CAPSLOCKFTW ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 251•11 months agoThere were no actual efforts to establish communism in eastern europe. Only autocratic regimes backed by soviet russia.
InternationalBastard ( @InternationalBastard@kbin.social ) 199•11 months agoIt’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.
And here comes the guy who thinks he can do it better, this time without mass killings.
DoucheAsaurus ( @DoucheAsaurus@kbin.social ) 86•11 months agoWith capitalism we just outsource the death to 3rd world countries.
cryball ( @cryball@sopuli.xyz ) 17•11 months agoCan’t critizise something that has never been tried! Also we already got a comment critizising capitalism as a counter argument :D
CAPSLOCKFTW ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 8•11 months agoThis time without hierarchy wherever possible. And we’ll keep most of the capitalistic economy as is, just redistribute the wealth so that everybody is safe and happy. Cut the bullshit jobs, make produced goods more durable and sustainable, so that the last at least ten times as long, cut more jobs in producing, distribute the remaining work to all the people, everybody who wants to get a little extra can do this by working, most will. I certainly would still work even if i did not have to, even if there is no monetary benefit. Doing a job that is nice and that you like is fun, because you’re doing your part.
ciko22i3 ( @ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz ) 19•11 months agoCommunism 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 ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 42•11 months agoNah, 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 ( @Fazoo@lemmy.ml ) 15•11 months ago
Oh here we go with “That wasn’t real communism!” as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.
CAPSLOCKFTW ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 24•11 months agoI 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.
LadyAutumn ( @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 3•11 months agoThey are though. China, Vietnam and Cuba are all pretty drastically different and they are all communist countries.
NattyNatty2x4 ( @NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org ) 8•11 months agoChina is state capitalist, not communist
LadyAutumn ( @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 3•11 months agoThe 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.
vinhill ( @vinhill@feddit.de ) 7•11 months agoI’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.
NattyNatty2x4 ( @NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org ) 5•11 months agoI’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.
Hexadecimalkink ( @Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml ) 2•11 months agoGive me an example of a capitalist society. Waiting.
vegai ( @vegai@suppo.fi ) 13•11 months agoYes yes. And America is not real market economy capitalism either, that’s the only reason why it sucks so much.
Nalivai ( @Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de ) 36•11 months agoAmerica is very close to being real market economy, that’s why it sucks so much.
ArcaneSlime ( @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 6•11 months agoAnd that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.
Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.
The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market
capitalismeconomy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.) bloodfart ( @bloodfart@lemmy.ml ) 15•11 months agoCrony capitalism* is *just capitalism. The agorist free market capitalism is just starting the whole thing over under the mistaken belief that it’ll end up different.
ArcaneSlime ( @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•11 months agoYes yes and communism will never repeat it’s past mistakes because that wasn’t real communism, I know.
bloodfart ( @bloodfart@lemmy.ml ) 4•11 months agoI know you’re trying to use sarcasm, but communist countries don’t generally repeat the mistakes of other communist countries. They famously at least try to share knowledge openly with each other.
ArcaneSlime ( @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•11 months agoHey at least millions of people die in new mistakes! Or is that all “western propaganda товарищ?”
yA3xAKQMbq ( @yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee ) 3•11 months agoLol, what utter bullshit.
Pfizer doesn’t have a monopoly on insulin, it’s primarily produced by Eli Lilly (who were the first), Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.
„The government“ also doesn’t „enforce“ patents, companies have found a way to make small changes to drugs to keep them perpetually patented. The recent price drops of insulin in the US are the *result of government intervention *.
Please do get lost with you Alex Jones r/conspiracy drivel, thx.
ArcaneSlime ( @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•11 months agoYou mean the cheap kind you can get at walmart, or the fast acting stuff everyone complains about being expensive? I mean, I don’t think anyone is claiming that the cheap atuff is too expensive, they’re always talking about the fast acting kind or so they say, so that’s what I’m talking about too, since I was directly referencing people complaining about expensive insulin, you see.
Nonetheless, though I may not be super up on which megacorporation holds patents for which drug, and in essence they’re all exactly the same to me since they operate the same way in terms of patents, the fact that corporation “A” holds the patent instead of corporation “B” is a nonfactor, just replace the name in your head. Hit f12 and edit it if you really lack the imagination to just insert the correct corporation and keep reading.
