this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
388 points (97.8% liked)
Communism
2593 readers
255 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not an adhominem also you can't prove a negative the burden of proof is on you. You're doing a Russell's teapot. You have made a statement that is false with no evidence to back up your claim.
You can't prove a negative, but they are easy to disprove if they are false. My assertion is logically negative, even if I didn't phrase it that way. One positive counter example would prove it false. Got one? The evidence of my claim is that no counter examples exist. How do I cite the lack of something?
And yeah, it was a textbook ad hominem.
Cuba? Yugoslavia? Mao-era China? Paris Commune? Spain in 1936? The early USSR?
In Cuba, large parts of the social surplus have long been distributed through universal systems rather than privately captured. In Yugoslavia, workers’ self-management gave enterprise councils real authority over production and surplus allocation. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege especially during the cultural revolution you likely demonize (even if that had its own major issues). In Paris (1871), officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In Soviet Union, the early revolutionary period featured soviets, factory committees, and formal attempts to cap official incomes and socialize surplus.
If you dismiss all of these, it starts to look less like analysis and more like bad faith. And your argument completely sidesteps the decisive factors, relentless external pressure from capitalist hegemony, war, blockade, sanctions, sabotage, plus the material limits of poor, devastated societies. Treating outcomes as if they emerged in a vacuum reeks of liberal idealism. That’s about as useful for understanding political economy as quoting scripture. What actually recurs historically is not some mystical law that “communism creates elites,” but bureaucratic pressures under siege and underdevelopment, concrete problems of socialist transition, not proof that surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class.
I would recommend you study some theory and learn to apply dialectical and historical materialism rather than wasting your time spreading malformed "analysis".
I never said communist systems don't result in some level of redistribution. Poverty in Cuba is widespread, but somehow doesn't seem to reach the political class. I don't think those politicians are living large on the fruits of their own labor. The US gets a lot of the blame for the poverty, but not the distribution within Cuba.
Yugoslavia isn't communist. I'm roughly a social libertarian and worker managed enterprise is something I strongly support. I support a lot of things with a communist flavor, and I'm probably closer to the communist side than capitalist.
China is your strongest example, though I object to the pigeon hole you put me in. However, I think it's fair to draw a distinction between distribution achieved though revolution and distribution maintained by the resulting communist system. The revolution was extremely effective, but inequality started resurfacing as soon as it ended. It's also notable that poverty in China didn't really fall until the introduction of capitalist "reforms". ( I would not argue that "reforms" shouldn't be "capitulations". )
I don't see the relevance of what was "attempted" in the Soviet Union. The discussion is about what was achieved.
I wouldn't (and didn't) say that communism creates elites, but I think it's powerless to prevent them. I definitely don't believe that "surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class". I just don't think communism is a functional solution. I do believe fair distribution is achievable, but not under communism or capitalism. I don't believe the spectrum between the two encompasses the entirety of what is possible. In fact, the biggest problem with both systems is that neither is structurally sound.
Oh, give it a rest. Imagine me assuming the only reason you aren't a raging capitalist is that you haven't read enough Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. That's what this sounds like, and it's exhausting.
You’re moving the goalposts. You started with “communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” Now it’s “communism can’t prevent inequality” and “maybe there’s something outside capitalism and communism.” Pick a lane. Those are completely different claims. The original one is already falsified. In Cuba, the political class does not own production and surplus is routed through the state into healthcare, education, housing, and food subsidies under permanent siege. That is not capitalist surplus extraction. In Yugoslavia, workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus, your personal approval of worker self-management doesn’t magically make it irrelevant. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege (especially during the Cultural Revolution). In the Paris Commune, officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In the early Soviet Union, surplus was socialized through soviets and factory committees with formal income caps on officials. These are concrete institutional facts. None of this fits your original caricature of “a small elite stealing surplus labor.”
On Cuba: inequality exists. That is not evidence of a new exploiting class. The Cuban leadership does not privately own factories or land. Complaining about internal distribution while casually brushing aside six decades of blockade, sanctions, sabotage, and economic warfare is lazy. You’re treating Cuba like it developed in a vacuum. I hope you can see how patently ridiculous that is.
On China: you admit Mao-era redistribution was real, then dismiss it because inequality resurfaced later. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated that outcomes depend on material conditions, not some mystical communist essence. Also, China’s post-reform poverty reduction rested on Mao-era foundations: land nationalization, universal literacy, basic healthcare, and industrial infrastructure. Markets were layered on top of socialism, they didn’t replace it.
On the USSR: saying “attempts don’t matter, only outcomes” is historically illiterate. Institutions don’t appear fully formed, they evolve under civil war, invasion, famine, and international isolation. Ignoring that context while declaring socialism “powerless” is like judging a burned house without mentioning the arsonist.
And notice how far you’ve already retreated. Now you say communism doesn’t create elites, it just “can’t stop them.” That’s not what you originally claimed. Marxists have been writing for over a century about bureaucratic degeneration under scarcity and imperialist pressure. You’re not discovering anything new, you’re just refusing to engage with the material conditions that produce it.
Finally, since you want to posture: socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference. It’s a scientific framework (historical and dialectical materialism) built on analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and concrete conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you feel comfortable lecturing people who do. Liberalism and capitalism, by contrast, rely on idealist abstractions about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.” That’s about as scientific as the Bible. If you actually want to contribute something meaningful, start by learning how material analysis works instead of recycling warmed-over liberal common sense and calling it insight.
