is this declassified? i want to learn more about this, where can i find more?
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
41 points (93.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8640 readers
256 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 24 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Because American schools have spent 60 years telling us communism is evil. But everything they point to that proves their point is tied to capitalism not communism. I am in my 40s now but growing up socialism and communism were evil. You have to educate yourself. My sons know communism is not hereditary bad.
Western Marxism Loves Purity and Martyrdom, but Not Real Revolution - Jones Manoel
The west lets the pure socialism in their heads be the enemy of socialism in the real world for their flaws, challenges, struggles, and imperfections. This causes them to confuse allies for enemies, resulting in a passive upholding of the terror committed by western countries against the global south.
i love madeline's posts; they contain so many kernels of truth that are just waiting to be popped if you give it enough energy; like popcorn. lol
Watch out, we're already on Agent 002's and their buddy the bucket's list.
LoL. Certainly possible it’s multiple people coordinating, but I think it’s the same lonely loser pretending to be a group of assholes. Same speech/text patterns, and you can see weird timing on comments that look like someone switching between accounts.
I noticed that as well. Those aren't the only two. I'm beginning to suspect s/he of a thousand names, and I don't mean Auset (although I would welcome her).
Actually in the US socialism is more popular then you might think. Bernie Sanders was very popular a few years ago and showed significant support in the presidential race. Mamdani just won the NY mayors race.
What we do not care for in the US is authoritarianism which seems to be the result of any extreme either libertarianism or communism, and we are too damed independent for our own good. I makes me both laugh and cry when the current situation is not good for 80% of people but with minor exceptions they still vote for it.
Sanders is a social democrat, ie capitalist but a supporter of enlargening safety nets, not a socialist. Mamdani claims to be more of a reformist socialist than a social democrat, but that remains to be seen. You are correct, support for socialism and communism is rising in the US, but the way you frame it is wrong.
"Authoritarianism" is a buzzword. It doesn't really mean anything when you hide from class analysis. Socialist countries wield authority against the capitalist class, landlords, fascists, etc, while capitalist countries wield authority against the working classes. There isn't some arbitrary scale of "libertarianism to communism" where the more radical you get the more the state acts. The citizens of the US Empire aren't especially independent, and the system isn't lopsided due to electoral habits, but due to systemic structures designed to perpetuate capitalism and imperialism.
The US is authoritarian against the working classes, and that's by design. The opposition to socialism and communism from older generations and liberals is more a product of the Red Scare and cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie than anything else, alongside class interests benefiting from imperialism.
Yes I agree that these guys are not fully socialist and what they can accomplish is limited. The more interesting point is first how the capatalists loose their shit over it on one hand and on the other I do not think socialist as an attribute is considered negative these days in general.
Sure, I agree with both of those. Capital hates restriction unless it is used in its own favor, and socialism in general, both the reformist type of the DSA and the Marxist type found in countries like Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, etc are rising.
"Authoritarianism" is not a word that describes any real distinction, it's a thought-terminating cliche that boils down to "any use of authority the speaker doesn't like", similar to how "terrorism" just means "any use of violence the state doesn't approve of". In practice, there is no such thing as an non-"authoritarian" government. It's an oxymoron. Every single government on earth maintains a monopoly on violence and enforces laws with that monopoly. It's doubly important to use that authority to protect a revolution, because no capitalist order will allow itself to just be voted away without escalating into full-spectrum war, as we've seen for over a hundred years, and will require a functioning state to combat. From Engel's On Aurhority, 1872:
All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social conditions that gave birth to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority. Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?
For something.more modern, here's a sick ass 2 minute Parenti beat that goes over the same thing
Downvote isn't mine btw, I save that for people who are being hostile
Then you come up with better word.
In my definition, any system where the general public cannot throw out the bums without violence is authoritarian.
The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. It just swaps distributed power for the even bigger problem of bigger concentrated power.
