• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What people who lived in the Soviet union and other socialist states have to say:

    This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.

    • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism as a concept is a brilliant thing. The problem is that in the past it never worked the way it was intended, but managed to cause a lot of harm.

      The problem is that the 14 year old white girl here still thinks with all her heart that countries like China are communist and in generall the perfect place to be, which is just not true.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a silly argument because actual real world communism has to be compared to other real world alternative we have available which is capitalism. By every measure capitalism has created far more horrors than communism has.

  • patomaloqueiro@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is more accurate: Online discussion about capitalism

    People living in a third world capitalist country

    14-year-old white boy living in a Western country: I know more than you

  • Haus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Basing your opinions on socialism on how Russia implemented it makes about as much sense as basing an opinion on Democracy on how Putin has implemented it.

      • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A lot of people don’t realize that the Soviet Union was seen as a bastion of democracy before the cold war, because it genuinely got a lot right.

        In fact, it was democratic to a fault. Ultimately it was the people who voted to bring capitalism into the country. It was all downhill from there.

      • teft@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Anyone mentions soviets suck and the tankies come out of the woodwork.

        “USsR was just misunderstood. Swearsies.”

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Communism, like capitalism, is an extreme that has certain, very difficult to achieve, requirements. Capitalism needs everyone to be morally decent in order for companies to focus on winning customers through innovation instead of propganda and lobbying, and to accept losses instead of whining. Even the transition into communism is incredibly complicated and technically what where the USSR was stuck, and once there you have to hope that the rest of the world went along with it because it’ll work either on increbily small scales(individual companies, for example) or on a global scale but not really on a mid-sized scale. Plus in both you have basic greed and people who are literally just born narcissitic or legitimately psychotic.

        Extreme ideologies are great thought experiments but rarely have any kind of well-developed protections built and are pretty fragile.

        If you want a better answer, look at the quality of life in countries with stronger regulations and more communism-according-to-North America systems. In the heavily privatised U.S. there are a lot of people who live absolutely shit lives due to an abyssmal lack of protections. Even in Canada, which is far too close to the U.S. here, at least a homeless person can recieve some level of medical assistance including major surgeries and Covid stimulus was more than a cheap joke.

        Extreme

        • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them. Nobody says that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, bit his death count was just as high. He killed millions of political enemies or people in the regions he conquered.

          • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

            Either you have no idea what you’re talking about, or you’re just a straight up nazi apologist.

            Which one are you?

          • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Hey, whoever told you those numbers is lying to you. The nazis killed 11 million people in the holocaust and 26-27 million soviet citizens. High estimates for people killed by the USSR outside of defeating nazism, failures, and sabotage is in the 100,000s, which is noticeably lower than capitalist oligarchies like the US and Britain. Also killing people based on them wanting to bring back old caste systems through violence is morally distinct from racism based mass killings.

            The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

            Also this isnt true, Jewish people, Roma, nuerodivergent people, disabled people, trade unionists socialists, communists, gay people, trans people, the list goes on.

            Also you’re still equating the two after being told doing so is holocaust denial. You’re saying “well they killed equivalent amounts of people!”

            • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              How is saying Stalin wasn’t a great guy either denying the holocaust?

              Also this isnt true, Jewish people, Roma, nuerodivergent people, disabled people, trade unionists socialists, communists, gay people, trans people, the list goes on.

              Yes ofc, but a big percentage of the deportated people were Jewish. They killed two thirds of the European Jewish population.

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

              High estimates for people killed by the USSR outside of defeating nazism, failures, and sabotage is in the 100,000s

              No: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

              • Stalin for example was a mass murderer just like Hitler. So why would anybody like him?

                Here is a mainstream Jewish holocaust survivor saying equating the communists and fascists is holocaust trivialization.

                You have compared communists and fascists, thus trivializing the Holocaust.

                Are you referring to famines caused by the Kulaks destroying grain exacerbating a natural famine cycle, something that was somewhat common before the modern era. If you are, would you also say that every death caused by starvation due to poverty in capitalist countries should count towards the leader’s “death count”?

                • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  This isn’t about communism and fascism. It’s about two asholes who killed millions. And I never trivialize the holocaust. I am just saying that Stalin killed a lot of people too. And more than just a few thousand. 20 million is a lot of dead people. So mb not as bad as Hitler but still realy not a great person. So the comparison to Hitler still stands.

