Comment on YSK Joseph Stalin created the Great Terror. He started killing people randomly including artists, generals, doctors, diplomats, government officials. Everyone was terrified.

• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Communism under a dictatorship is a paradox. The people own and control nothing. The leader and their chosen circle own and control everything. That is neither communism nor socialism and it is not possible for either to exist in any authoritarian context.

  source

  • real_squids@sopuli.xyz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I like the “moneyless” part of the definition, aka if you have a currency you’re not communist. Which, to be fair, they didn’t call themselves as a country.

    source
  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Well, the problem is that to get to the utopia called Communism were everybody is equal, a Society has to first go through the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat after the Workers Seize The Means Of Production and, curiously (or maybe not so curiously if one understands at least a bit of Human Nature, especially that of the kind of people who seek power) none of the nations which went into the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (i.e. all the ones which call or called themselves “Communist”) ever actually reached Communism and they all got stuck in Dictatorial regimes (and I believe in not a single one of those is the Proletariat actually in charge: for example in China Labour Unions are illegal),

    So whilst it is indeed not possible for Communism to exist in an authoritarian context, according to Marxism-Leninism to get to Communism one must first go through an authoritarian context and eventually from there reach Communism, hence why all those nations that tried to reach Communism never got past the authoritarian stage that precedes Communist.

    source

    • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Ahh… please tell me more about this human nature which is incompatible with communism while microplastics flows in your veins.

      source

      • cobalt32@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I think they were specifically referring to Marxism-Leninism. It is “human nature” to act in your own self interest, so any system with hierarchies of decision-making power will eventually become corrupt. We just have to take a non-hierarchical path towards communism.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Re-read my post.

        I was not making any human nature claims about Communism, I was making them about what happens around dictatorial power.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• fonix232@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Yep.

  Communism and socialism in itself isn't that problematic an economic system. Unless of course you belong to the few select brands of freeloaders who've successfully managed to sell to the general population that without you, everything would collapse (looking at you, landlords and billionaires and stock market speculators).

  The problem is that the economic part can't work without an evenly matched societal system - and for people to bypass their immediate greed reaction of the usual "why should the result of my work go to others who didn't do that work" BS, as seeing far ahead to realise that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone, and when the community thrives, so does the individual. For that, one needs proper education, which is usually the antithesis of a capitalist system (a capitalist system will inherently only allow one to learn a limited set of facts, and will systematically ridicule those who dare step outside those limits).

  And herein lies the second problem. Socialism and communism could be great for the average people, but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.

  Now the problem with that is... it's incredibly easy for a malicious actor to then infiltrate the authoritarian system, and push its leaders to do counterproductive things. Add on top of that the constant CIA meddling, and you get your run of the mill authoritarian "communist" (in name only) paranoid leader who rules with an iron fist. The intention might've been good, but the execution was starkly against the very people the revolution was supposed to help. Repeat it a few times and now the whole world is afraid of the economic system, not authoritarianism.

  Then continue by throwing in some brainwashed tankies who literally suck up to the authoritarian regimes, spreading BS about how those are "true communism", just so average people don't even consider learning about it because the term becomes synonymous with authoritarians and their bootlickers.

  source

  • zeca@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.

    That word “only” seems too pessimistic and unjustified, and your point relies too heavily on it.

    source
  • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The problem is that the economic part can’t work without an evenly matched societal system

    well that’s absurd, and exactly why the tankies are shilling so hard

    source
  • SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    seeing far ahead to realize that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone,

    Pooling resources is how car insurance works.

    source

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      And the value it provides is enough to prop up the entire car insurance industry with incredibly inflated salaries at the top, and pay for a good portion of the damage caused by car accidents plus a fuckload of attorneys paid trying to avoid the rest of the damage.

      source
    • Zorque@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It’s part of how car insurance works. It also works by underwriters and adjusters being paid to do everything they can to keep from paying out claims.

      source
• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one

  Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. Communist ideology is like the Christianity of politics & economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it’ll happen someday inevitably. No possible way Marx was wrong.

  Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state): a political system/government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society.

  Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

  So, colloquially, communism refers to a political & economic system whereas democracy refers to a political system.

  As a political system, the communist state is totalitarian, the most extreme authoritarianism:

  Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.

  Whereas an authoritarian regime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature (they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested), totalitarianism aims for more. A totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as

  • Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren’t inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights. Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed. Dissent is punished. Unauthorized political activities aren’t tolerated.
  • State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
  • Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
  • Economic control.

  All of this is entirely compatible with Marxist-Leninism.

  Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism. It holds that governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals. The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.

  source

  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

    an argument easily disproven by pointing to the US for the last few decades.

    source

    • eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Shhh, you’ll interrupt the lib circlsjerk of how they’re the only good ones who commit atrocities, every other atrocity down by others is worse.

      source
    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Nope, a government has little bearing on a moral & political philosophy. As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.
      political map with axes left–right & libertarian–authoritarian
      Liberalism is a philosophy whereas liberal democracy is a type of government as was clearly stated:

      Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.