The government doesn’t enforce patents, eh? Ok, so what specifically happens if you start selling shit patented by “a corporation of your choosing?” Pinkertons? Well maybe if we’re talking about 1800s Wells Fargo, or current WOTC, but that is rare. No unless I’m mistaken it’s usually “court” which unless I’m mistaken is part of “the judicial branch” of “our government.”
Face it, the government and corporations being in bed is not only “a bad thing” but is just as much a fault of “the government” as “the corporations.” Hating one is only hating half the problem.
Nalivai ( @Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de ) 1•11 months agoAnd that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry?
Yes. That’s how capitalism operates. There is nothing in capitalist system that prevents monopolies from happening, in fact they kind of encouraged. And patent system is as capitalist as it gets. It was born as an answer to a question “how do we collectively insure that companies can own everything they want to own”, and the government exists to enforce the rules that rich people and companies want to have (getting back to lobbying). If you get rid of the government, you will get cyberpunk corporate wars, and then when people will get tired of that, they will come up with the same government-like structure.
ArcaneSlime ( @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 1•11 months agoThat’s how crony capitalism works, free market capitalism is free from such bounds by definition. Monopolies could also form without the government but they clearly form with the help of those government regulations allowing them to do so as well, see: basically the entire medical industry. We have the worst of both worlds, tbh either socialized healthcare or an end to the racketeering scheme we call the medical industry by freeing the market (things like removing drug patents to make the market competitive and lowering price, etc) would he better than this crony capitalist bullshit we have now. Patents are again antithetical to free market capitalism, that is literally part of what is referenced by “free” in the term. Proponents of free market capitalism ignore patent and IP laws entirely or think they should be limited to a short period (typically 15-20y with no renewal depends on who you talk to).
vegai ( @vegai@suppo.fi ) 3•11 months agoBy what standard? According to https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.
Also indicentally many of those countries are on this list: https://www.yourinvestmentpropertymag.com.au/expert-insights/revealed-the-20-happiest-countries-in-the-world-for-2023 – it seems like free economy often correlates with happy society.
Tvkan ( @Tvkan@feddit.de ) 10•11 months agoAccording 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.
vegai ( @vegai@suppo.fi ) 2•11 months agoThe right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source
So are you claiming that their methodology is wrong or that they falsify their data? Do you have a better source for similar information?
No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.
Care to explain why that is?
lieuwex ( @lieuwex@discuss.tchncs.de ) 9•11 months agoIn what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.
If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.
Matricaria ( @matricaria@feddit.de ) 3•11 months agoThat’s a joke, right?
Right?
CAPSLOCKFTW ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 8•11 months agoIf 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 ( @matricaria@feddit.de ) 1•11 months agoI 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 ( @CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml ) 3•11 months agoBut 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.
nautilus ( @nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 143•11 months agoMcCarthy propaganda go brrrr
Duamerthrax ( @Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml ) 27•11 months agoAlso 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.
Hexadecimalkink ( @Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml ) 17•11 months agoAlmost like we need a large state apparatus…
BurnedDonutHole ( @BurnedDonutHole@lemmy.ml ) 93•11 months agoFuck Communism and fuck unchecked capitalism. People deserve basic human rights. Free heallthcare, education, insurance and liveable basic income is a must. It doesn’t make your society full of freeloaders instead it gives all the people a chance to become what they want in the society. I hope that people can see this basic difference and we can work towards for a better future as humanity instead of whatever country title.
geissi ( @geissi@feddit.de ) English62•11 months agoFuck Communism and fuck unchecked capitalism
Interesting how capitalism needs the qualifier ‘unchecked’ while apparently communism has only one possible form.
Gork ( @Gork@lemm.ee ) English5•11 months agoBut is it Communism’s Final Form? I think Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism is the best form.
LadyAutumn ( @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 55•11 months agoThe very concept of a free loader best represents the ruling class of capitalists interests. The ruling class does not contribute in any way to society, and instead steal billions of dollars of labor value from the working class and use it in ways that benefit only themselves. Allowing people to survive even without providing a capital benefit to the ruling class wouldn’t enable free loading, it would mean society actually does what its supposed to and looks out for the wellbeing of all people.
You shouldn’t have to work to exist. You shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be a part of a community. Food and shelter are human rights. Water is a human right. Healthcare and education are human rights.
