• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      This comment doesn’t say anything at all, really. You just state a bunch of vague things and don’t connect any of them, you just say everything ends in Oligarchy and don’t walk them logically to your conclusion.

      Then you just describe a system of “moderation,” as though being in the “middle” of things makes it more correct. That would be like saying the sky must be purple if someone says it’s blue and the other says its red, there’s nothing about being in the middle that makes a position inherently correct.

      The world’s “successful” Social Democracies, ie the Nordic Countries, are seeing sliding worker protections, and depend on Imperialism to fund their safety nets. They are essentially landlords in country form.

      You’d do well to actually engage with Leftists to see what we think and why, rather than reducing everything to some holy reverence for “moderation.”

    • trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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

      As we all know this approach is infallible as the capitalists will simply give up on changing laws if we just tax them.

      Every system is going to end in oligarchy except for the one that directly gives people the power and material incentives to create an oligarchy.

      I am a very smart Social Democrat.

  • Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    And it’s a holiday in Cambodia

    Where you’ll what you’re told

    Holiday in Cambodia

    Where the slum’s got so much soul

    DK

  • missandry351@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    20 hours ago

    When people ask me what communist country was successful I usually say all of them until cia decided to go there and spread freedom 🇺🇸🦅

    • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Well… There was this thing called Soviet Union. They decided to try to speed up the transition to communism by using repression and violence. And ended up being a totalitarian state, a direct opposite of what a communist state is supposed to be like.

      Of course you can argue that Soviet Union was not communist, it was just a state that had chosen to call itself communist for propaganda reasons… But still, Soviet Union is an example of a communist country that was unsuccessful as a communist project already by itself. Then came outsiders and helped make it even worse, but bad doesn’t become good by some people wanting it to be even worse. Burma is another example. I’d say they hacked away their own leg before anyone else, such as CIA, had time to interfere in their business.

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        The USSR had to deal with a civil war, rising up during WWI and being sabotaged by the Germans, more civil war, foreign meddling, and all while being the first successful communist revolution. Yet they still managed to raise literacy, raise health outcomes, raise average life expectancy, gender equality, science and technology, end the cycle of famines (after the first one or two they had when they were still building up), had faster growth during that period than any capitalist country (except maybe the US, which was doing imperialism at the time and the biggest hegemon), all while helping sustain other socialist countries, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        The USSR didn’t “do repression and violence to speed up Communism,” they had a successful revolution and established Socialism. By all accounts it was quite successful overall, but we can learn from where they erred and adapt for the future.

        The only ones who believe the Soviet Union wasn’t Socialist are generally Western Trots or liberals/Anarchists who already don’t want the form of society Marxists want, which is a government that publicly owns its large and key industries and gradually folds in the new firms that grow to that level until the entire economy is publicly owned.

        • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Have you never heard of bolševiks and menševiks? What you’re explaining is what menševiks wanted, but what happened was what bolševiks aimed for.

          And that was inhumane horror.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            No, the Mensheviks had a poor understanding of Historical Materialism and didn’t think the Peasantry could truly be allied to the Proletariat. What I am describing is what the Bolsheviks did. To a better extent the PRC also fulfills this.

  • CircaV@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Luckily the US is dismantling the CIA so that’s good news for communism!!!

  • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    you know, i tell you what. i’m fed up with all this gringo self-righteousness when you talk about “oh communism was bad, oh people where killed, oh people had no food, oh people had no liberty, oh people could not buy ataris, oh our countries are so democratic”. your countries were democratic during the cold war in the first place because you had people to sort things out for you here in the global south. for each person complaining about how the food rations in eastern europe were not tasty enough, there were 10 dying of hunger or malnourishment here in the global south. for every person complaining they had to wait 5 years in a queue to buy a trabant or an oka, there were 10 who got no school in a range of 50 km. for every person complaining that their 8 hour shifts in state owned factories were overwhelming, there were 10 who were indentured workers. for every person complaining about how the stasi, kgb or the stb had bugged their apartment, there were 10 suffering the most horrific tortures inside black sites of the military of u.s. allies here in the “third world”. for every person complaining about dull standard apartment blocks in mikrorayons, there were 10 who lived in mud shacks and slums, and those are just who were lucky enough to have a roof over their heads. finally, for everyone complaining about chinese sweatshops, which are indeed a problem, there are 10 americans who work and yet cannot afford proper housing.

