When people ask me what communist country was successful I usually say all of them until cia decided to go there and spread freedom 🇺🇸🦅
Communism isn’t bad, it just crumples as soon you put anything but saints in charge of it.
I’m not entirely sure anything works better in a long-term scenario though :)
Even without interference communism can never work, it’s not how human nature works, it relys on everyone being on the same page which will never happen
Haha no communism can force you to go against your evil “human nature” so you have to aid the collective people, who mostly have a good human nature
How does it rely on “everyone being on the same page?” What gave you that impression?
capitalism, of course, where utility is only allowed to exist as the unexploited byproduct of a scam, cannot fail. it can only be failed.
I don’t disagree with you, but the person you’re responding to didn’t mention capitalism?
you’re right, they could be a monarchist instead. that’s much more sensible.
It’s in our genetics to engage in a perpetual exponential quarterly growth and make our decisions based on the benefit it brings to our investors. Any caveman could tell you that smh…
No, cavemen were very egalitarian. This is because back then, you couldn’t hoard much of anything - food spoils quickly, sex requires your partner to like you, and personal possessions were things like tools or the odd bit of clothing. It was when wealth could be preserved, such as livestock, stored grain, jewelry, and eventually coinage, that wealth became an hereditary thing.
This is why a future economic system has to be designed to prevent the excessive hoarding of wealth. Not too little, nor too much. Humans weren’t evolved to be free of consequence, especially from each other.
No, but greed and envy is. That’s why humans have written so much in the last thousand years about greed and envy.
If you ran humanity in thousands of simulations how often would we end up in the same capitalistic situation?
this rather shows the untestability of the hypothesis. this is no test at all.
Far less often than we end up with communalist hunter gatherers and early agrarian communes and evidently for a much shorter time. Does that mean feudalism can never work? Capitalism is never at any point of productive development possible?
If you’ve never studied an economics text (a real, materialist one, not fucking graphs with ad-hoc rules that never seem to apply and zero fucking statistics) then try not to speak so authoritatively on economics.
Your words make no sense to me. If you want to convey ideas use the common tongue. It feels like you have some neat ideas though.
people share goods and culture naturally. the prevailing historical models are cooperative. anticooperative, competitive societies are rare.
Thanks man. So this guy is an expert on economies but not on psychologies. Is that fair?
You’re obviously looking for an angle where you can point to your “common sense” leading to the conclusion you started with.
If you wanna talk psychology, the ultracompetitive demands of modern capitalism have to be drilled into each of us from birth, and most of us resist it all the same. Mark Fisher elaborates on this in Capitalist Realism, this learned behavior is in large part responsible for the mental health crisis in the world.
What an interesting question. I have no idea what the answer is, but the question is bloody great.
the majority would be relatively the same with minor variances on cultural customs and traditions, society conforms to law whether if you realize it or not, this is a chief principle of materialist philosophy, understanding that the things conform to definite laws and that we must and can discover them. Historical materialism is the materialist conception of history with the conclusion that the development of production is the chief driving force in the development of society, quantitative improvements in production lead to qualitative changes in how society is organized.
With this in mind, Communism is a stage of development where developments in production led to a society of abundance that ended the exploitation of man by man. Communist states, like China, are not in that stage but are organized to pursue that goal, this is why China has a massive focus point on the development of productive industries.
So many it would be hard to count, at least 4 or 5. But numbers don’t really go much higher than that. Any caveman could tell you that.
Very frequently, but it is exactly just as likely it would have moved on to Socialism and eventually Communism, or retained feudalism, it all depends on when in development.
Is it always a linear path?
Fantastic question! The answer is no, not necessarily. The PRC is Socialist, and never had a true “Capitalist” phase. It currently has a Socialist Market Economy, but never really had a stage dominated entirely by Capitalism.
There are also reversions. Russia reverted to Capitalism, and Germany almost became Communist, but was stopped by the Nazi Party coming to power.
However, all of that being said, history does generally progress alongside technological development, and the Mode of Production follows suit.
Anthropology doesn’t support the idea that humans are incapable of being communal.
Kind of some level of any system isn’t it? In short if a system has a means to power that can tweak the rules. Inevitably will result in one group ceasing the rules, turning them to raise how much they can tweak them, and ensuring they continue to be tweaked in their favor.
Communism relies on a possibly impossible starting point. Theoretically if the starting point were reached, it seems the most sustainable. Whether it’s possible to reach that starting point is the great mystery.
What “possibly impossible starting point” does Communism rely on? This reads like someone that hasn’t actually attempted to engage with what Communists believe, to be honest.
Yeah I think you hit the nail on the head here. It’s interesting to think about how even though communism could theoretically be the best system, it could mean nothing if we don’t know how to meet the conditions to achieve it in the first place.
it’s not how human nature works
where is human nature defined?
this is a thought-terminating cliche, not an my argument to be taken seriously
do you realize that you are contradicting your statement? You talk of “human nature” as a law of nature, something that cannot be changed and has to conform every single time, but then you mention that people are just different lmao.
People who talk of “human nature” are white supremacists. The idea is that groups and people with different cultures are not human is what underpins this whole concept
A structure of society, which has so evolved, should not be changed or tampered with. For, a stratified society is the inevitable result of the laws of nature, the creation of natural forces, and not the product of human determination. For that reason, the structure of society should remain unchanged.
