frisbird comments on Communism is when capitalism

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (7 children)

So liberal democracies promised universal rights and utopia. Instead each Liberal state produced between 100 and 150 years of abject poverty, massive wars, and domestic repression of labor movements with the military or paramilitary police.

Communism promised universal rights and utopia. Instead they produced about 10 - 30 years of major famines and poverty and displacement and then after that initial period eliminated abject poverty while speed running industrialization without creating a class of robber barons that ran the government.

Fascism was defeated in its objective of destroying the world's first workers' state. The US and UK supported the rise of the Third Reich and Germany fielded the most powerful military ever fielded at that time. The USSR lost 7M people fighting all the way across Europe to sack Berlin and end the Nazi project. And for that, they will never be forgiven.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (6 children)

Thanks for that. I think you are well spoken/read, but I do view a few things slightly differently.

Liberal Democracy is just a window dressing for ogliarchy. A convincing bit of propaganda that centers around a false sense of political choice. Choice always exists, even in a totalitarian regime, so liberalism has always been a belief system built on a false premise.

Communism has never existed. Some oligarchies used a more centralized planning approach under the guise of communism or socialism. The USSR definitely accomplished a lot but it was not due to communism unless you believe they were doing it in the spirit of communism in a failed effort to create it.

What either rose out or put people into poverty was how the surplus of industrialization was distributed. A great example of this is with China's embrace of capitalism and the subsequent raising up of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty. A counter example is found in several nations like the UK that saw income inequality increase as productivity skyrocketed from the use of machinery.

It just so happens that governments that enact socialist inspired policies try to do a better job at this distribution. It is almost like intent matters. I don't want to totally disparage countries attempting to create communism, even if they failed miserably. There is no doubt that the US and other countries did everything they could to sabotage communism.

You point out the ugly fascist truth that the UK and US support of fascism in Europe was a major factor in WWII. Certainly Nazi Germany greatly benefited from industrialists like Ford. It is ironic that the US tries to claim to be the good guys when they supported the Nazi and showed up at the end of the European WWII theatre after Russia had done all the hard work to claim victory.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Good effort. I think you don't have a robust understanding of the history of the movement for communism, but generally we occupy similar positions.

Where I would first push back is on this position you have that not only had there never been communism but that every communist party must prove that they were trying and failed.

Communism, as Engels wrote, is the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes. It's not to be understood as a goal, or a system of government. It's not something people implement, or choose. It's a movement with a specific understanding of the world arrived at through analysis which dictates a specific direction and set of abstract objectives.

Socialism, as Lenin wrote, is the attempt to build a state according to Communism, that is to say, according to the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes.

Socialism, therefore, is fundamentally an attempt to build something that literally no one has ever seen before, has never succeeded at, does not have known recipe, does not have known ingredients, and for which we do not have empirical data.

Central planning, as far as the analysis of class society is concerned, is a requirement for developing a state along the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes. Central planning is not equivalent with socialism, as fascism also uses central planning, but the use of central planning, as far as human beings have determined, is a necessity for creating the conditions for ending class society.

So the great things that the USSR achieved was because of the movement for communism overthrowing the ruling class and establishing a socialist state. That is to say they took control of a state that was currently in a feudal/capitalist transition and then they set about eliminating the last remaining feudalist elements and then eliminating what capitalist elements they could (like private property and anarchy of the markets). Having been the first ever group to attempt such a thing, they were operating with vague theories and no empirical evidence of what not to do. And, despite all the great things they did achieve, they failed to maintain the movement for communism.

A great example of this is with China's embrace of capitalism and the subsequent raising up of hundreds of millions of people living in poverty.

This is a pro-capitalist framing. The more nuanced reality is that prior to adopting capitalist techniques for resource allocation and distribution, China was outpacing most industrialized countries in poverty alleviation and increasing quality of life. This was "easy" because China was coming from the poorest position in the world, so even modest absolute gains were massive relative gains. But they achieved massive poverty alleviation without capitalism.

