If only there were some kind of way for it to not devolve into totalitarian dictatorship…
Rather than placing absolute power of The State in one person’s hands, start with an elected council of members whose number is not divisible by 2. Transition to a Stateless co-op arrangement. Congratulations you just implemented Communism the way it is intended to be implemented, and no dictator could screw it up.
…and how do you enforce it? No one is going to want to give up the land that they worked for and purchased themselves, or that they developed. Give up your rights or we imprison or kill you?
And who controls this enforcing agency? The single party government? Because you can’t have multiple parties…how do you prevent the government from taking advantage of their position? Like, I don’t think communism is this magical fix-all that you think it is.
Australia had communism for 60,000 years and never developed a dictatorship.
Would you like to provide a link, or any sort of proof to back up this outlandish claim?
Calling it communism may be a bit of a reach, but collectivist social organizing in a variety of ways was and still is a very common element of indigenous cultures around the world.
This link focuses on family and child rearing, but it’s a good window into how Australian aboriginals express collectivist principles.
It’s really simple - centralization = seat of power
The worst flavor of people are drawn to that like moths to a flame. It’s not even a good idea, any potential economies of scale are wasted by communication lag in the bureaucracy
Decentralization is key. You can have a commune easy enough, humans self organize just fine in small enough communities. There’s communes all over the world doing just fine
The question is, how do you knit those small communities together in a way that doesn’t give anyone much power, but still come together when needed?
lucky u, there is; its called just doing the fucking thing like normal, cuz non of the historical examples did that so u know.
Communism inevitably will always lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism.
In order to become a communist state, you have to: 1.) Get a bit army or group of people to enforce the upcoming rules. 2.) Force people to get rid of private ownership or threaten them to give it up. This will piss a lot of people off. 3.) Get rid of them if they don’t. This will piss a lot of people off. 4.) Realize that you’ve pissed a lot of people off, and that your the only power in the land, you definitely don’t want to give this up. 5.) Enact a single party system…oh, fuck…
Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale, and it’s not sustainable. By it’s very nature it’s extremely prone to abuse, and fundamentally impossible to install any sort of checks and balances on a single party-system. Look how bad it is with a two-party system in the US.
fundamentally impossible to install any sort of checks and balances on a single party-system. Look how bad it is with a two-party system in the US.
Buddy, checks and balances are one of the many reasons why our democracy doesn’t work. I already covered this elsewhere in this very post.
The failure of democratic checks and balances does not preclude the failure of communist checks and balances as well.
Democratic Socialism is where I’d like the US to head. But we have to start consistently winning majorities so that we can fix the disproportionate representation that’s hurting progress and making electing the progressives needed for change difficult.
u can believe the cia on that or u can actually fucking learn how these systems work or worked and what people who lived and live in them think of them, imma put it very plainly the percent of Americans who think amerikkka is a democracy is a LOT lower than Chinese people who think China is a democracy. And that holds true for most capitalist countries and most socialist countries past and present.
Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale, and it’s not sustainable.
Have you ever heard of little thing called “economy of scale”? The bigger scale is - the more sustainable it is.
By it’s very nature it’s extremely prone to abuse, and fundamentally impossible to install any sort of checks and balances on a single party-system.
“checks and balances” do not prevent abuse. They are not designed to.
Look how bad it is with a two-party system in the US.
In my opinion two-party system is worse than single-party system and full pluralism. In single-party system there is only one party to blame, while in many-parties system no party can control discourse. While in two-party system both parties can agree to screw over people and finger-point at each-other, only creating illusion of pluralism.
And that besides societal issues two-party system creates like strong polarization.
Where has that happened?
Soviet Union under Stalin comes to mind. North Korea.
That wasn’t totalitarian nor a dictatorship. Soviet Democracy continued to be practiced, and Stalin’s authority wasn’t absolute or all-encompassing.
Where does a state go from a non-totalitarian, non-dictatorship to a Totalitarian Dictatorship?
