You're viewing a single thread.
I think people who've enjoyed years under communist governments might disagree a little about the comparison here.
Read. Page 116, par. 3, “We Didn’t Realize What We Had.”
"Communist governments" have never been truly communist. Well the big ones that we know at least, I guess smaller folks like indigenous people or other ancient form of living were why more communist.
All the "communist governments" that one thinks about under that term were/are just non fair dictatorships that claim to be fair
AES countries never reached Communism, yes, but they were very much real attempts at building Socialism. A lot of bad came from them, yes, but so did a lot of good. It's important to critically analyze them as such.
Well, of course! We have to learn from every failure any human has done in the past, else we don’t get smarter.
Yes, which is why I take issue with the idea that these were not "true Communists." Some may have taken advantage of their positions, yes, and none of these attempts were or are perfect, but by and large these have been countries made up of the masses attempting to build Communism. The idea that all attempts were merely hijacked by opportunists is an easy way to avoid actually having to analyze them critically. It's a sort of analytical non-starter.
That is only your view, I can easily say that they were not true communists and still analyse why they were not a true communist systems. If I would say they where truly Communist systems, I would just lie and there would not be failures to analyse since it should have worked since they were truly communist systems.
That's a lot of nonsense if you aren't going to actually analyze anything.
What is "true" Communism?
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say “these left wing extremists are fine” because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
I suspect "true" Communism is something you'll only find on the pages of a book. Because in reality it goes from being a revolution, to a party, to cliques, to a power struggle, to a purge, to a dictator. And people get shot, tortured, beaten and sent to death camps every step of the way.
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
😂how to get to that I don’t analyse?
Because you're doing a "no true Communism" bit that's just purity testing, rather than accepting failures of AES as failures of AES and successes of AES as successes of AES.
For me true communism would be living in a group in consensus that nobody owns but the whole group together
Cool, so AES is AES and thus true attempts at Communism.
True attempt to achieve communism is not the same as achieving true communism, I’d say..
Why?
What is the purpose of Communism? Communism is not "enlightenment" it isn't a religuous status, it's a process. Working to put theory to practice, and correct as you go, is Communism.
The achievement of a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society," ie Upper-Stage Communism, as Marx puts it, is a far-future society that has to be worked towards.
The point I'm making, which I think is obvious and demonstrable, is extreme left aren't just do-gooders while the extreme right are evil. It's hard to think of any communist / marxist-leninist / whatever revolutions that weren't followed by purges, gulags, education camps, progroms or what have you. In some cases, the body count was in the millions, e.g. Pol Pot.
So in my mind extremism is bad either way you go and it is not something that anyone should brush off and say "these left wing extremists are fine" because reality never works out that way. Extremism is monstrous either way.
Thinking in terms of right and left as string with two poles is what causing all this mess Like if there would only be two views about any topic and if you are thinking "left" at one topic you have to think "left" on very different topics as well. Kinda strange in my opinion.
About this followup of revelations: you can not simply suddenly force your opinion on how humans have to live on a crowd, well, without violence, fear monger or blackmailing.
I like the way nordic european countries handle politics. They have some of the greatest democracies and many very social laws that help the poor to live normal lives. You should visit those once.
Communism isn't the goal. That's what far right thinks the far left wants. The far left wants more Universal Basic Income where everyone's needs are met. People are still allowed to go make money. Just there no homeless, which in turn should mean there's no ultra ultra wealthy.
But communism where absolutely everybody gets the same thing hasn't been argued for in a while (at least I haven't seen it past arguing with Republicans it's a bad idea).
Depends on who you ask, but I think most far left would say they are going for communism of some stripe.
I want heavy taxes on the wealthy, UBI, universal housing and healthcare, and much more regulation. I want higher union membership and more co-op business of all stripes. I don't want a central, planned economy. (I have many other not directly economic concerns.)
I'm not often accused of being far left, these days, but I have been called a communist in the past. I consider myself a democratic socialist.
That seems like Social Democracy, not Democratic Socialism. Democratic Socialism implies central planning along Liberal Democratic lines
I've heard it both ways. And I don't vote for labels; at least, I try to vote for policies. I'm all for redistribution from billionaires, and the very idea of "redistribution" gets me called a socialist in a lot of fora.
Sure, I suppose, but taxes aren't socialism
I 100% agree with what you've said.
The problem with other people ideologies of communism us as soon as you bring up one of those points it immediately makes you a communist and communism bad.
But yeah, allow capitalism and people to strive for a better life, just have the safety net in place for those that fall/can't climb.
Communism is very much the goal.
But communism where absolutely everybody gets the same thing hasn't been argued for in a while (at least I haven't seen it past arguing with Republicans it's a bad idea).
That's not Communism. Communism posits "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Read Critique of the Gotha Programme.
I only made that point cause that's what I keep having to argue, not that's what I actually belive. That's why I made a note saying that's what I argue against Republicans.
But again, that's what Republicans tend to think so that's what I argue. But continue going off. Cause again. I've had the conversation irl WITH REPUBLICANS thinking that's what communism is.
Why try to meet Republicans at their level? That's a more reasonable strategy for almost-radicalized liberals, and even then it can backfire.
Because I live in a bright red area, and some people I would call friends I'd rather try to set straight instead of not talk to them.