              • How is saying Stalin wasn’t a great guy either denying the holocaust?

                You aren’t saying that though, you are saying that they killed an equivalent amount of people. You’re morally equating them. Also even the CIA didn’t consider stalin a dictator in their since declassified internal documents, treating him as one is another way you were taught to equate the USSR with nazi Germany.

                Yes ofc, but a big percentage of the deportated people were Jewish. They killed two thirds of the European Jewish population.

                I know, that isn’t the only group they targeted though. I was simply correcting an inaccuracy in what you said.

                No:

                Sorry, I thought it was high hundreds of thousands but it was actually a million. My mistake. Still, that is in no way similar to killing upwards of 35 million people in the name of bigotry.

                • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  some historians estimated that the numbers killed by Stalin’s regime were 20 million or higher. (Same link as before: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin)

                  It’s more that a million.

                  I don’t know why you made this discussion about if he was as bad as Hitler. I never said so. I’m just saying that those numbers are not that far apart from each other. Thus making Stalin a murderer of millions. This discussion originated in a guy basicly saying that Stalin was indeed a great leader and personality. Which he is not.

                  And he willingly allied with Hitler. So moral he was OK with the crimes Hitler committed. At the same Time he deported a lot of people himself. Not as many and not as organized as Hitler, but still in the millions.

                  Stalin was a bad guy and Hitler was way worse. Happy? Just because that other guy was worse they can still play in the same category. “People who killed millions and deported a lot of people”

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          He founded a sub-party of the communist party, and according to the wiki you linked, their ideology was literally stalinism. How is that in any way oppositional to Stalin?

          • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. Stalinism doesn’t exist, there is only Marxism-Leninism
            2. Many pro-market reformers were non-partisans, although some were in the CPSU
            • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Stalinism is a subset of ML, as I learned from the wiki page you linked.

              And OK, you’re right, Stalin wasn’t a brutal authoritarian leader because he allowed non partisans into a ML party that he created, and we’ll just ignore the 1.7 million gulag deaths.

              Actually, I’ll do you a favor. You already know all the dead people under Stalin I’m going to bring up in this thread, so why don’t you go ahead and just defend them all now and save us both some time?

              • Stalins_Spoon@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Stalin wasn’t a ‘Stalinist’ he was a Marxist-Leninist by word and action, most famous gulag prisoner Alexander Solzhenitsyn received treatment for cancer whilst in it, and vast majority returned alive. I don’t see how this is different to any other prison system in the world, just another piece of over-exaggerated Cold War propaganda for Western audiences.

                I do agree this exchange is pointless, have a good rest of your day

  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    14 year old white girl

    Bravo they managed to also cram ageism and misogyny in the old “champagne socialism” meme. All in the single sentence.

  • spacesweedkid27 @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    2 things:

    1. The victors write history

    2. After Lenin the USSR was not really communist anymore but more really a totalitarian state that didn’t believe in the values of communism. Just like China.

    Everything would probably have been better if Lenin didn’t die so fast and then Trotsky would have ruled.

  • ZILtoid1991@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Personally I find it going this way:

    • some person, who at least knows what socialism is, even if they’re not the most well-read in the subject,
    • some way better read one, but thinks state control of enterprises suffice and trusts the state way too much as long as it has hammers and sickles,
    • some capitalism fan, who thinks socialism is evil, and that constructon company CEOs are workers, but underpaid office workers are “elites”.

    Rarely you get a very well read one, who understands their stuff, or the old Soviet bloc ex-communist, who switched because the local far-right party started to be very concerned about “work morals”, and also think the construction company CEO is a worker and “against the elite”.

    • TheFriendlyDickhead@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is the way that most of those communism perfect people inform themselves. They usually know a lot of stuff about a certain topic where they can argue anyone to deth who doesn’t know as much about a topic. And because they know that much more than the other person they can use wrong statements that sound right in the mass of correct information. Then you get people who know everything about Kuba and are 100% sure it’s a democracy.

  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This meme doesn’t work, because in the scene the image comes from, we have every reason to believe Ron Swanson actually does know more than the employee at the hardware store.

  • JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism. Their neighbours disappeared for saying the wrong things. They were hungry and cold as children every day. Sometimes they didn’t have any shoes. They weren’t allowed to leave their country for holidays. They couldn’t afford it, even if they were allowed. They couldn’t study what they wanted. Their entire educational system was political propaganda. Freedom of religion didn’t exist.

