• Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    6 months ago

    So the tens of millions of people that died under communism were all landlords? Wow, what are the chances of that

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s different, because of reasons. When someone dies within a communist system that is communism’s fault. When someone dies in a capitalist system, that’s their own fault for not tugging on those bootstraps.

      • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        The “black book of communism” includes german soldiers who died during WW2, it includes people who might have had 4 kids but only had 2, it includes victims of the US in vietnam.

    • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Communism is a bit different than what those “communist” countries had. If anything it was socialism, but that still doesn’t fit completely. These “communist” countries are just one-party states in which the government controls the economy. The idea of putting the working class in power is useless if you create a government that can make decisions against the opinions of the working class. Socialist one-party state ≠ Communist democracy

      • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        ew a revisionist, it was REAL socialism led by REAL communists and it was based as fuck and the one that are still around are real and they are based. also theres no such thing a one party socialist state that is a myth at most u could say past and present socialist countries has a dominant political party but by no means was there only one, and other parties were and are allowed in those countries.

        • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah. You don’t get to revise away anything uncomfortable. USSR and China were socialist experiments that succeeded in raising quality of life and transforming rural countries into industrial, scientific states. If people wanna talk about what went wrong, great. Pretending they “don’t count” just puppets capitalist apologia and doesn’t help

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            From a theoretical point, they don’t count as communist. They entirely dropped the all-important aspect of giving power to the working class.

            Both the USSR and China, in their self-described “communist” periods, were ruled with absolute power and directed by a head of state. The USSR collapsed, and modern China is about as communist as North Korea is democratic.

            • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              i was a little worried there comrade but im glad to see u have a good unstanding of just how great the PRC is, after all what could be more the democratic than the glorious DPRK.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Communism is a society without social classes, money, or a state.
          Feel free to name one so-called communist country that implemented that.

          The eastern block was as communist as North Korea is democratic.
          They did however socialize ownership of factories etc, so they did have an authoritarian form of socialism.

            • pivot_root@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              Name a real-world implementation of communism that either isn’t Marxist–Lenninist, or one that is and has moved beyond the “dictatorship of the proletariat” stage. I’ll be waiting.

      • Gigan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Do you have a real-world example of a successful communist state? Because you may not like it, but those “communist” countries are humanities best attempts at enacting communism and they resulted in millions of people dying.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Millions less than the previous government forms, like Feudalism. Famines disappeared quickly and industrialization allowed for life expectancy to double in the USSR and Maoist China, despite issues like Civil War, World Wars, and so forth.

          Did a lot go wrong? Absolutely. Were they massive improvements? Also yes.

        • Peter G@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          @Gigan
          There are none! There’s a reason pure communism is called a utopia. Because it is! While it may work for a small community of like-minded individuals, is just not scalable. The more people there are the more difference of opinion there is.
          @RmDebArc_5

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.

            • Peter G@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              @Cowbee
              Resolved how? Did I somehow miss a memo?

              There’s a reason that all past attempts at the establishment of communist states have failed. Lenin, Mao, et al, had grand ideas steeped in Marxist teachings. All of them ended up in an authoritarian state. Cuba, North Korea, China, USSR. All failed because of the human factor.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Contradiction refers to the remaining vestiges from Capitalism, ie a State, Class, and Money. I suggest reading up on Historical Materialism and Dialectics.

                Secondly, failing because of “the human factor” is a purely idealistic outlook and not a materialist analysis, you’re arguing off of vibes.

                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yes, you are quite literally an idealist by citing “the Human Factor” as a necessary reason for issues faced by AES countries.

                    Idealism proposes the idea of unchanging Human characteristics, Materialism proposes the idea that environments shape ideas. The former is undoubdtedly unscientific, while the latter is scientific.

                    Fighting for a goal is not what I am referring to as Idealism.

        • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Communism only works on paper because it assumes that the people in power are going to just happily share everything equally. Humans don’t work that way, we’re selfish, greedy, and will hurt others to get ahead. There is no difference between a capitalist and communist leader. They both live better, eat better, make more money. There’s no equality there

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.

            It’s the sociopaths who seek power that don’t work that way. The biggest success of capitalism is that the sociopaths have normalized their behavior and cast kindness as a flaw or disorder.

            • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.