      If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government. Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part until Trump.

      Even so, there are other liberal democracies across the globe.

      source

      • _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        there’s a lot wrong with your comment, but let me focus on this part here because there’s only so much stupid I can put up with.

        Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.

        you’re out of your fucking mind if you think the US has been even remotely protecting human rights. this is nothing more than the most obvious western propaganda bullshit, and even our allies in the rest of the western world would scoff at the idea.

        source
      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        imagine being so illogical that you think that something as complex as all human ideologies can be represented on a 2D plain.
        reality is much more complicated that you can fathom, silly brah

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • oculi@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.

        The political compass is incredibly basic and does a horrible job at describing ideologies. Ideology is not just a basic “left wing/right wing, libertarian/authoritarian” %’s, it’s more accurately representable with parameters. It’s as useful as a toy.

        If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government

        Besides liberalism’s glaring issues, the whole point is that this is the inevitable endpoint of capitalism and by extension, liberalism. If an ideology always ends up in a horrible result as we see in the US and other liberal nations, it’s fair to include that in the criticism of Liberalism.

        your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.

        Jesus fucking christ what? The Indian genocides/reservations? Chattel slavery, and modern slavery through penal labor? The war on terror? The countless coups done by the US that installed fascist dictators? Japanese internment camps? The monroe doctrine? Operation paperclip? Palestine? Literally all of this happened before Trump came into power. What the fuck are you talking about. How is that defending “human rights & liberties” in any way?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The “political” aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.

    Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:

    Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers’ self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach to establish a socialist state, which is expected to wither away.

    So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.

    Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.

    By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types.

      While this is true, they’re talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before

      Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state)

      not any political system. None of the other types of communist governments have existed to scale for a meaningful duration & none have fulfilled their fantastical/mythical promise. They either fail within a few years or persist through authoritarian repression while purporting to strive for a fantasy they may never achieve.

      Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic.

      Not a political system. Nothing you wrote about it necessarily happens (depends on government), and the rich have been successfully sued & convicted of crimes before.

      liberalism

      Isn’t some deluded speculation. It’s a moral & political philosophy of immediately realizable demands to restrict government authority[^liberal-demands]. Are you arguing against the restriction of government authority & against liberty? That’s a strong argument to reject your political system as illegitimate.

      Unlike the fantasy of a communist society, the demands of liberalism have been achieved before in North America & Europe. It’s why you’re allowed to write everything you have.

      true democracy

      Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:

      Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy

      True democracy was already defined

      [Democracy][democracy] is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.

      and demands less.

      This is why socialism exists as a transitory state

      Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.

      economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry)

      Economic systems aren’t political systems, so they don’t have rights, though they may depend on rights (from a political system). :::spoiler Moreover, those benefits amount to less than purported in communist states. With all their rhetoric on substantive equality, & the time, state ownership, & central planning to achieve it, we’d expect at least the main outcome of economic equality. Yet, measures of economic inequality don’t support that: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba rate medium on economic inequality. (Only, North Korea with an average height notably shorter than South Korea due to food shortages has low economic inequality.) To the contrary, the “flawed” liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia do better with low economic inequality.

      Despite an ideology opposing the exploitation of workers, Soviet forced labor camps did exactly that & would work the malnourished to death.

      The formal guarantees for nutrition from those benefits meant little when at least 5 million died during the Soviet famine of 1932 the Soviets created.

      For instance, over five million people lacked adequate nutrition and starved to death during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, one of several Soviet famines. The 1932–33 famine was caused primarily by Soviet-mandated collectivization, although the famine in part was also caused by natural conditions. In response to frequent shortages, massive second economy existed for all categories of goods and services.

      In contrast, during the Great Depression in the United States, mortality fell & there were few reported cases from starvation.

      Without profit motive in those “benefits”, we might have expected a better environmental record in the Soviet Union. To the contrary

      Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.

      Their planners considered pollution control

      unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization

      and

      By the 1990s, 40% of Russia’s territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.

      Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn’t realize.

      • labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
      • continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
      • steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).

      The Soviet experience of socialist ownership and the concomitant centrally planned character of the economy showed the difficulties of realizing economic growth in order to ensure an increasing standard of living. Growth in the Soviet Union had been high in the nineteen thirties and early fifties, but had been deteriorating ever since.

      The actual functioning of the centrally planned economy was very different from the way it was planned to function. This had very much to do with the fact that economic actors in the Soviet Union also responded to state actions in a way that frustrated the state’s stated intentions. People engaged in informal and illegal activities and reduced their working time, frustrating the growth targets.

      Shortages increasingly lead people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.

