Comrade pinko barbie!
Do you guys realize the world is larger than the memeverse and there are real people who lived under “socialist” governments?
Jesus H. Christ, all you need my dear is a holiday in Cambodia.
I may not want the USSR at all, but a large majority of Russians want it back: https://www.statista.com/chart/7322/25-years-soviet-union-collapse-ussr/
Now, a large part of this is also obviously due to wanting to be a part of a more powerful state, which the USSR was in comparison to the Russian Federation, but this point isn’t great. I could make the same point and say that we should send pro-Capitalists to Somalia, it just doesn’t work well logically.
Large majority of Russians also want Ukrainians dead in a moist fascinating ways. Weak argument.
Large, overwhelming majorities of Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians (hope it’s a word), Moldovans, Estonians, Poles don’t want to let USSR come closer than a shot distance.
Do the actual Russian citizens want that, or are they just silenced? I remember hearing about protests in Russia over the Ukrainian war, but that just leads to a bunch of arrests.
Hur Hur Hur Russians good Putin bad. This argument aged like milk since before any of the commenters here were born.
Let me know where in my comment I lost you. I didn’t say Russians good Putin bad. I said there are Russians that don’t agree with the Russian authoritarian government. What a revolutionary concept.
My argument isn’t that Russians want good things, but that many people who lived under systems that can be considered Socialist absolutely do want them back. Of course the Ukranian war is unjustified, but that doesn’t mean that we can make up ideas about what people living in now-Capitalist states believe.
Again, this is the Somalia argument. You can find people in Capitalist nations that hate it too, does that nullify your point?
Ok let’s try to revisit it again. Of all the countries that freed themselves of a Soviet dictatorship literally zero want back, or are building ‘socialist’ economies. How about taking their experience as a measure?
Full disclosure, I’m living in a Western social democratic nation and am horrified by the capitalist and/or neoliberal ideologies. I am of a strong belief that neither of opposite ends of political philosophies bring good and prosperity for ordinary people.
Many do want the USSR back, because it was generally a better organization of the economy than what Capitalism and in some cases fascism has done for these countries. People who lived farther from Moscow had it far worse under the USSR, of course, but the people legitimately seem to have more of a longing for the USSR than anything else.
If approval rating was anything to go by alone though, then we could say Mao, Putin, and Kim Jong Un were some of the most successful leaders in history, and I don’t think either of us are saying that.
My point is firmly against the idea that Socialism is bad because many people who lived in one form of Socialism hated it, that’s an incomplete logical chain.
For what it’s worth, I’m firmly pro-Socialist, just not pro-USSR. I firmly believe that workers should own and control the Means of Production.
Primo, I respect you and your point of view even if I find it wrong.
Secondo, first sentence is factually incorrect and there are plenty of evidence. In particular about soviets, for starters I recommend you reading memories of Zara Witkin.
Tertio, you find opinions of russians valuable, and simply discard reference to the half a dozen of Independent nations who (willingly or not) share origin story with USSR
I’ll mirror your point and say I respect you and your point of view, even if I find it wrong.
Secondly, I’ll also mirror you and state that the majority of Russians that lived in the USSR that are alive today want it back. 1932 was just the beginning of the USSR, barely a quarter century from Feudalism! Absolutely nobody is saying they want to go back to a developing country.
A more accurate look would be what the USSR looked like post-WWII, pre-collapse.
Blackshirts and Reds is a pretty good book, not too long, that might give you a different perspective. Additionally, Robert Thurston is a historian who actually lived in the USSR and participated in local elections, despite not being a citizen, because he was a Worker. Additional, conflicting views, if you want to check.
Again, I’m not pro-ussr, but I am trying to dispel some myths here.
Information provided by the Levada Center, which is currently declaring an 82% approval rating for Putin.
Gonna go ahead and say that this isn’t a reliable statistic.
Putin is a dictator, and a terrible fascist leader, but he does legitimately have a high approval rating, mainly because you can’t go against him without putting yourself in trouble. I would not say that that means an unrelated question isn’t reliable, especially because Putin is a fascist and the USSR was Socialist, if anything it’s anti-putin to want the USSR back,
That… isn’t legitimate.
So… Your answer is no?
Lol at the person who said Lemmy doesn’t have many comments.
Ruh roh, you just rattled the hive mind
Lol, european here from country that got buttsexed by ussr back in the day. Fuck off with communism. Period.
However. Socialism is something hella important and should baselined across the world. People need safety net in their lives.