[With] this perception of society came the frightening observation that the inferior reproduced faster than the average while the superior reproduced slower than the average. These two tendencies together must worsen the quality of the genetic substance of the entire race progressively with each generation. The result must bring a degeneration (Entartung) of the race as a whole.⁵² This leads to a “debasement” (Verpöbelung) of the race and a fall of culture”.⁵³
The faster than average rate of reproduction of the inferior was a serious menace for Lenz 1932 and the following racial hygienists such as Ritter, Vogel and Finger in the Third Reich 1937.
(Source.)
What part of communism relys on everyone being on the same page?
It’s right there on Karl Marcos’ “All About Capital”, basic economics commie
im sorry Carl Marcos is too advanced.
they keep saying 'In one word; ’ and then writing a whole paragraph. and why do they keep making economics all political?
The “in one word” bit I believe is a remnant of older speaking styles, but it’s always funny. I also really love the abrupt pivots to dunking on Kautsky Lenin makes all the time, lmao
Its because he’s German
Ah, gotcha! Makes sense, still funny in English.
It was a joke.
Well, let’s thank Trump for destroying the CIA!
And it often comes into being because of a CIA financed coup
It’s like the chicken or the egg question.
You can tell redditors are flooding in when you find absolutely braindead takes like this.
When has the CIA ever financed a communist coup?
not the same thing but this may be related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Never … the communists / socialists / democratic groups usually reacted because of a CIA financed coup
It doesn’t matter what ideology. If the people running it are rotten, any system can be corrupted.
So then the solution is to decentralize so everyone is running it.
Communism by any other name would smell as sweet
And likewise, oligarchy calling itself communism smells just as rancid.
Communism is more about centralization, Anarchism is the one about decentralization as a rule.
The difference between communism and anarchism isn’t the aims, but whether the state could immediately be abolished or that there must be a transitional period.
Anarchists don’t want a fully publicly owned and planned global republic, Marxists do. Anarchists want networks of decentralized communes, Marxists do not.
The “state” for Marxists is the oppressive elements of society that make up class distinctions, such as private property rights and the current police structure, whereas for Anarchists its usually seen as a form of hierarchy entrenched with violence.
Chiefly, a decentralized network of communed does not get rid of class, but entrenches petite bourgeois class structures where each commune owns only what is within its commune, whereas Marxists want to abolish class by making all property equally owned by all in a highly developed and complex economy.
A co-operative ?
And have a way for it to be trustless as well
It’s simple: teach everyone to make everything they need for themselves, so they can’t be expoited
Something something darwin
What does Darwin have to do with enslavement of the human species?
Sure bro lemme teach my aunt to make her insulin, her own needles, her own glucose test strips and all that cheers
Maybe we should all specialize, and pay each other with our own goods, or better yet, a sort of representation of goods we all agree is valuable, so you can get one persons goods with anothers.
Kinda seems unfair that somebody’s aunt should have to purchase insulin she needs to survive, like she shouldn’t have to work harder to have the same lifestyle as someone without a disability. Maybe we should just give her the insulin she needs to survive, and compensate the people who make it out of some sort of common pool of resources everyone is required to contribute to, in order to distribute the costs more fairly.
When I was younger, I tried to design an universal constructor.
Unfortunatelly, I was using Roblox studio to do this.
How’s that for insanity?
I also carved a log with a knife, hacking off pieces in an attempt to make a 3D printer
It’s not insane! 3D printing is making huge strides. You were just a little ahead of your time.
If we can run Doom on 16 billion crabs, then you can carve a 3D printer.
That’s basically what happened before money was invented. Imagine being a shoe maker and wanting to get some food, can you convince the sellers to take new shoes for the food/groceries EVERY DAY?
There is a group actively working to open source Insulin manufacturing to make it practical to self produce.
That’s good work for a lot of reasons, but there’s a world of difference between “open source and theoretically DIY” and it being anywhere near realistic for everyone to actually do it themselves.
It’s good that I have access to advanced technology without having to have learned how to build it from the ground up. That’s the whole point of civilization – doing more together than we could do apart.
Like how people were gifted ability to have more knowledge at their hands than previous generations and rapid communication, and then came to the conclusion that the earth is flat, vaccines are poision, and facism is holy?
Humans are dumb fucks. They will inevitably fuck up even the most perfect utopia they arrive in short of some mass hive mind brain washing Equilibrium style. i don’t hold that high an opinion of human society.
Leave the world to the animals. Humans are a failed experiment and a virus to the world.
This is some eco-fascist ass rethoric. You’re not taking into account how all the issues you listed are only possible to exist in a capitalist society, where misinformation and anti-intelectualism is accepted and allowed to grow instead of directly addressed.
Environmental issues did in fact exist before capitalism. Human arrival coincided with mass extinction in the Americas and in Australia. That’s certainly not to say these issues are unavoidable or that socialism isn’t the solution (because it 100% is) but we should see environmental issues as transcending others so I disagree that I would place this in an eco-fascist lens. Rejection of science certainly occurred in feudal societies as well
You’re right, I should have been more specific in saying that current anti-intelectualism is deeply linked to capitalism and not that it is something that happens only in capitalism, my bad.
Also, I wasn’t referring to that as the eco-fascist rethoric, but rather to the commenters last phrase about how humans are a “failed experiment and a virus to the world”.