Toppling capitalism and wage slavery is the only way to a just world. Socialism doesn’t inherently belong to the soviet union. And the soviet union did not categorically fail at every single thing they did. Don’t mistake my words for endorsement of stalinism or of any of the many horrible things they did. But there were other aspects of their society and governance that were actually pretty great. Its not all black and all white. Life isn’t that simple in reality. A flat condemnation of communism is rooted in propaganda more than it is in reality.
And I’m an anarchist, before you accuse me of being a tankie. I do not advocate state communism. But to say “fuck communism” and be done with it just shows your bias towards socialism.
two_wheel2 ( @two_wheel2@lemm.ee ) 7•11 months agoyou shouldn’t have to work to exist, you shouldn’t have to be useful to anyone else to be part of a community
While I largely agree with your points (or at least some of the core of them) I think you’d have to flesh this out. For anything alive to exist, work needs to be done. And for anyone to be in a community people must mutually agree on membership. The “freeloader” problem isn’t a problem of ability where individuals “not useful” (and that gives me chills as much as it probably does you) to society can’t work, though it’s often framed that way to varying extents from both sides. I feel that it’s a problem where a large enough segment of the population would not be productive at what they could be doing simply because they don’t have to.
Our brains are literally wired to seek out more for less energy.
Again, I agree with most of your points, but these two could probably use a bit more explanation (at least to me)
LadyAutumn ( @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 14•11 months agoWe live in a time of unprecedented efficiency and automation. We over produce how much we require massively. Optimized, no not every human has to work. Work should be voluntary and without exploitation. Food water and shelter should be shared resources that no one is deprived of. We have the abundance to do this, we only don’t because of the capitalist economic political and social systems which promote wage slavery (the concept that you don’t deserve to live if you’re not capable of producing labor value for capitalists).
Everyone should be encouraged to work and contribute. But no one should face death for being unable to do so. All work should be voluntary and people should be encouraged to work for their benefit, their family’s benefit, and their community’s benefit. Universal basic income should exist (in our society today) so that if you’re being exploited you don’t face either further exploitation or literally death. Supporting yourself and your family and society should be done because you believe in those things and you see the direct benefits of your contributions. The problem is capitalism has indoctrinated people to believe that work is not a mechanism of direct survival. It is a mechanism for attaining capital value, which is traded for direct survival.
It goes beyond that even, they indoctrinate us to believe that:
-
Capitalism is natural and can be found in nature.
-
Human beings are inherently uncooperative and hate each other. Plenty of human beings are uncooperative, but capitalism literally makes people uncooperative by continually reinforcing the hopelessness of helping others. How can you cooperate when your own survival solely depends on you being willing to give your labor value to capitalists in exchange for indirect survival?
-
The homeless, the mentally ill, the addicted, all those who are unable or unwilling to give up their labor value to capitalists - they’re all the picture of sin and vice and they are to be derided and hated for their inability to provide labor value to capitalists. That they are worthless, and should be treated like wild animals.
-
On that note, they also indoctrinate us to believe that homelessness is natural. That its a personal failing.
When examined separately you can see that they pre-construct people’s opinions to cooperation among the labor force. “Don’t be a failure by not giving us your labor value.” “Don’t help those who we deem failures.” “Being a failure, by our definition, is a personal choice and not a product of exploitation.” “Our system is natural, the natural world has capitalist-type hierarchies. So it is unchallengable.”
Bear in mind that politically I am an anarchist. In my eyes no society has ever done nearly enough to create real equality. And I fundamentally disagree with all social hierarchies.
salient_one ( @salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social ) 1•11 months agoThat is very well-put. I would also add that to perpetuate the dogma that your only worth is your labor we have bullshit jobs.
-
TheRevenger ( @TheRevenger@lemm.ee ) 2•11 months agoYou have the right not to be denied food or shelter… Are you saying everyone should receive free food and shelter? How will that work? I understand small scale communes can mostly work under that idea, but a country with millions of people? Scarcity is the basis of economic theory for a reason.
relevants ( @relevants@feddit.de ) 10•11 months agoCurrently, as much as 40% of food is thrown away in the US, while millions of people experience food insecurity. The scarcity is fully intentional.
gun/linux ( @original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee ) 1•11 months agoWhy is that food thrown away? You do realise that food can get thrown away for being bad? That at least takes up 10 percentage points, then there’s the question on how its measured. Who is throwing this food away? If its your average Joe then I doubt their throwing it away just to make artificial scarcity. How nutritional is the food that gets thrown away?
millions of people experience food insecurity.