    It always amazes me how the most vocal proponents of communism come from the most sheltered, most privileged people alive who would retch from learning about the atrocities committed in the name of communism. If they only spent a few minutes on Google.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don’t believe communism would work either. Communism isn’t the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren’t actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

      • Endorkend@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The only way communism can work is if it’s not run by people.

        You’d need something like a benevolent AI overlord.

        The problem with all forms of government and economy is that it involves human beings.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a truly unpopular opinion but i will stick my neck out to say i fully agree.

          Power corrupts, humans are flawed with greed and bias. The bigger a society becomes the more impossible it becomes for humans to properly remain in charge.

          AI today is far from perfect and more then flawed but it keeps evolving faster, infinitely faster compared to how biological life can. The potential for AI to grow into something much more capable, unbiased and fair then any of is can be is obvious, so is its potential for the exact opposite.

          Summarized: i don’t trust humans in positions on power at all and i wont start to just because i don’t know if i can trust something not human instead.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If communism devolves into authoritarianism every time it is attempted, I don’t see the practical distinction.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists? Yet we continue to do it.

          Not to mention all those attempts have died in the socialism phase, because surprise surprise consolidation of power doesn’t lead to it being distributed.

          • JasSmith@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists?

            A handful of times. Most capitalist nations are not authoritarian. Purely by the numbers, it has a much better track record. Of course, “it’s not real capitalism/communism” always derails this discussion.

            I think you outline why communism inevitably fails. Marx advocated for violent revolution to overthrow the “bourgeois” democracy. The moment democracy is gone, the strong take and retain power. This is why, no matter the system, democracy must be the bottom line. It ensures that power is distributed. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than the alternatives.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It turns out it’s every time as we’re seeing with late-stage capitalism. Purely by the numbers it’s like 17 times vs 300 and of those 17 they were in a cold war with half the world. And that’s not even the same argument? It’s not up for debate that these were socialist countries, fuck the second S in USSR is for socialist.

              And once again that’s a miss. You’re conflating capitalism with democracy, that’s not the same thing at all. You can have democratic or authoritarian capitalist or socialist countries.

              • JasSmith@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                It turns out it’s every time as we’re seeing with late-stage capitalism.

                I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re arguing. Are you claiming that all Western nations are authoritarian? I emphatically disagree.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why do overwhelming popular policies, like drug reform and universal healthcare, fail time and time again, while overwhelmingly unpopular policies, like tax cuts for the rich, easily succeed time and time again? Capitalism inevitably becomes thinly-veiled bourgeoisie authoritarianism. “Vote with your dollars” means those with the most dollars have the most votes.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You act as if it’s been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it’s not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

          And it doesn’t devolve into it. It’s simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

          A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you’re unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don’t know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn’t devolve into authoritarianism. They’re not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It’s like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn’t devolve into one. They’re not the same thing.

      • nxfsi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you burn a pastry, you don’t just give up baking pastries. You declare that the burnt one isn’t a real pastry and start over.

        Likewise with communism. Oh a few million people died? No biggie just try again 😚

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a ridiculous analogy. It’s also to the point of technically arguing one side while sarcastically supporting the other.

          And it also ignores my actual point and sets up a straw man anyway. All you’re doing is trying to claim I’m making a no true Scotsman fallacy. I am not. I never said every case of communism wasn’t communism. I even implicitly stated otherwise by saying communism hasn’t been attempted that many times for a statistical significant trend. I stated the failures mentioned were do to other problems. I’m not even claiming communism can or can’t work. Just that the arguments provided don’t support the conclusion. Being quippy doesn’t give a free pass to avoid using logic and reason. I’ve even made comments against people making bad arguments in support of communism. I just want to see real discussions about it and not folks repeating sound bites from their favorite talking heads.

    • SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also adding to the list of nice things - a picture of the current dictator on all public offices and classrooms. Work and school weeks from Monday to Saturday and a Sunday in which you had to do mandatory free time activities, like go to communist youth clubs, participate in parades for the glory of the state, or plant flowers or do random maintenance work in the park.

      I’ve noticed the arguments tend to center around the notion that ‘that wasn’t true communism’ and that the notions presented by Marx et al. were not properly implemented.