              And also opportunists that will take the opportunity to loot and steal, then happily abandon anyone behind them still in the disaster.

              If your baseline assumption is reliant on people doing… well, much if anything outside of being self serving it will break down fast.

              • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                That is exactly the sociopathic propaganda I mentioned, that simply isn’t backed by evidence, but casts people with empathy as ignorant.

                • TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  It’s not propaganda to acknowledge shitty people exist and will try to take advantage of any situation, it’s just basic reality when you’re out from behind a keyboard.

                  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    It’s not propaganda to acknowledge they exist.

                    It’s propaganda to normalize sociopathic behavior as the appropriate response to sociopathy.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s an astonishingly immaterial, idealistic analysis.

            Communism assumes people work in their best interests, and because ideas come from material environments and not from some idea of “spirit,” Humans are more cooperative in cooperative systems and competitive in competitive systems.

            A Communist leader is one that is democratically accountable and production is owned by the state, therefore all “profits” are reinvested into the economy for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few. Corruption is possible, yes, but so too is legislating protections against Corruption. In Capitalism, this corruption is required to function.

        • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          No. But that doesn’t mean something like a socialist democracy couldn’t be achieved. Socialism isn’t bound to have a certain type of government and if we get rid of capitalism I would still like to have a say in what happens next

    • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      @Gigan @Grayox
      No one died under communism because communism has never been achieved in the modern world. People died under state capitalist and state socialist authoritarian governments that people mislabel as communist because they don’t know what communism is.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        AES countries were and are legitimate attempts at building Communism. People have died in these countries, but at the same time many saw drastic increases in quality of life and industrialization. Dismissing AES is usually a sign of not understanding Marxism.

        • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          @Cowbee
          I understand Marxism and reject AES countries because they not only abandoned many of the core principles of communism but weren’t even successful at achieving communism.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            What “core principles of Communism” were abandoned?

            Why do you believe a country can achieve a global, worker owned republic without class, money, or a state while Capitalist states exist?

            • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              @Cowbee
              Countries like the Soviet Union deviated from some core principles of communism, including classlessness by introducing a new bureaucratic class, statelessness (the withering away of the state as envisioned by Marx never happened), and a moneyless economy by retaining wage labor and currency.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago
                1. There was not a new “beaurocratic class.” Government ownership of the Means of Production is Socialist, as profits are controlled collectively, rather than by Capitalists. Beaurocrats and state planners were not a “new class” but an extension of the workers.

                2. The whithering away of the state is IMPOSSIBLE until global Socialism has been achieved. The USSR could not possibly have gotten rid of the military while hostile Capitalist countries existed. Additionally, Statelessness in the Marxian sense doesn’t mean no government, but a lack of instruments by which one class oppresses another.

                3. Wage Labor did not persist for the sake of Capitalist profit, but to be used via the government, which paid for generous safety nets. To eliminate money in a Socialist state takes a long time, and cannot simply be done overnight.

                I really think you need to revisit Marx. I suggest Critique of the Gotha Programme.

                • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  @Cowbee

                  1. There was a Bureaucratic class in the Soviet Union that was above everyone else. Bureaucrats held significant power and privileges distinct from the working class, which led to a stratified society rather than the classless society envisioned by socialism.
                  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Bureaucrats existing, with additional powers entrusted via the rest of the workers, is not in conflict with the goals of Socialism. The government is not distinct from workers in Socialist society.

                    How do you believe Marx envisaged administration?

                  • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    @Cowbee
                    2. The concept of the “withering away of the state” in Marxism refers to the gradual dissolution of state institutions as class distinctions disappear and society transitions to communism. It does not necessarily require global socialism to be achieved first, and the expansion of state power and repression under regimes like the Soviet Union contradicted this principle.

              • C Ⓐ T@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                @Cowbee
                Achieving a global, worker-owned republic without class, money, or a state while capitalist states exist presents significant challenges. It would require widespread international cooperation, grassroots movements, and a shift in global consciousness toward socialist ideals. International solidarity, mass education and organization, and an immediate introduction of a communist economic model would make it much easier.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Yes, so I am not sure why you are criticizing AES countries for leading the effort but not achieving them yet. This is anti-dialectical reasoning, which goes directly against the philosophical aspects of Marxism.