing "capitalism" with "democracy". You can have authoritarian undemocratic capitalist countries, where you can't talk shit about your government.
For me personally, I think communism has too many issues to actually try, but I like some of its theoretical tennants when compared to that of capitalism. Those goals are something to strive for. The spirit of communism is helping eachother and rewarding work, and the spirit of capitalism is sacrificing others for personal gain
I think a lot of people don't want to admit that most political ideas ranging from communism to capitalism are half baked labels we stick onto a collection of beliefs about what works best to solve certain problems. If you got rid of the labels you might just ask the question of what works and where the money will come from
I'm a big fan of capitalism, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless. To me there's nothing anti capitalist about sharing or wanting to take care of the people around you.
Well that's just wrong. Capitalism is about profit, it's anti capitalist to take care of others unless you're profiting off of them. I'm not saying that I'm for or against capitalism, I'm just correcting your assertion.
It's not anti capitalist, it's just not something you gain monetary value from. capitalism isn't a religion "thou shall not help others unless thy get money" lol, it's just an economic system. There's private social systems within capitalist societies all over the word. Shit, I donate to the development of lemmy but I'm capitalist. Being capitalist doesn't mean your anti helping people.
Capitalism is about free markets. The arrangement of wage labor is an emergent result of allowing people to enter only into economic relations they consent to.
To take care of others for free is entirely fine, if it’s what you want to do. That doesn’t conflict with capitalism at all. The only difference is that under a free market people do that when they choose to, not when they are compelled to.
And what actually happens is that people choose to a lot.
That's the cartoon version of capitalism just like how "socialism is when the government does something" is the cartoon version of socialism. Capitalism just means that the means of production in a society are owned and controlled by private owners instead of by workers or the government as a proxy for workers. It says nothing about whether people are compelled to be greedy or anti-sharing or something.
Capitalism is about taking everything you can, to act as a balance against everyone else doing the same, because the fundamental assumption is that greed is the natural state for people and we shouldn't try to fight it. Under capitalism, competition doesn't just apply to businesses in markets, it extends to everything: people must compete with those around them for resources (be it jobs, or food, or retirement investments), making human connection a primarily adversarial relationship.
Now nothing says that you must apply capitalist principals to every aspect of your life if you live in a capitalist society, but it slowly becomes the norm. Eventually, the reason people take care of eachother because is indirectly benefits themselves, rather than because its a good thing to do... And when that's your justification, it's easy to stop doing it.
It's all about establishing norms about how people should treat eachother. Under capitalism the norm is adviseraial by design, but under communist it was supposed to be cooperative. It didn't even up working that way, but that is the ideal we should strive towards.
Edit: fix typos
Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.
So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.
Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you're a good little capitalist.
"China is capitalism with beastly grin"
- Ekaterina Shulman
This community is on lemmy.ml, which explicitly leans hard left. Maybe a memes community on another instance would be less like this
Saying that any existing communist party looks like what we, or theory, want(s), is like saying that North Korea is a Democratic Republic because it's part of the name. Authoritarians love corrupting the meaning of words so they can keep people ignorant.
Right, which would also hold true for capitalism... Thus mooting the original point.
Capitalism is sadly doing exactly what it's designed to do there's just a lot of propaganda to mislead you such as the infamous trickle down economics idea
Not really. The US has completely unchecked capitalism if you aren't wealthier than $100,000,000, as does the rest of the world thanks to a court that the IMF set up. If your country has a resource the capitalists want to exploit, and the people or government don't allow it, they will sue you in this international court and use the US military to impose fines of billions of dollars per year in "lost revenue." Much of Africa and South America can tell you all about it.
Capitalism and communism are economic systems not political theory.
NK's highest legislative body is a multiparty parliament elected directly by the people.
"Oh but the communists dominate"
Yeah, because they do popular things and have a popular political program compared to the other parties.
Is it more democratic when no one party is popular because all of them don't help the proletariat and power is a hot potato passed to whatever bourgeois party fucked the people the longest time ago?
A number of reasons. Just like you claim a Communist party almost destroyed your country, Capitalist parties destroy and are destroying many countries as well. The existence of bad Communist parties does not itself mean Communism is structurally a bad thing, as pursuit of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society is a noble goal for humanity.
I think it's fair to say that decentralization is a good check against Authoritarianism, and as such, this should be extended to the workplace, not just government.
