Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism in theory vs in practice
Communism isn't bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.
I'm not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)
AES leaders have never been "saints," no human has been, but the Socialist systems nevertheless have resulted in robust systems with dramatic improvements in the lives of their people. The PRC is an example, I wouldn't call Xi a perfect saint but the Socialist system itself works well.
Well, let’s thank Trump for destroying the CIA!
This map misses some red. For instance, Belgium was also targeted with the Brabant killings (don't remember if Killing Hope covers that. It's been so long, I should read it again anyway.)
It's such a long book(> 20 hours), but very good. I only finished it ~ a year ago, and I remember the person who recorded the audiobook said it's been a journey.
09/11 Chile vibes
And it's a holiday in Cambodia
Where you'll what you're told
Holiday in Cambodia
Where the slum's got so much soul
When people ask me what communist country was successful I usually say all of them until cia decided to go there and spread freedom 🇺🇸🦅
Well... There was this thing called Soviet Union. They decided to try to speed up the transition to communism by using repression and violence. And ended up being a totalitarian state, a direct opposite of what a communist state is supposed to be like.
Of course you can argue that Soviet Union was not communist, it was just a state that had chosen to call itself communist for propaganda reasons... But still, Soviet Union is an example of a communist country that was unsuccessful as a communist project already by itself. Then came outsiders and helped make it even worse, but bad doesn't become good by some people wanting it to be even worse. Burma is another example. I'd say they hacked away their own leg before anyone else, such as CIA, had time to interfere in their business.
The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.
What no theory does to an mf
The USSR didn't "do repression and violence to speed up Communism," they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.
The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn't Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don't want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.
Luckily the US is dismantling the CIA so that’s good news for communism!!!
Oh, dear child…
I was being facetious
JDPON DON
Is this true?? I suspect something closer to the way the KGB was "dismantled" and then re-assembled around the entire government.
Hopefully the ATF too
you know, i tell you what. i'm fed up with all this gringo self-righteousness when you talk about "oh communism was bad, oh people where killed, oh people had no food, oh people had no liberty, oh people could not buy ataris, oh our countries are so democratic". your countries were democratic during the cold war in the first place because you had people to sort things out for you here in the global south. for each person complaining about how the food rations in eastern europe were not tasty enough, there were 10 dying of hunger or malnourishment here in the global south. for every person complaining they had to wait 5 years in a queue to buy a trabant or an oka, there were 10 who got no school in a range of 50 km. for every person complaining that their 8 hour shifts in state owned factories were overwhelming, there were 10 who were indentured workers. for every person complaining about how the stasi, kgb or the stb had bugged their apartment, there were 10 suffering the most horrific tortures inside black sites of the military of u.s. allies here in the "third world". for every person complaining about dull standard apartment blocks in mikrorayons, there were 10 who lived in mud shacks and slums, and those are just who were lucky enough to have a roof over their heads. finally, for everyone complaining about chinese sweatshops, which are indeed a problem, there are 10 americans who work and yet cannot afford proper housing.
you wanna complain about how communism was bad? go ahead. you wanna complain how your parents lived under communism and could not drink coke? do so if you wish. but there are still millions of people down here who would give an arm and a leg to have a polish ration, an apartment in a russian gray building, or a yugoslav job. and while the chinese maoist red guard was bad, surely it won't be an inch closer to the harassement people endured on a daily basis by our police forces.
again: you wanna complain? be my guest. but for me that's an encyclopedic example of white privilege.
oh people where killed
Ukraine.
This, so much this. Having a job and a roof over your head is such a luxury in the 'global south', the true face of capitalism
Why would you not compare european communist countries woth european capitalist countries? Sure, africans and asians were poorer, but that goes without saying, honestly, what does that even have to do with this matter?
East Germany was poorer than west Germany. That tells us something. The fact that Ethiopia or whatever was poorer does not really tell us much about ehich economic system is better.
West Germany had almost all of the industry of Germany, and East Germany was made to pay harsh reparations for the immense devastation the Nazis wrought upon the Soviet people and countries. Moreover, West Germany was never de-Nazified, and the US and Western Countries heavily invested into its development as a means to destabilize the relations with the East, even threatening to put NATO nukes in West Germany.
Death to America
as an american, hell yeah!
Same, man, same lol. I'm still patriotic during the Olympics, but if we're going to be funding genocides, assassinating leaders, and starting wars and shit, fuck it, I hope we lose them all lol. Let's just start over on the whole project.
I invite US balkanization at this point so I can go hang out in the new sovereign state of whatever CA, WA, and OR will be called. Hawaii can come, too.