Just look at happyness indexes. We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent. Capitalists hate this and I assume communists do too because it shows neither is the way.
This is fundamentally incorrect.
In my definition, any system where the general public cannot throw out the bums without violence is authoritarian.
Not only is it your definition, but you give no agency to the people. If a socialist state is supported by the public, then that's a good example of a working system. I don't know what you mean by "the bums," if you mean opportunists then every socialist state has had mechanisms to expel party members that were more leech than diligent communists.
The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. It just swaps distributed power for the even bigger problem of bigger concentrated power.
This is also incorrect. Communism and socialism are both viable, and have been better at distributing power than capitalist systems, including the nordic countries. Collectivization of production and distribution spreads power out to the people, society is run both in a centrally planned fashion and from below.
Just look at happyness indexes. We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent. Capitalists hate this and I assume communists do too because it shows neither is the way.
You're referring to the nordic countries. These are anti-democratic dictatorships of capital that fund elaborate safety nets using the spoils of imperialism. Capitalists love this because they retain their super profits, and communists correctly hate this model because it perpetuates imperialism.
A better word for what? A state?
The bums
Who are "the bums"? Ask a communist, and they'll tell you it's the rich capitalists who run everything. Ask a fascist, and they'll tell you it's jews and brown people. This is the problem with not having a class analysis, without it you're permanently stunted at the childhood level of "good guys and bad guys", with nothing but vibes and latent social prejudices to decide which is which.
The is the fundamental reason communism is not viable. I
China is currently the world power, has lifted over 500 million people out of poverty, and has achieved the fastest increase in average lifespan in human history. The second fastest increase in human history was the establishment of the Soviet Union. As of the last Harvard survey, 95.5% of Chinese people are "satisfied or very satisfied" with their society. To saycommunism isn't viable is, I'm sorry, cope. Communist Cuba has been strangled by embargo for it's entire existence and they still invented a cancer vaccine. Incredible things are possible when money and resources go to something other than a handful of rich capitalist pedophiles.
We know the solutions that tend yield best results. They tend to be democracies with a fairly homogenious population and a socialist bent.
"It is known". And oh look, the old "different races and cultures of people just can't get along happily" racist brainworm rears it's ugly head again, along with the implication that communist governments somehow aren't democratic? The CPC has nine million members, and works by moving proposals up from local councils to national bodies. Meanwhile in our "democracies", corporations write the laws and it's legal for them to bribe the handful of legislators, who speak for gerrymandering districts full of disenfranchised people. Don't forget also that we have the most prisoners and prison slaves of any place on Earth. Last year I watched four riot cops break a college kid's arm right in front of me for the crime of protesting against Palestinian genocide. I say of "capitalist democracy" what Ghandi said of "western civilization": sounds great, when do you start?
It shows neither is the way
I will find whoever wrote that line into The Mandalorian and beat them with soap bars like private Pyle.
I agree. The Chinese are the most interesting. Trying to integrate a more flexible market economy into their social system is a huge accomplishment and what is needed.
The reverse is needed in the US. The other big challenge in the US is quality of leadership. Democracy requires an educated and engaged electorate, access to true information, honest fact based debate, good decision making, and a willingness to make it work. All in short supply these days.
Communism and democracy are not mutually exclusive
It's probably more accurate to say you cannot have actual communism without democracy.
Sure, and history proves that socialist systems run by communists have brought massive democratization to their societies because of the structures they implemented.
I absolutely agree. Have we ever seen that in the wild though especially at scale?
It may be in fact mutually exclusive in that it may conflict with human nature and most cultures. US is of couse extremely individualistic for example though not uniformly so.
Yes, every socialist state in history has been ruled by the majority, by the working classes. "Human nature" has nothing to do with it, what is "human nature" is really just the way our environment shapes us, including how we produce and distribute. This is why we can say there is "proletarian ideology," as working for a living shapes our ideas and how we think of the world.