As far as why Lemmy leans left, the founder is a Communist, and principles of decentralization and federation tend to appeal far more to leftists, while Capitalist-inclined individuals have Reddit.
deleted
Heads up, this guy is a troll. His sole, self declared purpose is to be an asshole and pick fights. Not worth engaging
I don’t believe you. This sounds like the sort of thing a person could say to poison the well against someone else, unless someone demands proof.
So where is this statement of purpose?
I was born into this world for no other reason than to be intolerant towards self righteous idiots like yourself who do more harm than good with their naive infantile worldview.
Also if you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd notice I've been pretty tolerant of your stupidity, but it can only go so far. I'm not trying to sound less shitty either, I simply added more to my reply, the reasons as to why that you made up in your head aren't my problem to deal with.
In the end, people like you end up full fascist psychopaths who kill people they don't like because that's better than allowing people to say things you don't like.
The self righteous part in question that he's born to be against, is literally just claiming to be tolerant. Not bludgeoning people with tolerance, not using tolerance as a weapon to silence people as he claims. Just labeling oneself "tolerant", and the general idea of tolerance. He also spent several comments doubling down. Maybe go read the exchange and see for yourself?
Also, some of his other greatest hits include denying that the holocaust was so bad because "not all the jews died", outright claiming that "Fossil fuels are recyclable" in a single sentence comment in a debate about why he thinks evs are bullshit, and laying out an explicit violent fantasy about magdumping into a theoretical person who might strike him for any reason.
One of his most recent comments just says, "violence has never not worked"
Do go read some of his exchanges for yourself and determine if I'm just poisoning the well.
Noted!
It’s not so much the existence of bad communism that indicates communism is a structurally bad thing, quite so much as the utter lack of good communism that indicates communism is a structurally bad thing.
That's certainly enough to form a hypothesis, but far, far from proof against it. There aren't any "good" developing countries either.
I'm just laughing to myself about the thought of Reddit being primarily capitalist. Lol
It's a for-profit, Capitalist business that runs it, ergo its Capitalist. The user base is largely liberal, which is still pro-Capitalism. You tend to see more Anarchists and Communists on Lemmy by proportion.
Though to be fair, DPRK is the way it is at least in part thanks to the Americans obliterating their cities and farm land. But we can ignore history to make a "I used to be in a communist country and it's bad, trust me bro" statement.
And I agree, I prefer to live in a system where prisoners aren't primarily minorities or political prisoners. And where the prison system isn't the most populated in the world, and rife with for-profit forced labour.
I would also be curious to hear which definition of "capitalism" and "Communism" you are using. That is, if you are open to dialogue.
Because they hate the system they live in and communism is the only modern alternative that has ever existed.
When someone comes up with an alternative to both, humanity will move forward.
Grass is greener on the other side
What Country?
'in the past'
How old are you? If your claim to authority here is that you grew up being told history by the winners, what should that mean to us?
What was done in South America for a century was done in a decade in Eastern Europe when the west finally won the cold war. Read Shock Doctrine.
While they wont even tell us what country they are talking about.
how old were you when the USSR fell? Did you experience communism, or the capitalist takeover after communism fell?
We have never seen an actual communist country. USSR for example was a fascist dictatorship which runs directly counter to the first property of communism, it must be stateless.
Facists like the Nazis like to claim they are for the people and sadly the only "communism" we've seen so far has been carried out by their hands. This is similar to how Nazis were supposedly progressive... Hopefully we can agree that is obviously not the case.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
Don't call communists fascists please. This is an article from a mainstream holocaust historian that explains why a related equation between the two is harmful.
I would also recommend reading "economy and class structure of german fascism" so you have a better idea of what fascism actually means.
I'd say the fact that leftist socialist or communist movements keep decaying into authoritarian dictatorships is a pretty big weakness of communism, actually. I think Western capitalist countries are not perfect by any means, but they're winning the quality of life game, even of poor people.
Not decaying. The Nazis were always fascist they put on a front of being progressive to ganrner support which worked quite well as we can tell from history. By the time it became obvious they weren't really progressive they were already in power.
The Cuban people literally joke that the government should be less democratic because of how much they consult the people, I dont think it is an authoritarian dictatorship and it is under immense pressure as it is 70 miles away from the imperial core and has been effectively blockaded for 60 years or so.
Sure, different ones have different levels of dictorshipness. To be clear, democratic and authoritarian are not opposites at all. Chattel slavery in the US was extremely authoritarian and awful, yet it was democratic. Abolition was a minority viewpoint until around the time of the Civil War.