• YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Hey mods; we all know the truth you’re trying to hide.

    Weak social stance you have there 🤷

  • Batman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lol I saw the comment that was removed. The comment couldn’t have been more neutral saying people who ignore the problems in the most Communist historical societies reduce the perceived integrity of it’s proponents.

    This mod is the exact antithesis of this meme. Pure censorship.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Modlog has this comment: My grandparents would like a word, since they barely escaped communist rule, while their siblings/other family members didn’t. They could tell you first hand what it was like. So go ahead and call me brainwashed.

        Do people just not believe Eastern Europeans etc exist lol

        • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Am I the only person in the world with reading comprehension? Can you even find a single fucking claim in that? “I knew a guy once who said it was bad so now the conversation is over”

          This is the level of evidence that’s sufficient for people brainwashed by 100 years of propaganda.

          Doesn’t even specify where. Did they escape Cuba? Is the reason they had to ‘escape’ because their former slaves wanted to kill them? Who knows! Doesn’t matter!

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t think anyone took it as some be-all and end-all argument. It’s just an anecdote and reason why the person believes what they do. Removing it as “reason: Typical anti-communist propaganda” as it shown on modlog seem silly.

            • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s just an anecdote

              It’s not a fucking anecdote. Look up what an anecdote is.

              Who? What? Where? When? Why?

              Not a single one of those questions answered.

              Removing it as “reason: Typical anti-communist propaganda” as it shown on modlog seem silly.

              100% justified.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s not a fucking anecdote. Look up what an anecdote is.

                I’m sorry, I’m not a native English speaker. I just meant that they just mentioned their grandparent’s/family’s experience and how it helped form the view he has now. I don’t get how that makes you so unhappy.

                Not a single one of those questions answered.

                Well if the comment hadn’t been deleted you might’ve had a change to ask them lol

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It starts with a high minded idea and promise of freeing people and whatnot, then it just turns around back to authoritarian rule.

    • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      lucky u, there is; its called just doing the fucking thing like normal, cuz non of the historical examples did that so u know.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Communism inevitably will always lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism.

        In order to become a communist state, you have to: 1.) Get a bit army or group of people to enforce the upcoming rules. 2.) Force people to get rid of private ownership or threaten them to give it up. This will piss a lot of people off. 3.) Get rid of them if they don’t. This will piss a lot of people off. 4.) Realize that you’ve pissed a lot of people off, and that your the only power in the land, you definitely don’t want to give this up. 5.) Enact a single party system…oh, fuck…

        Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale, and it’s not sustainable. By it’s very nature it’s extremely prone to abuse, and fundamentally impossible to install any sort of checks and balances on a single party-system. Look how bad it is with a two-party system in the US.

        • linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          u can believe the cia on that or u can actually fucking learn how these systems work or worked and what people who lived and live in them think of them, imma put it very plainly the percent of Americans who think amerikkka is a democracy is a LOT lower than Chinese people who think China is a democracy. And that hold true for most capitalist countries and most socialist countries past and present.

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            yesbut did you consider that chinese people are very stupid and brainwashed by 5g havana syndrome /s

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The failure of democratic checks and balances does not preclude the failure of communist checks and balances as well.

            Democratic Socialism is where I’d like the US to head. But we have to start consistently winning majorities so that we can fix the disproportionate representation that’s hurting progress and making electing the progressives needed for change difficult.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Communism doesn’t work on a large-scale, and it’s not sustainable.

          Have you ever heard of little thing called “economy of scale”? The bigger scale is - the more sustainable it is.

          By it’s very nature it’s extremely prone to abuse, and fundamentally impossible to install any sort of checks and balances on a single party-system.

          “checks and balances” do not prevent abuse. They are not designed to.

          Look how bad it is with a two-party system in the US.

          In my opinion two-party system is worse than single-party system and full pluralism. In single-party system there is only one party to blame, while in many-parties system no party can control discourse. While in two-party system both parties can agree to screw over people and finger-point at each-other, only creating illusion of pluralism.

