• CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    There were no actual efforts to establish communism in eastern europe. Only autocratic regimes backed by soviet russia.

    • InternationalBastard@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.

      When people proclaim to be something doesn’t make it true.

    • dub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m no too learned in the subject but what would “true” communism even look like on the large scale like a country? Would it even be feasible?

      • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        True communism in a country is impossible.

        You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.

        A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

        To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.

        That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.

        • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.

          There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).

          There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.

          That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.

          It’s… complicated.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.

            It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.

              different approaches carry a different name

              Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …

              So, which one of those is the true communism?

              Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.

              • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.

                Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.

                He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory

                • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)

                  But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                  Aha, is that so?

                  I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well

                  Yeah, you could say that!

                  So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.

                  And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔

                  Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?

                  Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.

            Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.

            Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.

            • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Anarchist checking in, so, y’know, bias and all that. But I’d say it’s just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I’m an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We’ve had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn’t function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it’s scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it’s scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can’t have a fully anarchist society until it’s global.

              Which all just means that I’m an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.

      • IDriveWhileTired@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        If you want to argue against that, fine by me. I have nothing against an honest duscussion. But this comment is neither funny nor smart.

        • Matricaria@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I was about 99% this was a joke because I thought nobody could be this stupid. I don’t argue with jokes, that’s pointless.

          • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            But that is no joke at all. It is what every honest historian will tell you. If you take communism as it was defined by Marx (not that this would be the best system or even what I would propse, parts of it maybe) then no society actually tried that.

    • ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.

      Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.

        And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.

        This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.

    • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Oh here we go with “That wasn’t real communism!” as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Why do we put so much stock into the handful of failed communist experiments but not the capitalistic societies that have turned autocratic?

          • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            No, because that’s not the topic of discussion. Not here to entertain projection and whataboutism as a defense mechanism of hurt feelings.

            • fishtacos@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.

              A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”

              Just IMHO.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.

            • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.

              The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.

              Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.

              The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.

            • vinhill@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              I’m far from an expert on communism. But the government, and especially a single person, retaining power over the state and economy is far from communism, it’s more authoritarian. Communism in it’s very base is the citizens owning the means of production, not the state owning those. This in no way is represented in China, where the state has a lot of power over the economy and owns parts of some companies, but there are still capitalists owning factories and workers working there.

          • Tvkan@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            > According to https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.

            The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.

            That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.

    • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Also a terrible person. The world’s big enough for there to be many terrible people in it. You need to create a very robust bureaucracy to keep corruption out and maintaining one is a very unglamorous job. Revolutionaries rarely have that skill set.

  • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    The US political spectrum is leaning so far to the right. A US left is a France center or moderate right. So what Americans consider communism is merely what French consider moderate leftist.

    • I’m French living in the US
    • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, it’s basically “If you keep calling all of the stuff I like ‘communism’, then I guess that makes me a communist.”

    • gxgx55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Sure, but the meme refers to the communities on the internet that unironically go full tankie, praising Stalin and Mao.

      Worst of all, tankies tend to inflitrate sane leftist spaces and slowly transform them. I’ve witnessed it many times, and that just makes me think that Marxists-Leninists are just the most dominant form of leftism on the internet, which is horrible.

        • gxgx55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          It doesn’t, but in this thread’s we see a simultaneous claim of “We aren’t tankies, of course Stalin and Mao are not good examples of communists” and “Eastern european people were better off under the USSR”. Of course, I don’t think the same people are making both claims, but just the fact that some people can claim the latter and not get collectively shunned is indicative of a huge problem in leftist spaces, it’s disgusting frankly. Tankies are significant force, at least partially representing leftism to everyone else.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I think a lot of people give Mao a bad wrap.

        For what it’s worth, Stalin is a monster, and the state of China right now is repugnant.

        Mao didn’t intentionally lead tens of millions of people to starve in the same way Stalin did. Mao was trying to revolutionise agriculture (The Great Leap Forward) but didn’t understand the ecological and logistic principles required.

        I’m convinced his intentions were good, he just wasn’t educated enough to implement something like this.

  • sweet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

    boomers destroyed the earth beyond all belief, poisoned everyone with sketchy ass chemicals, destroyed the economy more than once (twice in my life), most of us will NEVER own a home because the housed your grand pappy paid 100k for is now worth 2.5 million and average yearly wage is less than 30,000… among a million other things. The greed and entitlement is baffling, mix that in with delusional red scare propaganda that a ton of people fall for and yall mfers spending time defending all this insane shit.

    we effectively live in a corporate government where what the people want doesn’t matter alongside the million other ways we are lied to and exploited. Billionaires and trillionaires run the world and they keep pushing for “the next thing” like the metaverse, blockchain and going mars while most of us cant even afford to fucking eat. Suck it. I guarantee that you cant even define communism and point out how it differs from social policies even on a very basic fundamental level. Fuck dude

    • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      And Soviet communism was… better how? Just as (if not more) destructive to the environment, and their “billionaires” were called “party members” instead. What an improvement! Now they can jail/deport political dissenters without even having to pretend to hold a fair trial.