They adopted capitalism not because they wanted to alleviate more poverty, but because there are problems that central planning is currently not sufficiently advanced enough to address. Central planning and markets are just tools for solving problems. China had an advantage over the USSR - it could learn from the mistakes of the USSR. One of those mistakes was using central planning when it was not up to the task. Another of those mistakes was the establishment of hardline isolationist trading bloc. Chinese communists analyzed these behaviors and found they led to outcomes that threatened the movement for communism, but they also did not abandon central planning, for that too would threaten the movement from communism. So they apply central planning insofar as it is necessary, sufficient, and advantageous to do so, and they allow markets insofar as they are effective and advantageous to do so.

I don't want to totally disparage countries attempting to create communism, even if they failed miserably.

There's only 2 that failed - the USSR and Yugoslavia. The rest are still operating.

There is no doubt that the US and other countries did everything they could to sabotage communism.

Generally the US is the reason why revolutions fail, but not why socialist states revert to capitalism. Both USSR and Yugoslavia failed the movement for communism long before they were destroyed. If the Cuban communist party loses control of the state, that one we can firmly blame the US for. But the US usually kills movements before they take over the state. I mean, they invaded Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cuba, and many others in an attempt to kill the movement for communism before it could establish control.

And then, as for your reference to oligarchies, which seems directed at communist states, really the main one I can think of is late stage USSR. After Kruschev took office he started by changing the national conversation away from its revolutionary past, then accumulated more wealth into the state as a way of solving hard economic problems but without any strong controls in place, which led to massive corruption that could not be stopped which led to the empowerment of a new oligarchy who then liberalized the economy, which led to massive poverty, and then they attempted to join the West and become an imperial partner, until they finally dismantled the project and the oligarchs emerged.

Other than that.

Stalin was a poor laborer son of a poor laborer from a national ethnicity that was considered dirty and stupid. He died owning basically nothing and without any money to pass on to anyone.

Chinese business tycoons aren't able to buy elections and they can lose everything including their lives if they try to do anything that would change the balance of power.

There is no wealth in Cuba or North Korea to be hoarded because the countries can barely function on the international markets with the sanctions and thus there's no mechanism to accumulate capital through trade and domestically it's not like they can become robber barons and then take over government through political parties.

I wouldn't consider Vietnam or Laos to be oligarchies. Their inequality is slightly worse than the most advanced European nations but still better than Bulgaria and Lithuania.

That's all I got for now. Let me know what you think.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

I can see your point if viewing communism as a purely abstract movement instead of an actuall.set of policies. I resist rhetoric in the absence of policy because it is just lip service. In other words, the proof is in the pudding (aka policy).

In this regard communism has never failed. I would caution this same type of thinking though as it could be used to justify any movement because it isn't the policy after all, but a collection of rhetoric waiting for the "right" implementation.

This gets at a bigger issue of culture and why many movements have failed. It is not the spirit or even policies that make them fail, but the human element and our collective culture. You can create the best laws and policies, but they are useless if the culture ignores them. We can see this in the lack of enforcement on monopoly in the US or the banning of the 6 day 12 hour work week in China.

I think you make the correct distinction for central planning as every government uses it. The degree it is used and who makes the decisions and why is the important part. As far as what degree is needed or not needed for socialism, it is debatable. As you pointed out we have never experienced it in a real life example, unless you are counting the imperfect attempt at policies driven by olgiarchies pretending to be whatever propaganda resonates with their ruling class. The non-ruling class is, for the most part, irrelevant as seen in all past and current systems.

I don't really care what you claim you are. If you are a small elite group of people calling the shots you are an olgiarchy. I am sure there is nuance here just like with fascism. China, for instance, ticks off more boxes of fascism than even the US. What a country says it is worthless except to study and understand why they use that rhetoric. We don't let governments define what they are, we define it.

I suppose we will just have to disagree about market driven economic liberalization being the tool that did the most to reduce poverty in China. I am not convinced their prior policies were effective considering the millions of Chinese that died from starvation. Saying this to a dead person (that their policies were effective for ending poverty) is nonsensical. The US also failed in this regard on the opposite end during the great depression. What does supposed liberty matter when you starve to death. That is the very definition of failure for me.