The US has hundreds of millions of people those people experiencing food insecurity barely make up anything. Also would that food that gets thrown away even feed everyone?
relevants ( @relevants@feddit.de ) 6•11 months agothose people experiencing food insecurity barely make up anything
Then it should be easy to feed them with just a fraction of the food that’s thrown away?? How you could possibly say that and think it helps your point is beyond me.
gun/linux ( @original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee ) 1•11 months agoI said that because the person I was replying to was making it seem like millions of people was everyone and their mother, the truth is if they wanted artificial scarcity they would do it to more people
relevants ( @relevants@feddit.de ) 8•11 months agoAh got it, millions of people suffering is not a lot, so it must not be a real issue. You’re the worst kind of person.
LadyAutumn ( @LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 6•11 months agoCapitalism creates scarcity to generate profit. We live and have been living in a time of unprecedented efficiency productivity and abundance. Artifical scarcity is used to keep workers from resisting wage slavery.
gun/linux ( @original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee ) 1•11 months agoCompanies would rather sell more product then pretend for it to be rarer (except for stuff like diamonds but those are selled to rich, successful people anyway)
Viclan ( @Viclan@beehaw.org ) 1•11 months agoLiterally what are you talking about??? Why would a company not enforce artificial scarcity, it means they have to produce less and their product is more valuable per item. It costs companies to produce more product, they’re not interested in selling a good product just anything that will keep profit margins high. If anything they’d lay off the actual laborers to keep their executives nice and comfy while “cutting costs” across the board. Why do we subsidize farmers to overproduce and we still have people suffering food insecurity?
diskmaster23 ( @diskmaster23@lemmy.one ) 16•11 months agoCapitalism always leads to monopolies and will always be in conflict with workers.
gun/linux ( @original_ish_name@latte.isnot.coffee ) 1•11 months agoCapitalism always leads to monopolies
No, no it does not. Competition for nearly everything exists, sure there might not be enough but saying “always leads to monopolies” is a lie. Anyway communism usually has monopolies too, just monopolies operated by the government
will always be in conflict with workers.
By workers I presume you mean employees. Yes, greedy people will try to abuse their workers but as the person you’re replying to said “unchecked capatilism is also bad”, we have minimum wage for a reason, and then there is also competition and if you have a valuable skill they can’t afford to exploit you
- Llewellyn ( @Llewellyn@lemmy.ml ) 9•11 months ago
I see a lot of empty slogans here. You sound like a politician.
I Cast Fist ( @ICastFist@programming.dev ) English6•11 months agoPeople deserve basic human rights. Free heallthcare, education, insurance and liveable basic income is a must.
I think the irony is that a significant portion of conservatives (not only in the USA, I speak from Brazil) see that as “evil commienism”. That and anything that even remotely attempts to reduce inequalities, like taxing the rich.
Hexadecimalkink ( @Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml ) 4•11 months agoSo what you’re saying is you don’t believe in labels.
Gray ( @Gray@lemmy.ca ) 3•11 months agoHonestly, I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.
abbiistabbii ( @abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 85•11 months agoMore 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 ( @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de ) 20•11 months agoHow 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.
abbiistabbii ( @abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 38•11 months agoThe core tenant of every form of Communism, regardless of if said party or organisation follows it, is as follows: that the means of production should belong to the workers who work them. If the means of production are not in the hands of the workers, then they are not communist. If they are in the hands of a CEO or a corporation, you have private capitalism or market capitalis like the US. If you put them in the hands of a state, they are in the state, you get state capitalism ala China or the USSR.
The power structure of the state protects an upper class, be it billionaires or “the party”. If you abolish the state, but not capitalism, capitalism will rebuild the state (which is why Anarcho capitalism fails every time) and vice versa (which is what happens with Marxist Leninism).
For a Communist or communalist society to work it needs to be Anarchist or classically Libertarian (aka like Bakunin or Kropotkin proposed, not “money first”). It needs to have a horizontal and democratic decision making process that is decentralised, federated, and involves all the members of the community or communities effected. If there is to be a state, it should be to facilitate the colaboration of communities in a bottom up manner. These are the features of almost every single effective or successful Anarchist or Socialist movements from Rojava or the Zapatistas, as well as non-political movements like the Open Source Movement, railway preservatiion movement, and even the early RNLI.
