• There is, and most have, despite imperial core propaganda to the contrary. Here’s a 1955 CIA report that was declassified in 2008.

      Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

      “Totalitarian” is itself propaganda: The Origins of Totalitarianism

      Hannah Arendt came from wealth and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. “Totalitarianism” is a bourgeois liberal, anticommunist construct for the purposes of equivalating fascism and communism.

      Monthly Review, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

      U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

      If fact almost all of the “Western left” (that wasn’t repressed by the red scares) was captured by the imperial core’s propaganda machine: Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism

          • 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.

              •  GoodEye8   ( @GoodEye8@lemm.ee ) 
                link
                fedilink
                English
                321 days ago

                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?

    • 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?

        • 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.

  • Now I love boiling down the pitfalls of modern western society into large statements like “capitalism bad” and “communism good” as much as anyone, but having dealt with a bunch of people dismiss good change as “that’s communism” has made me rethink how I talk about topics online and in person.

    Now the accelerationist are gonna be mad about this for sure, but maybe you should start small, and discuss topics at a more local level. Then again the internet is world wide and everyone wants to talk about grand scale things.

    Basically, I’ve stopped telling people outside of my direct circle that leftism cool, and instead talk about socialised medicine programs, pushing for support of worker owned productions and business, getting involved with coop housing. Lot easier when you don’t have to bump up against the red scare.

    •  vga   ( @vga@sopuli.xyz ) 
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      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.

  • It’s worse when you say you’re a Communist or say Communism is good, and people agree, but when you advocate for AES or advocate for standard Marxist theory the same people flip on you and call you brainwashed.

      • There are two kinds of deviations on the left, right-deviations (aka opportunists) that are succdems and such, basically defending capitalism and always siding with libs against communists, and the left-deviations (also called ultras, leftcoms etc. often including anarchism) who refuse to acknowledge every real-world attempt at socialism as “not real communism”, “statism”, “authoritarianism”, “state capitalism” etc. because real world has a habit of clashing with their ideals.
        Some short reading.

        If you want to met those latter people, probably just wait for the answers for my comment here, since there’s many of them here on fediverse.

  • Look, I’m no fan of capitalism. Socialist/communist dictatorships are still sort of worse tho… Both have challenges, and bluntly, at least with democracy/capitalism, there’s a chance we can recover from pretty much any horrible crap that goes down.

    … For the most part, we won’t, but there’s at least a chance.

    Communal/social services, which are technically socialist/Communist, are also not necessarily bad. Look at fire departments, as an example.

    • Socialism and Communism are Democratic as well.

      Social services are not technically socialist, nor communist.

      How familiar are you with Marxist Theory or the actual structures and histories of AES states?

    • communism has not worked and won’t work at a great scale (not talking about small communes). as history has shown, it will fail at the human factor.

      unchecked capitalism won’t work either, we would end up in [insert cyberpunk dystopia]. that is why we need the state to do a socialist job in a capitalist system (redistribution of wealth, healthcare, taking care of handicapped, …).

      in my opinion, that is where the usa failed majorly. coincidentally, that is where i hear most communism support from. i have too little data points to make a conclusion. but it would be really interesting to see demographics of these statements made in the comic.

      • communism has not worked and won’t work at a great scale (not talking about small communes). as history has shown, it will fail at the human factor.

        What Human Factor? This is Idealism, what’s considered Human Nature isn’t fixed or static, and changes alongside Mode of Production.

        • As you said: socialism is an idealistic system. however, humans are far from ideal beings. even if you find the ideal group that agrees on their flavour of socialism and manages to actually do it - there is no guarantee, that this will stay as it is. as you mentioned yourself: humans change - sadly not always for the better.

          don’t take my word for it. watch a documentary about a bigger commune (small village, houses scattered through a forest and such), or even better: visit one. They all will tell you that heavy moderation is needed. not everyone is allowed to join, sometimes old members even have to go. if you try to scale up these systems to the size of even a small country, they will fail.

          • As you said: socialism is an idealistic system.

            I did not. I said you were practicing idealism, the philosophy that states that ideas create reality, rather than Materialism, which states that reality creates ideas. The idea of a nebulous, unchanging, static “Human Nature” is idealism and ahistorical.

            We are not talking about Communes, we are talking about Communism, with central planning and whatnot.

            • We are talking about communism, agreed. That means we are also talking about communes: small(ish) groups of people who want to live together in a communist system. I come from a practical approach: if you want to do something, it needs to work under sterile laboratory conditions first (communism does this). then you can take it to smaller experiments (communes which survived for long, usually have a low hierarchy). after gathering real world experience, you can slowly increase the size of these experiments. so far none of the countries, which had a socialist government still have a (valid) socialist system.

              {…} Communism, with central planning and whatnot.

              seems like you are suggesting a more centralised form of government and stronger hierarchical structures than any of the communes i personally know. what is your suggested path to avoid the pitfalls of the past communist governments? what safeguards do you suggest to prevent a (group of) person(s) accumulating power and perverting the government into a dictatorship?

              • We are talking about communism, agreed. That means we are also talking about communes: small(ish) groups of people who want to live together in a communist system.

                Communes are not communist systems, they are their own separate category.

                seems like you are suggesting a more centralised form of government and stronger hierarchical structures than any of the communes i personally know.

                Correct, because we are talking about Communism, not Communalism.

                what is your suggested path to avoid the pitfalls of the past communist governments? what safeguards do you suggest to prevent a (group of) person(s) accumulating power and perverting the government into a dictatorship?

                Soviet Democracy was already good, but Mass Line theory improved upon it.

                • i give you that: soviet democracy looks pretty neat on paper. lets look at its implementation.

                  people gather and elect representatives. these representatives in turn elect representatives again as needed. as the system grows, this will gradually form a hierarchical governmental body. in contrast to most democracies, representatives did not get elected for a certain (maximum) timeframe and could always be voted out again. additionally there wiuld not be a desperation of power: they where legislative, executive and judiciary all the same.

                  1905 the lenin and the bolschevikes introduced such a system. shortly after they only got a minority in the votes. lenin forcefully disbanded the opposition, (possibly rightfully arguing that the burgeoise could not accurately represent the workers) and explicitly excluding the burgeoise from the democratic rights.

                  Some people say that the end of soviet democracy was in 1918. Lets go with 1921: Martial law was in action, many people where discontent with the bolshevik government, mainly workers and sailors where protesting (kronstadt). this act of rebellion was swiftly crushed by the red army and many people lost their lives. at the same time lenin was still assuring democracy is working as intended.

                  conclusion: the democracy lasted for about 16 years. in multiple occasions people where forcefully pushed away. this is possible, because a pyramid structure is created by the system. later this form of government was described as “extremely democratic dictatorship of the proletariat”. dictatorship does not have to be bad for the people, but it has the tendency to do so.

                  overall i encourage you to explore socialist systems from the bottom up. start on paper, if it works try it out in the real world. gradually increase the size and dont be afraid to learn and adjust - now failing is still cheap and easy. the soviet democracy might have worked on a smaller scale. but applied to a country the size of udssr it was too much power focussed on too little people.

      • 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.

            • 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.

  • I just returned from the Berlin Wall memorial and the GDR museum and all I can say to that is ‘fuck that noise’. Communism always led to an authoritarian murderous regime with no regard for the needs of their people. Yes capitalism fucking sucks but living under communism sucks even harder.