      Now of course this is where communists usually go No True Scotsman, but consider for just ONE MOMENT that the concept of wealth inequality is not, in fact, unique to capitalism. Any economic system is vulnerable to greed. And that the countries with arguably the strongest social welfare, highest human development, etc. are… the Nordics. Hardly capitalist, hardly hellholes.

      This is why people say communists are angsty teenagers. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, but all of what you just pointed to is, in fact, not unique to capitalism. That’s just Americana. Pointing to the U.S. as a reason why “capitalism bad” is just as silly as pointing to N.K. as a reason why “communism bad”.
      Typical American with a viewpoint so narrow you can’t see further than your nose. I’ve had lots of interesting discussions with French communists, and I agree with some of their viewpoints, but to start with you have to realize that capitalism is not the root of ALL evil, only of some specific systemic issues, which are only a small part of what’s wrong with the US.

  • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Top: Filthy rich capitalists and Boomers that lick up their cool aid

    Bottom: Global South that produces both their wealth

    Blocking you I don’t want another reddit experience

  • Tvkan@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    western teenagers praising capitalism

    the children sewing their clothes, harvesting their food, mining their metals, …

  • EnnuinerDog@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    How dare teenagers not become Neoliberals while growing up in a late capitalist hellscape where climate change can’t be taken seriously because it isn’t a profitable problem to solve.

    • Matthew@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s a lot a reasonability in the space between neoliberalism and “Stalin did nothing wrong”

      • meteorswarm@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        There’s a lot of space in the left that isn’t stalinism. You can be a communist and have a deep critique of how 20th century communism worked, a learning from it and not wanting to repeat the bad parts.

        In leftist circles in the US, weird Stalin and Lenin fans are loud, but ultimately not that common.

  • tim@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I wish we could look at what the ussr did right and how it worked around its restrictions without rose tinted glasses. Some central planning of efficient railways and large industrial machinery might not be a bad idea. Lezz a fair doesn’t always produce great results. Walkable neighborhoods and commie blocks aren’t such a bad idea but fascist dictators are.

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    More like: People on the internet being critical of the current system, Americans on the internet saying “COMMUNISM BAD” as if USSR style state capitalism is the only other possible option.

    • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      How else would it work? You need some power structure that actively forbids a free market and private ownership. And that power will sooner or later be abused.

      You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.

      • mustyOrange@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        If we’re following Marx’s historical materialism (that society has transitions has a society, roughly being feudalism -> capitalism -> socialism -> communism), I think the next best step is a transition from capitalism to socialism is union ownership. Personally, I think worker co-ops and general syndicalism with a competing in a market for the worker owned businesses would be a great in between step that would not involve a crushingly oppressive state. The goal should be to keep it decentralized so one power structure being consumed by corruption doesn’t sink the fleet

        Achieving communism thru the state (called vanguard parties) isn’t all that well liked by many types of socialists and communists, especially those of us in the west. A lot of us prefer to take inspiration from mid-1900s labor groups who, while not achieving socialism that we want, created infinitely better working conditions and power dynamics for working class people. Most of the people who ran those organizations were socialists/communists in and of themselves, and they often times relied more upon collective direct action than just electoralism.

      • fishtacos@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        > You can’t just imagine some utopia where nobody has to work, and everything is free, and call that communism.

        Those are the anarchists (usually, definitions get fuzzy)

        Most communists recognize the need for a transition state, we call that Socialism.

        This isn’t a utopia we’re pitching, it’s hard work, and there will always be controversy, and people will have to work, we will just work less, and we will strive toward working even less over time.

        > And that power will sooner or later be abused

        There’s LOTS of evidence that, right now, under capitalism, that abuse is veeeeery bad. We can learn the lessons of previous socialist attempts, but capitalism? That’s shown to be corrupt and beyond repair.

        As well, right now, under capitalism, your politicians are bought and paid for by capitalists. Power is already being abused beyond control. Under a socialist system, it would be illegal to donate to politicians. Political campaigns would run within a short, standardized window of time, with equal funding, and commercials would be illegal, it would just be a platform of ideas and opinions. The people would vote for the person who best represents them, normal people.

