You're viewing a single thread.
You're showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker's councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker's councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
So-called "dictatorship of proletariat" was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren't compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn't even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad. I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor's kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn't get education because they were "children of the enemy of the people". Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were "pests" or "enemies of the people", so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
And what time period or country was this?
1920s in USSR.
So your family were wealthy landowners of some sort? Chances are if your family was doing well prior to the revolution, they probably weren't good people. I have a friend who's family was killed during Vietnam. His family is mad because they lost their gold mine and farms. No one should prosper while others are starving.
No one should prosper while others are starving.
So, you're giving away all your excessive money to charity? No matter how wealthy or poor you are, there is somebody who is doing worse then you.
First off, I would absolutely donate my excess money to charity. Unfortunately, there's two problems with that. 1: I live paycheck to paycheck and have no excess money. 2: charities in the US are not charitable, they're profitable. Look at the Susan G Komen foundation or the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Both incredibly profitable and do very little to actually make a material difference for those in need. Some are not bad though. I've been organizing a charity drive for Alpha house, a women's abuse shelter, through my local union. Just because I don't have money doesn't mean I can't find some way to help those who need it.
Nope. My first grand-grandfather was a teacher in a university, his salary was enough to own a two-story house and spend a month in Europe with his family every year. The second grand-grandfather was a retired soldier, he bought a house with a land plot in a village. His family worked there. The third grand-grandfather was a successful director. Because he was a good manager, he was sent to raise a collective farm.
Well, if I lived in a country where people were kidnapping children, cutting them up, cooking them, and selling them for food; I'd feel really bad living comfy and cozy in my nice house. The government went to people like that and they said, "everything is fucked up, share your house and go produce food so we can improve everyone's lives. If you don't like it, you're getting shot." You're looking at things from a Western lense. I'm sorry, but if you own a bunch of land and enough money for yearly vacations, you have things to give. "From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs." You give what you can and you get what you need. A core tenant of Communism. No one should have luxuries while others starve and die.
I'm not saying the Soviets couldn't have achieved this less violently and I'm certainly not saying we should follow their footsteps. But, it was a different time in a different place. Life was brutal under Tsar Nicholas and it took a lot of work and time to undo that damage. The Church was in on it, too. Hence the brutality committed to the religious groups. Sometimes the great atrocities are outweighed by the greater good.
Sometimes the great atrocities are outweighed by the greater good
People talking about such things never consider the possibility of being killed for the sake of greater good. This approach gives somebody the privilege to decide who will live and who will die. And nobody knows what such people would decide, having such unlimited power. Logically, they would kill to "improve society", but nobody knows who they would choose.
Human life and property must be respected. This rule protects every member of the society from the worst traits of humanity.
If I lived in Russia at that time I would gladly have given my life to end the suffering happening under Tsar Nicholas. I would give my life now if it means lifting millions out of poverty.
That's what a revolution looks like unfortunately. The terror in France was instigated for this reason. Danton (one of the government leaders) said "soyons terrible pour éviter au peuple de l'être" : "We shall be terrifying so the people don't need to be so."
I suspect USSR didn't do better than France. The sad part is that USSR didn't even overcame the dictatorship. Their leader were "better" than in France in avoiding the fate they inflicted to so many people.
countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure
Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.
It's so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they're hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform...
Are Leftists advocating for the exact same actions as the USSR, or are Capitalists gaslighting the ignorant into believing they are?
No, I'm just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
While I disagree vehemently with ML communists. And let's just be respectful and call them that. The only reason they have the perceived mindshare that you're talking about. Is because they were useful dysfunctional tools for capitalists to use to misrepresent all of socialism*. ML communist were never that capable of commanding that mindshare in their own right
Authoritarian pigs deserve no respect.
I agree with that sentiment both left and right. Which is why I genuinely reject the lie that is free market capitalism and ML communism. A planned economy is fine. A command economy wielded by the tip of military weapons only salts the earth and leaves it bare. Much like the capitalists do.
Victim blaming.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
Poorly, but not worse than a dictatorship(such as the USSR).
What's your point?
You might want to turn that incredibly critical eye you've got for communism back in on capitalism, that's all.
I... am?
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian "communists".
Unless you're an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
Misunderstanding on my end then, I made some clearly unfair assumptions. I agree with you there and apologize for the mischaracterization.
It's funny how one can always pick the leftist out of a crowd by looking for the person willing to respect strangers
failed attempts
They didn't fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can't even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of "tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM"
Communism doesn't include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
How do you prevent people from trading and owning property without violence?
Education. The reason that fascists are raising hell about wokeness is that Capitalism depends on ignorance.
Ok, can you "educate" me why I need to get rid of my private property?
And fascists practiced economic policies of "corporatism", not capitalism
You don't have private property. You have personal property. https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/
Fascism and corporatism is just end stage capitalism. Every time capitalism fails it is bailed out by socialism or it devolves into genocide.
Communism doesn't include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence
Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say "that's not communism" for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism
The two concepts are antithetical
Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism
USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism
I know of two common definitions of capitalism: "a system mostly organized around a profit-motive" and "a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts". I don't see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences
"Nothing will ever meet this standard" ~CHINESEBOTTROLL
If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.
The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.
You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn't have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
You misunderstand. That is not capitalism but CRONY-capitalism. The two concepts are anrithetical. In REAL capitalism everyone respects the non-agression principle and therefore everyone is free. Crony capitalism is actually the LEAST capitalist system and is closer to socialism, because the government does stuff. I am very smart
I am very smart
Everyone knows it's the most intelligent person in the room who has to remind you he's intelligent. At least you won't bite your tongue as you eat every meal through a tube.
Lol sarcasm bait.
I didn't say that communism hasn't happened. It happens everywhere there's more than one person present, until it is stopped by a fascist who starts building a hierarchy, demanding that one person be in control and set the agenda. Fear is the fertile ground in which ignorance blossoms. The reason that all governments are based in fascism is because they all ultimately believe in their own authority to enact violence on individuals. When the ignorance INEVITABLY collapses into violence, communism rises from the ashes in the form of mutual aide, community, schools, and basic infrastructure.
communism rises from the ashes in the form of mutual aide, community, schools, and basic infrastructure.
This made me realize that you are not worth my time. I hope you have a nice life!
Are there police in an ideal communist state?
No. Everyone is charged with public safety. It's inconceivable from a capitalist dystopia, but when problems like poverty, social isolation, food insecurity, and discriminatory practices are addressed early, crime is less of an issue. Capitalism needs police because addressing the issues I mentioned means flattening the hierarchy. The goal is to abolish wealth as well as poverty in an egalitarian society.
What about all these capitalist places that fell into fascism? What about the successful capitalist states that are currently falling into fascism?
What about them? The choices here are not "what we have now" vs "trust the people that want to try communism again"
My point is about the flawed argument : "communism is bad because the attempts have failed". Well, there are more capitalist attempts that failed than communist ones, so the argument doesn't hold.
My argument is not "look how many attempts have failed" but "look, of all of these many attempts, every single one has turned into a kafkaesque nightmare". At this point it is not even clear that "successful communism" is something that can exist in our world
On the other hand, while many (depending on your perspective you might even say most) capitalist systems fail, there are absolutely some that work ok. Of course nothing is perfect in the real world. But the life of say a danish person is not only materially well off, but also free and full of dignity, which was true of none of the experiments in communism
I'm pretty sure many Chinese are well off, free and full of dignity.
It's also easier to be a successful country when you're not under ambargo just because you're not sold to capitalist companies. Did the US left even one communist country live normally?
But more importantly, how many successful capitalist countries, today, aren't going fascist at full speed?