If you believe in the ideals (rhetoric) of communism or socialism then adopting a scheme of private enterprise (AKA capitalism) is a dramatic failure. I know you probably can't see it that way and that is okay. Perhaps some ideals are never meant to be converted into policy and they will always just live rent free in our head to be used as excuses and justifications of the world we live in.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

I can see your point if viewing communism as a purely abstract movement instead of actually set of policies

There's a lot of ground in between these two extremes. Communism cannot be an actual set of policies yet, but it's much more than an abstract movement

I resist rhetoric in the absence of policy because it is just lip service

As well you should, but the policies of the USSR, China, and every other communist experiment were very concrete and still not communism. They are concrete policy experiments to bring about the conditions of the liberation of the working classes

In other words, the proof is in the pudding (aka policy).

I would say the pudding is the outcomes, not the policies

In this regard communism has never failed

It's just the sort of thing that doesn't fail. It's like saying science fails or doesn't fail. It's not a thing science does. Science is a doctrine, not a project with a concrete objective. Communism is a doctrine, not a project with a concrete objective

I would caution this same type of thinking though as it could be used to justify any movement

We're not justifying movements because they've never failed. That would be silly. We justify movements because of our scientific analysis of human society, the correctness of their policies insofar as our analysis understands things, and then based on the outcomes. And based on the outcomes, we update our scientific analysis. That's how we justify it

it isn’t the policy after all, but a collection of rhetoric waiting for the “right” implementation

There's a huge difference between an analysis and "rhetoric", and no one is waiting for the "right" implementation. Communists explicitly reject the possibility of such a thing. Every single revolutionary movement will have a unique implementation. There is no abstract "correct" implementation to be found. We bring about the conditions of our liberation on the basis of our analysis, our policies, and our behaviors being commensurate with reality and we fail to bring about the conditions on the basis of our failure to understand that reality and to propagate behaviors commensurate with it

It is not the spirit or even policies that make them fail, but the human element and our collective culture

It's our behaviors, which are shaped by material conditions. That's why communist policies are inclusive of the full spectrum of social possibilities, because we cannot compartmentalize our policies from our social and collective behaviors. They inform each other dialectically. What you're articulating is the sort of liberal/idealist concept of governance - if we have good policies everything will be fine. That's not how communists see the world. Our collective culture is inclusive of our policies and our policies must always account accurately for not only the current culture but how that culture will change

As far as what degree is needed or not needed for socialism, it is debatable. As you pointed out we have never experienced it in a real life example, unless you are counting the imperfect attempt at policies by olgiarchies pretending to be whatever propaganda resonates with their ruling class

That's not exactly what I said. We have absolutely experienced central planning in real life. The USSR is the maximalist example. And we learned from it. There were major problems with central planning that had nothing to do with the decay of the revolutionary state into the oligarchy of liberalism

But before the USSR degenerated, it was not an oligarchy and they used central planning to great effect in ending famine, raising the standard of living, and defeating the fascist military axis

And as I said, China is not an oligarchy and while they do have a market, they heavily use central planning for exactly what the communist analysis indicates it is needed for - bringing about the conditions of the liberation of the working class

The non-ruling class is, for the most part, irrelevant as seen in all past and current systems

This is not at all true. Under capitalism, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, or the owners. The non-ruling class is the workers. Under capitalism, the workers are not irrelevant at all. They must be appeased, they must be pacified, and they must be enlisted in cross-class collaboration. All policies under capitalism are evaluated on the basis of how it will affect the appeasement, pacification, and collaboration of the working class

In a socialist state, the ruling class is the working class and the owning class is absolutely not irrelevant. Policies must be evaluated as to how they ensure the owning class does not gain influence over the state, how the constant pressure of corruption and international trade relations and foreign policy push for the owning class to grow that influence, and what must be done to curtail that influence constantly

The non-ruling class has never been irrelevant, under any system

If you are a small elite group of people calling the shots you are an olgiarchy

Then literally every representative democracy in the history of the world has always been an oligarchy. You can't run a country of 500M with 250M people being government decision makers. The question is what makes them "elite". Did you know that in the USSR every single official was subject to recall at any time? Did you know that in order to hold office in China you actually have to study and pass competency exams and that the current elected leader, Xi Xinping, failed his entrance exams multiple times and was not allowed to participate in politics until he passed? These projects did not have hereditary leadership. They did not have leadership on the basis of wealth. There are more members of the Communist Party of China than there are people who vote in elections in the USA. And the Communist Party of China is constantly engaging in outreach to all citizens all over the country and adapting its policies to the needs of the people.