        This exist in Cuba, right now. It’s SO much harder to take power from a system that actually represents regular citizens, instead of a system that is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

  • Kastelt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I honestly just want a system that

    1. Gets all of us out of this climate mess
    2. Gets rid of poverty
    3. Doesn’t create a global and national elite of rich people

    For a long time I’ve seen communism, as in: planned economy, and no ruling class (the latter the USSR failed to achieve, it seems) as the solution. But nowadays I don’t know. I don’t know if marxism in it’s original form is enough to explain society, and I don’t think anarchist communism, collectivism, mutualism whatever can work on a large scale. Social democracy doesn’t seem like it’s enough, either.

    • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Western politics already has a vehicle in which to accomplish your 3 bullet points called regulation. The problem is children in charge and the voters apathy to hold their feet to the fire.

      People should get mad, not at each other but at their “masters” that aren’t supposed to exist. The powers that be want us to argue amongst ourselves

    • icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I seriously believe we must build an A.I. to replace human leadership since we proved time and time again that we are corruptible, and that when that happens you start getting your poor and elite classes and rampaging exploitation of resources and its refusal to imorove to better technologies and processes (ie oil companies). We need something avobe humans to administer resources and solve politics since we just made both into ridiculous games that are alreaddy fixed so that everybody , exept those that a where winning already, loosses. I believe that the survival of the human race hinges on this.

  • hare_ware@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Didn’t the USSR just do state capitalism, and not actual communism or socialism? And weren’t they also totalitarian & also not a democracy? Are people actually asking for what was happening in astern Europe or something else?

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s kind of the point of horseshoe economics, “the people own the economy” is impossible to implement without an intermediate agency to actually oversee the day to day of said economy.

      What’s that entity? The government. Any conceptual type of non-state entity would just be governance in nature regardless of title, and therefore still essentially operate as “a state” if not the same state that the federal government exists as.

      Though as someone who works in modern IT I foresee the future of robotics and AGI allowing for the kind of economic automation that would make communism inevitable eventually as jobs are reduced over time in the course of the next hundred or two hundred years.

    • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yup. Also shot the anarchists, that worked with them and wanted democracy, in the back of the head during a meeting, The USSR then also did imperialism in their neighboring countries, deported a ton of people from those countries to death camps in siberia and allied with the nazies dividing Europe in their treaty

      • salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Anarchists are the first victims of authoritarian regimes. The dictator goes for them first, even before their sworn enemies, e.g. fascists or, if it’s a fascist dictatorship, communists.

        • Volodymyr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          The story of ukrainian anarchist communist, Machno, is interesting in this resect. Bolsheviks treated his so well. Russian revolution, although started occasionally with good ideas, quickly revealed itself as authorithian russian nationist imperialism.

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The USSR was definitely communist. They called themselves communist, were inspired by communists and implemented communist policies.

    • Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      In Germany the left leaning parties want that shit. It sucks. They side with Russia atm as well and a lot of them just have this odd nostalgia for the time

  • urgenthexagon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I am quite certain that there are proportionally more communists in post-socialist countries than in Western countries. According to the results of the “Rendszerváltás 30” public opinion survey conducted in 2020 by Policy Solutions, Závecz Research, and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 52% of the Hungarian population believes that the relative standard of living was better during the Kádár era, while 31% think it was worse. (Page 24) Of course, this doesn’t mean that 52% of the respondents are communists, but the results significantly contradict this meme. Is there any source to support the claim that there is a higher proportion of communists in Western countries compared to post-socialist countries?
    I cannot speak for other countries, but here, the Kádár-era remains popular for many people even to this day, particularly among those who lived during that time.

    • erogenouswarzone@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, all these sources pushing communism aren’t telling them how the Bolsheviks killed everybody that knew how to do anything: farmers, lawyers, doctors because they were deemed part of the problem, probably because they were the only ones saying “this is a bad idea.”

      Then the soviets were back in the dark ages, and only got up to speed because of Germany fucking with them in WW2, and not accounting for the winter. So they were saved by the winter, and Stalin, under threat, threw everyone into the machine.

      Millions of the workers were being killed - overworked to death - to get the Soviet war machine up to snuff in factories producing ammo, weapons, planes, whatever. No food, no water, just munitions to fight Germany, then to build bomb, then space flight, the. Collapse.

      But, to be fair, all that stuff crippled the US too. In 1970, when everything started going tits up, that’s when it caught up with us, and we’re still paying the bill with ious to the Chinese. When those loans come to call, there will probably be another revolution, or at least war because some asshole is going to say “Look what China is doing to us.”

        • Volodymyr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          As someone from postsoviet state, I could not agree more. Those pushing soviet union as example of comunist project are really not doing any good for the comunist projext.

          • Volodymyr@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            As AI gets more involved in decision making, the politics of AI will become a big point I think. Reponsibility, accountability, and maybe something resembing rights, or maybe access capacities. It may be a tool, but it is gaining something like an agency. So the polics of AI might be communist one.