Start from yourself
ah yes let me just manufacture my own toilet paper on my 50m2 apartment
Deeply anti-materialist take.
Can you explain how you disagree? Is it about incentives to be corrupt (or against) depending on the system?
They didn’t seem to express an argument or value judgment in their comment regardless of their actual opinion.
Don’t feed the troll.
I am not that person, but I guess you wouldn’t like the ambassadors of fascism to be efficient and competent.
If you do not believe in great man theory™ and think that all political developments happen because one person can magically steer entire countries and the world, in geo-political terms, or idealists in thinking that if you have the correct ideas, you can magically steer the entire rest of the world to whatever you think, by having the correct thoughts. Then your theories of political developments are non-materialist, like this comment is objecting to. The system sets the conditions of who is going to be empowered or rewarded for their actions and positions.
People in this context appears to be plural, thus I don’t see how Montreal_Metro’s take is Great Man Theory.
The system sets the conditions of who is going to be empowered or rewarded for their actions and positions.
Ultimately, any system is operated by mere mortals who will arbitrarily reward and punish people based on their own bias, morals and desires. Systems only work so long as the people manning them follow the rules. Systems only last if the people running it punish rule breakers.
According to all of history, corruption, apathy, and pure human greed and ingenuity will gradually eat away any system, economic and political, until it collapses. Only for the failing system to be replaced by a “better” system, which begins the cycle again.
The fact that it is attributed to a very few actors and not a literal, singular actor does not negate great man theory.
The issue is that this is arbitrarily flattening of the actual material conditions. You can point out that nearly all political systems, on a long enough timeline lead to some form of collapse (Joseph Tainter is a good reference on this). But all of these things are dependent, not independent, of the systems and conditions they find themselves in. The timescales and forms can vary drastically depending on the material conditions actors find themselves in.
What came first? The chicken or the egg?
Did the system that created the conditions people find themselves in come first. Or did the people running the system create the conditions that they find themselves in?
It is not that there isn’t some flow both ways, but that the material conditions is much more dominant than people coming up with ideas and mechanations moving things in ways contradicting the conditions. The system setting the conditions is in fact dominant. The way corruption and self-dealing manifests is different between where you can just create a private corporation and lobby for a government contract to justify being given a 500 million dollars of tax payer money, versus trying to massage Gosplan to syphon off several million Rubles of excess spending, versus tricking a sovereign wealth fund to hand over several billion dollars for some supposed innovative building company to create innovations for Neom.
There’s never been any real communism. If a country has money then it is inherently a capitalist society .
the world understander has commented
What if a country has money but you also need monthly issued talons to get most goods?
Isn’t that just called a paycheck?
No, it’s called a ration stamp
So access to food and drink which you can’t get otherwise you’ll starve. Sure sounds like a paycheck to me.
Communist can run a society that is not yet achieved communism. Not sure if you’re being purposely dense or not.
Also, currency does not define a society as capitalist. We’ve have currency long before capitalism ever existed.
Look up the gift economy, that was a society with no problems before currency took over.
also, primitive societies tended to be pretty communist. you need to build to delusions like capitalism.
To be clear, primitive Communism and Marxian Communism are just about polar opposites, one is the smallest unit of society and the other the largest and most vast, one full decentralization the other full centralization.
the core “from those who have to those who need” is still common, and it is a form of classless stateless society, even if it doesn’t really scale and we can’t get back there from here.
plus, there are alternatives to marx. he wasn’t infallible.
That isn’t the “core,” of Communism. It’s more of a side-effect and possibility only truly achievable in Upper-Stage Communism.
There are alternatives to Marx, but I’m not convinced of any of them.
okay. I’m not really convinced by most of what marx had to say. a lot of it seems like it was really far sighted, but doesn’t quite ring true in 2025. some of it seems pretty solid. dude could seriously write though, when he wasn’t actively trying to be bland for the respectability, and was proof that people in the 19th century didn’t have to be pieces of shit.
im looking for a classless stateless society where the point is human flourishing and resources are distributed with an eye to fairness and the long term well being of all people. I think there are better/worse and more/less stable ways to get there, but if it’s stupid and it works, it wasn’t stupid.
assuming that’s roughly your goal and we’re both alive to see it, I’ll bet you a cup of (probably extinct by then) coffee my way gets there first?
Well, I would say Marx has generally been proven spot-on. He didn’t predict the way Imperialism would function, or what impact that would have on revolution, but we have Lenin for that. What, exactly, did you think was wrong with what Marx wrote? I find it puzzling that you say he seems focused more on the far-flung, when it was the opposite, he focused on analyzing Capitalism and arming the Working Class with the knowledge of how to overcome it by knowing its laws.
Either way, I bet Marxists end up correct, the PRC is the world’s most developed Socialist state and it’s also becoming the world’s power as the US and EU crumble.
I read this as communism has never failed
trvth nvke
Well there’s never been any real communsim on earth yet so that’s technically correct.
Upvoting this just because it made me laugh.
What no theory does to an mf.
I don’t think money makes a society inherently capitalist, money predates capitalism by a loooong time, but I agree that if it has money it isn’t communist. It can be on its way to communist, a transitonary state, and depending on your definition it can be socialist, but communist is explicitly a moneyless, classless, stateless society. So, yeah, if it’s got it money, it’s not communist, but saying it’s capitalist is to create a false dichotomy of there only being fully realized communism or capitalism, with nothing outside of or in-between the two.
