Basing your opinions on socialism on how Russia implemented it makes about as much sense as basing an opinion on Democracy on how Putin has implemented it.
Legit question, what country is a better real world example?
1936 Catalonia.
But it is actually really hard to name examples. This video explains it quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D4l_l1MedQ
Communism, like capitalism, is an extreme that has certain, very difficult to achieve, requirements. Capitalism needs everyone to be morally decent in order for companies to focus on winning customers through innovation instead of propganda and lobbying, and to accept losses instead of whining. Even the transition into communism is incredibly complicated and technically what where the USSR was stuck, and once there you have to hope that the rest of the world went along with it because it’ll work either on increbily small scales(individual companies, for example) or on a global scale but not really on a mid-sized scale. Plus in both you have basic greed and people who are literally just born narcissitic or legitimately psychotic.
Extreme ideologies are great thought experiments but rarely have any kind of well-developed protections built and are pretty fragile.
If you want a better answer, look at the quality of life in countries with stronger regulations and more communism-according-to-North America systems. In the heavily privatised U.S. there are a lot of people who live absolutely shit lives due to an abyssmal lack of protections. Even in Canada, which is far too close to the U.S. here, at least a homeless person can recieve some level of medical assistance including major surgeries and Covid stimulus was more than a cheap joke.
Extreme
Cuba, Vietnam, Allende's Chile perhaps, but it's not like any are perfect. There's a wide range of socialist approaches used in different countries around the world though.
Moderate socialist governments effectively weren't allowed to exist, the US sponsored fascist coups and did whatever they could to remove them. So the ones that were able to survive had to be more extreme, autocratic, and isolationist.
If your looking for modern day examples, the zapatistas are a pretty good example.
For historical examples you can look to the Paris commune, civil war Barcelona, the original zapatista movement.
How the USSR implemented socialism was pretty great in practice, the real history of it has just been hidden from you behind the thick fog of cold-war anticommunist propaganda.
Here's a good intro video: Michael Parenti - Reflections on the overthrow of the USSR
Yellow Parenti is best Parenti
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Michael Parenti - Reflections on the overthrow of the USSR
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
A lot of people don't realize that the Soviet Union was seen as a bastion of democracy before the cold war, because it genuinely got a lot right.
In fact, it was democratic to a fault. Ultimately it was the people who voted to bring capitalism into the country. It was all downhill from there.
This entire thread is based on this. If comments are truthful.
This is more accurate: Online discussion about capitalism
People living in a third world capitalist country
14-year-old white boy living in a Western country: I know more than you
Spot on.
These are the kids (OP included) calling you a tankie online:
2 things:
-
The victors write history
-
After Lenin the USSR was not really communist anymore but more really a totalitarian state that didn't believe in the values of communism. Just like China.
Everything would probably have been better if Lenin didn't die so fast and then Trotsky would have ruled.
- The victors write history
Flashback to stories of Rus conquests written by the Rus that said the people asked to be conquered
“History is written by the victors” is a tired cliché that doesn’t always hold up super well if you spend a moment to consider it.
Who conquered Rome? Surely, it was a people remembered for their great military prowess, right? Nope, still commonly remembered as barbarians thousands of year later.
The Mongols had one of the largest empires in history, and yet in much of the lands they conquered, they’re remembered as being monstrously ugly brutes, which is where words like “mongoloid” and “mongrel” come from.
Trotsky would have ruled.
Mask off trot lmao
To be clear, the alternative here is Stalin. There are like only five people who would be worse choices
Trotsky was as much a tyrant and potentially even more blood would have been spilled. Trotsky was a strong proponent of war communism which was brutal towards the Russian civilians.
Stalin believed in the values of communism, he just also believed everyone was out to get him. Economically he followed Lenin's plan of nationalization and collectivization even more zealously then Lenin would have. Lenin wasn't as paranoid as Stalin and probably wouldn't have killed and gulaged millions of "suspicious" people but he was still very much a dictator and was willing to use any means necessary to achieve his goals, same with Trotsky.
With any of them the super structure of the state and how it's organized may vary a bit, but it would have all been built off a nationalized and collectivized base. Whether you want to call that base communism is up to you, but you can't say one is and one isn't.
Until the next tyrant came along. It's a system that is always bound to fail.
It is a system that never gets transitioned to fully. It doesn't fail because it has basically never existed. If I invade your house, kill your father, and make you call me the milk man, that doesn't make me a milk man.
-
Considering that the USSR only claimed to be socialist and used propaganda (in accord with the US) to convince the people that state control is the same as worker's control over the means of production (it isn't), the girl is probably correct.
An Excerpt from Parenti - Blackshirts and reds:
The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.
First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and lifestyles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. {Nor could they transfer such “wealth” by inheritance or gift to friends and kin, as is often the case with Western magnates and enriched political leaders. Just vide Tony Blair.—Eds]
The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.
Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.
Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.
Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.
All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
Sir we are not doing reasons here, this is a meme sub.
Memes can still be incoherent.
※The person who lived in the USSR was born in December of 1991
A ramble
I'm replying to my own comment to add: I'm barely even joking about this. Which is to say, actually having personal experience of living in a country can be very useful in discussions of it, but we also need to be aware of the limitations of lived experience.
For instance, I live in Norway, and I've met people here who didn't know that they had suffrage in local elections, and who didn't know the difference between national and local elections. I've met autistic people who know nothing about local autistic advocacy, trans people who know nothing about local trans advocacy, and I've met more people here who sincerely believe in "plandemic" conspiracy theories than who are even remotely aware of what Norwegian state-owned corporations have done in the global south. These people will go on and on about how "Americans are all idiots!" while simultaneously demonstrating a complete obliviousness to the actual political issues in their own backyards.
So sometimes people just don't know what they're talking about, simple as that. Lived experience should be respected, obviously, but it is not absolute nor immune from criticism. There are plenty of things that I've learned about the country where I live from people who have never set a foot in it — even things that feel so basic that I'm really embarrassed to admit that I didn't know them.
And we need to be particularly aware of this effect with regard to those who were children and adolescents in the USSR. Those who turned 18 when the USSR dissolved would be 50 years old now. Those who turned 18 when Stalin died would be 88 years old now. This obviously doesn't mean that you'll have no opportunities to chat with people who lived a significant portion of their adult lives in the USSR, I have done this myself... And that guy basically said that living in the USSR was the time of his life. I suspect that this might've had something to do with how he was a popular musician in his home republic, and how he was a comparatively young adult in the 1980s. Nevertheless, it was interesting to learn how one of his songs was actually a load of anti-evolutionist nonsense, which to me indicated that Soviet censorship was perhaps not as strict as a lot of people say it was... And again, seeing a grainy video cassette rip of this guy on Sukhumi's Red Bridge pointing to a giant monkey plush like a big ol' doofus, shows how not everybody in the USSR was the sharpest tool in the shed (sorry, Anzor!)
So if you find some 30-to-50-something year old who says that thon actually lived in the USSR and is therefore qualified to speak about it... Asking for thons lived experiences of the USSR is like asking a zoomer today for sy lived experiences of Dubya and Obama. Not to say that a child's perspective is worthless, just that it will be a child's perspective. Meanwhile, ask a 60-or-70-something year old, and chances are pretty good that you'll get nostalgia goggles of young adulthood. Ask an 80+ year old, and... Where the hell are you gonna find one of those? Especially if you can't speak Russian, your access to authentic Soviet perspectives is going to be severely limited.
On the other hand, if you ask someone who left the USSR for political reasons for thons experiences, then that's like asking someone who left the USA for political reasons for thons experiences: you're gonna hear an overtly negative perspective, and maybe some of that perspective will be useful, but that perspective is also not going to be representative of the majority experience, and it could've even been twisted by outside factors (obviously praising your new country is gonna increase your mobility in your new country!). Paul Robeson said of the USSR that being in that country was "the first time [he] felt like a human being".
So, the best way to be educated about the USSR is through scholarly analysis, which takes into account the lived experiences of a broad range of people as they recounted their lives at the time, and which also considers the factors that the individuals might not have been aware of. We should always be open to hearing people out, obviously, but we also always need to remember that nobody has all the answers — and so sometimes the 14 year old white Yankee really does know her shit better than the guy who actually lived in the country.
Pretty much Lemmy. I grew up in a communist civil war, hosing blood off my sidewalk was a weekly chore, the neighbors vanishing cause they pissed someone off and were labeled red. But yeah, Lemmy teens, you guys know all about it! /S
Did you still use money to buy goods and services? Was your father able to do speak up at work? Change jobs? Go on vacations?
Just because something called itself communism didn't make it communism. The state owning everything is the opposite of communism. In extreme communism, there isn't even a damn state as we know it.
The people in the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea do not live in a democracy nor a republic.
This certainly never happens with liberalism. Africa has never seen war since democracy and liberalism freed it obviously. And putin is the prime example of a communist I guess.
Erm pushes up glasses that wasn’t real communism because real communism works.
Well it's the same for the free market really. On paper it's a nice idea, but in practice it makes the world miserable because people are, in general, fucking selfish assholes.
Lol ya right?!
The NSDAP was a real socialist party.
The Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea is actually democratic and governed by the people.
... apart from that it's also most unlikely it's 14 year old girls who are the people writing this in online discussions.
Ah yes, "communism". Op show me 1 country with communism. Dictatorship with 'communism' in their name don't count.
Wait are you telling me the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic or a Republic?? Like they'd just lie?
You can't do that???
I can show many democracies in Africa like that! :D
Rule of thumb: If the US is sanctioning or at war with them, they're communist.
Yeah, like Iran
I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism. Their neighbours disappeared for saying the wrong things. They were hungry and cold as children every day. Sometimes they didn’t have any shoes. They weren’t allowed to leave their country for holidays. They couldn’t afford it, even if they were allowed. They couldn’t study what they wanted. Their entire educational system was political propaganda. Freedom of religion didn’t exist.
It always amazes me how the most vocal proponents of communism come from the most sheltered, most privileged people alive who would retch from learning about the atrocities committed in the name of communism. If they only spent a few minutes on Google.
You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.
Also adding to the list of nice things - a picture of the current dictator on all public offices and classrooms. Work and school weeks from Monday to Saturday and a Sunday in which you had to do mandatory free time activities, like go to communist youth clubs, participate in parades for the glory of the state, or plant flowers or do random maintenance work in the park.
I've noticed the arguments tend to center around the notion that 'that wasn't true communism' and that the notions presented by Marx et al. were not properly implemented.
Fair enough, I can agree with that, but I'd wonder what makes us think that we would do it better next time? How do you actually prevent consolidation of power in the hands of the select few (in any system, for that matter, not just the ideal communism)?
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I'm in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I'm in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).
Capitalism requires the limits imposed by a strong, functional democracy, otherwise it drifts into horrifying tyranny.
Unrestrained capitalism can give communism a run for it's money in terms of genocide.
Edit: typo
Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I'm in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes.)
Maybe you are, currently, in the United States of Europe. But this is really more a function of liberal democracy than capitalism. You could get vanned for saying the wrong thing about the great leader in quite a few capitalist countries. You'd be in high danger of having pretty terrible things happen to you for saying the wrong thing in the US until pretty recently, and the US has been capitalist pretty much since its inception.
Of course, those are people who left. Might not be a representative population if you compare to people who still live there.
I don't think anyone is advocating for literal communism. They are advocating for social programs like, you know, universal healthcare and good public schools. Which the Gop and Fox have to scream is communism to scare people.
My state has communist background (kerala,India) I spent only 0.06USD for tetanus injection and consult Never had spent any penny on education(I have completed degree and diploma). Its because we had that kind of social programs. I am not advocating for stalin or mao. Evil is evil. Takes the benefits rather being inside capitalism and suffer.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for literal communism.
So, you think the rest of us are as stupid as Fox and your Republicans, then?
This take comes from a place of assuming there will be a government of the state that wields all the power and controls everything.
That is totalitarianism, not communism.
The capital owners don’t want to you take the means of production from them. They don’t want you to have a fair wage, they want you to slave away to keep them rich.
They want totalitarianism for them.
None of that is communism though, that's authoritarianism. Like this isn't even a "not real communism" thing, it's just objective facts. Communism is an economic system, NOT a government system.
But you know what, I AM gonna say not real communism anyways, because they weren't. The direct stated goals of communism by Marx is the workers owning the means of production, and the abolishment of both private property(which is different than PERSONAL property, btw. i.e It's still "your" toothbrush, not "ours") AND the STATE. Many definitions also include the abolishment of money in of itself.
Only one of those goals were achieved by the USSR. Private property was abolished, but the state owned the means of production, which is a double fail as not only do the workers not own them, the state owning them means the state still exists. Money still existed as well. So overall, they met 1 out of 3/4 of the minimum requirements to be communism, and thus they weren't communist.
Same story with China and basically every other "communist" country you could gotcha me with, abolishing private property is the only requirement they have met.
Meeting only one of multiple requirements to be something and calling yourself it anyways does not mean you actually are that thing. By that logic, I'm a good singer; I'm not good at it, but I CAN sing, so calling myself a good singer is perfectly valid.
I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism
Of course they do. They grew up in an authoritarian country calling themselves communist. Whether that country was actually communist or not doesn't really matter; if you don't actually know what communism IS, you won't be able to recognize that the entity harming you is communist in name only. If they hadn't actually read stuff like Marx, which most people likely didn't seeing as google didn't exist and you had to research stuff the old fashioned way(and even if you did do research, censorship is a concern), their definition of communism will be entirely based of the actions of their authoritarian government that claims to be communist.
To put a more modern perspective on this, North Korea calls itself a Democratic Peoples Republic despite being none of those things. But to a North Korean citizen isolated from outside information, NK is ALL of those things; if NK collapsed, there would definitely be some former NK citizens proclaiming the horrors of democracy, and there would definitely be people replying explaining how that "wasn't true democracy"; sound familiar?
Communism is a flawed system because it can never work in reality, not because it's inherently bad. For it to work, all forms of inequality have to be not just abolished, but abolished by total unanimous agreement by humanity; which will never happen, because there will always be people who care only for themselves or their "chosen people".
Capitalism, on the other hand, is inherently bad. Evil, even. It "works", but only by exploiting those beneath you. If you're on the bottom rung with no one under you to exploit, or if you're just too ethical to exploit those under you, it no longer works and you are left being a wage slave just to survive.
That's literally nothing to do with communism and everything to do with iron fist rule under an authoritarian dictatorship.
It amazes me that the most vocal opponents of communism are the same people creaming their pants over handing their democracy over to the next Putin / Kim Jong Un, who have equally demonstrated the horrors of "democracy" when implemented in bad faith by sociopathic authoritarian dictators.
Sounds a lot like FL.
We all know a 14 year old black girls know their shit about communism.
I know it's a meme but if your points are this reductive you might not be making an intelligent or rational argument.
Personally I find it going this way:
- some person, who at least knows what socialism is, even if they're not the most well-read in the subject,
- some way better read one, but thinks state control of enterprises suffice and trusts the state way too much as long as it has hammers and sickles,
- some capitalism fan, who thinks socialism is evil, and that constructon company CEOs are workers, but underpaid office workers are "elites".
Rarely you get a very well read one, who understands their stuff, or the old Soviet bloc ex-communist, who switched because the local far-right party started to be very concerned about "work morals", and also think the construction company CEO is a worker and "against the elite".
The problem is the way that most of those communism perfect people inform themselves. They usually know a lot of stuff about a certain topic where they can argue anyone to deth who doesn't know as much about a topic. And because they know that much more than the other person they can use wrong statements that sound right in the mass of correct information. Then you get people who know everything about Kuba and are 100% sure it's a democracy.
Considering the USSR actively killed Marxists, the girl may well be right.
I think ops the teenager here.
What does the red symbol next to the username of OP mean?
Hey, not sure since I couldn't see it, but I got arbitrarily banned, so maybe it was that. Gotta give it to the admins, they're taking their LARPing seriously
Quick plug for this guy's channel: https://www.youtube.com/@UshankaShow
Not really political, just interesting first-hand accounts of life in the USSR (Ukraine specifically) with a bunch of period photos mixed in.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.youtube.com/@UshankaShow
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
For the USSRs faults I wouldn't bet on older people hating their time under it. They did their complaining about the Soviet system in the few years before it got replaced with half a dozen oligarchies.
Also Love how this meme is a prime example of misogyny in how I remember the original meme not mentioning the gender of the teenager, but now since Girls = stupid idealists someone rewrote the caption to explicitly mention the communist being female (so we know that communism = stupid too)
I wonder why communist leaders are some of the most popular leaders in their former socialist republics 🧐🧐
Because opposition goes to the gulag?
Lmao they aren't. Thanks for playing our game though
Because they are not. Stalin for example was a mass murderer just like Hitler. So why would anybody like him?
OP really be asking why the meme is being anti-white racist 💀
On Lemmy it is more like 40 something year old neckbeards that haven't seen the light of day in 2 decades. They claim to struggle to make friends at parties but could easily run a country.
Facts, I hate communism
Communism as a concept is a brilliant thing. The problem is that in the past it never worked the way it was intended, but managed to cause a lot of harm.
The problem is that the 14 year old white girl here still thinks with all her heart that countries like China are communist and in generall the perfect place to be, which is just not true.
This is such poor logic. Being around when something happens doesn't mean you somehow know a vast amount about that something. People later can study that something and known much more about it than people who were living during those times.
Ask the average American who was alive during the Cold War what the effects of it were on America and its population, they'll say some generic shit they heard mouthed to them by politicians. Ask any 21 year old college student who just finished a course on the Cold War and its effects on America, and they'll have much deeper understanding.
Being old and alive during something doesn't make you knowledgeable about that something than someone younger and educated. You'd know this if you weren't all idiots, but so many of you are dumbass motherfuckers.
Never did any research, did you ?
LOL, I knew this sub was digging for old memes but bringing back actual red-baiting? chef's kiss
It's casual racism. If you can switch the color to a different one and it sounds racist then it's was before also.
Edit: looks like I triggered some racists, how shocking.
Is it though? White isn't being used as a derogatory in the same way "14yo boy choosing favorite totalitarian regime" isn't sexism against all men.
It is both racist and sexist.
And ageist as well.
Trifecta
Here comes the perpetually online Tankies. TAKE COVER!!🪖