Funny thing is, if you say “socialism” where I live a lot of people will bare they fangs at a commie. But shorten it to social and all people think of is said safety net. Suddenly no problem. Heh.
You do realise your aversion to communism is just the same as Americans, right? Like the USSR has more in common with the Nazis than any actual implementation of a classless, hierarchical less, stateless system.
Shit, like the name is literally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
To quote Stalin himself from a 1936 interview with Roy Howard
Our Soviet society is socialist society, because the private ownership of the factories, works, the land, the banks and the transport system has been abolished and public ownership put in its place.
[…]
Yes , you are right, we have not yet built communist society. It is not so easy to build such a society.
Re-think your fear of the word communism and wonder why you’re fine with socialism despite it literally being what the country you rightfully dislike called and viewed itself as.
tl;dr: Communism good. USSR bad.
It fit USSR interests to say that they were the standard bearer of communism back in the day. It fit US interests to say exactly the same. Neither had any reason to think about how the word was used prior to the USSR and if it actually applies at all.
It’s no wonder that people who lived behind the Iron Curtain have just as bad an understanding of communism as people in the US. The USSR certainly didn’t want you reading theory outside of Marxist-Leninist material.
It’s similiar, not the same. From what I recall, Americans didn’t have their country violently buttfucked behind a curtain, something that is still visible where I live - thankfully less so in the country itself, but it’s still embedded into people. And I don’t fear communism. I despise it. I do admit, maybe unjustly. Hard to feel otherwise though, seeing effects of one of the greatest, or at least highest scale shots at it’s implementation.
However, yeah, my definition of socialism must be fucked, will educate myself further before making fool out of myself again. :|
I’d quite happily argue that the USSR never tried to implement it in the slightest.
Can you imagine the politburo actually fighting to give up their privileged position? I can’t.
Because there is not a way for communism to work… sounds great on paper but always ends the same.
Communism has never existed. What about it sounds good on paper but is separate from reality?
There’s no way for people to work together without someone at top benefiting?
X.
You can doubt it all you want, but communism’s fatal flaw is humans. They will always want more.
Why is it bad for people to want more in Communism? Do you think once a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society would be reached, people would want to regress?
To be quite honest, it seems to me - and I can be wrong - that it simply substituted power of wealth for power of position. Where I live I know that during occupation people were deemed as important based on where they worked - because where they worked dictated what they could
stealobtain, be it items, access or favors.There always will be someone on top, one way or the other. In capitalist society, it’s the guy who has the most money. In co- … socialist…? society it’s the guy with most connections.
The problem is that people point to the problems of the USSR and say it’s because of communism, but when the USA does similar things, it’s just them fucking up, not because they’re capitalist. It’s a double standard hinted at by OP.
The problem with the USSR was not that they were communist. I think that communism worked well for them, which magnified both their successes (beating nazis, reducing poverty, increasing literacy, getting to space, etc), but also magnified their mistakes (suppressing religion, art, etc).
I don’t agree with you, but I just wanted to give you kudos for reading another viewpoint and admitting you could be better educated on the subject. This is the internet I want to see.
Like the USSR has more in common with the Nazis than any actual implementation of a classless, hierarchical less, stateless system.
What’s your point exactly? I’m not reading some poorly written 10,000 word essay to try to figure out what you’re wanting to say.
So it’s actually a pretty interesting read but I think this paragraph gets the idea across pretty well:
(Obv out of context)
Most current antisemitism in Eastern Europe is closely related to these debates, as nationalists strive to “fix” their nations’ collaboration (or in the case of the Baltics and Ukraine, participation) in the Holocaust with revised paradigms that equal everything out. One of the poisons of ultranationalism is the perceived need to construct a perfect history (no country on the planet has one of those). Another is hatred of local Jewish communities who have memory, or family, or collective memory, of nationalist neighbors turning viciously on their neighbors in 1941, and of the Soviets being responsible for their own grandparents or parents being saved from the Holocaust. In America, this would be akin to someone hating African Americans for having a different opinion of Washington or Jefferson because they were slaveholders.
Okay, now I’m just confused as to the relevance of it being commented in response to my comment.
Hey man I’m just a third party don’t look at me
Believing that the Nazis, who systematically gassed millions as a part of their ideology, is at all akin to any of the atrocities committed under the Soviet Union is historical revisionism in order to downplay the crimes of the fascists and, what you can clearly see in this thread already, foster anti communist sentiment with barely a reason why.
A Jewish linguist/historian/activist talking about how equating the Soviets and the Nazis is rhetoric used to justify current and past antisemitism including holocaust collaboration.