Again, I don't think we disagree about oligarchy in the degeneration of the USSR, but the idea that every communist country is an oligarchy is a propaganda narrative of the oligarchs in the US and UK

China, for instance, ticks off more boxes of fascism than even the US

It really doesn't. Just look at criminal justice and it's obvious. The USA rate of criminal justice supervision (prison, parole, probation) is almost 13x bigger than China's. The recidivism rate of the USA is at least 4x worse than China's.

Then there's the nature of fascism, which is a reactionary formation of liberal capitalism defending against the threat of working class organizing. There's a reason why fascism emerged after the Bolshevik revolution. China is not this. In fact, China today is the result of a peasant revolt, that focused entirely on meeting the needs of the peasants. There is an unbroken line of history from the peasant revolt to the present today. There are grandparents in China that remember harvesting rice in a subsistence living under the fascist KMT (or even Japanese) and today are using self-driving electric cars to get to and from their multi-generational home. Same peasant. Same government.

You need to reevaluate your assessment that China is somehow more fascist than the USA. Remember, the USA is the model that Germany built the Third Reich from, and when it was clear they would lose, the USA saved 10k Nazis from justice, and when they formed NATO they staffed NATO high command with Nazis, and they organized a covert operation through NATO (Gladio) to recruit, organized, fund, arm, and train nazis and neo-nazis all over Europe. The atrocities that the Third Reich committed were all things they lifted from France, England, Spain, Portugal, and The Dutch, including gas chambers, slavery, mass displacement, apartheid, etc

I am not convinced their prior policies were effective considering the millions of Chinese that died from starvation

You're not convinced because you haven't done the reading. Even shitty a.i. slop is capable of seeing this. You don't understand that the millions who died of starvation during the 4 Pests campaign was an extreme peak of famine-related deaths that were happening in China literally every 2 - 3 years prior to the revolution. And you likely don't have a mental model of the time involved. Yes, lots of people were poor and dying when the revolution took place. Yes, even more died when the revolution tried to fix it with ineffective policies based on incorrect analysis. But all of that happened in the very early phases. Capitalist reforms didn't start in China until 1978. The revolution happened in 1949. I know that based on how we normally think of history that has to mean that if there was a major famine before Deng's "opening up" that clearly everything was horrible prior to 1978. That's just not the case. The 4 Pests campaign that caused those millions of death was in the middle of those years. They spent a decade improving the quality of life for the masses, and then they tried to solve their famine problem and fucked it up beyond conscience. And then they recovered, and continued to improve people's lives. It's wild because it just doesn't compute, but the reality is that in both the USSR and China, they achieved mass poverty alleviation in less than 30 years while it took liberal democracies between 100 and 150 years to get anywhere near it.

Saying this to a dead person (that their policies were effective for ending poverty) is nonsensical

It's not, but you're not being expansive here. You mean to say telling someone who died from poverty, not just anyone. No one, literally no one anywhere, says the 4 Pests campaign was a correct policy. I think what's happening here is you're assuming that "policies for ending poverty" are a monolith called "communism" and either they were "right" or "wrong". The reality is that communist projects design and implement tens of thousands of policies.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

That's not exactly what I said. We have absolutely experienced central planning in real life. The USSR is the maximalist example.

Current economic planning is most likely going to evolve into something like computer controlled central planning.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4954&context=lcp

I have often wondered if communism could have been more successful if it had the processing power and networking capabilities of the modern Internet. I am of course permanently excluding China (because billionaires and communism don't mix). So don't bother, besides we both know they are a fascist olgiarchy. Number 4 in weapons dealings in the world now! Supplying African nations weapons that are already on both sides of the conflict used to kill civilians. Maybe it is time for another one of those communist scientific adjustments!

That's why communist policies are inclusive of the full spectrum of social possibilities, because we cannot compartmentalize our policies

This is a very western and idealist communist viewpoint. For instance, transgenders are supported by western communists but it is a mixed bag with non-western. Your ideology has apparently blinded you to harsh realities. I totally get your idealism though as it is another trait I appreciate in people. Or perhaps you are fine with the harsh sentences some communist claiming countries have dealt out to non-conformists. Or maybe it is even a no true communismman thing.