From the very article you linked:
There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a “temporary” ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party. Soviets were transformed into the bureaucratic structure that existed for the rest of the history of the Soviet Union and were completely under the control of party officials and the politburo.
Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.
according to some critics
Hey look at what the core of the quote you pulled is
I wonder what the ideology of those critics is
Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.
Objectively more democratic than the US. In the US you vote for president and they appoint the ministers of every executive agency. In Korea they vote for those directly.
Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next
Objectively more democratic than the US.
In Korea they vote for those directly.
They certainly have an interesting method.
Each candidate is preselected by the North Korean government and there is no option to write in a different name, meaning that voters may either submit the ballot unaltered as a “yes” vote or request a pen to cross out the name on the ballot.
A person’s vote is not secret
Uhhum.
Wow you sure did copy and paste from a wikipedia article that doesn’t even bother to source the claim to any of the overtly state propaganda articles at the bottom of the page it uses as a bibliography.
And you didn’t even bother mentioning where you got it so we’re 2 levels of lack of citations deep.
Gee I wonder why leftists constantly criticize anti-communists for being intellectually lazy and dishonest…
I linked the absolute most liberal friendly source for you. Banning factionalism didn’t mean they banned democracy. Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
It’s very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.
Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.
It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.
You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.
It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.
Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.
Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.
Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.
You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.
And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.
There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.
The USSR was overall very pro-science. In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population. Marxism itself is founded on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Certain liberal sciences had been, at the time, focused on Idealism, such as Race Science.
And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.
Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?
Just like, everywhere they’ve tried it.
You must have an odd definition of Totalitarian Dictatorship then, I suppose.
Viewed from hexbear this thread has 27 comments lol
Hexbear isn’t federated with many communities though is it?
Yes and no. They are federated with many communities, but the larger anti-Marxist instances like Lemmy.world are not federated. That’s by design, Hexbear wishes to protect their marginalized members such as their trans, queer, gender-nonconforming, and EM/POC communities.
The guitarist in the fourth panel… is that Rock Against Communism? I’ve never actually seen bands, especially good ones, go “Yeah, fuck Communism! Gold for the gold god!” A lot of the best concerts were like those at Woodstock, or they’d be underground punk shows, or large arenas where the singer is sick and tired of record companies. If the fourth panel were really happening, it’d probably be Bumfuck-Nowhere, U.S.A.
Funny, the same thing happened when I realized that I’m Trans. It’s almost as if capitalist ran media is incentivised to lie and decive in ways that cause permanent damage.
If that explained it, all capitalist run media would be lying. But they are clearly not all lying.
It’s more about who’s running it what their goals are. Communist media is widely known for being filled with propaganda and lies, after all.
If that explained it, all capitalist run media would be lying. But they are clearly not all lying.
It’s more about who’s running it what their goals are. Communist media is widely known for being filled with propaganda and lies, after all.
Capitalist propaganda is so good you don’t even realize it’s almost all lies.
Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: Artificially upvoted😂 There is a spectre haunting Lemmy — the spectre of communist bots & trolls 👻
Related meme:
Thankfully we have other ways of coming to an understanding about China. Particularly the media, especially international media.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_China
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_papers
Luckily most countries don’t believe the lies the US is trying to spread about China.
The lies the US spread about china… which are those? Just curious.
Many, like the exploding helmets thing, or the idea of Xi being an unaccountable dictator.
Should be easily proven by giving an example of Xi being held to account.
For what exactly?
Meanwhile in burgerland, Obama dropped an average of 60 bombs on north africa and the middle east every single day during his presidency. Have the US people held him to account, and have him face a war crimes tribunal for this atrocity against humanity?
Just take a look at any mainstream western media that mentions China and it shouldn’t take too long to spot a lie, it will probably even be in the headline. Even just the fact that it’s practically a joke-meme that anything China does that is unambiguously positive will get a headline in the west that includes “But At wHaT cOsT?!?”