Eta: replied to the wrong person in the thread. Whoops. Meant to reply to the original commenter on this thread.
I hope this comes across as a genuine question, despite the thread itself getting a little jacked up. Like many of us, I’d like to find better systems of governance / better solutions to the problem of needed / beneficial coordination.
How does a communist society as you’ve described defend itself against opportunistic, hierarchical forces that would subsume and control it? What is the (de-coordinated? If you’ll accept my term?) answer to such a problem, pragmatically?
The “State” for Marxists is largely the elements of government that upold class society, like Private Property Rights. Social workers and government would still exist, moreover hierarchy is only a problem for Anarchists, Marxists understand it as a necessary tool.
That’s a dramatic oversimplification, but I can elaborate on whatever you wish, or provide a Marxist-Leninist intro reading list I made.
Oh Lord, ask someone smarter than me! Lol. I was clarifying terms more than anything else. Communism is an end stage, an eventual goal. That’s the big sticking point between anarchists (hi!) and communists. Communists believe in capturing the state so that it can be transformed and eventually wither away to become a communist society, anarchists believe in dismantling the state and creating communism directly. There are other differences, including how we define terms such “the state,” but that’s the jist.
I guess firstly, I should probably out myself that I’m not a Marxist leninists, but more along the lines of a syndicalist or platformist. Council communist is a semi appropriate term. I also don’t believe the same system that would work in rural Tennessee would be viable for urban New York. I believe in democratic, worker control. Consensus democracy and direct democratic control. The trouble is, I, and many others, don’t believe that communism is possible in just a single area. It would be subsumed, attacked, overthrown. It, by necessity, must be either a world wide movement to achieve True Communism™, or it would need to be isolated, insular, and completely or near completely self sufficient. The latter option is, frankly, kind of shit, and in my opinion, when combined with more authoritarian means and the “capture the state” side of things, leads to dictators and shitty conditions.
Not to be mean, but this is actually wrong. Anarchists and Marxists don’t simply disagree on means, but also on ends. Anarchists want full decentralization, as they see hierarchy as the chief problem, whereas Marxists want full centralization, as we see Class as the primary issue. Communes don’t get rid of class, as they create different groups that share ownership of their MoP but not other communes, ie everyone becomes petite bourgeoisie.
I can elaborate more and offer readings if you’d like, I’m a former Anarchist (syndicalist, specifically) and am firmly a Marxist-Leninist, so there’s common ground there. Really, I am not trying to be rude, it’s more that I think your characterization of Marxism as wanting the same thing as Anarchists in the end is a pretty common but entirely untrue notion that unfortunately makes things difficult.
Doesn’t come across as rude! Always happy to be educated.
Okay, so, it was my understanding that the ultimate end goal, say, 200 years after the revolution, the society would be practically the same between anarchists or communist. That just the means and transitonary state would be different. Once the state has withered away, once we have achieved classless, stateless, moneyless, it would be virtually or actually, and definitely practically, the same.
I’d love to know to more if that’s not the case, and how they would differ. To be honest, I knew more 5 years ago, but I’ve forgotten a lot of theory and checked out pretty substantially for a while.
Perfect, thanks for asking!
Speaking in over-generalized strokes, most Anarchists want some form of horizontal network of Communes. The Marxist critique is that this doesn’t get rid of class, it makes everyone a petite-bourgeois owner of their commune’s MoP, and further this isn’t a natural progression from Capitalism like (Marxian) Socialism is.
Marx’s core critique of past Socialism, such as the Owenites, is trying to design an ideal society in a lab, and create it, rather than continue to build up society and erase contradictions gradually. Capitalism centralizes, because production becomes incredibly expansive and complicated, ergo he believed it would eventually be necessary for the government to take over just to run it, and that this government must be of the workers to properly handle it as Capitalists outlive their usefulness.
I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, at least the first few sections, for more on this.
The comment your replying to (or meant to) has to be being purposely dense. There is obviously a difference between being a communist, having a communist party take power, and “achieving” communism. No one with a brain would think the OOP was talking about the last use of the word in that sentence.
It’s a common “dumb guy that thinks they’re being smart” take because they haven’t actually ever read a book in their life. They just read the definition of communism once.
Money and trade are not Capitalism. Capitalism is a specific Mode of Production that rapidly expanded with the Industrial Revolution, surrounding the M-C-M’ circuit of production.
Socialist societies have existed and continue to, such as the PRC, Cuba, and former USSR.
Says there’s communist countries, lists off all capitalist countries instead.
All of those countries have used money, had a class system, have used wage slave labour and are nation states. All of that combined makes a nation capitalist in my view. Just because a country says it’s “communist” doesn’t mean anything when all those countries are playing the capitalist rule set. It’s like saying you’re going to play candy land but you have the rules of monopoly. It just doesn’t work to call those countries communist or socialist when they are still playing the capitalist rule set.
It’s pretty clear that you haven’t read Marx, and think Communism means “immediately implement a far-future, highly developed society devoid of any remaining class antagonisms” through fiat, by pushing a button, but this would make Marx howl with laughter.