The power structure thant would forbid a free market would be the collective weight of everyone else rather than a state that, sooner or later, becomes the jackboot of capital.
mustyOrange ( @mustyOrange@beehaw.org ) 20•11 months agoIf 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.
stappern ( @stappern@lemmy.one ) 7•11 months agoBut nobody does that?
fishtacos ( @fishtacos@lemmy.ml ) 4•11 months agoYou 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.
hare_ware ( @hare_ware@pawb.social ) 75•11 months agoDidn’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?
Nerorero ( @Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 6•11 months agoIn 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
vacuumflower ( @vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org ) 5•11 months agoDidn’t the USSR just do state capitalism, and not actual communism or socialism?
The Soviet idea was that 1) if it’s state-owned, then it’s people-owned and not capitalism, 2) it’s people-owned, because USSR is a union of soviet republics, where soviet is a democratic (initially) entity, 3) it’s socialism, not communism, as we’ve not built that yet, 4) it’s still socialism as we use money to buy things and not receive them as we need automatically, as the planning precision doesn’t allow for this.
(A soviet is initially like an elected body, where every member on level zero is elected by constituency, like certain factory’s workers or inhabitants of some street, as this thing was static in the USSR, or on every level above zero by an underlying level soviet ; the main difference between this and normal democracies is that those factory workers or that underlying soviet can vote anytime to recall and replace their representative, which turned out to make it more authoritarian all by itself ; well, also obviously these in fact decided nothing in the USSR anyway, the party structures did).
Volodymyr ( @Volodymyr@lemmy.ml ) 3•11 months agoI guess that’s the best way put it I saw in this post. I’d just add that after growing up in soviet and postsoviet state, and later coming to western Europe, my first impression was that they somehow almost managed to build here what “communist” soviet party tried to build so unsuccessfully.
Even Marx thought that path to communism is through capitalism, what soviet state did is something very different.
Zozano ( @Zozano@aussie.zone ) 2•11 months agoI love when people employ the Socratic method tactfully lol.
stappern ( @stappern@lemmy.one ) 2•11 months agoyeppp
Hexadecimalkink ( @Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml ) 70•11 months agoI really find all these posts entertaining, there are a bunch of reddit refugees that are trying to impose their ideology on Lemmy. It’s almost like they’re trying to ironically colonize the space.
BigNote ( @BigNote@lemm.ee ) 2•11 months agoOh good! I was hoping for some condescension!
wagoner ( @wagoner@infosec.pub ) 58•11 months agoA meme like this is what happens when you believe the GOP that doing anything to benefit regular people is communism.
NattyNatty2x4 ( @NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org ) 14•11 months agoYer not gonna fool me with yer
checks notes
child safety laws, ya damn dirty communist!
Azzu ( @Azzu@lemm.ee ) 53•11 months agoBecause the single only way to do communism is how the UdSSR did it, there’s no other way.
And of course it’s only possible to either agree with the whole of a specific ideology, or none of it. There’s no “good parts of communism” or “bad parts of capitalism” it’s only ever all good or all bad.
Tvkan ( @Tvkan@feddit.de ) 49•11 months agowestern teenagers praising capitalism
the children sewing their clothes, harvesting their food, mining their metals, …
Ser Salty ( @Ser_Salty@feddit.de ) 17•11 months ago“You criticize society, yet you partake in it. I am very smart.”
Tvkan ( @Tvkan@feddit.de ) 21•11 months agoThat’s pretty much the opposite of what I said. Bangladeshi children sewing your clothes under horrible conditions while H&M and it’s shareholders make billions isn’t (for the most part) your personal moral failing, but a systemic issue within and due to capitalism.
Ser Salty ( @Ser_Salty@feddit.de ) 3•11 months agoGenuinely, sorry. Misread your comment as “praising communism”. Must’ve been tired or something.
Tvkan ( @Tvkan@feddit.de ) 1•11 months agoNo worries :)
irmoz ( @irmoz@reddthat.com ) 20•11 months agoVery very far from what they just said, but hey, you wanna reference a meme, who am I to stop you
astral_avocado ( @astral_avocado@programming.dev ) 4•11 months agoMmmmm, child labor
EnnuinerDog ( @ennuinerdog@lemmy.ml ) 49•11 months agoHow 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 ( @Matthew@programming.dev ) 4•11 months agoThere’s a lot a reasonability in the space between neoliberalism and “Stalin did nothing wrong”
stappern ( @stappern@lemmy.one ) 4•11 months agoin the space between neoliberalism and “Stalin did nothing wrong”
which is something you just made up :)
meteorswarm ( @meteorswarm@beehaw.org ) 4•11 months agoThere’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.
