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

• lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

  • AppleTea@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ 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
  • _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.

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

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

    this isn’t wikipedia, put your bot away

    source

    • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      don’t cite resources contesting my thesis

      whatever 🙄

      source

      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        lol, okay clanker

        source
• BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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
  • real_squids@sopuli.xyz ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
• dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
• Overshoot2648@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I would personally prefer a Mutualist system.

  source
• fonix232@fedia.io ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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
• roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I think communism can’t exist in a brutal dictatorship

    source

    • MourningDove@lemmy.zip ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      China would like to disagree.

      source

      • leftascenter@tarte.nuage-libre.fr ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

        source
      • CatAssTrophy@safest.space ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

    literally the opposite of that

    source

    • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

      source

      • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      How would you determine what the individuals collectively decide?

      source

      • WinGirl99@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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 ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ 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