A Socialist system is one where public ownership of property is primary in society, and in all of those societies this is true. Having money, wages, even classes is indeed contradictory to late-stage Communism, but they never claimed to be. Socialism is the long, drawn-out process of erasing those contradictions, which cannot be waved away but must be erased through building up the productive forces and erasing their foundations, and the method of doing as such is to hold all large industry in the control of the public, and increase this control over areas that develop into large industry.
I recommend checking out my Marxist-Leninist reading list, at least the first couple of sections, before trying to take an authoritative stance on Marxism.
I have read Marx, thank you very much and you even said I was right about what communism means so maybe you should take a look at your own reading list.
No, your belief that Socialism must be devoid of any contradictions is anti-Marxist and goes against Dialectical and Historical Materialism. By that definition, “Real Capitalism” hasn’t existed anywhere either, as all Capitalist systems have had single proprietorships, public ownership, and more that contradict the Capitalist system.
Explain this quote from Marx himself, in Critique of the Gotha Programme:
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with it also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but itself life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Wait, I thought Socialism couldn’t have contradictions, according to you? Why is Marx saying even Communism would have contradictions? Why is Marx talking about society as it develops, and not as magically appearing with the touch of a button?
I’m being sarcastic, of course. If you want to learn more about Marxism I can help you along, but without accepting that Socialism is a lengthy process of working out contradictions, and that therefore it is categorized by Public Ownership being primary, you’ll end up walking yourself into endless traps.
Communism only works on a small scale. The second society gets bigger, you require a state with militaristic presence to keep the people in line. To this very day, the Marxist ideal of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” has ALWAYS resulted in centralized power structures that became brutal dictatorships.
No matter which country you pick, large ones like china or the soviet union or smaller ones like cambodia under pol pot or vietnam under the CPV, all of them have devolved into a dictatorship. Even “experiments” like yugoslavia under tito were, in the end, still dictatorships where political opposition was disallowed, a secret police was founded and tito still had absolute control. Now, you might say: “But the people lived well!”, yes, for about 10 years until the 1960s where the country suffered a massive economic crash, insane debt (because commies suck at economics) and inflation. Tito was able to hold it together with sheer force until he died, and after his death, yugoslavia completely unraveled into the mess it is today.
I know you like to cope with “oh no the evil CIA again >:(” but in the end, communism is a failed ideology that will never work on a large scale without completely suppressing individual freedom and brutally knocking down any sign of dissent.
Edit: By the way, I’m more than willing to argue about this - however, I just noticed that I’m on lemmy.ml so I’ll most likely get banned for not conforming to the tankie-ideals.
Yeah, I remember how my grandfather and everyone he knew fought tooth and nails just to stop America from dismantling communism in eastern Europe!
Oh, wait, he didn’t. Everyone celebrated when it fell.
And then 7 million people died, and most people feel they were better off under Socialism and wished it continued.
It’s easy to say if one has never lived under communism rule. Stalinism caused the Holodomor in Ukraine and starved to death 2-7 million people. Mass deportations of people in Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and many other countries in Eastern Europe. Federated platforms? Forget about it. Everything is controlled by the state. Do you want to say something that the government doesn’t like? You can, but then you are off in a concentration camp (gulag) or sent to Siberia. Almost every family has a history of one of its family members being sent or imprisoned because they said something bad about communists / had a farm and could feed themselves with the products from their farm or land. On the contrary I would recommend to read the Animal Farm by George Orwell. - “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
The famine in the 30s was caused by natural causes and spiraled to greater heights because of collectivization, but this ended famines.
The Soviet system was similar to federated platforms. It was government controlled, in a somewhat federated manner. Read Soviet Democracy.
The GULAG administration was a prison system, not concentration camps. Read Russian Justice.
Orwell was a fan of Hitler, hated workers, and in Animal Farm specifically his biggest critique was that Russian Workers are stupid and destined to be taken advantage of. Read On Orwell and A Critical Read of Animal Farm.
“Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. Ever since he came to power — till then, like nearly everyone, I had been deceived into thinking that he did not matter — I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity.”
liked hitler is not exactly true, he just found him charismatic, I think saying he liked him is rather misleading
Given that he was wildly aristocratic in demeanor, looked down on workers, and even wrote an entire book that spends time after time talking about how stupid Russian workers are and thus are destined to be taken advantage of by bad actors, I don’t think saying “like” is wrong, here. The Anarchists he fought alongside in Spain even questioned why he wasn’t fighting for the fascists. There’s also the issue of Orwell’s antisemitism to contend with.
Orwell says he would have killed Hitler had he the chance, but still clearly found him appealing.
In this case, I think saying he liked Hitler is actually weakening your argument, even if it’s completely true, it’s clear from the reading that he wished he could personally kill hitler, but found him charismatic, and is saying that charisma is what his success was found on.
All of what you said there might be true, and all of that makes your case that he was a bad man better, but doesn’t make the case that he liked him better. At the end of the day, you don’t like someone you wish you could have killed. Saying he liked hitler when the reading makes it clear he wished he could kill him makes your other claims more dubious, not stronger, you should probably refrain from that in the future if your goal is to convince people.
All of those things may be true bad things about orwell, but none of them means he was clearly a fan of hitler.
Furthermore, I think antagonizing orwell, even if he was bad is just bad praxis for convincing people to be anti-capitalist.