USSR degenerated, it was not an oligarchy

The USSR was always a oligarchy, not sure why you think olgiarchy is anything more than rule by minority.

China is not an oligarchy

I guess if you keep repeating it then it must be true?

heavily use central planning for exactly what the communist analysis indicates it is needed for -

The Soviet state used centralized economic and political control to grant material privileges and high living standards to party elites. Is this what the communist scientist determined what was necessary? I am being rhetorical of course.

bringing about the conditions of the liberation of the working class

Still waiting unless that 6 day a week 12 hour a day work week is what you are talking about. Once again we see human nature pushing past policy. Policy is ignored so why does it even exist but as a lip service and a lying rhetoric used to cover up massive exploitation.

There's a huge difference between an analysis and "rhetoric", and no one is waiting for the "right" implementation. Communists explicitly reject the possibility of such a thing.

This is patently false. Communist claiming nations most certainly waited or even created the environment to implement their rhetoric. Communist regimes use coercion, military force, and political pressure to expand and maintain communist systems. This is where modern day criticism and even extreme historical terms like Red Fascism come from.

Your constant reframing with communist idealism, which I suspect is really your idealism meant to portray communism in as positive light as possible, is repetitive.

We bring about the conditions of our liberation on the basis of our analysis, our policies, and our behaviors being commensurate with reality

This is historically inaccurate as most of the time it was fly by the seat of your fucking pants. Perhaps this is more of modern day re-envisioning of what communism could have been. Experiments are transformed into a complicated explanation of why party is always right. It reminds me of how Americans unlike me try to romanticise things like the American Revolution or even worse the founding fathers. The kind of bullshit party towing liberals will tell you with a straight face.

This is not at all true. Under capitalism, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, or the owners. The non-ruling class is the workers. Under capitalism, the workers are not irrelevant at all.

I said for the most part. Please get off your soap box and stop pretending the masses dictate policy and are anything more than an afterthought to the oligarchies that exist all over the planet. Please tell me how capital cares about the workers as they imagine a world run by AI and robots. You are so last century.

In a socialist state, the ruling class is the working class and the owning class is absolutely not irrelevant. Policies must be evaluated as to how they ensure the owning class does not gain influence over the state, how the constant pressure of corruption and international trade relations and foreign policy push for the owning class to grow that influence, and what must be done to curtail that influence constantly

That's got to be one of the worst description of a socialist state I have ever seen. I thought you were an idealist.

Then literally every representative democracy in the history of the world has always been an oligarchy. You can't run a country of 500M with 250M people being government decision makers. The question is what makes them "elite". Did you know that in the USSR every single official was subject to recall at any time?

Yup, so is every government. Check. I find your 500 m to 250 m comment very unidealistic. I am impressed!

While Soviet constitutions included nominal recall provisions, in practice, electoral slate choices were strictly monopolized by the Communist Party under the nomenklatura system. Meaningful democratic accountability or spontaneous public recall of high-ranking party officials was impossible without central party approval.

That is what makes them "elite".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura

Did you know that in order to hold office in China you actually have to study and pass competency exams

China uses the national civil service exams for administrative and bureaucratic ranks. However, accession up the political ladder through the Chinese Communist Party relies primarily on internal party performance evaluations, patron-client networks, and party loyalty and not open standardized testing.

and that the current elected leader, Xi Xinping, failed his entrance exams multiple times and was not allowed to participate in politics until he passed?

Hmm this is smelling like some founding fatherism. I heard that during the Cultural Revolution, Xi was sent down to the countryside as a "sent-down youth." He applied to the Communist Youth League eight times and the Party ten times before acceptance, and he was admitted to Tsinghua University as a Worker Peasant Soldier student in 1975, a category that explicitly bypassed traditional academic entrance exams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker-Peasant-Soldier_student

So I guess fail until you figure a way in? Oh the future re-envisioning stories this guy is going to get.

These projects did not have hereditary leadership. They did not have leadership on the basis of wealth.

It is not magical goodwill or meritocracy if that is what you are getting at. It is simply political power.

And the Communist Party of China is constantly engaging in outreach to all citizens all over the country and adapting its policies to the needs of the people.