As an Australian I now understand the contempt of the middle east for America.
Just listen to Blowback.
Hey I'm European, I have loads of contempt for them too, and same for our sellout leaders.
whoops, brazil. we had a budding workers movement that was absolutely crushed by the traitorous brazilian military, in the name of the US of course.
that hasnt stopped syndicalism to take root here and improve our lives a bit, but the communist organizations responsible were all crushed and we see our rights being taken away ever since because no one is left to defend them. we are scrambling rn to see if we can stop fascism.
to anyone who says "why don't you compare communist eastern europe to democratic western europe?". sure, first thing to notice is that eastern europe didn't had companies exploiting underdeveloped nations for their cheap labour and raw materials, their oppression of labour organizations and the support of corrupt rulers. since brazil was mentioned (heh), let us remember that west german companies such as vw or mercedes-benz used to report on syndicalists and communists working and organizing on their plants to the brazilian military during the dictatorship, and sold equipment to the military and police. that siemens sold nuclear reactors to the dictatorship during the late 70s. that many former officials of the dictatorship got leadership jobs in these companies and in basf, hoescht, atlas-schindler, mwm. behind the "economic success" of the rich countries of the west there's always some degree of exploitation of poorer countries.
I wonder if anyone ever said "Democracy would never work, just look at what happened to Athens".
Socialism and communism are relatively new ideas. While I don't believe communism is an effective form of government, it's still kind of silly to write it off so quickly.
There isn't really a single form of communist government, same as there isn't a single way to do democracy or capitalism. Every country does it different, experiments a different way. For all we know, the perfect way to do it is just waiting for us to discover.
For example, I'd say the US's form of liberal, bourgeois democracy is one of the worst ways to implement it, but it was also an early experiment with it and deserves credit for at least trying it and helping us learn what to do and what not to do.
There is a poem in Polish, it goes in fast and dirty translation: "Today you scare us with communists, just as years ago, you scared our fathers with the democrat name".
The more I study history, the more I see the great wheel of humanity. Communists now, Jews in the 40s, Muslims in the early middles ages, the barbaric Gauls before Christ was even born. It never stops. The people with wisdom die off leaving remnants of their culture and ideas while the next generations tries to piece it all together.
Someone between 1804 and 1830: Democracy doesn't work, just look at France, it dissolves into an empire
Or during Rome lol.
Republics don't work. They always just end up authoritarian.
Seeing some of the zingers in the comments here, now seems like a great time to plug my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Read up, comrades!
The struggle depicted perfectly lol
For those that don't like to read, you don't have to read theory. In fact, most theory is old. There are newer and better takes on these ideas. Find a good YouTube channel that goes over the ideas. I like Vaush.
If you like to read theory, go for it. But I think there are faster and easier ways to get the concepts.
Instead of sending you to the Vaush Gulag I'm going to instead reccomend that you try audiobooks. There are many on youtube, but that is not the only place you can find audiobooks of Marxist theory. Let's just say Marxists are real keen on making sure these texts are readily accessible. While a lot of theory is old, not all of it is, but you'll be lost in newer theory if you don't know the basics.
I highly recommend "Black Shirts and Reds" by Parenti for newbies to Marxism. I also recommend "Socialism Scientific and Utopian" by Engels, "Reform and Revolution" by Luxembourg. All of these can easily be found as both pdf and audiobook, and are short, and easily digestible by lay people.
Vaush's whole thing is controversy bait. He purposely crosses lines to get people mad at him while maintaining some form of "plausible deniability" to where his fans can always find a way to defend and excuse his actions by talking about "you don't understand the context" or whatever, it's a very common and tiresome tactic. Like, if you're trying to promote a shitty video game that can't stand on it's own merits, just do something to antagonize either the left or the right (doesn't matter which) and then go to the other group and be like, "Look, the guys you hate hate us, you should check us out." Controversy generates clicks. A big reason for Trump's success is that he cracked the code on how to apply this formula to a political campaign. If you know how to recognize it, it's very obvious that Vaush does this.
This sort of opportunism is very detrimental to actually understanding the world or promoting ideas or building a movement. It's essentially brain-poisoning and a cognitohazard. You're much better off reading actual books than just following whoever's best at attracting attention on the internet. If you are going to shun books for videos, you should at least go with someone more educational, like Shaun.
Support for chasers and sex-pests like Vaush is pretty awful, not to mentions his awful politics and constant butchering of Marxist theory for an audience that usually can't tell the difference.