Ooops ( @Ooops@feddit.de ) 3•11 months agoAnd not everything left of Eastern European nationalism is communism. In fact 90% of the political spectrum lies between these two extremes.
Gray ( @Gray@lemmy.ca ) 45•11 months agoI think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.
salient_one ( @salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social ) 10•11 months agoIMHO, by this point those labels are nothing but thought-terminating clichés.
Gray ( @Gray@lemmy.ca ) 9•11 months agoYeah. Like saying you believe that companies beyond a certain size should be legally required to seek a vote from their employees before implementing certain types of changes is a real policy to argue about. Call it democratizing business or whatever you want. And then that’s an actual concrete issue we can argue about. Or if you believe in the government buying out businesses beyond a certain size, that’s a specific conversation we can have and we can discuss the hypothetical implementation of that. Call it business seizure or whatever. Just saying “I believe in socialism” doesn’t dig enough into the details of how you perceive socialism or how you would implement it. And frankly, I think it hurts the socialists or communists or whoever is trying to persuade the current culture away from what we have more than anybody else. Ideas grow when you make real, concrete proposals. These exceedingly large scale labels usually end up killing a conversation rather than feeding it. Someone gets mad at a label and then everything shuts down on that sticking point.
Zozano ( @Zozano@aussie.zone ) 7•11 months agoThen when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea.
Essentially a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I think it’s better to simply state that things like Stalin’s USSR weren’t communist. Period.
It wasn’t “almost communist”; it was a dictatorship. So to say it wasn’t “real communism” is like boiling a sock and saying it’s not “real dinner”. It’s not dinner at all, it’s a sock.
Volodymyr ( @Volodymyr@lemmy.ml ) 2•11 months agoThere was a soviet joke about a banner “our party is fighting for the title ‘communist’”. I can not translate it well, but it shows that people sensed the absurdity of the continious slogans about fighting for something they forgot is related to the meaning of the world communism. In the last decades especially, thd pride in building a better future through emancipation was replaced by simply nationalist pride and the pride in ww2 victory.
Zozano ( @Zozano@aussie.zone ) 2•11 months ago27 million Russians died. This is a “victory” in the same way a chihuahua is a dog. Nationalism is a brain disease.
Volodymyr ( @Volodymyr@lemmy.ml ) 6•11 months agoI think labels are still useful for discussion, but I completely agree that we should regularly rediscuss what they mean and how they evolve.
shufflerofrocks ( @shufflerofrocks@beehaw.org ) 2•11 months agoI find this arguing over labels more and more as I browse online, and it is sooo exhausting. I have noticed so many instances of arguing and discourse where both sides have similar ideals and want the same things, but argue with each other over stereotypes of labels on the other side, and point to the faults of the vocal rabid minority on the other side as if to prove a point. Sigh.
sweet ( @sweet@lemmy.ml ) 44•11 months agoboomers 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
ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI ( @ApfelstrudelWAKASAGI@feddit.de ) 41•11 months agoIdk if I speak for other people here but being critical of capitalism doesn’t necessarily mean you want to copy paste North Korea. Or the Ukrainian SSR.
neptune ( @neptune@dmv.social ) 40•11 months agoWhat does “praising” mean? Being critical of what we learned in school about the USSR?
What does “communism” mean here? Advocating for the type of social democracy that’s done pretty well in much of Europe?
I mean I know tankies “exist” but I rarely see them. Just because we’re all critical of capitalism doesn’t mean we’re all dumb enough to want to re try what the soviet union did. It’s almost like our kids will die under capitalism so we’re willing to think outside the box for once.
tim ( @tim1996@lemm.ee ) 37•11 months agoI 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.
CallumWells ( @CallumWells@lemmy.ml ) English15•11 months agoJust thought you’d enjoy learning that it’s laissez faire. It’s French, so obviously it’s hard to spell.
Swiggles ( @Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 9•11 months agoIt’s laissez-faire. It took a few reads until I got it.
Nooch ( @alottachairs@beehaw.org ) 5•11 months agoI want to live in a walkable city so bad!
hamburglar26 ( @hamburglar26@wilbo.tech ) 3•11 months agoIt is awesome, if you can afford 3000+ a month in rent or a 5000k a month mortgage.