Spare me the PR. You really do act like a tone deaf liberal.. Or maybe like a Mormon missionary, just doing God's work. Any insight or self reflection would definitely be helpful here. I spent a long time deprogramming myself so I know what indoctrination is like. If you need help I know some great resources.

but the idea that every communist country is an oligarchy is a propaganda narrative of the oligarchs in the US and UK

Wait, let me get this straight. The olgiarchy's conspiracy is to get you to believe every communist country is an olgiarchy!? No sir that is because every communist claiming country is run by a small group of elites. Oligarchy is a system where power rests with a small, elite segment of society. Political scientists frequently categorize the Soviet Politburo and China's Standing Committee of the Politburo as oligarchies because power is concentrated within an self-selecting party elite rather than distributed across the working class.

You need to reevaluate your assessment that China is somehow more fascist than the USA. Remember, the USA is the model that Germany

Nope, but can we start dunking on the US. China may suck and Russia can eat a dick, but the US oh boy are they a piece of work for the millennia. They are such a young nation but so incredibly violent and destructive. Spreading fascism to every corner of the globe. Nonstop war and abuse of international citizens. Living under the current administration is akin to having an abusive partner you can't escape from. Okay, I guess Russia knows what that is like as well.

, the USA saved 10k Nazis from justice, and when they formed NATO they staffed NATO high command with Nazis, and they organized a covert operation through NATO (Gladio) to recruit, organized, fund, arm, and train nazis and neo-nazis all over Europe. The atrocities that the Third Reich committed were all things they lifted from France, England, Spain, Portugal, and The Dutch, including gas chambers, slavery, mass displacement, apartheid, etc

Oh this is good stuff, besides the modern day Russian disinformation nonsense. Yes, the US brought in a ton of Nazi. The US is fascist empire. While they don't tick off every box like China they make up for it by being violent imperialists. They evolved fascism into its current form which rules the entire world which is our favorite, neofascism.

USSR and China, they achieved mass poverty alleviation in less than 30 years while it took liberal democracies between 100 and 150 years to get anywhere near it.

You don't have to convince me that they did better things than the US. The US is a very low bar honestly. It is a lot more fun dunking on the US than it is defending communism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

Clearly there's no way for me to penetrate your preconceived notions. I don't have the skill or the energy to get through your defenses.

not sure why you think olgiarchy is anything more than rule by minority

Your definition of minority is nonsensical and tautological. All organizations ever in the history of the world except the smallest co-operatives are oligarchies by this definition. Hell, in a patriarchal society, every single family is an oligarchy. It's a useless term the way you're using it. You've taken a word, adopted the standard moral connotation, and then expanded the definition to include absolutely everything so that now you can argue that communism specifically falls to this moral judgement. That's a classic move in debate, but it's a useless technique for understanding anything.

Supplying African nations weapons

You think this is a part of fascism? How else do you think resisting mass murdering genocidal imperialism is going work? By praying for it? You're fully able to accept that the US is a psychotic fascist state wreaking havoc all over the globe but anyone who sells arms into a contested theater is now fascist? And you accuse me of idealism? Perhaps you don't know what that word means either.

transgenders are supported by western communists but it is a mixed bag with non-western

Development of consciousness is uneven, always has been and always will be. Iran represses homosexuality but supportive of transgenderism. I am not blinded to the harsh sentences for non-conforming communities. I also don't think policies towards non-conformist are relevant to any specific communist movement. You are the one who is doing the "no true communism" fallacy by saying that any society that represses non-conformism is not truly following the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes.

I know you won't concede that, but that's why I don't think I can break through your defensive wall. You've convinced yourself that everyone else is committing the fallacies you are committing, you have modified definitions or even inverted some, like idealism, and you've locked it all down with a moralism that ensures you'll never even acknowledge your errors because if you acknowledge your errors than you have morally failed.

The Soviet state used centralized economic and political control to grant material privileges and high living standards to party elites.

Clearly you've never read anything other than anarchist and liberal writings about the USSR. From 1917 to 1949, the USSR used central planning to permanentnlly end the cycle of famines that plagued the region for over a century, mechanized farming, and build a war machine capable of defending itself against Western Europe and the USA, and then built it even further so that it could defend all of Europe from the Nazis and then defeated the Nazis.