I suppose it’s more of a different stance on the use of the word “fan.” Saying you would feel no personal animosity for Hitler while killing him goes quite a lot beyond simply finding him charismatic. I can say Trump can be funny, but I hold a great deal of animosity towards him despite that.
Just my 2 cents.
Oh yes, my friend, I knew someone would repeat me this soviet narrative. I urge you to read about Mr. Jones or watch a film about these events. Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis. They also claimed it was just for labor, you know. I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
No, now you’re doing holocaust minimization by supporting Double Genocide Theory. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Yeah, good luck convincing one anticommunist to read any of Michael Parenti’s books. You’ll have an easier time pulling teeth.
To be fair, I have done it at least twice on Lemmy. Maybe I should go into dentistry instead, though, lol
I urge you to read about Mr. Jones
There have been millions of Mr. Joneses so you’ll need to be more specific. In the meantime,
- Domenico Losurdo, 2008, Stalin: The History and Critique of a Black Legend
- Grover Furr, 2014, Blood Lies: The Evidence that Every Accusation against Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands Is False
.
Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis.
I see you are well prepared with communist materials, it’s the same as entering communist class in the Soviet Union and expecting they will share the truth.
Those aren’t arguments, they’re vague, empty rhetoric.
Regarding gulags, it’s the same as telling me about concentration camps built by the Nazis.
From a researcher who actually examined Soviet archives after the fall of the USSR in the 90s (PDF link, see pg. 1041):
Even in the terrible year of 1937, 44.4 percent of the GULAG labor camp population on January 1 was freed during the course of the year.
These weren’t death camps, these were prisons. You can read elsewhere in the same article about how most of the people in them had been convicted of non-political crimes every country in the world prosecutes. Just like in many other countries, people would serve their sentence and be released.
The article also notes how the vast majority of mortality in the Soviet prison system was attributable to the hardships imposed by WWII (also from pg. 1041):
More than half of all GULAG deaths in the entire 1934-1953 period occurred in 1941-1943, mostly from malnutrition.
Comparing this to the Nazi system that was directly designed to exterminate people is no more than roundabout Nazi apologia.
Because no one who experienced it thought hmm is briliant, yeh nah, socialist policies are needed but not any form of totalitarian communism
Most people actually preferred Socialism over modern Capitalism in post-Soviet states. Socialism works better than Capitalism, and was more democratic.
Find me an old person anywhere that isn’t nostalgic for their youth.
Considering that once Capitalism was restored wealth inequality skyrocketed, 7 million people died, and previously relied on safety nets were destroyed or sold for parts to Capitalists, I don’t think it’s something that can be attributed to simple youthful nostalgia.
Damn CIA created Maoism
China
China is still Socialist.
What does it mean though? China’s gini coefficient is higher than Europe’s, and they have a growing number of billionaires.
https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
In short, China has billionaires but they are devoid of political power 👍 🇨🇳
Socialism is a Mode of Production determined by having public property as primary. In China, large firms and key industries are firmly under public ownership and control, and they actually have a falling number of billionaires in the last couple years.
Indonesia, Chile, West Germany, Congo, Iran, Bengal, Guatemala, Nicaragua…
Yeah, everything is good in theory.
“Working people should have a good salary and good work conditions”. Does a communist say that or a capitalist?
Communism will end up in an oligarchy, capitalism will end up in an oligarchy, anarchism will end up in an oligarchy and totalitarianism starts as an oligarchy.
Maybe there will be a system that taxes the rich in a progressive manner, will give working individuals freedom, will not tolerate corporations as humans and will keep everything somewhere in the middlem
Maybe we should call this a social democracy or something, but what do I know?
Nah communism is shit, same with trickle down economics… you can have a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism in a healthy mix of free trade economy with regulations.
Like we do in Europe, because if you do not regulate the free market it’ll stop being free in a generation. Like it’s happened in the US.
typical european “we are a garden” centrist, i wonder how europe accumulated its capital on the first place!
if you do not regulate the free market
Wtf are you talking about. There is no such thing as a free market.
you can have a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism in a healthy mix of free trade economy with regulations
I used to believe this, and I also used to argue against socialists on the same exact grounds.
At some point I noticed that all those nice little bits of socialism that rounded off the edges of capitalism kept getting rolled back. Then I read more about how those safety nets were put up in the first place – I found out they were all bought with the blood of people much farther left than me, and I saw how violently capitalists opposed them. I found that a lot of the reason those safety nets were so nice for so long in the Global North was that our countries were slaughtering people by the millions (again, a lot of leftists) elsewhere in the world to prop capitalism up.
At that point I stopped just nodding along to all the campfire stories about socialist countries. Maybe, like my standard U.S. education had missed a lot of pretty important things about how capitalism works, it had similarly missed some important things about how socialism works.
This isn’t true, though. You can’t have a “little bit of Socialism” and a “little bit of Capitalism,” Socialism and Capitalism are descriptors of overall economies. Regulation in a Capitalist system is still Capitalism, Europe in particular is Imperialist (and increasingly moving to fascism as they fade from relevance in the global stage).
Socialism, on the other hand, absolutely works, and is why the PRC is overtaking everyone else at the moment.
Yeah, but how is the quality of life for the average person in the PRC? Honest question, because I don’t know. I’m American they would have us believe that the average Chinese citizen is living one step of from a factory slave.
I’m American they would have us believe that the average Chinese citizen is living one step of from a factory slave.