      Fair enough, I can agree with that, but I’d wonder what makes us think that we would do it better next time? How do you actually prevent consolidation of power in the hands of the select few (in any system, for that matter, not just the ideal communism)?

      Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).

        Capitalism requires the limits imposed by a strong, functional democracy, otherwise it drifts into horrifying tyranny.

        Unrestrained capitalism can give communism a run for it’s money in terms of genocide.

        Edit: typo

      • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I’m in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes.)

        Maybe you are, currently, in the United States of Europe. But this is really more a function of liberal democracy than capitalism. You could get vanned for saying the wrong thing about the great leader in quite a few capitalist countries. You’d be in high danger of having pretty terrible things happen to you for saying the wrong thing in the US until pretty recently, and the US has been capitalist pretty much since its inception.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t think anyone is advocating for literal communism. They are advocating for social programs like, you know, universal healthcare and good public schools. Which the Gop and Fox have to scream is communism to scare people.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This take comes from a place of assuming there will be a government of the state that wields all the power and controls everything.

        That is totalitarianism, not communism.

        The capital owners don’t want to you take the means of production from them. They don’t want you to have a fair wage, they want you to slave away to keep them rich.

        They want totalitarianism for them.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are definitely people advocating for actual communism. Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism. We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.

        • someguy3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are definitely people advocating for actual communism.

          No I really don’t think there are. If there are then it’s incredibly, incredibly, minisculy few, but the gop and Fox have to portray that it’s the entire democratic party.

          Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism.

          That’s the whole point of what I’m saying. Social programs are worlds away, but the gop and Fox have to conflate everything to call it communism in order to have a bogeyman.

          We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.

          Again, that’s the whole point of what I’m saying. Social programs like universal healthcare? The Gop and Fox call it communism to scare people. I know it’s not, you know it’s not, but the gop and Fox scream loudly enough that it’s communism that they scare enough people to get their votes.

  • Prunebutt@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Considering that the USSR only claimed to be socialist and used propaganda (in accord with the US) to convince the people that state control is the same as worker’s control over the means of production (it isn’t), the girl is probably correct.

    • Muad'Dibber@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      An Excerpt from Parenti - Blackshirts and reds:


      The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

      First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and lifestyles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. {Nor could they transfer such “wealth” by inheritance or gift to friends and kin, as is often the case with Western magnates and enriched political leaders. Just vide Tony Blair.—Eds]

      The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

      Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

      Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

      Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

      All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

      But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

      The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

    • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Income share isn’t actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn’t mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn’t buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you’re unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you’re actively misleading people.

  • Pieresqi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ah yes, “communism”. Op show me 1 country with communism. Dictatorship with ‘communism’ in their name don’t count.

    • Sami_Uso@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wait are you telling me the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic or a Republic?? Like they’d just lie?

        • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Communism, especially Marxist-Leninism, seems to require some sort of benevolent dictator who is willing to work towards destroying their own power, which obviously never seems to happen. ML theories state the need for a Vanguard state, which is a dictatorship that is supposed to be there to simply enforce the rule of the working class until a time when it is no longer needed.

          So the idea of dictatorship is built into the major form of communism that has been tried, basically. One of the main problems with this is that the steps a nation has to take before it gets to “true communism” in ML theory are ripe for abuse, and hard to get through without someone corrupt seizing power.

          I think there are some good theories in Marx writings, it’s just the methods for attempting to implement it definitely need to be reexamined because they don’t work.

          • Murais@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is where I tend to disagree with Marx as well.

            Capital is a fantastic book full of scathing and prophetic analyses of capitalism and its innate degradation of value and connection.

            The Communist Manifesto is a book with some good ideas but some implementation that I find flawed. And that’s not a knock on Marx-- critiquing problems is a significantly easier prospect than offering solutions.

            But a lot of Marx’s proposals for the implementation of Communism are rooted in authoritarianism, even if their end goal is the dissolution of the state and capital. Also, for an ideology versed in the formation and interdependence of worker communities, the Day of the Rope is kind of antithetical to establishing solidarity and mostly serves, I believe, as masturbatory schadenfreude.

            But hey, I’m willing to fix some of the stuff that doesn’t work instead of throwing more fuel into the machine that over-harvests people and our planet to the point of destruction.

            I really like this nuanced take, btw. Thanks for posting it.