Technically correct. They were under Stalins Marxism-Leninism, which was supposed to be a placeholder until true communism could be implemented.
But it’s a bit disingenuous to split that hair in this thread. The irony being that the latter are all countries that got to experience the kind of gouvernemental structure that Lenin facilitated.
Do not feed the troll. Strange fellas, lying on the internet, arbitrarily defining communism to suit their rose-colored ideology is no basis for a system of debate.
True debate stems from a knowledge of history, past events and conditions that led to them, not some farcical comment (as the one you are replying to).
If I went around in communist times claiming I knew what Marxism-Leninism was just because I read a manifesto, they’d send the secret police after me.
@Duke_Nukem_1990@BeigeAgenda, correct, the key is the sovereignty of the people, not that of a single person or a small elite, this would reduce the communist system to a mere fascist dictatorship just as rotten as capitalism called democracy and where banks and multinationals dictate the rules, thereby it is not a democracy.
True Communism is impossible to sustain in the real world. it requires someone unimpeachable at its head. It affords too much power and no accountability to those in charge. Even if it were to start out well, sooner or later corruption would seep in. Communism is impossible while human greed exists
There would be no one “in charge”. Communism and anarchy go hand in hand.
human greed
This is the lie that we have been fed all of our lives under capitalism. It’s so ingrained in us that some of us can’t even imagine a world of helping each other thrive instead of exploiting each other.
You didn’t say true communism is impossible, you said true communism is impossible to sustain. Why are you moving the goalpost instead of just taking the L? Lol
The main issue with words like “socialism” and “communism” is that the definition of those words depends entirely on personal political biases, and most people unaware of this assume their personal definition is the same definition used by the person they’re arguing with. The word “socialism” was in use even prior to Marx and has many definitions, and “Communism” is an ideal rather than an explicit governmental structure. That being the case, the word socialism can be understood to mean “the government acts in the interest of average people rather than solely for its ruling class,” “workers themselves own the means of production rather than individuals or institutions,” or “there should be some kind of welfare state.” Communism can be understood to mean “a series of self-governing autonomous communities in the absence of social or economic hierarchy of any kind,” “A marxist-leninist inspired system of state centralization which ostensibly governs on behalf of the people,” or “any authoritarianism of any kind taking place at any point in history.”
All this is to say if you find yourself feeling strongly for or against “socialism” or “communism” and are in conversation with someone with the opposite perspective of that term, try to establish a mutual understanding of what is being disagreed upon before engaging. For example, I agree that any system which lacks checks on leadership (or strongly depends on leadership in general) has fundamental issues but I am still sympathetic to socialism, communism, and anarchism which are ideals which have not yet been achieved sustainably or meaningfully.
None of the lower countries had communism.
Technically correct. They were under Stalins Marxism-Leninism, which was supposed to be a placeholder until true communism could be implemented.
But it’s a bit disingenuous to split that hair in this thread. The irony being that the latter are all countries that got to experience the kind of gouvernemental structure that Lenin facilitated.
You can argue if they had sunshine scenario communism all day, but they certainly was under the oppressive thumb of USSR.
Do not feed the troll. Strange fellas, lying on the internet, arbitrarily defining communism to suit their rose-colored ideology is no basis for a system of debate.
True debate stems from a knowledge of history, past events and conditions that led to them, not some farcical comment (as the one you are replying to).
If I went around in communist times claiming I knew what Marxism-Leninism was just because I read a manifesto, they’d send the secret police after me.
You are right, I just couldn’t help it the bait was too great.
I didn’t say anything about communism being good or bad there, just that none of those countries ever lived under communism.
@Duke_Nukem_1990 @BeigeAgenda, correct, the key is the sovereignty of the people, not that of a single person or a small elite, this would reduce the communist system to a mere fascist dictatorship just as rotten as capitalism called democracy and where banks and multinationals dictate the rules, thereby it is not a democracy.
True Communism is impossible to sustain in the real world. it requires someone unimpeachable at its head. It affords too much power and no accountability to those in charge. Even if it were to start out well, sooner or later corruption would seep in. Communism is impossible while human greed exists
There would be no one “in charge”. Communism and anarchy go hand in hand.
This is the lie that we have been fed all of our lives under capitalism. It’s so ingrained in us that some of us can’t even imagine a world of helping each other thrive instead of exploiting each other.
And yet, whenever communism is tried, a tyrant rises to the top.
…which means that it isn’t communism. Come on, try to keep up.
Exactly, Which brings us back to my initial point… True communism is impossible… try to keep up…
You didn’t say true communism is impossible, you said true communism is impossible to sustain. Why are you moving the goalpost instead of just taking the L? Lol
Capitalism is impossible to sustain in the real world. It’s literally killing the planet which will result in the extinction of the human race.
Yup, what’s your point?
That Communism is looking pretty sustainable rn.
Nope, it’s still failed every time it’s been tried
What is your suggestion?
The main issue with words like “socialism” and “communism” is that the definition of those words depends entirely on personal political biases, and most people unaware of this assume their personal definition is the same definition used by the person they’re arguing with. The word “socialism” was in use even prior to Marx and has many definitions, and “Communism” is an ideal rather than an explicit governmental structure. That being the case, the word socialism can be understood to mean “the government acts in the interest of average people rather than solely for its ruling class,” “workers themselves own the means of production rather than individuals or institutions,” or “there should be some kind of welfare state.” Communism can be understood to mean “a series of self-governing autonomous communities in the absence of social or economic hierarchy of any kind,” “A marxist-leninist inspired system of state centralization which ostensibly governs on behalf of the people,” or “any authoritarianism of any kind taking place at any point in history.”
All this is to say if you find yourself feeling strongly for or against “socialism” or “communism” and are in conversation with someone with the opposite perspective of that term, try to establish a mutual understanding of what is being disagreed upon before engaging. For example, I agree that any system which lacks checks on leadership (or strongly depends on leadership in general) has fundamental issues but I am still sympathetic to socialism, communism, and anarchism which are ideals which have not yet been achieved sustainably or meaningfully.