Ah, so it’s being used as chud fud.
My comparison of the two stems from their harsh authoritarian/totalitarian nature as seen from an anarchist lens, nothing to do with genocide.
Yeah so the thing is you’re still doing it, the whole “authoritarian” thing is another way of doing a false equivalence between the two.
If you want to do an anarchist critique compare the USSR to bourgeoise democracies, it is a closer comparison.
To do so would be to ignore the worst elements of the USSR, so I don’t know why I would do that.
Socialism is not “Social Safety Nets,” and if you were knowledgeable about what you were talking about, you would hate Socialism and attempts at Communism. Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and the USSR was a Union of Societ Socialist Republics.
The USSR of course isn’t the only form of Socialism, and isn’t the only method to achieve Communism, but what you just said makes absolutely no sense.
This thread is lit. I’m going to list 4 arrangements of the economy. If you are interested in participating, name what you think each one is:
1: A small group of people own the lands that are worked by another group of people. The leader of these owners is chosen via divine right. The people who work the land keep what they make, however for protection they must work other lands and do not keep what is made from them
-
A small group of people hold dominion of a large group of people. The large group must work for food, lodging, etc. and are forced to do so by the threat of death and physical punishment. They do not get to keep what they make, the economic situation is determined by the generosity of those who hole dominion over them
-
A small group of people own the majority of wealth in the form of businesses, factories, goods, etc. They purchase the time of a much larger group of people who sell their labour to make ends meet. The small group decides what to do with the excess goods, services, and money.
-
A large group of people own the businesses, factories, goods, etc. These people work to make ends meet and decide collectively (democratically or through other means) what to do with the excess goods services, money, etc.
I hope these are both clear and vague enough. Good luck!
-
Yeah, of course I have.
In particular, I’ve noticed how the pro-capitalist people don’t seem to realize that we’re not living in a pure capitalist system. Instead we’re living in a mixed economy where key elements are socialist: road building, firefighting, postal services, food and drug safety testing, old age pensions, even ambulances (except for one minor exception).
A 100% socialist (a.k.a. communist) system might not be possible (at least not yet) due to human nature. The few times that it has been tried, at least in theory, it has quickly become an authoritarian system instead. But, AFAIK, it’s so obvious that 100% capitalist would fail completely that no society has even bothered to try it. Hundreds of years ago there were brief experiments with things like capitalist fire services, and Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly that nobody even thinks of going back.
So, instead we quibble about “capitalist” vs “socialist” when we’re really just arguing about whether the mix should be 80% capitalist, 20% socialist or 60% capitalist, 40% socialist.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what socialism and capitalism are. Simplified it’s who owns the means of production, that is basically the “capital” in the name “capitalism”, in socialism these means of production have a shared ownership. Now you can have a discussion of what that means, if state ownership counts or whatever but as long as individuals own the means of production it’s not socialism no matter how much you tax them(it would still be an improvement to tax them more it’s just not socialism)
This understanding of capitalism is a misunderstanding that both Marxists and neoclassical types share. It is not capital ownership that gives the employer the right to appropriate a firm’s whole product. The employment contract is what gives them that right. Sure, capital ownership affects bargaining power, but the root cause is that contract. Abolishing the employment contract while still having individual ownership is possible (i.e. a market economy of worker coops)
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? Is it a socialist country because most workers have 401(k) plans containing index funds, so they own a tiny portion of every major company? The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state, is that whole system capitalist? To me, it’s clearly not. You could argue that it’s mixed, but I’d say if it’s 99.9% not capitalist, it’s not capitalist.
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
Is the US socialist because nVidia is a public company, therefore the shares are owned by the public? […] The ownership of the company is shared, so it must be socialism, right? I’d say no, because it’s not shared evenly.
How did you mess up this badly? A “public company” [sic, the correct term is “publicly traded company”] is a regular private company where the owners are hundreds or even thousands of individuals. A publicly owned company is one where every single citizen owns the company simply by being alive or every single worker owns the company simply by working there.
What if a single individual owns a single “mean” of production, but everything else is owned by the state
I don’t even understand what you mean by this…
Modern economies are mixes of socialism and capitalism. The people (through the government) own certain things, and individuals own other things.
No, they’re not, and this shows a very serious hole in your knowledge of economic and social systems. While, informally, it’s sometimes said to be the case, that’s strictly an oversimplification to communicate a different idea. Countries like the US simply use a government-assisted capitalist model. Places like the Nordic countries have a more transitional system, but are ultimately still just capitalist.