After that, they used central planning to greatly improve the quality of life of the masses, become the second best fed population in the world, make major breakthroughs in medicine and science and then. But they ALSO used it to create a political class above the law and enrich themselves personally. We all know this, but you don't seem to understand it. You think the enrichment of a political class was an "always" thing instead of distinct historical process that emerged from a different formation. And it seems like the reason you can't understand this is because you think a representative system of government will always be an oligarchy no matter what, because for whatever reason you have anchored on the mathematical aspect of minority rule and you will only ever accept a government is not an oligarchy if 51% of the population is in positions of decision making power, and since oligarchies are evil and they engage in self-enrichment and are above the law, then therefore the USSR from 1917 to 1949 must have been enriching their political elite.

You're not dealing with reality. You're cherry picking some facts and then smearing them across history and calling it analysis.

unless that 6 day a week 12 hour a day work week is what you are talking about

We can get in to the labor problems in China specifically, but I suspect you're better off actually studying it then dealing with your moral framework in a discussion. Suffice to say that prior to industrialization, Chinese peasants were rice farmers and working far harder because they had to in order to survive. Subsistence farming is a hard life. Building a nation is hard work and a liberated working class will find itself working hard during difficult times and working less during less difficult times. Considering that the US is constantly threatening China with military encirclement, total isolation, and literal terrorism, I think that it's appropriate to say China is in difficult times.

And as for that oligarchy, Chinese politicians are well known to work long hours daily and without days off, with a legal cap of 15 days of vacation maximum earned after 20 years of service (only 5 days off for less than 11 years of service).

Your understanding of liberation is at odds with the understanding of liberation that communist analysis has arrived at. Liberation of the working classes is a universalizing project. No one is free until everyone is free. As the USSR showed, national defense against the West requires grueling labor. The idea that China is not socialist, led by a communist party focused on the liberation of the working classes because many people work long hours is nonsensical. Talk about idealism!

Communist regimes use coercion, military force, and political pressure to expand and maintain communist systems.

You're so silly. You said that "maybe you're waiting for the right implementation" and I said communists explicitly reject that concept. Your defense is that communist movements are political and have a military? Are you sure you know what a modern state is? Are you sure you're not thinking of a community garden? Oh, wait, community gardens do use political pressure, so that's not it. Maybe you're thinking of a forest, or a lake, or maybe a mountain.

I'm serious though. Your position amounts to "liberation is only possible when you don't fight back, don't wield power, and don't exist". It's peak idealism.

That's got to be one of the worst description of a socialist state I have ever seen. I thought you were an idealist.

You really need to read more and study these topics before you speak on them. Reading your writing is like looking into a house full of fun house mirrors. You are so truly disconnected from reality and history. It's almost like you've read some anarchism and then mostly wikipedia.

You don't have to convince me that they did better things than the US

I wasn't. I was explaining that they did better than literally every other liberal revolution. Liberal revolutions all over the world precipitated a century a more of mass poverty, war, and violent repression of labor. A century is a long time. Communism never took more than 30 years to lift up the masses. That's a real historical material difference that puts the movement for communism in a fundamentally different category that other political movements.

But again, I can't convince you. Convincing you of any point would be a moral failing on your point. You even think you've deprogrammed yourself so if I convince you of anything you will have failed that too.

I can encourage you to read more things you disagree with, from people you disagree with (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc) and understand what was really written instead of reading secondary sources that twist and pervert understanding. Or you could read some secondary sources that disagree with you (Parenti, Losurdo, Boer).

But other than that, I dunno. I don't think we have any way to communicate with each other

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Clearly there's no way for me to penetrate your preconceived notions. I

I thought we were just talking. No, you are not going to convert me to communism. I went through that phase decades ago. I am just a humanitarian now.

Your definition of minority is nonsensical and tautological

Don't act dense. It is not my definition. Take it up with a dictionary I suppose.

You think this is a part of fascism?

Yes, the MIC is an integral part of modern day fascism.

You're fully able to accept that the US is a psychotic fascist state wreaking havoc all over the globe but anyone who sells arms into a contested theater is now fascist?