Download RedNote and see for yourself. You’ll never get a full picture from social media alone, but you can see a lot.
Varies dramatically depending on where you live, because China is an extremely rapidly developing country that was as poor as Haiti is today 100 years ago. Quality of life overall is good, and rising rapidly.
I know this doesn’t say actual statistics and stats, but watching videos that actually show China can help de-mystify it.
China is an extremely rapidly developing country that was as poor as Haiti is today 100 years ago.
I’d say 75, at the end of the Civil War. The firsthand descriptions of rural China from Fanshen come from around that period and are basically late-feudal, but ravaged by a few decades of major wars.
Fair enough, good point comrade.
Not really sure about taking China as an example for something “working”…
Why not? It’s rapidly overtaking everyone else, and has made massive strides for workers. What would you call it?
A place where human rights are not respected
Can you elaborate? They have a better respect for human rights than the vast majority of states.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Europe is sliding into fascism too, just not as quickly. Regulating capitalism treats the symptoms and not the disease, and so it can only ever bring temporary relief. The problems we are experiencing now are not the product of a broken system, they are the inevitable result of capitalist economics, no matter how restrained.
Fascism vs communism is a prime example of a false dichotomy.
Communism is just socialism-flavored fascism.
@AeonFelis @vga @memes both are a version of totalitarianism
“Totalitarianism” as a term was largely popularized in order to depict Communism and Nazism as “twin evils,” when the reality is that Socialist countries have had dramatic democratization of the economy.
No, it isn’t. The Soviet system dramatically expanded worker control over Tsarism and Capitalism.
This is 100% ahistorical, Communism has historically served the working class and opposed fascism while fascism has historically served Capitalists and oppressed workers and Communists. Read *Blackshirts and Reds.
This is nothing more than a feeling that you have, and has no basis in fact. All the worst atrocities committed in the name of communism throughout history cannot possibly compare in scale or cruelty to the actions of even a single fascist state.
In addition to the difference in scale there is a difference in motive. Communists have noble goals, but atrocities result from threat-induced paranoia and selfish opportunists co-opting revolutionary fervor. The atrocities of fascism are pure evil in both motive and action. Fascists seek to eliminate those that they deem inferior, and they carry this out with unimaginable cruelty and glee.
Yeah, or like they do in China.
What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism. If it’s communism, why do they have a rising number of billionaires and worse conditions for workers than many european countries?
China has a Socialist Market Economy. Large firms and key sectors like steel and banking are nearly entirely under public control, while there are a large number of self-employed people. They actually have a falling number of billionaires in the last couple years.
As for worker conditions, Europe is Imperialist and many European countries act like landlords, and China is still a developing country, though rapidly developing.
What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism.
The funny thing about discussions about China’s economy is that you can use pretty much any term to describe it as long as it’s bad. If “socialist” or “communist” is understood to be a bad thing to those in the conversation, you can use those terms without objection, but you can also say stuff like “Feudalism” or “Fascist Corporatism” or “Colonialism” or whatever tf else, it’s all just vibes-based and the only requirement is that the vibes be bad.
China has a mixed economy with a combination of state ownership and private investment, with the state maintaining a controlling share in certain key industries, and preventing (at least so far) economic elites from infiltrating the government for the purpose of widespread regulatory capture and deregulation. Billionaires exist but sometimes face real consequences for illegal activity, and the balance between public and private ownership tips more heavily towards public when compared to other countries such as those in Europe.
The partial liberalization of the economy is meant to encourage economic development post-industrialization, and prevent the challenges the USSR faced with economic stagnation post-industrialization. Central planning works great if you’re just trying to meet people’s basic needs like food or shelter, but the demand for consumer goods is more fluid. This policy is also adapted to the global situation, China has benefitted greatly from industry moving there and by becoming a major trade partner of the US and other countries (while also holding the bulk of manufacturing output), that makes it difficult for outside forces to go to war or level sanctions/tariffs on them.
It is not a “communist” country in the sense of having achieved communism (in this sense, a “communist country” is an inherent contradiction). It could be called a communist/socialist country in the sense that it is governed by (self-identified) communists. Socialism, or I should specify Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, aren’t a set of specific policies but rather a materialist and class-based mode of analysis to be applied and adapted differently depending on material conditions.
Some hardcore Maoists would argue that China’s current system is a deviation from the correct socialist ideas, as espoused by Mao. However, there’s also this odd branch of Westerners that don’t like China’s liberalized system because “it has billionaires,” but also don’t like what they had before under Mao when they didn’t have billionaires, but also claim to dislike full-on capitalism - so as far as I can tell, they just dislike China regardless of what they do or don’t do. I’ve yet to find any such person who’s actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of “what should they do/have done economically” as opposed to just bashing them. And in fact, when asked what kind of economic system they support, they’ll often describe a mixed system similar to what China has, but then be like, “but not like that.”
I’ve yet to find any such person who’s actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of “what should they do/have done economically” as opposed to just bashing them.
I didn’t say they weren’t doing fine or that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
I just said that they’re not communists. This is not a bad thing! But lying about it is of course somewhat distasteful, especially for those people who think themselves as being communists.
I didn’t say they weren’t doing fine or that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
So your position is that their system is “Fascist Corporatism,” but also… that’s fine, actually?
