this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
884 points (97.2% liked)
Political Memes
9094 readers
2403 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So when the communist party came into power after the Bolshevik revolution, Wilson went to the League of Nations to negotiate a common embargo of the Soviet project, essentially sanctioning Russia the way we might sanction a nation for humanitarian wrongdoing.
This is to say Wilson was afraid of it actually working, which would jeopardize the industrial moguls who were already running the US.
This is also to say, the Soviet Union was doing a communism in hostile circumstances, much the way European monarchs pressured France to raise a new king after the revolution (leading to Napoleon's rise to power, the Levée en masse (general conscription) and the War of the First Coalition (or as is modernly known, Napoleon Kicks European Butt For A While ).
Historians can't really say, but the fact the red scare started with Wilson (and not after WWII) might have influenced events, including the corruption of the party and the rise of Stalin as an autocrat.
Also according to Prof. Larry Lessig, Boss Tweed in the 1850s worked to make sure the ownership class called all the shots in the United States, eventually driving us to Hoover and the Great Depression. FDR's New Deal (very much resented by the industrialists) was a last chance for Capitalism, which then got a boost because WWII commanded high levels of production and distracted us with a foreign enemy. Then the cold war.
So communism was really unlucky and didn't get a fair shake in the Soviet Union, and US free market capitalism got especially lucky in the 20th century, and we don't really know if either one can be held together for more than a century or two. EU capitalism is wavering, thanks to pressure from the far right, and neoliberalism failing to serve the public.
In the meantime, check out what's going on in Cuba, which isn't perfect, but is interesting.
You lost me at "the Soviet Union was doing a communism". Hard to see a dictatorship as the workers owning the means of production.
“The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated.”
— The CIA
(https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf)
And you think that describes the Soviets and isnt just a statement about the red scare?
The document linked specifically is talking about the Soviet system and Stalin.
Yeah, after the death of Stalin.
“Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership.”
It’s like the first sentence of the document dude.
Congrats you made the argument that it was an Oligarchy.
This is such a weird thing people believe in, no?
"USSR was communist!" everyone says, when there was nothing communist about how the country was governed. But, somehow, these same people don't consider North Korea a democratic country, even though they even have that in their name.
And every time I mention that "we don't know if communism works, nobody has tried it yet", I'm getting downvoted to oblivion...
I think it's funny that the same people who will mock us with "no true socialism/communism" are the same people who will blame all our problems on "crony capitalism"...
The reason is simple: we KNOW that the issues we currently suffered are enabled by capitalism. Because capitalism's core is "money equals power" and "more money equals more power". This incentivises behaviour like Shell's/BP's/Exxon's to do climate change research, learn that they're fucking the planet over, and then proceed to bury that research under a sleuth of fake, corporate-sponsored "research" stating otherwise.
People like me say "no true socialism/capitalism" because it's true. It's also true that we don't know what issues that system would cause. Maybe Universal Basic Income does collapse a society because laziness ultimately wins over all other values? We don't know!
What we do know is that every time a country/society tried implementing socialist/communist solutions to capitalism-induced problems, the results were exceptional. Look at Finland's homelessness statistics. Look at Baltimore and it's crime rates. Every single time a 4-day work week was tested anywhere on the planet, it was touted a massive success that boosted productivity and happiness of employees. Etc., etc., etc.
It's easy to get good results with capital from capitalist system and throw it into welfare. But you are taking about communism as a core system.
We don't see good examples of it because it fails incredibly fast, and then leaders who tried to build communism understand it, but aren't willing to acknowledge mistake because they will lose power. Thus, they continue to build autocracy.
If communism as economic system works, we first need to prove it as successful PLC of a smaller scale, such as a company that produces something being fully community led from the inside using communist principles, and for such company to be able to compete on the market.
Check out Mondragon and similar companies.
Yes, but how they compare to the rest of the market competitively?
I'll link to my other reply somewhere in here so as to not repeat myself: CLICK.
TL;DR: nobody has yet tried to actually build communism. Every single major instance (USSR, China, NK) where - regardless of beginnings - ultimately turned into totalitarianisms/authoritarianisms before any communist principles could take root.
Oh but they did try. You just prefer to ignore it, but soviet union did attempt different tricks from the communist rulebook - moneyless society was tried and failed, so they had to fall back to working practices from capitalist rulebook and promise the people "communism in the brighter future".
Same way communism was tried in Makhnovschina, Gulyay Pole (south-eastern Ukraine). Stateless, anarchy driven flavour of such. USSR killed all of them and then killed everyone who visited the funeral, btw, so they were afraid of them A LOT. What can we learn from anarchy? That Ukrainian farmers who were not forced into communist state preferred to have monetary relationships :-)
What are you talking about? They always had money. The reform you mention was the return to basing the value of their currency on gold to stabilise it against inflation.
(something, btw, most capitalist states have moved away from nowadays)
it's almost like there's a concept of political communism and then there's the Communist Party and they're different things but they're purposely conflated at least here in Statesia