The only exhausting thing here is your seemingly unlimited arrogance to lecture others on topics you don't understand beyond surface level vibes and idealism.
Inequality, at least the levels of inequality that really matter, is largely a result of the theft of surplus labor. I acknowledge the difference, but I don't see how they are not so different as to really impact my argument.
every attempt at communism has somehow also resulted in a small group of elites stealing the surplus labor.
That argument followed on my previous statement that "I think both capitalist and communist propaganda is full of shit". That has always been my "lane".
false
Now who is moving the goalpost? The elites don't have to own the means of production to steal surplus labor. The mechanism is irrelevant. Also, if the surplus is routed through the state, then those who control the state effectively own the surplus. This is mitigated only by the degree to which the politicians are actually accountable to workers. Cuba is a single party state with tightly controlled speech and media. Every candidate is nominated by the elites, with voters only getting an up or down vote. Not great accountability there.
You ignored my entire rationale. If I mug a king and distribute their stuff, that's not communism, it's revolution. Communism is a system of economics and it's supporting political infrastructure. Communism rose out of the revolution, but they are not the same. I judge communism by how it functions when the revolution is over. As communist systems were deployed, inequality rose right along side it.
I don't see how your statement invalidates mine. At no point did the USSR not have economic elites. Specifically the Nomenklatura.
I never said communism creates elites. I said it results in elites. If I leave my window open in the rain it results in wet curtains, but it did not create wet curtains.
Another goalpost shift. I spoke of communism, not socialism. They are not the same thing. Also, every country has "arsonists" to deal with. A political system that only works when the world cooperates is not going to be successful at any time in the foreseeable future. And yes, I do realize how not level the playing field was.
How exactly am I posturing? How are you not posturing?
Again with the socialism? Socialism existed long before historical and dialectical materialism though Marx did develop more rigorous systems of analysis. I'm a "hard science" kind of guy, so I'm not completely on board with calling it science, but that's just a quibble. There are many forms of socialism though, not just Marxism, and each has their own "scientific" rationale.
I'm not a liberal, and I support capitalism even less than I support communism - largely for the reasons you stated.
And I'm posturing? LOL
You’re still doing the same shell game: redefining terms mid-argument, ignoring material institutions, then declaring victory.
You said “every attempt at communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” That is a specific claim about class extraction. It is not the same thing as “inequality exists.” You keep pretending they’re interchangeable because your original statement collapses otherwise.
You wave away Cuba by saying “whoever controls the state owns the surplus.” That’s liberal abstraction. Cuban officials do not privately own factories, land, or finance. Surplus is overwhelmingly allocated socially (healthcare, education, housing, food subsidies) under permanent blockade. That is categorically different from capitalist ownership. Calling every state-administered surplus “elite theft” empties the concept of meaning.
You dismiss Yugoslavia even though workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus. That alone falsifies your “every attempt” claim. Your preferences don’t override historical structure.
On China under Mao Zedong, you claim redistribution was “just revolution, not communism.” No. Those mechanisms were implemented through socialist institutions: collectivization, mass-line governance, cadre supervision, campaigns explicitly aimed at suppressing bureaucratic privilege. When inequality later rose after political line changes, you treat that as proof against socialism instead of proof that outcomes depend on material conditions and leadership. You’re proving the materialist point while denying it.
You invoke the “nomenklatura” in the Soviet Union as if this is some revelation. Marxists have analyzed bureaucratic degeneration for over a century. Yes, a privileged stratum emerged under siege, devastation, and isolation. That does not automatically make them a property-owning bourgeoisie, nor does it validate your universal claim. Degeneration under pressure is not identical to surplus extraction as a ruling class.
Your rain-and-curtains analogy is embarrassing. Social systems aren’t weather. They operate under concrete historical forces. Treating imperialism, sanctions, invasion, and sabotage as background noise is textbook idealism.
Then you retreat into “communism vs socialism” hair-splitting to dodge counterexamples like the Paris Commune, where officials were recallable and paid worker wages, or early Soviet soviets and factory committees with income caps. These were explicit anti-elite mechanisms. They directly contradict your claim.
At this point the pattern is obvious: whenever concrete institutions don’t fit your thesis, you redefine “communism,” redefine “elite,” or redefine “surplus.” That isn’t analysis. It’s cope.
And your final pivot is telling: “no system works unless the world cooperates.” congratulations on discovering imperialism. Marxists begin with the reality of imperialism. You invoke it only to declare socialism impossible, while giving capitalism a pass despite it requiring global coercion just to function.
Now for the part where you really make yourself look ridiculous: you pretend you're some “hard science” guy while dismissing historical and dialectical materialism. I have a bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD in STEM, alongside a master’s in Marxist theory. Socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference, it’s a systematic framework for analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and material conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you keep lecturing people who do. Liberal capitalism, by contrast, rests on idealist fairy tales about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.”
At this point you’re either arguing in bad faith or you fundamentally don’t grasp basic political economy. Either way, this isn’t a serious exchange anymore. I’m done engaging with someone who substitutes semantic evasions and surface-level cynicism for material analysis.