    you wanna complain about how communism was bad? go ahead. you wanna complain how your parents lived under communism and could not drink coke? do so if you wish. but there are still millions of people down here who would give an arm and a leg to have a polish ration, an apartment in a russian gray building, or a yugoslav job. and while the chinese maoist red guard was bad, surely it won’t be an inch closer to the harassement people endured on a daily basis by our police forces.

    again: you wanna complain? be my guest. but for me that’s an encyclopedic example of white privilege.

    • nargis@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This, so much this. Having a job and a roof over your head is such a luxury in the ‘global south’, the true face of capitalism

    • galanthus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Why would you not compare european communist countries woth european capitalist countries? Sure, africans and asians were poorer, but that goes without saying, honestly, what does that even have to do with this matter?

      East Germany was poorer than west Germany. That tells us something. The fact that Ethiopia or whatever was poorer does not really tell us much about ehich economic system is better.

      • nomoesyankho@lemmy.wtf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Ethopia and the rest of africa got colonized by capitalists, idiot. It tells us a whole lot about which economical system is better.

        Of course if you only see the receiving end of theft, you would think theft is great.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        20 hours ago

        West Germany had almost all of the industry of Germany, and East Germany was made to pay harsh reparations for the immense devastation the Nazis wrought upon the Soviet people and countries. Moreover, West Germany was never de-Nazified, and the US and Western Countries heavily invested into its development as a means to destabilize the relations with the East, even threatening to put NATO nukes in West Germany.

      • missandry351@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Loool it’s easy to say East Germany was poorer when they had to deal with all the sanctions. But be my guest, how many homeless people in USA and how many in Cuba?

        • galanthus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 hours ago

          If only there was a superpower leading a blok of nations rivaling the west that could have supported east Germany…

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            19 hours ago

            Hard to do so in the aftermath of World War II when the Nazis destroyed half your buildings and murdered 20 million of your people. The Soviets did 80% of the combat against the Nazis.

            • galanthus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              So you claim the USSR did not support East Germany because of anti-german sentiments, while the west invested quite a lot into the reconstruction of FRG. I am afraid I am not qualified to assess how accurate that claim is(the former half of it, specifically). But I am deeply skeptical about this, since it would be quite a useful propaganda tool both domestically and in the west. Also, the east had a communist government and it distanced itself from it’s past. The internationalist ideology of the USSR should have triumphed over the nationalist sentiments that might have existed.

              However, I should say, that the main point of my original comment still stands. Of course, there are always many factors at play and it is not the case that the disparity between the east and the west can be attributed to the economic system alone. However, this does not mean that such comparisons are not valid, and I still would say that comparing european countries to underdeveloped countries to say that life in eastern Europe “wasn’t that bad” is quite absurd.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                19 hours ago

                I didn’t say the USSR didn’t support East Germany, I explained the unique struggles East Germany faced compared to West Germany.

      • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Same, man, same lol. I’m still patriotic during the Olympics, but if we’re going to be funding genocides, assassinating leaders, and starting wars and shit, fuck it, I hope we lose them all lol. Let’s just start over on the whole project.

        I invite US balkanization at this point so I can go hang out in the new sovereign state of whatever CA, WA, and OR will be called. Hawaii can come, too.

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    23 hours ago

    whoops, brazil. we had a budding workers movement that was absolutely crushed by the traitorous brazilian military, in the name of the US of course.

    that hasnt stopped syndicalism to take root here and improve our lives a bit, but the communist organizations responsible were all crushed and we see our rights being taken away ever since because no one is left to defend them. we are scrambling rn to see if we can stop fascism.

    • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 hours ago

      to anyone who says “why don’t you compare communist eastern europe to democratic western europe?”. sure, first thing to notice is that eastern europe didn’t had companies exploiting underdeveloped nations for their cheap labour and raw materials, their oppression of labour organizations and the support of corrupt rulers. since brazil was mentioned (heh), let us remember that west german companies such as vw or mercedes-benz used to report on syndicalists and communists working and organizing on their plants to the brazilian military during the dictatorship, and sold equipment to the military and police. that siemens sold nuclear reactors to the dictatorship during the late 70s. that many former officials of the dictatorship got leadership jobs in these companies and in basf, hoescht, atlas-schindler, mwm. behind the “economic success” of the rich countries of the west there’s always some degree of exploitation of poorer countries.

  • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I wonder if anyone ever said “Democracy would never work, just look at what happened to Athens”.

    Socialism and communism are relatively new ideas. While I don’t believe communism is an effective form of government, it’s still kind of silly to write it off so quickly.

    • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      There isn’t really a single form of communist government, same as there isn’t a single way to do democracy or capitalism. Every country does it different, experiments a different way. For all we know, the perfect way to do it is just waiting for us to discover.

      For example, I’d say the US’s form of liberal, bourgeois democracy is one of the worst ways to implement it, but it was also an early experiment with it and deserves credit for at least trying it and helping us learn what to do and what not to do.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      22 hours ago

      There is a poem in Polish, it goes in fast and dirty translation: “Today you scare us with communists, just as years ago, you scared our fathers with the democrat name”.

      • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        The more I study history, the more I see the great wheel of humanity. Communists now, Jews in the 40s, Muslims in the early middles ages, the barbaric Gauls before Christ was even born. It never stops. The people with wisdom die off leaving remnants of their culture and ideas while the next generations tries to piece it all together.

      • CalipherJones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Well the ideal end result depends on the person, doesn’t it?

        I’m sure Karl Marx and Stalin had very different ideas of what the ideal end result of communism would be.

        From my understanding; Marx envisioned a worker’s utopia, while Stalin instead used communism to garner as much power for himself as possible.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          19 hours ago

          Neither is accurate. Stalin tried to resign several times, in fact, but was rejected, and Marx wasn’t a Utopian, but in favor of Scientific Socialism. Now, that doesn’t mean Stalin was a saint or that Marx didn’t have a beautiful vision for the future, but it does mean you should read up a bit more before making judgement calls. I have an introductory reading list for Marxism-Leninism you can check out for that, if you’re interested.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It was complicated. Kruschev, and later Gorbachev’s reforms really weakened the Socialist system because they didn’t properly retain strong control of the larger firms and heavy industry (a lesson the CPC took to heart), however the CIA and really the US absolutely worked tirelessly to weaken it. The Soviets also had to spend a much larger portion of their production on the millitary in order to keep parity with the US, meaning that development rates began to slow.

      • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        24 hours ago

        What is complicated about it?

        The reforms you refer to allowed for political dissent. If the Soviet Union was some worker’s paradise, then allowing people complain wouldn’t change anything.

        The simple reality is that the Soviet Union was a dictatorship that only survived as long as it did because it was a dictatorship. Once people had the option of opposing Communist rule, they did. And that is what killed the Soviet Union. Not some conspiracy by the United States or the kulaks.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          24 hours ago

          The reforms didn’t just allow for “political dissent,” they worked against the Socialist system, that was based on central planning. Rather than running in a more efficient manner, it ran against itself.

          Further, nobody says the Soviet Union was a “worker’s paradise.” It had tremendous strides for workers, but it wasn’t perfect by any means.

          The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

          Read Blackshirts and Reds.

          • Stalin:

            Do you really believe that we could have retained power and have had the backing of the vast masses for 14 years by methods of intimidation and terrorization? No, that is impossible. The tsarist government excelled all others in knowing how to intimidate. It had long and vast experience in that sphere. The European bourgeoisie, particularly the French, gave tsarism every assistance in this matter and taught it to terrorize the people. Yet, in spite of that experience and in spite of the help of the European bourgeoisie, the policy of intimidation led to the downfall of Tsarism.

