Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I love communism and I think all these countries' systems are trash.
I don't think you can have communism with a hierarchical, centralized government or authoritarianism.
I also think the US has systematically undermined or simply overthrown every legitimate attempt to work socialism into communism, leaving only examples that morons can point at as proof that it wouldn't work.
So if you see someone defending communism and you think they're defending those authoritarian regimes, then your problem is you. If you honestly see people saying those regimes are great then they're probably tankies and you can safely ignore them and disregard this entire comment.
Even from that perspective, don't you see how having "illegitimate" socialist countries makes it easier for "legitimate" attempts to survive?
The US can't effectively sanction countries if those countries have the option of just taking their business to China. A multipolar world allows smaller countries a greater degree of freedom to experiment with different systems because they have options of who to turn to for trade and security, while in a unipolar world the US could just impose whatever conditions they want because they're the only option.
It is possible to oppose unipolarity and criticize China at the same time.
Certainly. I criticize China for some things. But I also critically support it and refute misinformation about it. That's what makes people call me a "tankie." Having a single kind word to say about anything China does tends to be enough to earn that label. The way I see it, to not be a tankie, you have to be completely and uncritically opposed to everything they do.
See, that’s where I’m super skeptical. The right system shouldn’t be so fragile that it’s easily undermined by outsiders. The right system should be like a cockroach: so resistant that it’s impossible to get rid of once it’s taken hold.
We’re talking about human beings here, not angels. No workable system should assume angelic levels of cooperation from its participants.
So as it turns out, when countries like Iran tried out the liberal democracy thing, they got infiltrated fast and hard by the West and their whole system was dismantled and replaced with a despotic puppet. So it's not that their current system is fragile, it's that gentler systems are fragile in the face of a psychotic belligerent enemy.
Communism, at least in the Marxist understanding, is essentially a fully collectivized mode of production and distribution. It will necessarily have administration as is required for mass production, and this entails hierarchy and centralization. Socialism is "authoritarian" in that the working classes use the state against capitalists and fascists, but this is a requirement for building communism, which is stateless, classless, and moneyless. It's no coincidence that the overwhelming majority of communists support the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba, and former USSR, as these are all states where socialism has been established.
It's less that the US Empire has successfully overthrown 100% of legitimate attempts, and more that it has tried to overthrow every attempt and has succeeded in some cases and failed in others. Communists are not "morons" for supporting the success stories of socialism.
I absolutely was not calling Communists morons. I was calling Westerners who point at authoritarianism as 'an example of communism and why it's evil' morons.
As to the rest, we're all different, and though I support some attempts, I support no regimes that use harsh, unending authoritarianism as a pretext to utopian communism. In my view it spits in the face of what Marx stood for.
If you had read Marx and Engels, you'd know that they explicitly criticized Utopian socialism in favour of scientific socialism. Socialism is not supposed to be Utopian because utopias don't exist, it's supposed to be real, and hence unavoidably flawed.
Socialist countries do exist, and are alleged by liberals to be "authoritarian," but this is meaningless without acknowledging the class character of state authority. All states are "authoritarian," what differentiates them is which class is in control. In socialist states, that class is the proletariat, in capitalist states it's the capitalists. Communism is not utopian, it's scientific, and Marx railed against the utopian socialists like Robert Owen.
I think Marx would be more upset with those who refuse to support socialist states for being "too heavy-handed" with capitalists, landlords, fascists, etc, as he spoke this of the proletarian revolution:
Hence why all discussion of authority needs to be grounded primarily in class analysis to be Marxist.