I just said that they’re not communists. This is not a bad thing! But lying about it is of course somewhat distasteful, especially for those people who think themselves as being communists.
Whether they’re “lying” is a matter of interpretation and ideological differences. Like, if I’m a hardcore, traditionalist Roman Catholic, maybe from my perspective, all Protestants are “lying” about being Christian because “true Christianity” means my interpretation of it. Likewise, if you’re a hardcore Maoist, then maybe you’d argue that China is governed by revisionists who are “lying” about being communists.
If we want to look at it from a relatively objective point of view, the largest number of self-identified communists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, who don’t view China as “lying about being communist” but rather agree with or at least critically support their approach. So, idk, if you want to join some fringe Christian sect that claims every other sect as being heretical and themselves as the sole defender of the faith, or if you want to join some fringe communist group that denounces every other communist group as revisionist and themselves as the only “real” communists, then idk, you do you ig. But not everyone who believes different things from you is “lying.”
So your position is that their system is “Fascist Corporatism,” but also… that’s fine, actually?
Great point. That was a mistake from my part. So what China is doing is indeed not fine at all, even though it kind of works for them.
I’m sure that your branding of the Chinese economy is based on a very high degree of intellectual rigor and definitely not just pulling words out of your ass based on vibes.
Needs v wants
Needs: healthcare, utilities, public transport, even a minimal but quality food source. Even to the point of utilitarian but working phones/devices. State ownership where profits are minimal but go back into the state. The services aren’t necessarily free, but are run without massive shareholder payouts.
Wants: upgrades and luxuries. iPhones, treat foods, nice cars, silk bedding and those ridiculous marshmallow shoes everyone loves. Regulated but free market.
Now all your basic needs are covered by the community together. You could probably live a simple life with very little income. If you want luxury or fancy, feel free to work too get it.
I have been trying to put together a document that attempt this concept of ensuring the survival of people, while making money into something used for lifestyle upgrades. Also, heavy emphasis on wealth limits and preferring people over corporations. IMO, corporations are great for personal interests, but are beyond terrible when it comes to the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should make having a job optional, but rewarding.
UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME
Yo, how do you have lumberjack in the same tier as astronauts ? One goes to space, and other is a guy in flannel swinging ax in the woods lol
High injury and fatality rates. An astronaut risks their life everytime they ride an occaisional rocket, but a lumberjack has to deal with falling trees on a daily basis.
Ok, I see where you are going with that. I don’t personally agree, but I see where you are coning from
Trying to design a Utopia by fiat has historically failed, just look at the Owenites. The great advancement with Marx was studying societal development and mastering it, so that we can work it into our favor, not by designing systems in a lab that may have no bearing in reality.
Oh boy, another batch of centrists coming in from the Reddit shitstorm… This one oblivious to the fact that far right parties are gaining traction all over Europe.
Sir, this is lemmy. Moderate politics are highly upvoted and deeply resented here.
Supporting a system where workers are held down in favor of corporate greed is not and never will be “moderate”
I can see that, wild that there are people here thinking Communism is ok
The developers are Communists, and a lot of us are here instead of Reddit due to issues with the Capitalist nature of Reddit. There are some Lemmy instances that are more anticommunist, but there are also a good amount of Communist-aligned instances as well.
Europe has the whole “pretend we’re better than everyone else” into “kill all nonwhites” bullshit going, better kill em before they hitler again
This is a sane take. This is the only form of economy that actually works well.
Unless the population pyramid is destroyed, but that won’t happen right?
Like we do in Europe
This is the only form of economy that actually works with great success.
sarcastic french laugh
We are seeing the capitalist West’s descent into fascism. The direct proof of the 1930’s maxim, “fascism is capitalism in decay” between the AFD, Orban, Erdogan, Starmer being basically indistinguishable from a Tory, Macron pulling a Hindenburg by using the presidential power to appoint a prime minister that will unify the center-right liberals with the far-right to prevent the left from having any power in government, and Meloni being an acceptable, reasonable western leader because she follows through with whatever US foreign policy is on offer. We are seeing a direct breakdown because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (law of diminishing returns, applied to profit, if you are a child that believes in neoclassical economics). So profit has to be sought out by purely national protectionism and reshoring since there is not a growing pie, but you just have to claim a greater slice of the pie. Capitalism on any sufficient timescale is Fascism, the destruction of WW2 and the Marshall Plan reset this “diminishing return on profitability” so that we are reaching the same state of the 1920s. But since there isn’t a strong socialist movement we have to modify Gramsci’s assessment. “The old world is dying, a new one is completely stillborn, now and forever is the time of monsters”
Is-ought fallacy? Understand me correctly, I like the EU system, but to pretend that it’s the end of history and that we’ve reached perfection in this space is wrong.
No, Imperialism doesn’t actually work well and is failing, meanwhile Socialism is still working and on the rise, such as in the PRC.
All communist states were/are dictatorships (Soviet Union, China, North Korea).
What the society really needs are strong democracies with a free, well regalemented market and strong social welfare (mixed economy). This is already happening in northern europe with great succes.
This isn’t true, actually. AES states are democratic, you should read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.
Northern European countries aren’t role models, either. They depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets, and are dictatorships of the Bourgeoisie, hence why their safety nets are declining.
Those aren’t/weren’t communist so per the post their leaders worked for the CIA