Theory is important. Much of my list is newer, some is older when it holds up, some is newer when it meaningfully adds to the discussion. However, as someone who had your approach, reading theory directly genuinely is much faster than rolling the dice.
I have audiobooks linked as well that people can listen to if they prefer, and importantly they won't be distorted by a sex-pest who complains about Marxists constantly while misrepresenting them.
Big yikes
Could a Communist Nation be considered viable if such a hostile force can take it down? Does it all come down to survival of the fittest (in the best use of the term)?
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that we can get a good idea of what does work as success/failure isn't a binary, no in the sense that, ultimately, the overall strategy ended up not being viable. We can learn from this, taking what works and leaving behind what didn't.
The AES states of today have learned from what happened to the USSR and other former Socialist countries and have adapted, such as China's Socialist Market Economy and stance towards international investment, not closing off but not ceding power.
It doesn’t matter what ideology. If the people running it are rotten, any system can be corrupted.
Yeah, I remember how my grandfather and everyone he knew fought tooth and nail just to stop America from dismantling communism in eastern Europe!
Oh, wait, he didn't. Everyone celebrated when it fell.
And then 7 million people died, and most people feel they were better off under Socialism and wished it continued.
It's easy to say if one has never lived under communism rule. Stalinism caused the Holodomor in Ukraine and starved to death 2-7 million people. Mass deportations of people in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and many other countries in Eastern Europe. Federated platforms? Forget about it. Everything is controlled by the state. Do you want to say something that the government doesn't like? You can, but then you are off in a concentration camp (gulag) or sent to Siberia. Almost every family has a history of one of its family members being sent or imprisoned because they said something bad about communists / had a farm and could feed themselves with the products from their farm or land. On the contrary I would recommend to read the Animal Farm by George Orwell. - "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Because no one who experienced it thought hmm is briliant, yeh nah, socialist policies are needed but not any form of totalitarian communism
Most people actually preferred Socialism over modern Capitalism in post-Soviet states. Socialism works better than Capitalism, and was more democratic.
Yeah.
The CIA is why the Soviets fell. Not corruption or incompetence.
It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev's reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn't properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.
What is complicated about it?
The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker's paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn't change anything.
The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.
And it often comes into being because of a CIA financed coup
It's like the chicken or the egg question.
When has the CIA ever financed a communist coup?
Never .... the communists / socialists / democratic groups usually reacted because of a CIA financed coup
not the same thing but this may be related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
I am a communist by heart, but I know that social market economy is the way to go, at least for now.
Kinda? China has a Socialist Market Economy, and this is building up the productive forces dramatically, but not every country will work the same way or have the same path.
I want that Star Trek future, please!
can communism survive in a single country was always a big question.
I think the original idea was to try a world revolution but that didn't work out.
Us is the main holdout. Russia is basically socialist, EU is basically socialist. China is communist.
Us is the only serious holdout
Russia is Capitalist, the EU is Capitalist, the US is Capitalist, and China is Socialist. Communism must be global, but Socialism is the process of building towards that through publicly owning large firms and key industries. Communism exists as an ideology for now, and hasn't been achieved yet.
If it's not the CIA it will be a coup from some smart ass****e high ranked in the military/party.
Humans are to greedy to live in a socialist peaceful world.
Have you considered a world where power is based in social welfare instead of capital?
Would be nice, but it just never going to happen.
We've been there already.
That doesn't make any sense, though, greed has a larger impact on Capitalist systems as its the main mover and driver.
How is this trash getting this many upvotes?
Lemmy was founded by communists and it follows a lot of communist principles.
If people don't want to deal with communists I suggest they should just block people or find another place
Vintage cope.
Communists on the VERGE of UTOPIA fails after evil CAPITALIST CIA does line of coke and give some power hungry general(s) and the local homeless men some guns and cash.
Human greed destroys all forms of government.
This is one of bourgeois ideology’s last defenses: apathy.
That all the other systems are just as bad.
That it’s just “human nature.”
That there is no alternative.Greed is our evolutionary dead end
Any one party political system can either fail or be maintained through violent oppression. People need to have a say in who represents them and what their values are.
A more sustainable solution than soviet style communism is to have proportional representation and work on instilling socialist virtues such as kindness, social responsibility, and fairness in the population. over time, the people in government will start to reflect those values.
To be clear, the Soviets did that too. Look at the values instilled in Soviet cartoons for children, as an example. The reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union were far more complicated and nuanced, such as liberalizing the economy, spending a large portion of GDP on millitarization to keep parity with the US, and existing under constant threat from the outside.