Of course they are. How can you be so confused. Countries like the US are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems. Some things are owned and run by the government (socialism), other things are owned and run by private individuals (capitalism). No society has ever worked where it was 100% socialist or 100% capitalist.
Are you illiterate? I specifically pointed to why that’s not the case…
Are you dumb? I specifically pointed out how you’re wrong.
You couldn’t specify your breakfast if you were in the middle of eating it. Grow up.
Ummm excuse me, no, the CIA is an extremely based communist organization because taxes.
I can’t tell if your agreeing or disagreeing with op comment.
Pinkertons as police, but they failed so spectacularly
uhh you might want to brush up on your history there, the pinkertons are still around, still quite closely tied to the government, and still being used (among other things) to suppress union organizing at places like amazon and starbucks! Kinda ridiculous to hear that our government is somehow ‘socialist’ when it does stuff like this.
I didn’t say they weren’t still around, just that they’re not the police.
Maga and libertarians seem to want to go back.
Socialism is not when the government does stuff, so those institutions are not examples of socialism. Anti-capitalists are arguing for the complete abolition of exploitative capitalist property relations that violate workers’ human rights.
This is a false dilemma. There are other alternatives to capitalism besides communism. It is entirely possible to have a non-capitalist non-communist system (e.g. an economy where every firm is democratically-controlled by the people that work in it)
Socialism is not when the government does stuff
Socialism is when the “means of production” are owned by the people as a whole rather than individuals. Capitalism is when the “means of production” are owned by individuals. Every modern state contains a mix of both.
If the US is 100% capitalist, then explain how the fire department is a capitalist institution.
Capitalism is not just when the means of production are owned by individuals. For example, in an economy where all firms are democratically-controlled by the people that work in them, the means of production can be owned by individuals, but such an economy is not capitalist because exploitative property relations associated with capitalism are abolished
Oh there are people who dream about going back. Mostly people who would profit and/or gain power.
What “Human Nature” goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?
Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?
A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it’s different.
That’s the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren’t chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.
We’re apes, even if we’re not chimps.
You’re a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?
We can learn a lot about humans by studying rats. It doesn’t mean that humans are the same as rats, but clearly we’re not completely different either.
Yes?
But we aren’t chimps, and you shouldn’t judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.
Nor should you pretend that we’re not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.
Let me know when you start eating bananas naked in the woods and let me bring my camera.
It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.
We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.
As humans, we are greedy by nature. Not always, but when push comes to shove, we are.
This is nonsense. Communal sharing and common property was absolutely vital for survival for most of human history.
What part of that goes against sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them? Doesn’t your point mean that we shouldn’t have Capitalism at all?
In any society, some people will be leaders, some will be followers, this is natural. You cannot have a society without someone organizing the work and setting the course.
Of those who are naturally leaders, some will be much greedier than most. Some will also be ambitious, corrupt, two faced etc.
These people will do their best to gather wealth and power for themselves, be it in a capitalist or communist system. In the capitalist system they’ll become entrepreneurs if they also have good business acumen. In the communist system they’ll become managers and state officials if they can also navigate politics well.
At the end of the day, the same people will get to power and will hold dictatorial control over the means of production. In communist countries a literal dictatorship seems inevitable, while capitalist ones usually favor democracy (can be better for business) but they can also descend into dictatorship.
If you disagree, show me an example where all this is not the case. I’m honestly curious
Capitalism is the opposite of democracy. In a capitalist firm, the managers are not accountable to the governed (i.e. workers). The employer is not a delegate of the workers. They manage the company in their own name not in the workers’ name. Managers do not have to have dictatorial control. It is entirely possible to have management be democratically accountable to the workers they govern as in a worker cooperative.
Capitalism v. Communism is a false dilemma. There are other options.
Capitalists aren’t leaders, but owners.
Secondly, you are just tying Socialism and Communism with dictatorship without proving why you think it’s necessary. It’s purely vibes for you.
Tell me this: why do you think a system where Workers have no say, only Capitalists do and serve as mini dictators, is more democratic than a system where Workers vote on how to run production?
Exactly, this argument is so weird, even if the assumption was true. “People are naturally greedy so we should have a system that allows them to do as much damage as possible”
I don’t think the poster who was down voted meant anything of the sort. They were just elaborating on their view of human nature.
The view shoved into their brain by the oligarchy, which is why it’s the most unoriginal cope out there.
This propaganda is coming from the most prosperous, overachieving nation in the history of mankind, so it seems like there might be something to it. Now the propaganda coming from impoverished, third world countries saying how all their problems can be solved through communism, just doesn’t have the same luster for some reason.
