• NoiseColor@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is really one sided. I’m not saying there isn’t truth in it, but there are also other factors. Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states. They can be inefficient and stifle innovation. It often was just a power grab not an attempt to make a country better for everyone.

    I wouldn’t want to live in the mid 20. century idea of communism. But otherwise I support that the means of production belongs to the worker and anyone affected by the production.

    • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      @NoiseColor @yogthos

      1/2 [Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states.]

      – Yes, revolutions can be bloody, whether they’re communist or otherwise. That’s not really unique of communist revolutions.

      “Authoritarian state” is a meaningless redundancy; there’s no such thing as a non-authoritarian state. If your criticism is that the revolutions didn’t immediately result in a communist society, then that’s also a poor criticism since they were never meant to…

      • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        @NoiseColor @yogthos

        …immediately transition to communism because that would be impossible, or at least strategically impractical. The plan of Marxist-Leninist revolutions was always to create a transitional state that would eventually transition into a stateless classless society once the state was no longer needed.

        • Jeremy List@hachyderm.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          @Radical_EgoCom @NoiseColor @yogthos immediate transition is not only possible in theory but actually has some precedent (although so far it’s only happened in the wrong place and time to last at scale for more than a few years). On the other hand expecting a transitional state to actually continue the transition is even less rational than expecting Jesus to show up and start helping.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            The actual reason anarchist experiments always fail is because they lack organization and structure necessary to keep them going. Maybe if spent some time to learn what a state is, then you wouldn’t feel the need to make inane statements like this.

          • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            @jeremy_list @NoiseColor @yogthos

            [immediate transition is not only possible in theory but actually has some precedent]

            – How is it possible in theory, and what precedent does it have?

            [expecting a transitional state to actually continue the transition is even less rational than expecting Jesus to show up and start helping]

            Why?

            • Jeremy List@hachyderm.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              @Radical_EgoCom @NoiseColor @yogthos Rosa Luxemburg explained all this better than I could and she wasn’t even an anarchist (but really take your pick of almost any non-ML communist theorist).
              But in summary: implementing communism inherently deprives counterrevolution of the capital it needs to function, so any delay in implementing communism is at best a strategic error and at worst an indication that the org has already become counterrevolutionary.

              • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                implementing communism inherently deprives counterrevolution of the capital

                How do you want to achieve this? Globally at once? Or bit by bit? Can you please Rosas work?

          • Sarcasmo220@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            On the other other hand, choosing to stay in a capitalist system and expecting to be treated like a human being is less rational than expecting God even cared enough to want to help in the first place.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                Capitalism is a system where people who own capital exploit the working class to create more wealth for themselves. A system where the means of production are publicly owned and are used for the benefit of the workers is demonstrably not that. The fact that you don’t even understand such basic things shows how woefully clueless you are.

                • Jeremy List@hachyderm.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  @yogthos China is a place where people who own capital exploit the working class to create more wealth for themselves. The fact you’re pretending otherwise makes you an anti-communist, an anti-materialist, or more likely both.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Yup, that makes sense. That’s why China is pretty much the only place in the world where large amount of people are being lifted out of poverty, while the wealth of the rich is diminishing. You are very intelligent. You wouldn’t recognize materialism if it hit you in the face kid.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          I agree that revolutions can always be bloody, but when people say authoritarian, they mean a state where dissent is surpressed by violent means. At least in modern times, most western states (and, in fact, most states) don’t suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.

          • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            @Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

            1/3 [most western states (and, in fact, most states) don’t suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.]

            I have to partially disagree. While it is likely true that the USSR was more outward with its suppression methods than most western states today, countries, like America for example, do suppress dissent on a regular scale (Campus protest, George Floyd protest are just two notable examples, but there are plenty of more).

            • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              @Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

              2/3 Also, speaking of America again, one of America’s suppression methods is suppression through delusion, tricking people into thinking that they’re actually free with constant propaganda in media and schools when the reality is that America is just as much (and maybe even more, since it’s hard to compare the exact numbers to the Soviet Union) police presence and civilian surveillance as the Soviet Union did (but probably more surveillance given the advancements…

              • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                @Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

                3/3 …in technology) and all while having the largest prison population in the entire world, possibly being larger than the amount of prisoners in labor camps under Stalin (again, it’s hard to compare since records from that era from the Soviet Union are lacking).

                • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  There’s currently less than 1.4 million prisoners in the US, while official Soviet records show 0.79 million in executions alone under Stalin. Average that by year, and you still have 0.02 million per year.

                  According to official Soviet estimates, more than 14 million people passed through the Gulag from 1929 to 1953, which averages to 0.58 million per year.

                  Edit: That’s a little bit more than two times the current US prison influx amount, and I didn’t account for per capita-ing (modern US has more population in total than USSR ever did).

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Having poorly made police officers is way worse than have state policies of persecuting ideas and even forms of art. Unlike what would happen in the USSR, Snowden’s leaks were not blocked and promoters of the leak weren’t hunted down (except for Snowden himself, which would happen in most countries), and you are free to discuss here without being banned.

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Oops, yeah, I forgot about that. But you actually see livestreamed debate about whether suppressing these protests was good (oftentimes it’s highly criticized), and you don’t just get prosecuted if you just express opinions online. Also, the campus protests were suppressed because the owners of the private property being protested on didn’t like it. They get substantial funding from the state, but there’s still a difference from the state itself doing it. Like socialists and flat-earthers don’t get straight-up stamped out by police, whereas Stalin actively prosecuted people who didn’t support pseudobiology.

                • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  My point is that the United States is indeed much less authoritarian. Saying that there’s no such thing as a state that’s more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    US incarceration rate is higher than what USSR had during Stalin’s purges. It’s hard to think of a better measure of how authoritarian a state is than the percentage of the population it keeps behind bars.

                  • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭@mastodon.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    @Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

                    [Saying that there’s no such thing as a state that’s more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.]

                    To clarify, that’s not what I said. I said that there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian state because states are authoritarian by nature, not that there aren’t varying degrees of the level of authoritarianism among different states. America is in many ways less authoritarian than the USSR, but it’s still authoritarian nonetheless.

          • comfy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            most western states (and, in fact, most states) don’t suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did

            This is hard to say outright just because of variation between and even within western states (I’ve seen very petty arrests over discourse in my state), but overall I agree, yes.

            I also think it’s important to understand why it was the case. Western countries all have a similar media landscape so I propose the propaganda model described in the book Manufacturing Consent applies generally to them. The result of those filters being, the loudest voices are those of state (relevant former-CIA interview!) and commercial interests (in the US, mass media it’s almost all subsidiaries of Comcast, TimeWarner, Disney, News Corp, NA and Sony at this point), which may clash, but rarely ever enough to threaten the state or the status quo - the state treats the biggest companies well. Major news broadcasters aren’t promoting major change even when they criticize a government or leader, they usually just say ‘vote for the other liberal politician!’. The discourse is generally so tame, within the bounds of simple policy and culture changes, rather than threatening the state, so it doesn’t really need to be suppressed by the state. But when it does (see Jan 6, or laws about threatening the president at all), we start seeing the limits of where discourse is allowed.

            In my understanding, USSR didn’t have as much luxury there. The people with the most money, rather than those with the least, have an interest in fighting the state and allowing them to have the freedom to use their money freely to gain power. So discourse which threatens the state will probably be a bit more scary to the leadership. I don’t think it’s a good thing (for example, it reminds me of news I saw of China’s state suppression of Maoist protesters, which comes off to me as fragile and repressive) but I understand why they don’t give as much liberty as the well-established propaganda model of the USA.

            There’s also something to be said about the suppression of discourse that our economic system implies, rather than the state suppressing it. See this clip of filmmaker George Lucas talking about freedoms in film art wrt USSR and USA. Obviously I’m not suggesting the inability to publish art is the same as being arrested by a state, obviously not! Rather, I want to highlight that one can’t just point to state policy to compare the freedom of discourse.___

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      Authoritarian is a meaningless word that anti-communists love to use without thinking. Every state holds authority by virtue of having a monopoly on violence, period. The only question is whose interests the authority of the state is exercised in. There is also zero evidence that communist states are inefficient of stifle innovation. In fact, vast majority of meaningful innovation under capitalism happens in the public sector. Finally, every communist state has vastly improved living conditions for the majority of the people. I recommend actually learning a bit of history instead of regurgitating nonsense you’ve been indoctrinated into.

      • forgotmylastusername@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        They ignored the point that capitalism uses violent oppression to suppress innovation. Kind of a main point of the video. The evidence that other ideological regimes cannot innovate is always implicitly that capitalists won by military might therefore the interlocutor is compelled to concede a flawed premise from the outset.

        It’s like smashing the sportsball net then saying you won the game. Especially if one were to come from a scientific perspective that is not a proper comparison of technological innovation when you ensure nobody else can even try.

        Show us a world were different regimes compete scientific and technologically without resorting to violence against the others. We couldn’t have it because capitalists sabotage your science experiment, take your equipment, then declare themselves the winner.

        • SOMETHINGSWRONG@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Even with the US pouring every gram of the value generated by its citizens labor into violence and global oppression of socialism

          Even with the USSR spending all its money on its own citizens quality of life instead of enriching the bourgeois

          The Americans still lost 19/20 space race milestones and called themselves the winner

          If Reagan won 20 years earlier and torched American industry, science, and labor a little sooner we might have been posting this from the Jupiter orbital colony.

      • Jeremy List@hachyderm.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        @yogthos my dude you literally support an organisation that briefly toned down the capitalism in the place it governed before restoring it at gunpoint: you’re in absolutely no position to be going around calling others anti-communist.

      • NoiseColor@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        When people respond, there are a few different forms the response comes in. By far the worst is one that tries to completely deny the original post by finding weird circumstances in which individual statements of the op aren’t true and do so in a rude way and/or childishly patronising way.

        That’s you. Though, great that you like capitalisms public sector 😂.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s funny how holding nonsensical opinions always goes hand in hand with having poor reading comprehension. For example, nowhere did I say that I like capitalism’s public sector. What I actually said that public sector is where meaningful innovation happens even under capitalism, which directly contradicts the claim you made. I guess posting nonsense online is a lot easier than educating yourself on the subject you’re opining on. 😂

          • NoiseColor@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            You took something you liked, from something you don’t and said this is the part that makes your other thing great.

            And then called me to educate myself… again…

              • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                That’s a most strange assumption you made. Why would I know such a basic thing? Gotcha? This is very strange. How old are you?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I didn’t make any assumption your words speak for themselves. And old enough to recognize a troll when I see one. You ain’t fooling anybody here bud.

                  • NoiseColor@startrek.website
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I’m a troll? You are the one that thinks that by calling me childish names will me upset somehow. Like, I can get upset, but this, this is like some basic school level. Gotcha?

                    Its fine if you are a kid. I don’t care. You can lie or tell the truth.