But for a few obvious, overt examples: Uighur “genocide.” Spy balloons. Winnie the Pooh ban. Social credit scores.
If communism worked, there would nation using it. There’s none.
Mix of capitalism and communism is best. Go too far in any direction and you’re fucked.
If communism worked, there would nation using it. There’s none.
There are many States currently existing with the overall ideology of Communism, or Marxism, as their base, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and DPRK.
Mix of capitalism and communism is best. Go too far in any direction and you’re fucked.
How on Earth do you have a mix of Communism and Capitalism? Are you talking avout Dengism, where the Communist Party and State structure oversee a Market economy with heavy central planning, but allow foreign Capital and investment to speed up industrialization?
PRC
How on Earth do you have a mix of Communism and Capitalism
Arguably, the PRC is juggling both. I don’t claim to be an expert, but there are certain capitalist undercurrents going on in the private sector along with some level of CCP tension.
You might want to read China Has Billionaires if you have an hour. The PRC’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics would be closer to Communist directed Capitalism, but they have large amounts of central planning. They are overall Socialist.
Communism in theory is amazing, but in reality no such thing can exist, since our species are not able of this kind of cooperation. Socialism on the other hand is pretty much possible, but we have a long way to accomplish that.
This is Idealism, Human Nature changes alongside Mode of Production.
What do you believe Communism and Socialism are, and why Communism is impossible yet Socialism is?
This is like the opposite experience I had. Everyone said capitalism is bad and I get down voted to die if I say I disagree.
There has been a weird switch in the last 10 years. Around 1990s it was obvious to just about everyone in the world how communism is a completely failed ideology. But somehow, it took just a single generation to forget that.
Something something gotta do the exact reverse of your parents whatever they’re doing I guess.
The Cold War never ended.
It is bad tho lol
Why?
Pol pot has entered the chat
literally not a communist and rejected by almost communist.
Communist vietnam fought a war against feudalist cambodia under pol pot.
The US-backed fascist that denounced Marxism and was defeated by Communists? Why?
It always ends up as a dictatorship, because communism puts too much trust and responsibility on the one in power. So much so that, no one history was able to resist being a dictator.
There have been plenty of Capitalist dictatorships to stop Communism. The deal with dictatorial states has less to do with their internal economic policies, and more to do with world superpowers intervening to advance their own interests. You can see this with the Eastern Bloc having strong ties to the U.S.S.R. instead of having their Communist ideas being brought up within their own state, and the Deng being Soviet-influenced. Yugoslavia is a very good example of a Communist state done right, as is Vietnam; the former was deemed false Communism by the U.S.S.R., and the latter was left alone. There’s also Cuba, which again, is not under the U.S.S.R. You can also see Capitalist satellite states being given arms support by the United States, which really makes it far less about the nation’s own choice to be Capitalist or Communist, and more about their status within the Cold War.
I do agree that Communist economies aren’t perfect, but it’s not as simple as G.I. Joe.
TL;DR No economic system exists in a vacuum; nations act and are acted upon each other like cogs in a giant machine.
What on Earth are you talking about? Can you give an example? Not a single AES state has been managed by a single person, especially not one who had to “resist temptation.”
How do you believe AES states function politically?
What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics? Or Xi Jinping who’s been made President for life or whatever recently? Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it? The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name? No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.
I will admit though that after Stalin, the USSR changed out rulers pretty regularly so that doesn’t seem like a dictatorship to me. Same with Cuba now after Castro. Now people just say it because those countries allow only one party I guess.
What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics?
Purging fascists and Capitalists from the party is a good thing. Purging did not necessarily mean executing, it meant forcing out of the Party.
Or Xi Jinping who’s been made President for life or whatever recently?
Mind sharing what you mean, “or whatever?” Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?
Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it?
Does getting re-elected make you a dictator? Lmao.
The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name?
In what way?
No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.
Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?
Mind sharing what you mean, “or whatever?” Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?
I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he’s got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There’s a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea.
In what way?
Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don’t even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote “yes or no” for that person, which isn’t very democratic if you don’t know the alternative.
Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?
I don’t, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I’d be curious to see them.
I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he’s got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There’s a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea
If people reelect candidates, what purpose does limiting them serve?
Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don’t even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote “yes or no” for that person, which isn’t very democratic if you don’t know the alternative.
Untrue, generally.
I don’t, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I’d be curious to see them.
Try Reading This Soviet World, or Blackshirts and Reds.
well, it’s not that communism in itself is bad, but so far every implantation of it was bad
On the contrary, Communism has done wonders for the working class. Skyrocketing literacy rates, life expectancy, housing rates, access to education and healthcare, expanded democratic processes and political participation, and massive reductions in poverty.
libertarians: “the increase in global quality of life is all because of capitalism!”
communists: “the increase in global quality of life is all because of communism!”
Well, the Communists would be correct here.
Lol I saw the comment that was removed. The comment couldn’t have been more neutral saying people who ignore the problems in the most Communist historical societies reduce the perceived integrity of it’s proponents.
This mod is the exact antithesis of this meme. Pure censorship.
The removed comment was “as a black man”
shut up
Modlog has this comment: My grandparents would like a word, since they barely escaped communist rule, while their siblings/other family members didn’t. They could tell you first hand what it was like. So go ahead and call me brainwashed.
Do people just not believe Eastern Europeans etc exist lol
Am I the only person in the world with reading comprehension? Can you even find a single fucking claim in that? “I knew a guy once who said it was bad so now the conversation is over”
This is the level of evidence that’s sufficient for people brainwashed by 100 years of propaganda.
Doesn’t even specify where. Did they escape Cuba? Is the reason they had to ‘escape’ because their former slaves wanted to kill them? Who knows! Doesn’t matter!
I don’t think anyone took it as some be-all and end-all argument. It’s just an anecdote and reason why the person believes what they do. Removing it as “reason: Typical anti-communist propaganda” as it shown on modlog seem silly.
It’s just an anecdote
It’s not a fucking anecdote. Look up what an anecdote is.
Who? What? Where? When? Why?
Not a single one of those questions answered.
Removing it as “reason: Typical anti-communist propaganda” as it shown on modlog seem silly.
100% justified.
It’s not a fucking anecdote. Look up what an anecdote is.
I’m sorry, I’m not a native English speaker. I just meant that they just mentioned their grandparent’s/family’s experience and how it helped form the view he has now. I don’t get how that makes you so unhappy.
Not a single one of those questions answered.
Well if the comment hadn’t been deleted you might’ve had a change to ask them lol
they just mentioned their grandparent’s/family’s experience
No they didn’t.
Classic “improved democracy”
Every system is bad and will ultimately fail for the vast majority. As long as humans partake in it.
Weird because China is succeeding quite well.
Probably more fascist than communist these days. My actual favourite theory though is that there are way more important things happening under the hood of nations, and whether they’re called communist or democratic or whatever is just a veneer.
James A. Robinson’s book Why Nations Fail for instance provides an interesting alternative way to look at this, that goes beneath the surface.
Beneath the surface of every great nation’s collapse is US Interference
What no theory does to a MFer. This is Idealism at its peak.
Tell me, why are Humans the problem?
Imagine how awesome a dictatorship would be if the dictator would want the best for their people instead of the best for their own? Oh right, never happened. Communism could be great, in theory. In real people partake and greed ruins it. Or is there a great working example?
And let’s not even talk about capitalism. If you really have to question this, enjoy your young innocent life with ideologies. Not meant sarcastically.
Communism is not about a Dictator doing good for people.
Read theory and study up on AES states.
Wow, what a reply. Did you even read what i said or you just pavlo-ed to “communism bad”?
Why do i even answer, you didn’t either
I read every word of it. Your comment was built on false assumptions and idealist thinking, rather than materialist.
