this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
1293 points (83.1% liked)

Memes

45731 readers
1050 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I'm going to take your question as genuine and answer in equal.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.

The leftists who still prop those countries up on their shoulders are what many call tankies. Today they sing praise about Russia, China, and North Korea, but your observation is correct, they won't ever move there. These are individuals who repeat propaganda and are, ultimately, just red fascists. When you actually dig into their ideals they parallel and sometimes mirror Nazis.

I believe leftism cannot have an authoritarian element to it. I think most social hierarchies need to be destroyed. I think the only way to have a socialist society is through democratic means. Democracy in the workplace and national level. I think most of us can agree workers need higher wages and there is a wealth gap that needs to be dismantled. I think most of us believe healthcare needs to be universal, food and shelter and water, education, information (internet), speech, and much more should be free and readily available. There is this element of freedom that needs to be achieved that isn't found the countries that are "communist".

I don't want to explicitly say those communist countries wasn't "real communism", but fascists, authoritarianism, always appropriate from progressive movement. There is no freedom, especially of workers, under a dictatorship. If workers are starving, dying, being outright black bagged and killed, i don't think that can be considered communist.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Hello, I'd like to speak for people I disagree with

As a leftist whose platform doesn't seem to include a word about abolishing capitalism, any time I am challenged by someone to the left of Bernie Sanders, I turn into a right wing crank telling people 'if you don't like it get out'

And today I'd like to tell you about horseshoe theory

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you actually believe in horseshoe theory then I have a bridge to sell you. Are you going to tell me you're a centrist?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, anti-Tankies are verry simmlar to Tankies. However, I think the commenter is coping by being an anti-tankie. Both groups can becone and come back from crazy. People can also safely hold tankie and anti-tankie like beleafs but (like a lot of ideology) run the risk of becoming crazy.

amaricentric peoples perspective (wrough draft probably wrong)

"Tankie" nationallists fail to see the raising over time evil and fantisize the good and the ones who passionately hate Tankies (im guilty of it) fail to see the good slowly rotting away. Then we say the whole country never changed throuout its lifetime, one points to the beginnigng the other points to the end.

Places like the Soviate Union from my limited knolage seem to be a nation with slowly growing leadership alignment problems, slowly using things like nationalism and subverting democracy to flip who should be masters and who should be slaves.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can we just go back to saying communists please?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, internal divisions suck. (What people are calling) Tankie and anti tankie ideas have the potential to be useful if and when its not an ideologial snare.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The last paragraph comes across as about "no true Scotsman" as it gets. Maybe true IRL communism is as much fiction as the star trek depiction of it is.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's the point of my concluding paragraph. I am acknowledging that fallacy. So I ask, if freedom is an actual component to socialism, communism, or anarchism, then is the USSR actually a communist state? I can easily argue North Korea isn't. China and Russia aren't socialist at all. Russia is an oligopoly and China is just state capitalism.

So what is "true socialism"? I don't think we can ever achieve. We can't have a "perfect" society, but I do think we can get close enough having workers been more in control of their labor, be more democratic, and not live in an authoritarian state. We may not 100% be able to live in a Star Trek universe but I think we can get quite close.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, here are some examples:

As you may imagine, they aren't finding their way to exist easy. But they sure are having success in learning how to create a horizontal society.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The former is operating illegally amidst intense violence that they have as much responsibility for as the Mexican government and the latter have committed ethnic cleansing. So I'm not sure why you think they are good examples. Unless you think socialism means people must be killed.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

In the "capitalism did better than communism/socialism" debate i still feel a great lack of historical context. Eastern Europe has been largely destroyed by the Nazis. China has lived through brutal Japanese occupation and a genocide of 10 Million people. Korea has been subject to a war emplyoing terrible new weapons such as Napalm to bring great destruction.

Meanwhile the US homeland has been faring without any destruction, France surrendered quick enough to avoid most damage and the UK sucessfully fended off the Nazi attacks so the damage was limited.

Purely economically speaking the Western allies were off to a much better start than the Eastern countries. So i would argue that for the economical question, it remains impossible to claim capitalism to be superior to socialism. Otherwise authoritarianism is always to the detriment of the people.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

sing praise about Russia

I have never seen a communist claim that the modern Russian government is good or communist, only that it opposes western hegemony, to the occasional benefit of poor nations in the global south.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It’s a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.

Most leftists are literally marxist leninists or some derivative of ML in socialist countries. I think you mean most white leftists in the imperial core when you say most leftists.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are there any statistics on where the most (convinced) leftists currently live? Just wondering. Not talking about people who are forced to adhere to authoritarian systems to survive or further their career.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago

There are literally 100 million members of the CPC. If .1 percent of them earnestly believe in communist thought that is more than the total members of communist orgs in the US.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you might call me an FDR New Deal socialist. I'm in favor of things like social security and government public works projects.

It has been my experience as a lifelong American that "capitalism" is just feudalism, or a desperate attempt to return to feudalism. "Capitalists" aka the ruling class have all the "capital" aka enough resources to actually accomplish anything. When any normal citizen wants to start a business, they have to beg a capitalist for a loan of some type, possibly selling "stock" aka a loan that never pays to term, allowing the capitalists to leech off of your profits basically forever. Wages get lower, costs get higher, all to funnel as much wealth to a small upper class. The myth of the meritocracy, where he with the best ideas, the best inventions, the most innovation, the product most in demand is he one that succeeds...doesn't hold up in a world of patent trolling or felony contempt of business model we're currently in. Doesn't stop them from parroting it to keep the little people quiet though.

Meanwhile I'm not aware of a "communist" nation that ever actually was. I am unaware of a nation that has ever actually operated per "to each according to his ability, from each according to his need" workers owning the means of production etc. They've all turned out as dictatorships with command economies. I mean, show me a country where the workers' unions are actually the ones in power. No, you've got the likes of North Korea, Russia and China building empty skyscrapers, building entire cities that sit empty, demolishing brand new apartment complexes because the floors aren't safe to walk on. The government told us to build it, so we built it. I get punished if I don't, and I don't get rewarded for doing a good job. The man that wrote Tetris didn't earn a single kopek.

Neither seem to actually work long-term.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 1 year ago

Okay, a "fdr new deal socialist" isnt a thing. FDR was a social democrat which isn't socialist. The new deal was a social democrat policy, not socialist.

Please consider reading "the abc's of socialism" it is a good introduction to socialist thought.