          • Antiproton@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            23 hours ago

            The Soviet Union was, if not a traditional dictatorship, absolutely a totalitarian autocracy. Stalin was a brutal dictator and his successors were chosen by the communist party. Elections in the USSR were for show.

            Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people. The USSR’s implementation of communism was so bad, it’s become cliche.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people.

              People like you should be forced to live under conditions like Tsarist Russia.

            • vfreire85@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              23 hours ago

              “Life was miserable almost from the start of the Bolshevik revolution for most people”, said the romanovs.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              23 hours ago

              Allow me to repeat myself:

              The Soviet Union wasn’t a dictatorship. Read Soviet Democracy. It lasted as long as it did because it had tremendous GDP growth while lowering wealth disparity, free and high quality education and healthcare, doubled health expectancies, full employment, and over tripled literacy rates to 99.9%.

              Read Blackshirts and Reds.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  20 hours ago

                  Yep. Democracy doesn’t mean “choose between parties,” it’s about the actual impact you can have on policy. More people in China feel that they have a voice in politics than people in the US, despite the US having 2 parties.

          • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            24 hours ago

            That’s what dissent is.

            Nothing you said disputes it being a dictatorship. The people could not choose their leaders, there were no limits on the power of their leaders, er go it was a dictatorship. None of your “pros” matter. And that’s before we get into the lack of freedom of speech and press and total absence of transparency, meaning that I have no reason to trust those supposed accomplishments.

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  22 hours ago

                  Declassified CIA report:

                  Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

                  A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, now that US & Soviet archives have been released, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, like Domenico Losurdo and Grover Furr.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              23 hours ago

              No, that isn’t what dissent is, it was a fundamental liberalization of the economy that favored private property over public.

              Secondly, they absolutely chose their leaders.

              Finally, you say life expectancy, literacy rates, and worker rights “don’t matter?” That strong, sustained economic growth doesn’t matter? You must be trolling.

              As for distrusting the sources, you can look into them yourselves, they are well-respected.

              • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                23 hours ago

                So, you’re denying that glasnost allowed for political dissent?

                Second, no they didn’t.

                Finally, it does not matter because we were debating whether or not the Soviet Union was a dictatorship, which the literacy rate has nothing to do with.

                Well-respected by Tankies, not by actual historians.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  Glasnost allowed for liberalism to expand as an ideology, sure, alongside other reforms that weakened the economy and erased its foundations. You can’t cherry-pick the reforms to make it seem like the system worked poorly and only was dissolved because the “people had a choice.” In fact, most post-Soviet citizens regret the fall of Socialism and prefer it over Capitalism.

                  Read Soviet Democracy.

                  We were debating a great many things, one of which being the economy and the well-being of the people, because that helps explain why it was democratic.

                  Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan is quite literally used as a reference on the Wikipedia article for Soviet Democracy. You are incapable of being honest or looking at facts that disprove you because you care more about appearing morally righteous than being correct.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          20 hours ago

          The US played a part, I outright stated that it was a complicated situation made more complicated by having the world’s largest Empire, the US, permanently hostile and putting nukes on their doorstep.

  • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    can communism survive in a single country was always a big question.

    I think the original idea was to try a world revolution but that didn’t work out.

    Us is the main holdout. Russia is basically socialist, EU is basically socialist. China is communist.

    Us is the only serious holdout

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Russia is Capitalist, the EU is Capitalist, the US is Capitalist, and China is Socialist. Communism must be global, but Socialism is the process of building towards that through publicly owning large firms and key industries. Communism exists as an ideology for now, and hasn’t been achieved yet.

      • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Russia has universal health care and mandatory vacations and many other perks - it’s in Russia constitution in 7.1. Same is EU.

        us is definitely capitalist

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Welfare and social programs are not Socialism. Socialism is when public ownership is the primary basis of your economy.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              6 hours ago

              No, not really. The purpose behind Socialism is that as time goes on, production becomes more and more complex, and eventually must be publicly planned to continue being effective. Social programs are important, but Social Programs in a system dominated by Private Capital are subject to the will of the bourgeoisie, and often done in a manner that supports private profits.

              Socialism and Capitalism are descriptors for economic formations, not if a country provides free healthcare or not.

    • Dimmer@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      China is a cocktail of socialism, capitalism, nationalism… claiming it’s only one ~ism is probably oversimplifying, but communism is probably a bit far stretch.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        China has a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t so much a cocktail as it is Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s current conditions.

        • Dimmer@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          16 hours ago

          China has a Socialist Market Economy, it isn’t so much a cocktail as it is Marxism-Leninism applied to China’s current conditions.

          This sentence is in Chinese constitution and text book for every first grade student. Repeating it doesn’t help any meaningful conversation, unless you are a 7 years old trying to pass exam and get to second grade…

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            16 hours ago

            It’s a sentence I made, just because the PRC agrees with describing themselves that way doesn’t mean I’m not adding to meaningful conversation. When you declare that China is a cocktail of Capitalism and Socialism, what does that actually mean? It seemed like your comment was more about not analyzing China’s economy than coming up with a coherent and consistent answer, which is what I pushed forward.

            Basically, Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors of overall systems, not portions of an economy, so calling a system a cocktail of each doesn’t make too much sense and adds confusion more than clarity.

        • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          The biggest flaw with communism is that you have to actually read instead of trusting a propaganda mill blindly and uncritically to become one.

          some utterly propagandized capitalist will read this and think we’re the propagandized ones, hilariously not realizing all they have is strawmen they didn’t even come up with themselves and things they didn’t fact check even the tiniest bit.

            • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              15 hours ago

              yeah in the same way that there’s guns and shootings all over the world but they’re almost all concentrated in one place… american schools.

              either way, communists are vastly more prepared to deal with propaganda because in capitalist societies critical thinking is destroyed by nearly every institution that can teach it.

              if you go by this thread one side has nothing but propaganda. There was not one valid argument made on the capitalist side when I read this thread, I could’ve better argued for capitalism, it’s pathetic.

              closest they got was china is mean to uyghurs, but capitalists do genocide every 5 seconds so that’s hardly a pro capitalist argument. At least the chinese, if they are covering it up, have the decency to cover it up, capitalists brazenly and openly happily do it, and support it!

              • azalty@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                Your main problem is that you’re saying capitalism = USA. There are a lot more other countries that aren’t involved in genocides

                The only arguments I’ve seen in this thread are “but USA corrupted them so it’s entirely their fault” and “but somewhere in the world some people had worse living conditions”

                I think we’re all suffering from confirmation bias in this thread

                I have to admit I don’t know a lot about communism and geopolitics overall, but so far I haven’t seen a successful implementation of it that would make me want to live there, and the main countries that approaches its definition are a huge red flag to me

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  The Western Capitalist countries that you’d likely consider “good to live in” depend on Imperialism. In short, they act as landlords in country form. Socialist countries like the PRC are making huge strides in comparison without depending on Imperialism, genocide, etc to sustain themselves.

                  If the only arguments you’ve seen in this thread are along the lines you’ve described, then you’ve either blocked people or otherwise are defederated from instances like Lemmygrad.ml.

                  If you want to learn more about Communism, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. It’s designed for complete newcomers, the first section is designed to be self-contained in that it gives you a broad overview of Communism in theory and historically, then it goes through the essentials of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice in the latter sections. There are audiobooks linked as well for most works.

                • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  No, all capitalist countries that are nice places to live are guilty of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, or some combination of the three. No exceptions. All you’re noticing is that they have successfully exported their suffering at best.