          And that besides societal issues two-party system creates like strong polarization.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            while in many-parties system no party can control discourse

            As someone living in a country having many-party system, the discourse is perfectly controllable in the same way they are doing it in US, just with tiny extra effort. Since 1989 we didn’t had even a single anticapitalist party in parliament despite having sometimes over a dozen of them for several years. Hell in current term we have the most parties - 17 parties + 42 independent parliamentarists on 460 seats in sejm, and still what we hear from all of them is similar on every base question - no alternative to capitalism, neoliberalism in practice, and complete submission to USA and EU in all manners.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          That wasn’t totalitarian nor a dictatorship. Soviet Democracy continued to be practiced, and Stalin’s authority wasn’t absolute or all-encompassing.

          Where does a state go from a non-totalitarian, non-dictatorship to a Totalitarian Dictatorship?

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            From the very article you linked:

            There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a “temporary” ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party. Soviets were transformed into the bureaucratic structure that existed for the rest of the history of the Soviet Union and were completely under the control of party officials and the politburo.

            Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              I linked the absolute most liberal friendly source for you. Banning factionalism didn’t mean they banned democracy. Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                It’s very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.

                Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.

                It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

                You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

                Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

                  Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

                  Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

                  Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

              • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

                There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

                And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  There’s an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn’t allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.

                  The USSR was overall very pro-science. In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population. Marxism itself is founded on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Certain liberal sciences had been, at the time, focused on Idealism, such as Race Science.

                  And I can tell you that the “democratic voting” was also just a farce. I can’t find the source anymore but voting didn’t really have oversight. It’s in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they’re also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.

                  Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?

            • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              according to some critics

              Hey look at what the core of the quote you pulled is

              I wonder what the ideology of those critics is

              Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.

              Objectively more democratic than the US. In the US you vote for president and they appoint the ministers of every executive agency. In Korea they vote for those directly.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next

                Objectively more democratic than the US.

                In Korea they vote for those directly.

                They certainly have an interesting method.

                Each candidate is preselected by the North Korean government and there is no option to write in a different name, meaning that voters may either submit the ballot unaltered as a “yes” vote or request a pen to cross out the name on the ballot.

                A person’s vote is not secret

                Uhhum.

                • AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Wow you sure did copy and paste from a wikipedia article that doesn’t even bother to source the claim to any of the overtly state propaganda articles at the bottom of the page it uses as a bibliography.

                  And you didn’t even bother mentioning where you got it so we’re 2 levels of lack of citations deep.

                  Gee I wonder why leftists constantly criticize anti-communists for being intellectually lazy and dishonest…

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Calling it communism may be a bit of a reach, but collectivist social organizing in a variety of ways was and still is a very common element of indigenous cultures around the world.

          This link focuses on family and child rearing, but it’s a good window into how Australian aboriginals express collectivist principles.

    • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Rather than placing absolute power of The State in one person’s hands, start with an elected council of members whose number is not divisible by 2. Transition to a Stateless co-op arrangement. Congratulations you just implemented Communism the way it is intended to be implemented, and no dictator could screw it up.

      • Alteon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        …and how do you enforce it? No one is going to want to give up the land that they worked for and purchased themselves, or that they developed. Give up your rights or we imprison or kill you?

        And who controls this enforcing agency? The single party government? Because you can’t have multiple parties…how do you prevent the government from taking advantage of their position? Like, I don’t think communism is this magical fix-all that you think it is.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sounds great. Unfortunately it has never succeeded for more than a few months. The last 100+ years have shown that attempting to transition to socialism in that manner doesn’t work. Each time the bourgeoisie manages quickly regain control of the state. Given that the worldwide capitalist class still holds a great majority of the power, siege socialism is the only method to have had any successes to date.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The Six Nations have been using a form of communism, not Marxism, for somewhere between 15,000 to 25,000 years. Works pretty well for them. Aboriginal Australians have done the same for roughly 60,000 years.

          I’d say capitalism is the short lived and failed economic system, considering that it’s about 400 years old and rapidly failing.

          • davel@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            The Six Nations have been using a form of communism, not Marxism, for somewhere between 15,000 to 25,000 years. Works pretty well for them. Aboriginal Australians have done the same for roughly 60,000 years.