Now if you can point me to an example of a utopic nation where everything is wonderful and workers run the show, I’m all ears.
Everyone talks about what the “best” system is but none have adequately solved the human corruption problem. Every system eventually falls due to human corruption imo. The US founders were on to something by trying to break up power and have each group kept I’m check but that too is failing.
Stop trying to fix the symptoms.
The fact you think some old white englishmen created the partition of power tells us a lot about your level of education.
Lol talk more shit about things I never said loser
In addition to the corruption problem, there’s also the problem of who gets to make the decisions. The people affected by those decisions want them to be made by smart people who have their best interests at heart. But, those aren’t the kinds of people who end up in leadership positions. Whether it’s capitalism, communism, even monarchies, the type of people who tend to be in charge are the ones who want power and know how to get it and use it.
The US founders were on to something by trying to break up power and have each group kept I’m check but that too is failing.
Yeah, separation of powers is a pretty old and workable concept, 8 times older than the whole history of the US, and has worked for most democratic countries since.
No. My impressions are based on having lived it before the iron curtain fell.
You mean the impressions of having lived in a dictatorship which discarded the idea of progressing towards communism? How is that relevant?
See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.
Grade-school level history: I didn’t need to ask which country because all of the possible countries were puppet states of a single other country…
Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships […]
There are a total of 0 communist countries throughout history. Your lack of very basic knowledge is starting to make me cringe.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism.
That’s irrelevant. If you’re happy while I’m driving a nail through your eyes, does that make driving a nail through someone’s eyes a good thing? The fact that you are privileged doesn’t make a difference.
Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want
No, you’re not. Your statement is so completely uneducated, I couldn’t even guess where to begin dismantling it.
But prepare for a 25 year old who lives in his mom’s garage in rural Indiana to try to debate you on the subject anyway.
He lives in his mother’s garage because he can’t afford to move out on the pittance he makes at work. It sure wasn’t communism that put him there
Nope, in communism he would be dead of starvation or in jail for complaining.
Says the balding neckbeard living in Brexit-land.
Bald, not balding.
Beat me to it. Also living in the post communist wreckage helps too
You mean living under capitalism?
Russia, China, Hungary, whatever these places are
Russia and Hungary are capitalist, China is a transitional stage economy run by a communist party.
Living in the first decade of capitalism after communism, where freedom of the media exposed all the reality, people were still broke but the state no longer provided free housing (and the build codes changed to no longer allow cheap crappy concrete blocks), old “communists” sold half of all infrastructure to their buddies (where did someone get billions during communism??) and professionals started charging higher rates because now they were free to migrate west if they didn’t earn a decent wage at home. Among others.
As of 2024, things are quite different.
Yours would be a minority position then. Most citizens of former eastern bloc nations want socialism back:
See how most of those polls are from 2009-2011, in the middle of the worst economic crisis in Europe in a century?
And they weren’t thrown in jail for saying it?
Unless you’re over a 100 years old you lived in a totalitarian system masquerading as Communism.
See how you didn’t even have to ask which country it was? Because a 100% of communist countries became dictatorships ridden with poverty for the working class and gold plated luxury for the ruling class.
I’m happy now somewhere in the middle in this terrible, terrible capitalism. Oh, and I’m free to leave anytime I want, if I don’t like it.
So do 100% of Capitalist countries without a strong democracy. In fact capitalism is the one designed to do so by concentrating capital.
When we figure out communism or socialism there’s a really good chance it’s a strong democracy that prevents it from falling into totalitarianism. Will it be a bunch of anarchic communes in council? Lol no. Will workers share profit equally with executives? Probably.
Funny how that’s always the result.
Yeah I don’t think we’ve figured out a good way past the charismatic sociopath problem. The best thing we’re going to have in the short term is a democracy with a strong emphasis on socialism.
Funny how that’s a fallacy, and there have been countless largely communist organizations of human labor over history, which lasted just as long as capitalist society.
This question is being posed to centrists and conservatives, right?
Liberals too, I would imagine. Maybe even SocDems.
Language is however most people define it. When the definition changes, you make new words or fight a losing battle.
Maybe, but they’ve also been well assisted by those countries which are shining examples of SC&L but have failed to get their messages across the world. Perhaps replies to this comment could indicate which countries those are, for some independent research.
I like this new meme format
This was literally the next post in my feed, lol:
You can also take deductions for costs relating to criminal activity!
That’s it, I’m done for today. Nothing can top that.