                  Communist countries have a massive uphill battle, they have to gain wealth without imperialist exploitation AND fend off the US, who has the same military budget as the rest of the world COMBINED, this combined with the fact they usually started poor makes this a wildly unfair comparison. Only authoritarians can hold onto power when faced with all of these things.

                  the mere fact that in 75 years china has gotten where it has and the only issues you can really point to are matters of policy rather than fundamental failures of communism tells most of the story, communism can be essentially identical to what china does with freedom of speech, no censorship, and no genocide very easily, as none of those things have anything to do with whether a country is communist or not, with all of the benefits.

                  in other words capitalists can’t find flaws with communism that don’t apply to capitalism, only issues with particular implementations, the issues communists talk about are mostly fundamental to capitalism.

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        So I’m scrolling back up to reply to you after reading more. I actually don’t see most of the capitalist comments lol. I see a bunch of replies to removed comments that really don’t tell me anything about how the other side is replying.

    • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      For those that don’t like to read, you don’t have to read theory. In fact, most theory is old. There are newer and better takes on these ideas. Find a good YouTube channel that goes over the ideas. I like Vaush.

      If you like to read theory, go for it. But I think there are faster and easier ways to get the concepts.

      • FlyingCircus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        For all the people talking about Vaush and Hasan and their controversies, realize that there are other folks out there where you can learn about theory without the Twitch brainrot. The Revolutionary Left podcast is my personal favorite.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Vaush’s whole thing is controversy bait. He purposely crosses lines to get people mad at him while maintaining some form of “plausible deniability” to where his fans can always find a way to defend and excuse his actions by talking about “you don’t understand the context” or whatever, it’s a very common and tiresome tactic. Like, if you’re trying to promote a shitty video game that can’t stand on it’s own merits, just do something to antagonize either the left or the right (doesn’t matter which) and then go to the other group and be like, “Look, the guys you hate hate us, you should check us out.” Controversy generates clicks. A big reason for Trump’s success is that he cracked the code on how to apply this formula to a political campaign. If you know how to recognize it, it’s very obvious that Vaush does this.

        This sort of opportunism is very detrimental to actually understanding the world or promoting ideas or building a movement. It’s essentially brain-poisoning and a cognitohazard. You’re much better off reading actual books than just following whoever’s best at attracting attention on the internet. If you are going to shun books for videos, you should at least go with someone more educational, like Shaun.

        • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          40 minutes ago

          I don’t know where you are getting the idea that he purposefully generates controversies. He lost subs during most of his controversies, not gained. And it has down stream negative impacts on his channel other than just sub count.

          He is just very careless.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 minutes ago

            No way it’s just carelessness, nobody forces him to say edgy shit. It’s the classic “no such thing as bad publicity,” or, “but you have heard of me” thing. I’d have never heard of him without the controversy, and despite making a conscious effort to avoid him, even I’ve seen clips of him. When you get people talking about something, people will get curious and want to see it straight from the horses mouth, then some percentage of the people who show up “to get the full story” will like what they see and stick around, and even if they don’t, a hate click is still “engagement,” it doesn’t matter why you click, if you click, it boosts him in the algorithm.

            Going into examples will naturally only play into this effect, but I recall him once talking about performing eugenics to eradicate trans people from existence, under the idea of detecting gender dysphoria in the womb and aborting the fetus. This is an example of walking right up to the line and getting people mad on purpose, that’s not something someone just “organically” says out of “carelessness,” it’s specifically formulated to generate outrage, while, as always, leaving him an out that he can fall back on.

            • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 minutes ago

              There is 100% such a thing as bad publicity. Your post here is a literal example of this, you actively avoid him and there are many people who feel the same way as you.

              Hes not forced to say edgy shit, he just doesn’t put much effort into not saying edgy shit and he naturally wants to. He doesn’t police his own words, for instance, his frequent use of the word “retarded” and his joking about hating women. He also constantly blurts out shit and then his audience points out he misspoke and he gets annoyed and says “You fucks know what I meant”. He has no anxiety or shame about his wording of things. There is no worry on his end about saying something shameful, he’s literally said that he thinks shame is a worthless emotion.