This is a good example of one of things people hate about lemmy.
Communism fan boying, implicit denial of genocides committed by communist powers, out in the open on the front page.
You're going to find Communists on a website made by Communists. Don't know what you mean by "genocide denial," but in another comment you were unironically recommending the Black Book of Communism's chief writer as a legitimate source, you're doing the "Communism killed 100 million" meme.
Worker owned cooperatives would go a fair way to seizing the means of production.
Kinda. They are nicer to work at, but aren't what Marx is talking about, as they still retain classes due non-coop people having different property relations to those in the coop.
What if the answer to all of our worldwide problems is finding a balance between decentralized and centralized structures, balancing technology and the environment, finding a balance between currency and a moneyless society, and achieving balance between authority and liberty (with the goal of individual and societal sovereignty), and so forth?
In this thread, I see Anarcho-Communists (or final stage Communists/ideological purists) taking bat at Marxist-Leninists (who espouse mostly outdated theory, but not always) and Liberals who fail to understand really any ideology that differs from their own because of how thick the propaganda is (and who espouse ideals like Democratic Socialism while failing to realize that their social support is still enabled by modern slavery - such as the exploitation of third world countries).
I think a direct democracy, with authoritative and libertarian elements (such as enforcing liberty/a universal bill of rights for individuals) would be ideal.
It could have an economic system with built-in social supports (each according to their need) that emulates cash and all the best parts of blockchain (that isn't hoardable or worth hoarding, that also doesn't enable slavery/other forms of parasitism, and is generally private at the transactional stage - yet is auditable at a larger-scale), with centralized control of natural resources that still respects decentralized development and balance with the environment. And also does not have debt or parasitism of any form, instead encouraging diplomacy - such as contracts/agreements taking the place of debt to better the planet and encourage societal responsibility and stewardship (e.g. contracts that result in the stabilization of the society incurring the would-be debt).
Instead of total anarchy or various forms of authoritative control/dictatorship, we could simply combine direct democracy and hierarchy by electing leaders based solely on merit in the areas that are most needed, with strong controls so we get the best out of leadership and hierarchy and the resultant clarity and direction, without letting leaders and other experts become drunk on power. While also preventing the corruption of the individuals in power and the various forms of stagnation that result from entrenched power not conceding to new developments or advances.
I know I'm an idealist, but I'd like everybody to turn the chapter and realize that we are in 2025, not the 1900s. Technology and science have advanced every area of our society. We are so beyond scarcity that we are producing well beyond our needs with conditions and methods that are not even close to ideal (with ideal and emergent solutions and methods ready to take the place of those unsustainable methods).
We also have a global communication network - we can understand foreign languages without any human intervention in some cases, we can bridge cultural gaps, we can seek understanding and truth with our fingertips, and also we can push past the propaganda we are served on a platter, etc.
We can achieve something better than anything that has ever been conceived of previously, and it starts by crumpling up all of the things that no longer serve us. Concepts like racism, nationalism, really all of the isms that promote superiority over others. Bridging gaps, joining hands, while also countering disinformation (not misunderstanding) and bad faith.
We truly are not facing the same limitations that we did in the 1900s, although we may be facing new challenges like the rise of AI and the misuse of it by those currently in power.
There really is no more room in society for mucking about and fighting others while everything is in such disrepair, with so much needless suffering happening.
I just think it's funny when you call ML's outdated despite not really disagreeing with them, and then calling Anarchists "final stage Communists" when Anarchists want decentralization and "final stage Communism" is fully centralized. It more reads that you haven't actually engaged with theory, especially considering the PRC is Marxist-Leninist and is outpacing everyone else at the moment.
You can think it's funny all you like. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but you misunderstood my grammar. I was detailing two distinct types of people, with different views. The latter (after the or) are more on the side of purity testing other Communists because they see what would unfold after many, many years of Communism as de-facto Communism and proof that others are not true Communists (hence the slash ideological purists part).
I currently choose to engage with emergent (and divergent) thought, not snapshots and echoes of the past - but I'm not trying to devalue it - I'm just very interested in modern Marxist-Leninist discourse and thought. I have previously engaged with the theory and understand the history that surrounded it and level of technology that we had in the 1900s.
Damn CIA created Maoism
I think the problem with Communism and Capitalism, is that both were implemented in the first place without specific goals or structure. Those things got added on later, such as the 5 year plans or how lobbying works.
IMO, we will need a v2.0 Constitution in the future, designed not only to address political issues, but also create fiscal rules. Things like universal benefits and healthcare, how much people should be payed, wealth limits, workers voting for their leadership, and so on. This, like the Magna Carta or the French Revolution, will require force in order to displace the ways of old.
It will suck, but conflict seems inevitable. Might as well make the most of it, and forge a new way forward.
This is just Utopianism, repackaged. Communism was planned, but you can't just design a system in a lab and implement it through fiat, which is why you must regularly adapt to your materil conditions.
Money is imaginary. It was invented for the purpose of saving time through pure convenience. Why not go a step further, and sacrifice some profit for the sake of giving everybody some security and agency? What efficiency we lose, we get back in people being able to enjoy the fruits of civilization. Money only has value if people agree that it does, and we should apply that understanding towards redefining the purpose of money: luxuries.
The elite have hoarded the value of what workers have provided to society, and then consistently throws those same workers under the bus. Your "material conditions", is just unfettered abuse.
Also, the system I laid out? It gives political agency to ordinary people, because they can protest and strike without losing their home or starving. This takes away the greatest tool of coercion that capitalism wields against workers. That is way more valuable than raw profit, because people can oppose bad actors in society. Like Schuemer, or Trump himself. Same goes for shitty workplaces - people can genuinely wait for a better job. This will force many bad companies out of business, because people want to be treated humanly.
Even without interference communism can never work, it's not how human nature works, it relys on everyone being on the same page which will never happen
it's not how human nature works
where is human nature defined?
this is a thought-terminating cliche, not an my argument to be taken seriously
It's in our genetics to engage in a perpetual exponential quarterly growth and make our decisions based on the benefit it brings to our investors. Any caveman could tell you that smh...
E: my god it's a hyperbolically absurd take in memes and even with the caveman comment I still need to /s apparently...
No, cavemen were very egalitarian. This is because back then, you couldn't hoard much of anything - food spoils quickly, sex requires your partner to like you, and personal possessions were things like tools or the odd bit of clothing. It was when wealth could be preserved, such as livestock, stored grain, jewelry, and eventually coinage, that wealth became an hereditary thing.
This is why a future economic system has to be designed to prevent the excessive hoarding of wealth. Not too little, nor too much. Humans weren't evolved to be free of consequence, especially from each other.
No, but greed and envy is. That's why humans have written so much in the last thousand years about greed and envy.
How does it rely on "everyone being on the same page?" What gave you that impression?
Anthropology doesn't support the idea that humans are incapable of being communal.
Kind of some level of any system isn't it? In short if a system has a means to power that can tweak the rules. Inevitably will result in one group ceasing the rules, turning them to raise how much they can tweak them, and ensuring they continue to be tweaked in their favor.
Communism relies on a possibly impossible starting point. Theoretically if the starting point were reached, it seems the most sustainable. Whether it's possible to reach that starting point is the great mystery.
What "possibly impossible starting point" does Communism rely on? This reads like someone that hasn't actually attempted to engage with what Communists believe, to be honest.
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here. It's interesting to think about how even though communism could theoretically be the best system, it could mean nothing if we don't know how to meet the conditions to achieve it in the first place.
There's never been any real communism. If a country has money then it is inherently a capitalist society .
What no theory does to an mf.
I don't think money makes a society inherently capitalist, money predates capitalism by a loooong time, but I agree that if it has money it isn't communist. It can be on its way to communist, a transitonary state, and depending on your definition it can be socialist, but communist is explicitly a moneyless, classless, stateless society. So, yeah, if it's got it money, it's not communist, but saying it's capitalist is to create a false dichotomy of there only being fully realized communism or capitalism, with nothing outside of or in-between the two.
Eta: replied to the wrong person in the thread. Whoops. Meant to reply to the original commenter on this thread.
Money and trade are not Capitalism. Capitalism is a specific Mode of Production that rapidly expanded with the Industrial Revolution, surrounding the M-C-M' circuit of production.
Socialist societies have existed and continue to, such as the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR.
Says there's communist countries, lists off all capitalist countries instead.
All of those countries have used money, had a class system, have used wage slave labour and are nation states. All of that combined makes a nation capitalist in my view. Just because a country says it's "communist" doesn't mean anything when all those countries are playing the capitalist rule set. It's like saying you're going to play candy land but you have the rules of monopoly. It just doesn't work to call those countries communist or socialist when they are still playing the capitalist rule set.
Communist can run a society that is not yet achieved communism. Not sure if you're being purposely dense or not.
Also, currency does not define a society as capitalist. We've have currency long before capitalism ever existed.
I read this as communism has never failed
trvth nvke
Well there's never been any real communsim on earth yet so that's technically correct.