You claimed that “Communism cannot work because people partake in it,” ie you laid out idealist thinking, rather than materialist. You then went on to claim that “dictators take advantage of it and ruin it,” which is again false. You don’t understand how AES states are structured, nor how they improved metrics.
As an example, here is the USSR’s democratic model:
As another example, here is wealth disparity in the USSR:
And as a final example, here is the rate of change in GDP per Capita of the USSR:
You don’t have any points, just vibes.
Ok you’ve read, but didn’t understand. Maybe i should’ve expressed myself more clearly.
I didn’t say dictators rule communism. It was an example of how every other system fails too. They all failed. Except capitalism, that thrieves perfectly. At least for the 1% and a few closely to it. For the rest it’s probably the worst of all fails. One that isn’t even obvious to the regular worker-drone.
And also you didn’t mention a system that works great and a live example of it. Who cares about a theory? In theory everything can work great. I’m not saying any theory is bad. I say there is no execution possible. History and the current state seem like pretty good markers.
So yeah cool, USSR was fine. Great Gini-index and all. Good point. But where is it now? Dying in the hands of one tremendously greedy piece of shit. Partially fucked by previous members.
Theory can’t compete with greed and/or religion. Unless you just love to theorize, smoke weed, and pretend it could be cool if only…
No insult meant. Probably better to have idealists than realists. I just can’t.
Well I’m sure it was explained why but tell me about the benefits of Nazi Germany. I’ll wait. 🤔
Why would anyone espousing the benefits of Communism support a fascist, anti-Communist state of Nazi Germany?
What do you love about communism?
Primarily, the fact that it solves the contradictions within Capitalism and empowers the Working Class. It’s the only way forward for Humanity.
Like the great rule Mao Zedong right? Kim Jong II was a great demonstration of the wonders of communism right?! 😁
Mao was a mixed bag. Life expectancy was doubled under Mao, and land was near totally equally redistributed among the peasantry from the previous landlords, but the Cultural Revolution was a mess and he was rightly removed from power. Still, concepts like the Mass Line are immensely useful, as are his writings.
The Kim family is fairly mixed, though we must consider that the DPRK was bombed into oblivion by the US and took decades to recover, and are doing much better now. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but better than the majority of Capitalist countries in the Global South.
Oh, please. Excuses.The Soviet was great to according to you too right? Pol Pot loved kittens?
The USSR drastically reduced wealth inequality:
Additionally, they went from pre-industrial feudalism to space in half a century, had free healthcare and university-level education, doubled life-expectancy, had more vacation days than the US, and earlier retirement ages than the US. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Pol Pot was a US-backed fascist that denounced Marxism and was stopped by Communist Vietnam, so no, Pol Pot was a monster and the US’ support for genocide was once again stopped by Communists.
“But… but… communism had never been tried!”
“That wasn’t real communism!”
“Read the theory!”
“Communism is the solution to climate change.”— proceeds to industrialise Aral Sea leading to shrinkage; and built the Three Gorges Dam leading to the massive deforestation and loss of biodiversity in flooded lands
Communism, the movement, has been tried and is continued to be tried. Communism, the end status of a global worker Republic devoid of class antagonisms, has never been reached. These are completely acceptable and compatible statements.
This brings us to the third: read theory so you don’t think this is some “gotcha” anymore.
And what empirically happened every time communism has been tried?
Large increases in home ownership, literacy rates, life expectancy, democratization, and quality of life as opposed to previous conditions.
And tens of millions of people being forced into the grave by starvation or outright murdered en masse
Starvation was ended by Socialism.
Large home ownership with poor quality.
Literacy rates achieved just as in democratic country.
Yes, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is democratic. “It’s in the name.”
Quality of life: you have to wait seven years to receive a car and long bread lines.
Life expectancy: shorter if the centralised authorirty did not artificially create famine and don’t send you to gulag or re-education camp
AES states are democratic. Study the structures themselves.
The quality of life was far higher than previously, and continues to improve.
AES states solved famines.