              He doesn’t “mask” essentially. He is not careful. Maybe to some degree that helps his internet career because of reputation of authenticity or something but it also frequently pisses off his own audience. The controversies have lost him subs, they’ve severely damaged his ability to engage with other creators because he has either alienated or outright insulted them, which means he doesn’t debate anyone anymore, left or right.

              Its not on purpose. Hes not playing 12D chess to boost his youtube career. He wouldn’t be a leftwing creator in that case, he’d be a rightwing grifter instead. A lot more money in that.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          I do get that vibe from Vaush occasionally. Unfortunately the attention economy is a real thing and I would be impressed with anyone with the same reach as Vaush wouldn’t be doing similar things. I am not sure I would be as far left as I am without his content.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 hours ago

                A big difference between Hasan and Vaush is that Hasan generally wastes very little of his time with sectarian nonsense or left-punching, while Vaush makes that one of his core focuses. Hasan networks with the Deprogram crew, Chapo, and other more Marxist aligned groups without screaming about “tankies,” while Vaush leans heavily into that.

                Hasan is also generally much better with foreign policy, even though I don’t always agree.

                The biggest thing is that Hasan serves as a great gateway to Leftist radicalization, while Vaush ends up preventing further Leftist movement, kinda like a more Libertarian Socialist-coded Destiny.

                My fiancé and I will still watch Hasan even when we may disagree with him on some issues because he is generally entertaining and generally more correct than not, but would never watch Vaush.

                • HalfSalesman@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  24 minutes ago

                  Hasan avoids arguing with leftists because hes a cowardly clout monger and can’t debate for shit because he isn’t really that smart and is captured to some degree by his audience.

                  I don’t hate Hasan, I do agree with a lot of his takes but hes fundamentally a less ideologically honest person than Vaush. Vaush doesn’t give much of a shit about pissing off his audience, he does it constantly.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 day ago

        Support for chasers and sex-pests like Vaush is pretty awful, not to mentions his awful politics and constant butchering of Marxist theory for an audience that usually can’t tell the difference.

        Theory is important. Much of my list is newer, some is older when it holds up, some is newer when it meaningfully adds to the discussion. However, as someone who had your approach, reading theory directly genuinely is much faster than rolling the dice.

        I have audiobooks linked as well that people can listen to if they prefer, and importantly they won’t be distorted by a sex-pest who complains about Marxists constantly while misrepresenting them.

        • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          18 hours ago

          I am pretty familiar with Vaush’s arguments on Marxist theory. What are your points of contention?

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            18 hours ago

            The vast majority of them, to be honest. He has no grasp of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, has no knowledge of AES, and horrendously distorts Lenin.

            He’s a liberal that cosplays an Anarchist and pretends to have beyond a Wikipedia understanding of Marxism.

            That’s, of course, ignoring that he’s a chaser, pedophile, sex offender.

            • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              18 hours ago

              He has no grasp of Dialectical and Historical Materialism

              Can you list a specific example? I think he has a good understanding of this.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                17 hours ago

                One of the worst issues is when he depicts AES as “not real Socialism” because they contain contradictions, when Dialectical Materialism shows that all systems contain contradictions and must resolve them, that doesn’t mean they aren’t that system. Ie, Capitalist states contain public ownership, which is a contradiction but does not define the system.

                One of the recent and larger-scale issues was when he tried to explain Lenin advocated voting Socialism into existence.

                I don’t make it a point to hate-watch sex offenders that do the work of the US state department.

                • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  17 hours ago

                  Yeah, I am not surprised that you have disagreements behind Lenin and AES. The two are pretty related and hard to pull apart. I was just surprised that you would disagree with any of his Marxist takes. I think you both agree what the problems are from a Marxist perspective.

                  As for the sex offenders/sex pest stuff. I don’t think he is those things, but I understand I am just one person. From the stuff I have seen it is mostly people that disagree with him that label him as such as a way to get around the fact they don’t really have a leg to stand on; Fascists and the like. Not saying that is you of course.

                  Thanks for taking the time to talk this though by the way. I figure you get hit with a lot of stuff.