      The end of the Cold War has changed the focus of the debate on human rights. The West, with its focus on civil and political rights, no longer opposed the Soviet states, with their emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the communist systems gave rise to a certain extent of triumphalism in the West, which had proven to be not only superior in political and civil rights, but also in economic and social rights. The economies of the western countries produced much more income and the material welfare of their populations was much higher than that of those living in Eastern Europe. ::: [^liberal-demands]: by rule of law & protection of essential rights/liberties

      source
  • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    this isn’t wikipedia, put your bot away

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      don’t cite resources contesting my thesis

      whatever 🙄

      source

      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        lol, okay clanker

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        that’s not what “thesis” means, brah

        source
  • AppleTea@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    State terrorism is a contradiction in terms. Legally, terrorism is violence carried out by a group that is not recognized as a state internationally. States cannot do terrorism, the term exists to protect their monopoly on legal violence. George Washington was a terrorist until the British empire recognized and began doing business with the constitutional United States. We see a similar change occurring with Taliban members and the present government of Afghanistan.

    More importantly, though. You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism, yet if we dig into the present and recent past of the United States, we find policies that match the list you have provided.

    The Lavender Scare and Hoover’s FBI, the Red Scare and COINTELPRO, the police response to Kent State anti-war protests in 1970, the police response Columbia’s anti-genocide protests last year, the ongoing existence of privately run labor camps and prison farms.

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      State terrorism is a contradiction in terms.

      Nope

      State terrorism is terrorism conducted by a state against its own citizens or another state’s citizens.

      Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

      The violations mentioned before are illegitimate exertions of authority to repress inherent human rights & liberties. Legal authority isn’t always legitimate authority. Violence against nonviolent dissidents (for political/ideological aims) is unjust.

      You claim liberal democracy is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism

      Nope, reread:

      Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

      I don’t know about labor camps, but none of that has any bearing on a moral & political philosophy.

      Moreover, the fact we know it & discuss it openly puts that government far beyond repressive governments that suppress & deny their failures ever happen.

      Like all governments, liberal democratic governments lapse into illegitimate authority. More importantly, however, they correct their lapses due to the people exercising their inherent liberties to induce reforms. That’s the design lacking from authoritarian governments like communist states: transparency & accountability to the people exercising their liberties to induce reform. Nothing short of a revolution or dissolution keeps communist states accountable to the people: they repress such liberties & send critics to labor camps as anti-revolutionaries.

      source
• dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Communism is very much a social system. Implying economics don’t have a huge impact on society would be the opposite of Marxism.

  source
• roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  But he wasn’t criticizing communism, or advocating for capitalism. He was criticizing a dictator and saying he prefers democracy.

  Unless you think communism can’t exist outside of a brutal dictatorship.

  source

  • MummysLittleBloodSlut@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I think communism can’t exist in a brutal dictatorship

    source

    • MourningDove@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      China would like to disagree.

      source

      • leftascenter@tarte.nuage-libre.fr ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        China is not communist. Communism entails a classless society. China has social classes. And by definition any dictatorship has a ruler class.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • CatAssTrophy@safest.space ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        However, Marx (and most other communist philosophers) would agree, however.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Unless you think communism can’t exist outside of a brutal dictatorship.

    literally the opposite of that

    source

    • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Then why bring communism into a critique of a dictator concerning his methods of control.

      source

      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        because it’s Stalin, former leader of the USSR…
        commonly used as an example of why communism is so bad.
        you’re really confused about that?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    It is the actually opposite of that. Socioeconomic factors are the main force of politics. Politics are not limited with the vote box. rather i,t affects all of the people who are the part of society. Within communism there would be no need for democracy. Indirect democracy also creates a ruling class. I would prefer individuals collective decision more than a bureaucrat’s decision that i voted.

    source

    • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      How would you determine what the individuals collectively decide?

      source

      • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Talking with each other at the peoples local council not going to a ballot box to elect some stupid bastad to make decisions for them. I DO NOT CONSENT someone to have my all will. An example can enlight this. I vote for the opposite party as an lgbt+ individual but they are not mentioning my daily life problems instead they are making populism with the religion i do not believe.
        
        You may say it is also a democracy by its defination and you are not wrong but the classical democracy is tyrant of the mass. I want the mass to be knitted for the minority. Just because we are the less should not mean that our opinions matter less. But under the classical democracy it is. Under the classical democracy homophobes are the majority and lgbt+ people are the minority.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Communism inherently couples both the economy and the government.

  In theory, capitalism can be decoupled since it mostly depends on laissez-faire governance. Communism inherently requires a planned economy and centralized control of such.

  There is theoretically nothing stopping said leaders of a communist regime from being elected through a democratic process. But much like democracies tend to favor capitalism and (lower case) libertarian ideals, communism tends to lend itself to dictatorships because… you have a centralized control of all aspects of society.

  source
• Overshoot2648@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I would personally prefer a Mutualist system.

  source