            Sure, they had what Marxists call “primitive communism,” but they don’t now. They’re as captured by capitalism as we.

            I’d say capitalism is the short lived and failed economic system, considering that it’s about 400 years old and rapidly failing.

            I doubt it will fall on its own any time soon, especially if no one builds something to replace it.

            • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              “Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones. The dismissiveness towards existing methods of collectivism is IMO one of the biggest flaws of Marxist theory. The establishment of an intelligentsia is an idea rooted in this paternalistic arrogance. If Marx had acknowledged the Russian peasantry as an important political class the Russian revolution might have gone very differently.

              • davel@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                “Primitive communism” is a derogatory term with racist undertones.

                I suppose it is a problem, thanks to “primitive” often meaning “subhuman.”

                • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  This is one of the tests of reading Marx, somehow it’s nearly always evident if someone use the term “primitive” about level of development or is just spewing racism. Problem is that liberals, ultras and such cannot differentiate between the two, but i guess it’s their problem.

                • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It isn’t just the wording that’s problematic, it’s the way Marx was dismissive towards the existing methods of collectivism and horizontal organizing. Yes, subsistence farming is a “primitive” mode of production, but the way peasants and indigenous people organized and collectivized resources is not irrelevant to modern industrial modes of production. Marx dismissed the way peasants and indigenous people collectivized resources as “primitive” and argued in favor of centralized power structures. I believe this to be a mistake.

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s really simple - centralization = seat of power

      The worst flavor of people are drawn to that like moths to a flame. It’s not even a good idea, any potential economies of scale are wasted by communication lag in the bureaucracy

      Decentralization is key. You can have a commune easy enough, humans self organize just fine in small enough communities. There’s communes all over the world doing just fine

      The question is, how do you knit those small communities together in a way that doesn’t give anyone much power, but still come together when needed?

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

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

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

      “Totalitarian” is itself propaganda: The Origins of Totalitarianism

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

      Monthly Review, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

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

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

  • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a theory, sure. I just have yet to see it expressed in any functional way that didn’t devolve into a shit show. See: Russia, etc.,

    I think it’s telling that so many wish for a return to communism but still defend Putin’s atrocities. :|

  • C126@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is like the opposite experience I had. Everyone said capitalism is bad and I get down voted to die if I say I disagree.

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

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

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

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

  • Emmie@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Yay Look what have we here. Lemmy.ml comics memes being totally self ironic

    Now the question is do I want to lose my valuable time trying to argue with commie midwits over and over. Probably not. I have a tea party with John Rawls in 15 minutes

      • Jocker@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It always ends up as a dictatorship, because communism puts too much trust and responsibility on the one in power. So much so that, no one history was able to resist being a dictator.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          What on Earth are you talking about? Can you give an example? Not a single AES state has been managed by a single person, especially not one who had to “resist temptation.”

          How do you believe AES states function politically?

          • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics? Or Xi Jinping who’s been made President for life or whatever recently? Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it? The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name? No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.

            I will admit though that after Stalin, the USSR changed out rulers pretty regularly so that doesn’t seem like a dictatorship to me. Same with Cuba now after Castro. Now people just say it because those countries allow only one party I guess.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              What about Stalin who purged rivals and sent out hit men with ice picks to take out his critics?

              Purging fascists and Capitalists from the party is a good thing. Purging did not necessarily mean executing, it meant forcing out of the Party.

              Or Xi Jinping who’s been made President for life or whatever recently?

              Mind sharing what you mean, “or whatever?” Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?

              Or Fidel Castro who basically led the country from the revolution until he was too old to run it?

              Does getting re-elected make you a dictator? Lmao.

              The DPRK which looks like a monarchy in all but name?

              In what way?

              No one says dictators run whole countries literally by themselves but they do dictatorial things to make sure people only loyal to them can have power, their word is law without going through other checks or balances by the people, like some popularly elected body or something.

              Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?

              • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Mind sharing what you mean, “or whatever?” Are you arguing using facts that came to you in a dream?

                I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he’s got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There’s a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea.

                In what way?

                Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don’t even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote “yes or no” for that person, which isn’t very democratic if you don’t know the alternative.

                Do you have evidence that there were not popularly elected bodies making all of the decisions, and that leaders of AES states were never contested successfully?

                I don’t, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I’d be curious to see them.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I guess it was just no term limits? Still, he’s got control of all the levers of power and without term limits he can continue to consolidate power over time, gathering favors, loyalty, etc. There’s a reason people like term limits and Mexico fought a couple wars over the idea

                  If people reelect candidates, what purpose does limiting them serve?

                  Power goes from father to son. They have elections but the person in power always wins like 100% of us vote, and I don’t even think they have alternative candidates. Someone else above had a link that showed they have a person and you just vote “yes or no” for that person, which isn’t very democratic if you don’t know the alternative.

                  Untrue, generally.

                  I don’t, but if you have proof that those things have happened before, I’d be curious to see them.

                  Try Reading This Soviet World, or Blackshirts and Reds.

  • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    There are enough examples why communism is bad. And few in favor of communism. But the left consists of far more then just communism. Many of those systems do work but the right labels everything left as communism, as communism is an extreme which fails every time. There are other forms derived from Marxism and forms of anarchism which are far superior. They are just not that great for mega corporations and billionaires, you know, the ones with all the power. The actual right wing propaganda out there is labeling anything left as communism which is completely dumb.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Every system is bad and will ultimately fail for the vast majority. As long as humans partake in it.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That reaaaaally depends on how you’d measure “success”. The millions of de-facto-slaves would probably not agree.

      • vga@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Probably more fascist than communist these days. My actual favourite theory though is that there are way more important things happening under the hood of nations, and whether they’re called communist or democratic or whatever is just a veneer.

        James A. Robinson’s book Why Nations Fail for instance provides an interesting alternative way to look at this, that goes beneath the surface.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Imagine how awesome a dictatorship would be if the dictator would want the best for their people instead of the best for their own? Oh right, never happened. Communism could be great, in theory. In real people partake and greed ruins it. Or is there a great working example?

        And let’s not even talk about capitalism. If you really have to question this, enjoy your young innocent life with ideologies. Not meant sarcastically.

          • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Wow, what a reply. Did you even read what i said or you just pavlo-ed to “communism bad”?

            Why do i even answer, you didn’t either

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I read every word of it. Your comment was built on false assumptions and idealist thinking, rather than materialist.

              You claimed that “Communism cannot work because people partake in it,” ie you laid out idealist thinking, rather than materialist. You then went on to claim that “dictators take advantage of it and ruin it,” which is again false. You don’t understand how AES states are structured, nor how they improved metrics.

              As an example, here is the USSR’s democratic model:

              As another example, here is wealth disparity in the USSR:

              And as a final example, here is the rate of change in GDP per Capita of the USSR:

              You don’t have any points, just vibes.

              • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Ok you’ve read, but didn’t understand. Maybe i should’ve expressed myself more clearly.

                I didn’t say dictators rule communism. It was an example of how every other system fails too. They all failed. Except capitalism, that thrieves perfectly. At least for the 1% and a few closely to it. For the rest it’s probably the worst of all fails. One that isn’t even obvious to the regular worker-drone.

                And also you didn’t mention a system that works great and a live example of it. Who cares about a theory? In theory everything can work great. I’m not saying any theory is bad. I say there is no execution possible. History and the current state seem like pretty good markers.

                So yeah cool, USSR was fine. Great Gini-index and all. Good point. But where is it now? Dying in the hands of one tremendously greedy piece of shit. Partially fucked by previous members.

                Theory can’t compete with greed and/or religion. Unless you just love to theorize, smoke weed, and pretend it could be cool if only…

                No insult meant. Probably better to have idealists than realists. I just can’t.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Now imagine it’s “capitalism” and all the movies, talking heads, schools, and rock stars are railing against capitalism.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Funny, the same thing happened when I realized that I’m Trans. It’s almost as if capitalist ran media is incentivised to lie and decive in ways that cause permanent damage.