The US is worst followed by Russia, France, and China. I am surprised you find this such a hard concept to wrap your head around. If you sell arms to worn torn nations you are a piece of shit.

any society that represses non-conformism is not truly following the doctrine of the liberation of the working classes.

I did not say this, but I suppose I could have implied it. I would generally agree with this statement. Remember, I do have a soft spot for idealism.

I know you won't concede that, but that's why I don't think I can break through your defensive wall.

You are acting like a missionary here. I don't need you to proselytize to me. I have spent all my life helping people. As I said, I have marched with the socialists and I look up to their ideals already. I have stood on my state capital steps and fought for minority rights. I have been involved at the local, state, and federal level. I have lobbied senators and congressmen. I started as a Republican, became a Democrat, and then switched to an Independent.

I am also a realist. Modern day and historical communism is deserving of plenty of criticism. I think you mistake my criticism for condemnation. I appreciate and care about all people and that definitely includes Russians and Chinese. I don't care for their governments at all.

You've convinced yourself that everyone else is committing the fallacies you are committing,

You are just grasping at straws now apparently. If you want to continue discussing that is fine, but I think this is counterproductive.

Clearly you've never read anything

Clearly you can't deny the truth.

a war machine capable of defending itself against Western Europe

I don't believe this for a second. This is pure propaganda. The Soviets had nothing to fear after their nuclear arsenal was developed and furthermore they engaged in a ton of Imperialism.

then built it even further so that it could defend all of Europe from the Nazis

More re-envisioning! The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, signed on August 23, 1939 was a confidential addendum signed by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which divided Eastern Europe into mutual spheres of influence. Gee golly carving up Eastern Europe is not a good look.

Of course the Nazi broke the pact, and it was a good thing they did as all of Europe could have fallen if they hadn't invaded Russia. A decision that caused a ridiculous number of human deaths.

You think the enrichment of a political class was an "always" thing

It was and is.

representative system of government will always be an oligarchy no matter what,

So far history has proven this. Perhaps there will be some future government deserving of humanity. I look forward to this day for all people.

Considering that the US is constantly threatening China with military encirclement,

Saber rattling is not a good look.

You're not dealing with reality.

That is fucking rich. You have failed to refute anything I have said and instead fall back to the propaganda you have been taught.

We can get in to the labor problems in China specifically

Yes, let us examine the exploitation of workers by a supposed communist government. What a joke

Chinese peasants were rice farmers and working far harder because they had to in order to survive.

I am sure the hundreds of millions of Chinese rural farmers really appreciate the billionaire class they will never be part of. They can't even get decent medical care compared to urban areas

And as for that oligarchy, Chinese politicians are well known to work long hours daily

Because they culturally don't believe in a work life balance it makes them not an Olgiarchy. Gotcha.

Your understanding of liberation is at odds with the understanding of liberation that communist analysis has arrived at.

Probably because I look beyond your analysis. I am sorry, but I don't base my belief on books written hundreds of years ago that do not take into consideration where we are now.

The idea that China is not socialist

The fact is they pumped out more billionaires than the US for three years straight and show zero signs of slowing down. I find it a bit amazing that you still pine for them as communist, let alone socialist. I suppose it show just how far off base you are.

Using central planning to corner the world market in an effort to enrich themselves as capitalists and control other countries as imperialists isn't what I would call socialist. You may prefer their form of Imperialism because it is less violent for now I suppose. I can't really blame you though as much of life is picking between the lesser of evils.

Your defense is that communist movements are political and have a military?

I said a statement about how they conduct their business. You apparently can't refute it. That is fine by me. Your conjecture here is borderline childish.

I'm serious though. Your position amounts to "liberation is only possible when you don't fight back, don't wield power, and don't exist".

More acting like a child who can't handle criticism.

But again, I can't convince you. Convincing you of any point would be a moral failing on your point. You even think you've deprogrammed yourself so if I convince you of anything you will have failed that too.

You have done a horrible job at convincing me considering I already appreciate socialism as a movement. You are clearly regurgitating an enormous amount of propaganda in our discussion which I have countered effectively. You don't have the answers I am looking for and I am much further along in my journey than you.

But other than that, I dunno. I don't think we have any way to communicate with each other

Don't worry, I am not going anywhere and I will be here when you need me. I was serious about my offer for help. Peace be with you.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent