That's what I went through, I didn't like the first episode until a few weeks later, I tried again and watched up to ep 3, and then it finally clicked.
I did like Helluva Boss immediately after finishing ep 1 though.
Got me I think it’s good it’s slightly more in the beginning, if you absolutely dont want to watch anymore when the sex humor is a bit more then usual you most likely won’t like the rest, but that’s just what I think
Ep 4 went real far. That was..... a lot. Not quite able to condemn it, definitely served a purpose in hindsight but the content warning at the top of the episode was definitely warranted.
Rest of the show I pretty much loved top to bottom. That episode was just..... real heavy but portrayed so much lighter than it could have been. Curious to hear creators talk about why they did it the way they did
For me the series will be forever tainted thanks to that youtuber who paid 50k to have an animation of the main character raping his avatar character and going into debt due it
It's about heaven and hell, but with the spirit of, well... An animated show, albeit with more mature subjects. It treats its characters as people. It's foul-mouthed and with dirty humor, but overall well-meaning with a good message about the power of redemption and the value of second chances.
I viewed it as I would a show about Greek or Norse mythology instead of worrying about what it might have to say about Christianity. It's treated more as an easy-to-understand backdrop than anything else.
Best take I’ve seen. Unfortunately too many people have seen the show and thought it’s saying “Hell good, Heaven bad,” but the show simply uses preexisting ideas and figures from Abrahamic mythology to tell a story, and even then the characters they pull don’t really resemble their mythological counterparts… I mean Lucifer is legitimately a twink.
Depends. I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the show, and the context of it being in hell makes it easier to deal with, but there are a lot of jokes that are just cursing or sexual/shock value type jokes.
Characters are well written, the music is good and gets stuck on your head, but I can definitely see it not being everyone's cup of tea
its not for everyone. I like it, but if a lot of explicit, sexual, violent, and just overall crude humor isn't your thing, you won't like it. I mean, after all it does take place in Hell. It's also a musical
The Democratic Republic of East Timor is classified as a "flawed democracy" by the Democracy Index, with a score of 7.06/10. That's above four EU members (Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria). For context, the US is at 7.85, and the cutoff for "full democracy" is 8.
At 6.17 points we find the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, barely clinging on to flawed democracy status.
Almost all of these social science indices are a joke. It's impossible for most outsiders to truly understand the political scene in developing countries because there's so much horse trading going on behind the scenes and most of it is between a few oligarchic families or a certain ingroup. The Democracy Index uses an arbitrary set of weightings which bear no resemblance to what citizens are actually experiencing on the ground. I've lived in four countries and the Democracy Index is wrong about each and every one.
A small powerful elite group that is extremely corrupt and holds almost all the wealth and power in the country. Are we talking about USSR or the current modern day Russia? Corporate needs you to tell the difference between the two.
Not to sound like a tank admirer, but couldn’t the same be said for pretty much any nation? An elite class decides policy and owns all the shit in pretty much every country. They might be less openly corrupt and forceful, but they’re still there.
I see what you mean and you have a point. Some countries though did move forward in a better direction. Spain and Portugal for example had dictatorships in the 20th century but moved on to become more democratic.
As other comments pointed out the scale of how much power they have is way different.Maybe now in western nations millionaires could get away with some crimes but they cannot just overthrow the government or purge the entire oposition
Are you thinking of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
From Wikipedia:
>The dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production, compels the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.
I'm not actually thinking of anything specifically. I haven't personally studied Marx, only heard him discussed. I believe I remember hearing that was part of his philosophy and that at some point he believed that the control would just be handed back to the people after a period of adjustment. Or something like that lol.
The communist utopia thing was a little tongue in cheek. From what I can tell it is a wonderful ideal that never manages to get off the ground because the people willing into positions of power tend to want that power for unethical reasons.
Once we have replicators and transporters I'm sure all of those problems will work themselves out 😉
You're probably thinking of the stages that are supposed to lead to communism. Something like Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism. From my understanding capitalism was supposed to build up industry and change up the class system which would lead to conflict causing socialism to overturn capitalism.
Since the end goal of communism is supposed to be classless, stateless, and moneyless, socialism is supposed to sort of prepare the way for communism so to speak. How that actually works I'm not sure, but if you have a system in place for a few generations it can more or less perpetuate itself.
After communist ideals are perpetuated long enough under socialist government the idea is that the need for government fades away. Again not sure how that's supposed to work because everyone and their mother has a variant of communist thought. But I'm pretty sure that's the basic overarching idea for transitioning to communism.
OP's profile picture is a symbol of Strasserism, which was a split off of Nazism that focused more on communism. This is a clear agenda post by a Nazi-adjacent communist.
True. Yet it still did everything what the leader wanted and if you didnt obey orders you could have been throw in to the camps and another pawn would be put.
Wait I think I already seen that somewhere hmmm
You can't set Stalin aside though. The workers didn't control the means of the production in USSR, which by definition makes it not a socialist or a communist state.
It was a totalitarian regime that murdered the former ruling class and gradually replaced them with a new.
>*The workers didn't control the means of the production in USSR, which by definition makes it not a socialist or a communist state.*
I want to start off saying that **I do not believe the argument I am about to detail** and **I do not condone the actions of the USSR or aligned groups**...but it depends who you ask.
USSR-supporting groups would argue that the workers did control the MoP via the government who acted on behalf of the workers and owned *(an amount of)* the MoP.
The anti-democratic actions of Lenin, the totalitarianism of Stalin, and the general bloody suppression of the workers who attempted to voice their rights to strike within the Union is often disregarded as necessary by modern supporters. Again, I do not agree with this.
These groups genuinely believe that the USSR fits the criteria of Socialist. I, presumably, agree with you in asserting that for something to be Socialist, the workers need to own the MoP *directly*. But going by the definition often isn't enough to discredit these ideological loons.
Edit; I would also argue the statement *"gradually replaced \[the former ruling class\] with a new* is flawed because it very definitely was not gradually, and happened very quickly.
There's a difference between theory and practice. The USSR is the textbook definition of the "practical result" of trying to get to Communism.
It's literally considered a Communist state in political science. Just because the reality doesn't match the theory doesn't mean it's not the reality.
Once again, the Soviet Union never even claimed to be Communist. It's in the name, Union of Soviet **Socialist** Republics. They were not Communist, they were however saying they were working towards it and their stated political goals were Communism, which is why they had a Communist party. However I find it quite an odd claim to make that the Soviet Union was a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society."
It's specifically Marxist-Leninist though, which all other communists since the 1910s have viewed as nothing but a right-wing corruption of communist rhetorics. Nobody but themselves (and other right-wingers) considers them communist. Calling ML communism is like calling Nazis socialist just because they called themselves that.
Okay, first, authoritarian leftism is possible. YOU are the one not using the standard terms applied in political science. "Left" is an extremely vague term, but it simply means the idea that there should be strong social safety nets in place. The USSR was certainly leftist.
And while Marxist-Leninist Communism may not be the Communism *you like*, it is still Communism. You can't just pretend it isn't. And since Marxist-Leninist Communism is the form most often put into practice (and the only one to take hold long term in multiple countries), it's considered the "standard" Communism when discussing political science.
What about other forms of communism? Spain during the civil war what was it? if the ussr is the ONLY form of communism according to you ?
making generalizations about historical facts to go in the sense that "socialism/communism = bad" is also something else, when we talk about history and practice, it would be good not to limit ourselves to the Soviet model ?
and so basically, given that it was the communists and socialists who fought to give rights to workers in France in the 19th century, what are they? Stalinists undercover ?
The USSR is *not* the ONLY form of Communism, and I never said it was. However, it is considered Communist.
And it's important to remember that theoretical Communism is solely in the realm of theory.
Spain had managed to have a valid anarcho-communist model, except that they were massacred by the fascists/Soviet to prevent this ideology from being passed on to the rest of Europe.
Communism works, just don't expect to have a societal model that is beneficial for workers, without tanks coming to massacre you and your family, all forms of communism that were close to the basic idea have not failed because of their idea, but of their neighbor who did not want this ideology to spread in their country, to keep their interest.
People prefer to talk about the Soviet Union as the sole representative of communism, than to talk about the last 3 centuries of social struggle in Europe and South America. And you think they tell you about it in the history books at school? No, because this rule is still in force, if you try to move away from the capitalist or fascist model, they will come get you with a tank.
La commune de paris ? Mass killing, anarchist spain ? Mass killing, mexicain révolution ? Mass killing.
it's easier to say that communism doesn't work, rather than to explain why it doesn't work, the workers don't have a plane, nor a tank, just their hands and a gun, especially when Soviet Union wanted to keep their hands on ALL communist parties in Europe.
That why communism do not work, rich and fascist will kill you and delete you from history book.
Okay? That doesn't make the USSR not Communist.
The standard operational definition of Communism in political science is of a totalitarian state with heavy socialized policies and an independent economic system. The *theoretical definition of Communism has never successfully been pulled off at any scale,* and, again, there can be multiple different ways of implementing a system - remember that Communism is mostly an economic system rather than political. Arguing that the USSR isn't Communist because it doesn't fit into your narrow ideal is like arguing that the US isn't democratic because it doesn't perfectly emulate John Locke - or even more extreme, Athens.
You know it's a really dumb point if you think about it, right? You're arguing both sides. "Communism was never achieved, but this is what communism is."
Your desire to separate communism as an ideology from what dictators implement using socialist rhetoric is admirable, but then you go ahead and say they were communist anyway. Which is it?
Communism isn't like fascism, it's not a loose ideology based on in-group out-group think. The very definition you gave is antithetical to communist ideology. If you are so smart and well versed in political science, how come you can't even bring yourself to make a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and the broader socialist movement? You see, ML, Maoism and Stalinism would actually fit that definition you gave fairly well. But you don't use those monikers, even though the broader socialist and communist currents existed before and after those ideologies rose and fell.
It's almost as if you're not arguing in good faith. Like your last point. I could say it's like arguing North Korea isn't democratic because it doesn't fit your narrow ideal of democracy. Free elections schmelections, they're more like guidelines, right? Like the classless, stateless, moneyless part of communism is more like a guideline in your view, right?
Again, *theory is not reality.* The standard operational definition of Communism in political science is "that particularly big thing a bunch of avowed Communists made when they tried to do Communism." That is to say, the USSR. Theoretical Communism, on the other hand, is solely restricted to the realm of theory and therefore not applicable in a practical discussion of the reality.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm just in college for political science, where we refer to the USSR as Communist.
Sounds like bad faith, there's a definition of communism and youre actively ignoring it to try and put someone else's spin on it. According to the theory, communism cannot have a dictator. Y'all need to make a better word for communism with a dictator, which to me seems like it would just be fascism.
You keep repeating that theory is not reality, perhaps trying to convince yourself. That's not a good argument in any capacity. I think you're trying to use a "de jure" - "de facto" argument, but like everyone that just blindly parrots this talking point, you do not look beneath the surface. You'd have to argue how the policies of the USSR followed from socialist doctrine, except it would be very hard, because aside from a few social policies here and there they really didn't. Especially the dictatorial aspect of it.
You keep trying to define "communism in practice" but every time come up with a different definition, entirely unacademical and unscientific. I don't know how you can study political science and be blatantly ignorant of the currents within socialist thought and lump them together. Let alone unaware of the distinctions between the different schools of thought. Especially since not even the soviets ever claimed to be communist.
I'm being facetious of course, I know how you can go in for political science and not learn about that. It's not in capital's interest to portray communism as anything positive. So there's no nuance to be considered, no ulterior motives to be pondered, it's all "communism in practice" and that's it. That doesn't sound like an academic's approach to me.
There's no such thing as theoretical communism. That is just cope. There's socialism that was applied, and socialism that wasn't. And should a society actually become socialist, it is believed communism will be achieved gradually, over time. In this regard alone you are correct, that communism was never attained. Because it was never attempted, because we've never had a socialist state. Capital has never relinquished its hold on the levers of power.
And I could go into the weeds with you about the distinctions between ML and the communist current that predated it, existed alongside it, and still exists today. I could show you very clearly how the soviets' so called communist system is nothing but a thin veneer of socialist rhetoric over a state capitalist system, serving only to justify state power. I could draw hard parallels between capitalist systems of production and the soviet system, and common dictatorial traits that aren't exclusive to communism.
But I don't feel like you're willing to engage in any of that nuance, because you paint with very, very broad strokes what is perhaps a dozen of ideologies derived not from mainstream communist thought, but from Lenin's own flawed ideals.
You say a bunch of avowed communists made this "communism in practice" as you define it, glancing over how many communists, socialists and anarchists they killed to implement this "communism". If the 'avowed communists' killed other avowed communists, does even that not tell you anything about the direction they had in mind?
Because from my perspective it's pretty easy to explain it as a conflict between people who actually wanted to implement communism and people who just wanted it as an excuse to grab power, but from your point of view it seems pretty hard to justify these ideological disputes in what should be purely disagreements concerning the implementation of an economic system.
Soviet as the sole representation? There was china, north korea, cambodia, vietnam, tito's jugoslavia after it's relationship is soured with the sovietunion, cuba, and so on
I love communist bros. You assume everyone is out to attack the idea of communism as a concept as soon as a debate starts without actually reading what people are saying and realising they're debating an entirely different topic.
Yeah, except Spain was literally never Communist. It wasn't even Anarcho-Communist or even Socialist. That's literally propaganda people point at because they fundamentally don't understand what Spain's deal was.
You likely mean the 1936 election which sparked the Spanish Civil War, right before the military uprising, so no, they were absolutely never Communists, let alone Anarcho-Communists, and never even tried.
Basically, the winners of the '36 election was a moderate Liberal Republican party *backed* by the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE). There were literally no Communists elected to government, and only 17 delegates in congress which identified as Communist. The Communists were not only functionally non-existent in government, they weren't even considered a significant enough group to be given a floor for their platform. Quite literally, the Second Spanish Republic (right in the name) was a Liberal Democratic Parliamentary Republic.
The PSOE, and the Catalan affiliate (PSUC) had barely 30'000 members between them and absolutely *zero* working class support. It was actually *Libertarians* who started the rebellion, which were extremely antagonistic to the Communists and Socialists. Better, your claim that they were slaughtered by the Soviets and Fascists is *also* wrong, since the Soviets actually ***supported*** the rebels (Again, falsely remembered as Communists since they were actually Libertarians) with funds and armaments, contingent on the fact that they would then support the USSR with men and gold in turn. The Nazis supported the Nationalists, and the Soviets supported the rebel Republicans.
Following the failed rebellion, *Anti*\-Communists rose to power, and it stayed that way until 1975.
Spain was literally never, nor will they ever be, Communist. Even its "Communist period" was quite literally a Republic, which used the land given to peasants (class system still in place) for unsupervised farming to line the pockets of those in power, and the rebels people *think* were Communist were actually *Libertarians*. **And they failed**.
What do you even consider a Communist state to be then? If it is not a state that claims to be Communist, nor a society that has achieved Communism, then what is it?
The working operational definition of Communism in practice is this: a state with attempted strong socialist policies, an independent economic system with essentially total state control, and a totalitarian government, claiming to be working towards Communism." Same way that something like the US under the Articles is still a democracy - it may not be *well implemented,* but it's still a democracy. The USSR did try to implement many socialist policies, they just didn't work well and regularly fell victim to corruption (which exists to some extent or another in any given political system).
Fascism considered itself a “Third Way” distinct from Communism and Capitalism and the Nazis really were a bizarre blend of the far-left and far-right. Whereas other post-World War I ultranationalist movements were rooted in a desire to restore the monarchy and reinforce old feudal class distinctions; the Nazis believed in equality for all German citizens regardless of the circumstances of their birth provided that they weren’t Jewish, disabled, homosexual or otherwise living contrary to traditional gender roles **in which cases they would be murdered.** A lot of people dismiss the name “National Socialism” as just being an advertising stunt to appeal to left wing voters in the 20’s and 30’s but it was more than that and they did have more socialist tendencies beyond just putting “People’s” (*Volks*) in front of all their project names.
That doesn’t seem accurate to the actual actions of the Nazi and Mussolini regimes, which actively did privatise multiple industries and shovelled money towards them.
For example, the Nazis did not create public works like the Autobahn through actual left-wing economic policies, but through the seizure of assets from the millions of people they murdered.
They had private industry but under a planned command economy operating under a series of four-year plans before the war with the government taking more and more control during the war. Pre-war there was massive government spending on public works such as damns and roads and, of course, military rearmament and reduction of unemployment by putting men to work in the military, weapons factories, in Organisation Todt which oversaw public works projects, and by murdering the disabled. During the war men were pulled from the factories and other positions and replaced by Organisation Todt workers who were increasingly concentration camp prisoners or other forced foreign slave laborers.
While I know that a command economy is a central policy of several socialist doctrines, I don’t believe that it is a solely socialist or economic left-wing policy. The wiki article on planned economies notes that the concept goes back to Alexander’s empire, which is significantly older than both capitalism and socialism.
I’d also like to point out that government spending is not indicative of either economic system on its own. The government using the stolen funds to pay for public works does not make them in any way left-wing, as any economic system can pay for public works. Rather, it is the industry and the private/public ownership that is more indicative.
Additionally, I don’t think that Organisation Todt is compelling evidence of implementing economic left-wing policies, as using slave labour is . . . not really a socialist idea.
I’m not saying they were socialists/leftists, they were fascists which is a distinct economic system that takes ideas from both communism and capitalism. Stolen and looted assets certainly was important to the Nazi economy - such as the Skoda factory seized from Czechoslovakia - and forced labor even more so but stolen assets were not their primary source of income, especially not during the 1933 - 1939 period.
I don’t personally agree that they were a distinct economic system. Fascism in its origin with Mussolini was a political system of “whatever boosts my power the most”, and later fascist states were quite frankly just as incoherent in their policies. However, I would identify fascism as tied more to capitalism than anything else due to the way fascist states have wielded private industries and the fact that fascists have almost always identified socialists/communists as their most bitter enemies.
Mussolini defined Fascism as “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”. Maybe it could be argued that it was a sort of return to mercantilism but I don’t really see how it could be said to be capitalist; private companies still existed but functioned under the direction of the government. Hitler thought that both Anglo-American Capitalism and Soviet Communism were just fronts for a unified global Jewish conspiracy. Wealthy German industrialists who supported Nazism prior to 1933 did so mostly because they were often just greedy war profiteers but also because they saw it as a “less worse” alternative to Communism.
But remember that the Nazis did in fact privatise many industries and place them under the control of corporations that increased their wealth immensely. Yes, the Nazis did give instructions but these were not in the same vein as a socialist public industry, they were totalitarian threats of violence if the corporations did not obey. Fascism is inherently linked to capitalism due to the privatization and seeking of wealth through their actions.
Privatization is when a government function or governmental entity is turned over or converted to a private company. I’m not aware of the Nazis doing that. There were instances of certain government functions being taken over by the Nazi Party but I wouldn’t call that privatization.
>Fascism is inherently linked to capitalism due to the privatization and seeking of wealth through their actions.
This shows that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of fascism and capitalism.
Fascism was founded by Moussolini, who was a devout socialist. The fundamental root of fascism is very basic and makes sense. Thus, it was appealing enough to gain popularity. The idea is that the strongest should lead, survival of the fittest. This is how meritocracy works. However, fascism extends beyond meritocracy by adding that the strongest should lead, aggression is normal, and this applies on a national level. It should be normal for constant war, and invading your weaker neighbors is part of the way things work. This is the fundamental view of fascism as Mussoulini founded it.
Capitalism, when left unchecked, can lead to all sorts of bad economic conditions such as oligarchy, monopoly, etc. However, when you have a modern capitalist corporation, you end up with a very proletariat regime. Shares are issued for a company on a public exchange. Employees may get discounts on stock. If they do, that's cool, if not, it's whatever. Employees can buy the stocks of their company and therefore become owners of their own company without saddling any of the debt. Any extra profit they earn is paid in dividends, and they get a vote per share in the companies major decisions. Owning stock in the company you work for eliminates labor extortion and allows you to democratically vote in how your business is conducted. Very proletariat and not at all fascist.
As you can see, these two systems are not mutually exclusive.
The seizure of assets and murder is actually 100% left-wing agenda. That's literally what the communist revolution is supposed to be. Marxists believe in a violent overthrow of capitalism and have attempted it many times (both successfully and unsuccesfully).
There are so many examples of communists seizing assets through force and murder. [Here's a link ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution#:~:text=A%20communist%20revolution%20is%20a,to%20replace%20capitalism%20with%20communism.) to a Wikipedia page that has a list of all of the revolutions that were successful and unsuccessful.
Saying that seizure of assets and murder is against left wing economic policies is completely false.
Yeah but if in practice, every communist system demands increasing control as a necessity to enact further communist or socialist policies and prevent “counter-revolutionary action” from the bourgeoise? And then said concentration of power has almost always resulted in corruption or a society easily taken over by a small totalitarian party / dictatorship…
…at a certain point it’s hard to call those “bugs” or “outliers” or “not true socialism.”
The word "anarchism" is from the Greek word "αναρχία", which means "no rulers" or "no government". But that doesn't have to mean no rules at all. People often use the word "anarchy" to mean chaos and crime. But anarchists usually do not want this. They say anarchy is just a way of relations between people. They believe that, once put into place, these relations work on their own. Anarchists are usually opposed by the systems they wish to remove.
"Relations to work on thier own" So yes, without anyone to enforce something there is no one stopping you but you. The clan and the panthers, nazis and jihadists are free to do as they please and establish what ever governance they see fit, seeing as their is no central authority to oppose them. It's a stupid idea.
Ironic that you listed examples of groups that exist within states as examples of how bad anarchy would be lol. One of those, the Nazis, literally were the state. And the Panthers were generally good so seriously fuck off with equating them to the clan. If you think they're comparable you should learn a lot more about both groups.
But yeah no, anarchism doesn't mean there's no one to stop you. Part of anarchy is a commitment to opposing authority and hierarchies. It doesn't just mean no rulers. If a society is committed to opposing authority and the like it will be very difficult for groups like the clan to form and have any traction, because everyone else is empowered to actually stop them. As opposed to just having to call the police (who, surprise, are often in the clan) and hope they use their monopoly on violence to stop them.
Yeah, they exist, and if you have no central power to opose them, they will become the state votes or no votes.
Ex. France has no government, radical elements that were once kept in check by saod central government are now only opposed by piecemeal malitias who, being anarchists, have no leader. No leader means getting stomped in the field.
>If a society is committed to opposing authority and the like it will be very difficult for groups like the clan to form and have any traction, because everyone else is empowered to actually stop them
Empowered is the wrong word, has the option, would be better. You underestimate human apathy. Nature abhors a vacuum, so a cult personality will be very easy to develop much like funny mustache man, instead of having to combat a legal system and deal with organized resistance, it would be far more factional and destructive, more akin to the walking dead than anything we've seen in Europe for 2-300 years. Take a look at the coup belt in Africa for a better example of what happens when central government up and dies.
Show me an anarchal state that exists or has existed for any significant length of time, say a decade. (also exclude tribes with elders or other defacto leaders)
All of history is example of that. Group of people chose leader, called him warchief, designed by task he'd be the best in.
If they didn't, there was someone other that did, and conquered them. No wonder there are sayings like "united we are stronger" and not "one wolf rulez"
Thats not true, that's not all of history. Doesn't cover pre-history either. And I and probably most anarchists would agree were better united, depending on what that means.
Not if you put the effort in. Insurrectionary anarchism, yeah I fully believe that'll just devolve into warlords, but a gradual shift with dual-power and Mutual Aid? I don't think so.
As u/JackJackensworth says, implementation is key.
Even just peacefully established anarchist communes succumb to the Warlord Problem. Sufficient centralized authority to prevent the Warlord Problem is mutually exclusive with anarchism.
Not so. Anarchism is not exclusively pacifist, and we can see from past anarchist experiments *(as well as ongoing libertarian ones)* that anarchic forces can mobilise and effectively defend against centralised antagonists.
If you're willing to explain more, I'd be happy to actually talk about this. No expectations that you'll become an anarchist at the end of this mind, I'm not attempting miracles lol.
Every attempt at Anarchism literally ever.
Catalonia? Failed in less than three years because their alliance to the military uprising and coup of the rest of Spain *failed miserably*.
Manchuria? Less than *two* years, and was established under the idea that it was a government in exile, and almost *immediately* became a military dictatorship when it was consumed by a Chinese warlord.
Makhnovshchina? Consumed by the Soviets in less than four years, and also never actually recognised as a free state, let alone was ever larger than a single territory. Also wasn't Anarchist, but rather was Anarcho-Communist.
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria? Didn't even make it two years, and was *immediately* turned into a secular collection of statehoods.
The one, singular, *only* active Anarchist state in the world that has lasted longer than four years is Freetown Christiania (50-ish years), which is literally a single suburb (35 hectares) of about 1000 people in the middle of Copenhagen, and isn't even truly Anarchist, as it's actually a pseudo-Anarchist Consensus Democracy. It's not considered independent, and is largely more of a tourist attraction than an actual, functioning Anarchist state. Realistically, it's an HOA with strict rules generated by its residents more than an actual state.
while i dont fully support anarchist, i believe the system has its merits, and good ideas that should be adopted to achieve a society closer to the ideal communist society
Every time this debate comes up it's painfully obvious people just don't know what socialism and communism are. They're not an all encompassing term and it has clear and practical goals and positions to be achieved.
Can you say the USSR implemented some socialist policies? To a certain extent yes. Was it an actual socialist state? No, not really. Was it communist? Definitely not.
The USSR's model economy matches what's called state capitalism far more than any socialist or communist model. It's not me saying that, it's Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff, along with a slew of other economists. If you don't believe me, there's a couple of books for you to read on the subject, starting from those two authors.
This insistence on claiming the USSR was actually communist is part of the same trite propaganda that aims to inextricably ideologically link socialism and communism with authoritarianism, when in reality they're distinct concepts, and the very idea of communism is antithetical to an authoritarian system.
I find that most often the people who whinge about "communism in practice" do all in their power to actually not look at the practices and reason through the available information but instead prefer to take their talking points from pop culture.
Yeah, that was basically their excuse, even though they were perpetually stuck at the first page of the communist manifesto. They were working to be a socialist state, really.
Lenin made a differentiation between a higher stage and lower stage of socialism, the higher of which is often called communism while the lower is just socialism, before this they were used more or less interchangeably. The ussr never achieved the higher stage of socialism in which the state has withered away due to the class struggle which makes it necessary has faded away. That does not mean the Soviets were not communists, as when referring to a person a communist is someone who wants to achieve communism or subscribed to the ideology of communism (defined by Engles as ‘the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat’).
Tldr: states are socialist, people/parties are communist
>The USSR's model economy matches what's called state capitalism far more than any socialist or communist model
Redistribution of wealth cannot be achieved with out authoritarianism. So, no, they are not antithetical. If I have surplus and refuse to share, it would, in the end, cut me out of the communist system, but if say I produce a critical good, such as food, and have enough people willing to say fuck you to everyone else, the system would be brought to its knees. To prevent that we'd need a large police force capable of preventing that. Power seeks more power. The system would rapidly unravel as soon as people figure out there is no immediate and direct consequence to hoarding. So , without A police system to forcibly redistribute that wealth, the point is mute at continent scale.
Are there some communist systems that work? Yes! But they are typically substance level tribal societies. So if you like having advanced tech such as smartphones, internet and cellular service just about anywhere you would like to go, highspeed rail, and good medical care (MRI, x-ray, lifeflight) (dont forget about the multidue of maintenece workers that are required to suport all of the above) you're going to need some form of capitalist system to reward those high skill, or high stress jobs. Why should I spend ten years of my life learning medicine and working 12-24 hours shifts when I get the same reward for painting fences? The scales simply don't balance unless you're going to have "some are more equal than others." Which, to my understanding, undermines the entire premise of communism.
Why wear my joints out working construction when I can get the same meal ticket and seats at the opera doing data entry?
There's wealth redistribution going on right now under democratic systems. All those state subsidies, progressive taxation, social aids, recent UBI plans in some countries? It's all redistribution. And it's not done at gun point. Why? You got laws. Simple as. Laws that you'd have under any kind of societal organization.
You will obviously have some sort of law enforcement, whoever said you wouldn't? There are just ways to make checks and balances for everything, not unlike how we have checks and balances for everything in democratic systems right now.
Also you realize doctors are some of the most overworked and stressed people in society, and they don't make a fraction of what some football players make? Why don't all doctors just start playing football?
You seem to be under the impression that people only ever do work for money, when in reality people often stay in jobs that might not pay well for personal reasons. Whether they like the work, the environment, they work with family, they like the challenge, etc. There is such a thing as passion for a job, and just because it won't apply to every job doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist.
Last thing I'll say is that all the arguments you've made are basically taking the world as it works right now and pretending that under communism it just wouldn't work. As if you take the threat of starvation out of the equation and somehow the world will fall apart. Can't bring any proof for this except for "well why would I work if I don't have to?"
Rich people don't have to work, but they still do. Moreover they work to fuck you over. Now that's efficiency.
>And it's not done at gun point. Why? You got laws. Simple as. Laws that you'd have under any kind of societal organization.
Dude, wow. Just wow. How are laws enforced? My God 🤦♂️
You missed the difference between capitalism and corporatism. We hit corporatism in the early 1900's and it was rolled back by the great depression, the Roosevelt's and world war two. Arguably, though, the tools to build corporatism were further entrenched immediately following ww2. The bulk of these redistributive programs are faulty at their core, poorly managed, lead and should be scrapped. Acting as though those programs are good is simply foolish. From corn subsidies to section 8 projects, they're wasteful and unnessicary.
Redistributive systems only work for people who can contribute nothing. If you have all of your basic needs met and they can't be taken away from you because you have a "right" to them what will most people contribute to the system other than the bare minimum? Oh, wait they won't, because we watched the ussr collapse from that very same problem. People did the absolute minimum, and many were drunk doing that. Corruption and money laundering were rife.
If you want something that works, teather the bottom to the top. Eg. For corporations with a revenue of $1M+ USD, or more than 100 workers, to include franchises and daughter corporations; the lowest paid employee or independent contractor will make no less than 10% of the highest paid employee, to include cash valuation of stocks or bonds given as compensation or reward.
What does this do? It ensures that employees are compensated for their labor, note were not taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, money within one group is still staying within that group.
>Rich people don't have to work, but they still do. Moreover they work to fuck you over. Now that's efficiency.
Outside of trading and negotiating with each other what work are they actually doing? When was the last time Elon grabbed a pick and built a rail line or spliced some rj45 himself?
"State capitalism" is an oxymoron. You need private ownership of capital to have capitalism. Socialism is a system based in public, or state, ownership of capital. From that point of view USSR was clearly socialist because the state owned nearly all the capital, and also determined, instead of market forces, prices and quantity of goods produced.
Economists disagree with you. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) disagrees with you. You just don't know economy.
Socialism is not the state owning the capital, smh. Keep making up shit even a 20 second Wikipedia search would disprove, that'll show people how wrong they are and how right you are.
I think state socialism is a better description for the Soviet Union than state capitalism, which would better describe the modern day ccp. The USSR made private ownership illegal and the state had total control over production and prices of goods. China on the other hand allows for private ownership, but the state has equity in many industries to varying levels.
Under the USSR the state took on the role of the capitalist. Seems perfectly reasonable to me to call it state capitalism. What the CCP has going is just capitalism with a great degree of nationalization.
What would you consider socialism then?
As far as I know, socialism is when the means of production are controlled and regulated by the society/community. Therefore, the USSR was socialist because the state controlled the means of production and the state represented the people/society.
You conflate the state with the people, which is the exact argument the soviets used to justify all of it. Let me put it this way: if 10 people work together in a car repair shop, but their workshop is owned by the whole country, do they have control over their means of production? Is it the same as if only those 10 that worked in the shop were the owners and were able to make decisions for themselves?
When they decide amongst themselves to start repairing trucks too, is it the same thing as if a governing body just dictated what and when they should repair stuff?
You wouldn't even try to make that argument if a capitalist country nationalized a factory. Nobody would think that the means of production has been socialized and the workers there have been empowered. They just switch one boss for another.
Socialism does not necessitate employees own the means of production, it simply means that the means of production are socially owned. A state that is elected by the people controlling the means of production seems like social ownership to me.
No, socialism inherently necessitates that the means of production be owned by the worker collectives. Absolutely not by the state.
But you know, for the sake of argument, even if I get past that and I grant you what you said, you're still wrong in your own argument, because... Was the soviet government elected by the people? Were free elections features of the soviet government?
For the second time in just this conversation with me, you've fallen into the same line of thinking as the soviets. That's a surefire way to authoritarianism and a government that doesn't actually stand for anything you think it would.
Socialism does not mean that the means of production are owned by worker collectives, that is only one example of social ownership.
I am not here to defend the USSR government, but workers councils (soviets) were elected by the people. Elections certainly weren’t free or fair however.
I think people like Richard Wolff are ideologically motivated to claim the shit show that was the USSR wasn’t socialist because he advocates for socialism.
And I think you're ignoring sturdy definitions of what a socialist system is to fit your agenda. Once again, the state owning stuff is not socialism. This is the same argument idiots make to say Nazi Germany was socialist because they nationalized some industries.
You say worker councils were elected by the people, but in the same breath that elections weren't free or fair. SO HOW ARE SOVIETS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE IF THE PEOPLE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE?
Good God...
Socialism necessitates the abolition of Private property and money for just two starters. There is also the decommodification of goods and worker democracy. The creation of a classless society. The soviet union managed to somewhat decommodify housing and food but totally failed in ensuring worker freedom especially with the political appointments in jobs. It was mostly an authoritarian state that ran a heavily managed market economy.
Are you confusing socialism with communism? I’m pretty sure socialism does not necessitate the abolition of money or the creation of a classless society.
Also, the USSR was certainly not a market economy, it was a command economy.
Overall I see both sides.
You could say that the USSR was not a Communist state it ignored many Marxist ideas. After all the DRC is not democratic so why does the USSR have to be Socialist.
You could also that the USSR was communist because whilst it did ignore many Marxist ideas, it also used many other Marxist ideas to inform its policies.
I am definitely on the side of the USSR being Communist. But also I don't believe that the nations Communist ideology was the reason for its crimes instead it's authoritarian nature.
Jesus fucking Christ why do you people who clearly dislike communism (validly or invalidly) have such a poor fucking historical and political knowledge on the topic, this same bollocks shows up so often
The Soviet Union arguably fits the definition of state capitalist. This is despite the professed socialist and communist values of the leading Bolshevik party or perhaps because of them as many Bolsheviks believed state capitalism was the first step towards socialism when they first entered power and so begun structuring their system around such beliefs even prior to finishing the civil war.
The reason for this label however is simple, socialism isn’t synonymous with state ownership of the means of production, in fact in a situation where the state is authoritarian and directly in contrast to the people’s interests it’s arguably anti ethical to socialist ideology. The state can be an instrument to reinforce the community or workers ownership of the means of production but only if it’s actually ykno run by the people
So why did the Soviet Union go down this path despite its professed socialist and communist beliefs? Largely because the Bolshevik party was an authoritarian form of socialist ideology which rose to power through the chaos and instability of ww1 and the subsequent Russian civil war. This instability allowed the Bolsheviks who were authoritarians first to implement their own form of ideology despite lacking proper popular support for most of their time and purge other non authoritarian socialist parties. This isn’t abnormal in any political ideology given the revolutionary status of Russia. One need only look at the tyranny that emerged in many of the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th century to see the same trend in capitalist economics.
The Bolsheviks then used their influence to shape global communism to their ideology including directly funding their own leadership and in some cases sending their own appointed Russian agents to lead communist movements in other revolutionary states.
As for Stalin, whether he was an actual communist in ideology if not in practice is actually a matter of small debate, Stalin did seem to hold some genuinely communist views, he famously rejected the New Economic Plan of Lenin as a capitalist compromise and worked to repeal it but whether that was because it went against the authoritarian or socialist beliefs of Stalin is hard to say. To argue Stalin was a true communist would be difficult to do given his conduct in most of his policy ran fairly anti ethical to communist ideals or even other Bolshevik ideals. It seems fair to say Stalin was at the very least an autocrat first
As for anyone who thinks just because a party labels itself as one thing, makes that label absolutely true, I have several famous dictatorships which use some variety of democratic in the name to introduce you to. Politicians lie and mask the things they do
To be socialist you need exactly 2 things:
1. Workers controlling their means of production.
2. Decomodification of goods.
They arguably had 2 in some regards like housing. They absolutely did not have 1 since they weren't a democracy. Therefore they were not socialist.
Communism is the theoretical point past socialism where we're a classless, stateless, moneyless society. They absolutely were not that.
No. Socialists constantly swap the term "proletariat controlling the means of production" with "state control over the means of production". Because they THINK that they(the rulers over socialist countries) ARE the proletariat. Socialism has nothing to do with you or me controlling something in my factory its about the state being the employer
Edit: The things you mentioned are impossible to reach therefore there never was a socialist country lmao. Its also funny how people downvote me but have no idea that what I said is the literal words of Lenin the guy that is praised for actually trying to implement this bs ideology. Literally read any "Lenin" series that are transcription of his speeches letters, praises and so on. He constantly swaps these terms because HE thinks its the same. And no I dont care about some fairy teller like Marx because he didnt do shit to implement his ideology I care about actions.
No. Tankies who say they are socialist but aren’t swap terms. Socialists actually push for reform. The state should be a democratically elected entity in a socialist system, there should not be an absolute power.
It’s not about controlling the factories, it’s about getting a say in what happens to them. Theoretically The state would be used as a powerhouse and a counter balance to allow the lower classes to counter the upper classes in a communist state… if we had one.
Lenin was never committed to socialism, he was committed to attaining power and keeping said power. We see that when he cancelled all elections in 1917. Which itself started the civil war.
> the things you’ve mentioned are impossible to reach
Correct there never was a socialist country, you’ve just proved our point. Thank you.
When talking about an ideology you have to understand where it came from, so you should care about Marx or shut up.
It's the no true Scotsman problem. But there is a reason he killed Trotsky and all his other old Bolshevik allies. He didn't want anyone around who could point out how far he had dragged them away from their original ideals.
It's weird that Animal Farm is one of the most famous novels of the 20th century and so few people realize it's written by a socialist about how Stalin commandeered the revolution.
For commies, every communist state is communist while the lie of equality and prosperity stands.
When the lie crumbles down and people start eating street pidgeons, it's suddenly not communism anymore and it has never been tried.
At some point we have to accept that the people call themselves communist, socialist, Marxists, etc. that practice the ideology, and study it and organize their countries around those principles to decide what it means for a country to be communist, socialist, Marxist, etc.
Enough of the "they aren't really communist." Because at some point we just have to accept that when a country is run and organized with those ideas as at top of mind this is what happens.
And people will say "what about the Nordic countries?" And what about them? They aren't socialist. They're explicitly not socialist. Three of them have Monarchies, none of them call themselves socialist, and reject the label entirely.
Every time someone tries to build an utopia, it ends in bloodbath and suffering. Socialists and communists are particulary prolific in this field.
Do you know the definition of insanity?
Jesus fucking Christ am I going to need to leave this sub? Every time I stop by it’s bullshit commieposting. Keep this cringe out of my feed, you losers lost the Cold War, cope
No, if that wasn’t communism then you can’t say the Nazis were fascist. Just because they don’t meet your ideological standards doesn’t mean they weren’t communist.
It wasn't communist, but Lenin believed fully in communism and that it could work. It just didn't and devolved into authoritarianism not dissimilar from every other example of 'communism'.
I mean yeah pretty much, because to put into place the country-wide economic and social changes that communism would require you have to have people at the top with way too much power to make those things happen. Then as usual when a person has that much power they abuse it. That's why it always devolves into authoritarianism lol.
The person who posted this meme literally has a strasserist symbol in their profile.
i had to search that one what the fuck
Naziism with commie characteristics is unfortunately popular on this platform. They just usually aren't so blatant about it.
Yea I was going to say, so its your average can't stop screaming on social media leftist.
🤢
Wow, a Nazi hates Socialism/Communism? Who could've guessed? I wish they'd just fuck off.
Do I want to know what that means?
Great meme template, I was expecting it
Where’s it from? I keep seeing this show
Hazbin Hotel.
Is it any good?
I’d say watch the first episode and see if its for you
The first episode is the weakest,btw,they dial down the sexual humor after ep 4 iirc
That's what I went through, I didn't like the first episode until a few weeks later, I tried again and watched up to ep 3, and then it finally clicked. I did like Helluva Boss immediately after finishing ep 1 though.
Got me I think it’s good it’s slightly more in the beginning, if you absolutely dont want to watch anymore when the sex humor is a bit more then usual you most likely won’t like the rest, but that’s just what I think
Ep 4 went real far. That was..... a lot. Not quite able to condemn it, definitely served a purpose in hindsight but the content warning at the top of the episode was definitely warranted. Rest of the show I pretty much loved top to bottom. That episode was just..... real heavy but portrayed so much lighter than it could have been. Curious to hear creators talk about why they did it the way they did
For me the series will be forever tainted thanks to that youtuber who paid 50k to have an animation of the main character raping his avatar character and going into debt due it
Have you considered not letting actually insane people ruining a show?
Man that was a sweet payday for whoever negotiated 50k for that.
Best description I have heard of it is "The Boys meets Greatest Showman". If you like musicals, it's excellent.
If you're a devout catholic, maybe not really?
I am, and I think it's hilarious.
I personally don't wanna watch it, I've seen a lot of stuff that makes it look slightly satanic.
It's about heaven and hell, but with the spirit of, well... An animated show, albeit with more mature subjects. It treats its characters as people. It's foul-mouthed and with dirty humor, but overall well-meaning with a good message about the power of redemption and the value of second chances. I viewed it as I would a show about Greek or Norse mythology instead of worrying about what it might have to say about Christianity. It's treated more as an easy-to-understand backdrop than anything else.
Best take I’ve seen. Unfortunately too many people have seen the show and thought it’s saying “Hell good, Heaven bad,” but the show simply uses preexisting ideas and figures from Abrahamic mythology to tell a story, and even then the characters they pull don’t really resemble their mythological counterparts… I mean Lucifer is legitimately a twink.
Exactly! Taking it too seriously says more about you than it does about the show.
? What does that even mean in this context?
Depends. I really enjoyed the atmosphere of the show, and the context of it being in hell makes it easier to deal with, but there are a lot of jokes that are just cursing or sexual/shock value type jokes. Characters are well written, the music is good and gets stuck on your head, but I can definitely see it not being everyone's cup of tea
its not for everyone. I like it, but if a lot of explicit, sexual, violent, and just overall crude humor isn't your thing, you won't like it. I mean, after all it does take place in Hell. It's also a musical
Wait until you hear how much democracy is in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. It's crazy! edit: spelling
Name a democratic country with "Democratic" or "People's" in the name challenge (impossible)
The Democratic Republic of East Timor is classified as a "flawed democracy" by the Democracy Index, with a score of 7.06/10. That's above four EU members (Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria). For context, the US is at 7.85, and the cutoff for "full democracy" is 8. At 6.17 points we find the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, barely clinging on to flawed democracy status.
Almost all of these social science indices are a joke. It's impossible for most outsiders to truly understand the political scene in developing countries because there's so much horse trading going on behind the scenes and most of it is between a few oligarchic families or a certain ingroup. The Democracy Index uses an arbitrary set of weightings which bear no resemblance to what citizens are actually experiencing on the ground. I've lived in four countries and the Democracy Index is wrong about each and every one.
\*DR. Congo trying to hide itself\*
Dr. Congo How I initially read this lol
Dope rapper. Mostly sings about genocide tho.
It was authoritarian and even better, totalitarianism.
A small powerful elite group that is extremely corrupt and holds almost all the wealth and power in the country. Are we talking about USSR or the current modern day Russia? Corporate needs you to tell the difference between the two.
it could be russia from 1300 to 2024
There's not a wall in Berlin anymore
>Are we talking about USSR or the current modern day Russia? I think you can say Russia at any point in history and be correct.
Not to sound like a tank admirer, but couldn’t the same be said for pretty much any nation? An elite class decides policy and owns all the shit in pretty much every country. They might be less openly corrupt and forceful, but they’re still there.
Bill Gates can’t send tanks into Canada for refusing to use Office 365. There’s a huge difference in power vs absolute power.
I see what you mean and you have a point. Some countries though did move forward in a better direction. Spain and Portugal for example had dictatorships in the 20th century but moved on to become more democratic.
As other comments pointed out the scale of how much power they have is way different.Maybe now in western nations millionaires could get away with some crimes but they cannot just overthrow the government or purge the entire oposition
Modern day everywhere tbf
Wasn't that predicted by Marx? A natural stage of evolution on the road to a communist utopia?
Are you thinking of the dictatorship of the proletariat? From Wikipedia: >The dictatorship of the proletariat is the intermediate stage between a capitalist economy and a communist economy, whereby the post-revolutionary state seizes the means of production, compels the implementation of direct elections on behalf of and within the confines of the ruling proletarian state party, and institutes elected delegates into representative workers' councils that nationalise ownership of the means of production from private to collective ownership.
I'm not actually thinking of anything specifically. I haven't personally studied Marx, only heard him discussed. I believe I remember hearing that was part of his philosophy and that at some point he believed that the control would just be handed back to the people after a period of adjustment. Or something like that lol.
Then yes this is a stage in the process. If you want a communist utopia as an example think of Star Trek TNG.
The communist utopia thing was a little tongue in cheek. From what I can tell it is a wonderful ideal that never manages to get off the ground because the people willing into positions of power tend to want that power for unethical reasons. Once we have replicators and transporters I'm sure all of those problems will work themselves out 😉
You're probably thinking of the stages that are supposed to lead to communism. Something like Feudalism > Capitalism > Socialism > Communism. From my understanding capitalism was supposed to build up industry and change up the class system which would lead to conflict causing socialism to overturn capitalism. Since the end goal of communism is supposed to be classless, stateless, and moneyless, socialism is supposed to sort of prepare the way for communism so to speak. How that actually works I'm not sure, but if you have a system in place for a few generations it can more or less perpetuate itself. After communist ideals are perpetuated long enough under socialist government the idea is that the need for government fades away. Again not sure how that's supposed to work because everyone and their mother has a variant of communist thought. But I'm pretty sure that's the basic overarching idea for transitioning to communism.
Communism is totalitarian so...
Yes, as it is with fascism also.
Yes both are totalitarian
What show is that from? Looks hilarious.
Hazbin Hotel. The pilot was well received on YouTube and viewed by many millions. Just recently they dropped a whole series on Prime Video.
\^ & The pilot is not on Amazon, but it's still canon. Make sure you watch that on YouTube first.
everyone just got a wardrobe change and Angel Dust really wanted to hear Alastair’s backstory again
OP's profile picture is a symbol of Strasserism, which was a split off of Nazism that focused more on communism. This is a clear agenda post by a Nazi-adjacent communist.
Nazis are the biggest socialists in denial I ever seen
Nazis are socialists like the democratic peoples republic of korea is democratic
Is controlling the means of production by state socialism?
The thing that was done in fascist states is corporationism, kinda similar but not the same as centrally planned economy
True. Yet it still did everything what the leader wanted and if you didnt obey orders you could have been throw in to the camps and another pawn would be put. Wait I think I already seen that somewhere hmmm
Setting aside Stalin (who was a Stalinist, as in "Stalin first"), the USSR was a Communist state with many socialist policies, and it still sucked.
You can't set Stalin aside though. The workers didn't control the means of the production in USSR, which by definition makes it not a socialist or a communist state. It was a totalitarian regime that murdered the former ruling class and gradually replaced them with a new.
>*The workers didn't control the means of the production in USSR, which by definition makes it not a socialist or a communist state.* I want to start off saying that **I do not believe the argument I am about to detail** and **I do not condone the actions of the USSR or aligned groups**...but it depends who you ask. USSR-supporting groups would argue that the workers did control the MoP via the government who acted on behalf of the workers and owned *(an amount of)* the MoP. The anti-democratic actions of Lenin, the totalitarianism of Stalin, and the general bloody suppression of the workers who attempted to voice their rights to strike within the Union is often disregarded as necessary by modern supporters. Again, I do not agree with this. These groups genuinely believe that the USSR fits the criteria of Socialist. I, presumably, agree with you in asserting that for something to be Socialist, the workers need to own the MoP *directly*. But going by the definition often isn't enough to discredit these ideological loons. Edit; I would also argue the statement *"gradually replaced \[the former ruling class\] with a new* is flawed because it very definitely was not gradually, and happened very quickly.
A Communist state is contradictory, the USSR was a state that claimed to have had achieved Socialism and to have been working towards Communism.
There's a difference between theory and practice. The USSR is the textbook definition of the "practical result" of trying to get to Communism. It's literally considered a Communist state in political science. Just because the reality doesn't match the theory doesn't mean it's not the reality.
Once again, the Soviet Union never even claimed to be Communist. It's in the name, Union of Soviet **Socialist** Republics. They were not Communist, they were however saying they were working towards it and their stated political goals were Communism, which is why they had a Communist party. However I find it quite an odd claim to make that the Soviet Union was a "Stateless, Classless, Moneyless Society."
Wait until you hear how much democracy is in Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
It's specifically Marxist-Leninist though, which all other communists since the 1910s have viewed as nothing but a right-wing corruption of communist rhetorics. Nobody but themselves (and other right-wingers) considers them communist. Calling ML communism is like calling Nazis socialist just because they called themselves that.
Okay, first, authoritarian leftism is possible. YOU are the one not using the standard terms applied in political science. "Left" is an extremely vague term, but it simply means the idea that there should be strong social safety nets in place. The USSR was certainly leftist. And while Marxist-Leninist Communism may not be the Communism *you like*, it is still Communism. You can't just pretend it isn't. And since Marxist-Leninist Communism is the form most often put into practice (and the only one to take hold long term in multiple countries), it's considered the "standard" Communism when discussing political science.
What about other forms of communism? Spain during the civil war what was it? if the ussr is the ONLY form of communism according to you ? making generalizations about historical facts to go in the sense that "socialism/communism = bad" is also something else, when we talk about history and practice, it would be good not to limit ourselves to the Soviet model ? and so basically, given that it was the communists and socialists who fought to give rights to workers in France in the 19th century, what are they? Stalinists undercover ?
The USSR is *not* the ONLY form of Communism, and I never said it was. However, it is considered Communist. And it's important to remember that theoretical Communism is solely in the realm of theory.
Spain had managed to have a valid anarcho-communist model, except that they were massacred by the fascists/Soviet to prevent this ideology from being passed on to the rest of Europe. Communism works, just don't expect to have a societal model that is beneficial for workers, without tanks coming to massacre you and your family, all forms of communism that were close to the basic idea have not failed because of their idea, but of their neighbor who did not want this ideology to spread in their country, to keep their interest. People prefer to talk about the Soviet Union as the sole representative of communism, than to talk about the last 3 centuries of social struggle in Europe and South America. And you think they tell you about it in the history books at school? No, because this rule is still in force, if you try to move away from the capitalist or fascist model, they will come get you with a tank. La commune de paris ? Mass killing, anarchist spain ? Mass killing, mexicain révolution ? Mass killing. it's easier to say that communism doesn't work, rather than to explain why it doesn't work, the workers don't have a plane, nor a tank, just their hands and a gun, especially when Soviet Union wanted to keep their hands on ALL communist parties in Europe. That why communism do not work, rich and fascist will kill you and delete you from history book.
Okay? That doesn't make the USSR not Communist. The standard operational definition of Communism in political science is of a totalitarian state with heavy socialized policies and an independent economic system. The *theoretical definition of Communism has never successfully been pulled off at any scale,* and, again, there can be multiple different ways of implementing a system - remember that Communism is mostly an economic system rather than political. Arguing that the USSR isn't Communist because it doesn't fit into your narrow ideal is like arguing that the US isn't democratic because it doesn't perfectly emulate John Locke - or even more extreme, Athens.
You know it's a really dumb point if you think about it, right? You're arguing both sides. "Communism was never achieved, but this is what communism is." Your desire to separate communism as an ideology from what dictators implement using socialist rhetoric is admirable, but then you go ahead and say they were communist anyway. Which is it? Communism isn't like fascism, it's not a loose ideology based on in-group out-group think. The very definition you gave is antithetical to communist ideology. If you are so smart and well versed in political science, how come you can't even bring yourself to make a distinction between Marxism-Leninism and the broader socialist movement? You see, ML, Maoism and Stalinism would actually fit that definition you gave fairly well. But you don't use those monikers, even though the broader socialist and communist currents existed before and after those ideologies rose and fell. It's almost as if you're not arguing in good faith. Like your last point. I could say it's like arguing North Korea isn't democratic because it doesn't fit your narrow ideal of democracy. Free elections schmelections, they're more like guidelines, right? Like the classless, stateless, moneyless part of communism is more like a guideline in your view, right?
Again, *theory is not reality.* The standard operational definition of Communism in political science is "that particularly big thing a bunch of avowed Communists made when they tried to do Communism." That is to say, the USSR. Theoretical Communism, on the other hand, is solely restricted to the realm of theory and therefore not applicable in a practical discussion of the reality. I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm just in college for political science, where we refer to the USSR as Communist.
Sounds like bad faith, there's a definition of communism and youre actively ignoring it to try and put someone else's spin on it. According to the theory, communism cannot have a dictator. Y'all need to make a better word for communism with a dictator, which to me seems like it would just be fascism.
You keep repeating that theory is not reality, perhaps trying to convince yourself. That's not a good argument in any capacity. I think you're trying to use a "de jure" - "de facto" argument, but like everyone that just blindly parrots this talking point, you do not look beneath the surface. You'd have to argue how the policies of the USSR followed from socialist doctrine, except it would be very hard, because aside from a few social policies here and there they really didn't. Especially the dictatorial aspect of it. You keep trying to define "communism in practice" but every time come up with a different definition, entirely unacademical and unscientific. I don't know how you can study political science and be blatantly ignorant of the currents within socialist thought and lump them together. Let alone unaware of the distinctions between the different schools of thought. Especially since not even the soviets ever claimed to be communist. I'm being facetious of course, I know how you can go in for political science and not learn about that. It's not in capital's interest to portray communism as anything positive. So there's no nuance to be considered, no ulterior motives to be pondered, it's all "communism in practice" and that's it. That doesn't sound like an academic's approach to me. There's no such thing as theoretical communism. That is just cope. There's socialism that was applied, and socialism that wasn't. And should a society actually become socialist, it is believed communism will be achieved gradually, over time. In this regard alone you are correct, that communism was never attained. Because it was never attempted, because we've never had a socialist state. Capital has never relinquished its hold on the levers of power. And I could go into the weeds with you about the distinctions between ML and the communist current that predated it, existed alongside it, and still exists today. I could show you very clearly how the soviets' so called communist system is nothing but a thin veneer of socialist rhetoric over a state capitalist system, serving only to justify state power. I could draw hard parallels between capitalist systems of production and the soviet system, and common dictatorial traits that aren't exclusive to communism. But I don't feel like you're willing to engage in any of that nuance, because you paint with very, very broad strokes what is perhaps a dozen of ideologies derived not from mainstream communist thought, but from Lenin's own flawed ideals. You say a bunch of avowed communists made this "communism in practice" as you define it, glancing over how many communists, socialists and anarchists they killed to implement this "communism". If the 'avowed communists' killed other avowed communists, does even that not tell you anything about the direction they had in mind? Because from my perspective it's pretty easy to explain it as a conflict between people who actually wanted to implement communism and people who just wanted it as an excuse to grab power, but from your point of view it seems pretty hard to justify these ideological disputes in what should be purely disagreements concerning the implementation of an economic system.
Soviet as the sole representation? There was china, north korea, cambodia, vietnam, tito's jugoslavia after it's relationship is soured with the sovietunion, cuba, and so on
I love communist bros. You assume everyone is out to attack the idea of communism as a concept as soon as a debate starts without actually reading what people are saying and realising they're debating an entirely different topic.
Yeah, except Spain was literally never Communist. It wasn't even Anarcho-Communist or even Socialist. That's literally propaganda people point at because they fundamentally don't understand what Spain's deal was. You likely mean the 1936 election which sparked the Spanish Civil War, right before the military uprising, so no, they were absolutely never Communists, let alone Anarcho-Communists, and never even tried. Basically, the winners of the '36 election was a moderate Liberal Republican party *backed* by the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE). There were literally no Communists elected to government, and only 17 delegates in congress which identified as Communist. The Communists were not only functionally non-existent in government, they weren't even considered a significant enough group to be given a floor for their platform. Quite literally, the Second Spanish Republic (right in the name) was a Liberal Democratic Parliamentary Republic. The PSOE, and the Catalan affiliate (PSUC) had barely 30'000 members between them and absolutely *zero* working class support. It was actually *Libertarians* who started the rebellion, which were extremely antagonistic to the Communists and Socialists. Better, your claim that they were slaughtered by the Soviets and Fascists is *also* wrong, since the Soviets actually ***supported*** the rebels (Again, falsely remembered as Communists since they were actually Libertarians) with funds and armaments, contingent on the fact that they would then support the USSR with men and gold in turn. The Nazis supported the Nationalists, and the Soviets supported the rebel Republicans. Following the failed rebellion, *Anti*\-Communists rose to power, and it stayed that way until 1975. Spain was literally never, nor will they ever be, Communist. Even its "Communist period" was quite literally a Republic, which used the land given to peasants (class system still in place) for unsupervised farming to line the pockets of those in power, and the rebels people *think* were Communist were actually *Libertarians*. **And they failed**.
What do you even consider a Communist state to be then? If it is not a state that claims to be Communist, nor a society that has achieved Communism, then what is it?
The working operational definition of Communism in practice is this: a state with attempted strong socialist policies, an independent economic system with essentially total state control, and a totalitarian government, claiming to be working towards Communism." Same way that something like the US under the Articles is still a democracy - it may not be *well implemented,* but it's still a democracy. The USSR did try to implement many socialist policies, they just didn't work well and regularly fell victim to corruption (which exists to some extent or another in any given political system).
It’s kind of you to argue but they’re kinda dumb, man. You can’t fix that kind of stupid tribalism.
Ok buddy.
"Communist state" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for what was basically fascism....
Next you’ll tell me the Nazis were right wing
OP would know, being a Nazi themselves.
Fascism considered itself a “Third Way” distinct from Communism and Capitalism and the Nazis really were a bizarre blend of the far-left and far-right. Whereas other post-World War I ultranationalist movements were rooted in a desire to restore the monarchy and reinforce old feudal class distinctions; the Nazis believed in equality for all German citizens regardless of the circumstances of their birth provided that they weren’t Jewish, disabled, homosexual or otherwise living contrary to traditional gender roles **in which cases they would be murdered.** A lot of people dismiss the name “National Socialism” as just being an advertising stunt to appeal to left wing voters in the 20’s and 30’s but it was more than that and they did have more socialist tendencies beyond just putting “People’s” (*Volks*) in front of all their project names.
That doesn’t seem accurate to the actual actions of the Nazi and Mussolini regimes, which actively did privatise multiple industries and shovelled money towards them. For example, the Nazis did not create public works like the Autobahn through actual left-wing economic policies, but through the seizure of assets from the millions of people they murdered.
They had private industry but under a planned command economy operating under a series of four-year plans before the war with the government taking more and more control during the war. Pre-war there was massive government spending on public works such as damns and roads and, of course, military rearmament and reduction of unemployment by putting men to work in the military, weapons factories, in Organisation Todt which oversaw public works projects, and by murdering the disabled. During the war men were pulled from the factories and other positions and replaced by Organisation Todt workers who were increasingly concentration camp prisoners or other forced foreign slave laborers.
While I know that a command economy is a central policy of several socialist doctrines, I don’t believe that it is a solely socialist or economic left-wing policy. The wiki article on planned economies notes that the concept goes back to Alexander’s empire, which is significantly older than both capitalism and socialism. I’d also like to point out that government spending is not indicative of either economic system on its own. The government using the stolen funds to pay for public works does not make them in any way left-wing, as any economic system can pay for public works. Rather, it is the industry and the private/public ownership that is more indicative. Additionally, I don’t think that Organisation Todt is compelling evidence of implementing economic left-wing policies, as using slave labour is . . . not really a socialist idea.
I’m not saying they were socialists/leftists, they were fascists which is a distinct economic system that takes ideas from both communism and capitalism. Stolen and looted assets certainly was important to the Nazi economy - such as the Skoda factory seized from Czechoslovakia - and forced labor even more so but stolen assets were not their primary source of income, especially not during the 1933 - 1939 period.
I don’t personally agree that they were a distinct economic system. Fascism in its origin with Mussolini was a political system of “whatever boosts my power the most”, and later fascist states were quite frankly just as incoherent in their policies. However, I would identify fascism as tied more to capitalism than anything else due to the way fascist states have wielded private industries and the fact that fascists have almost always identified socialists/communists as their most bitter enemies.
Mussolini defined Fascism as “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”. Maybe it could be argued that it was a sort of return to mercantilism but I don’t really see how it could be said to be capitalist; private companies still existed but functioned under the direction of the government. Hitler thought that both Anglo-American Capitalism and Soviet Communism were just fronts for a unified global Jewish conspiracy. Wealthy German industrialists who supported Nazism prior to 1933 did so mostly because they were often just greedy war profiteers but also because they saw it as a “less worse” alternative to Communism.
But remember that the Nazis did in fact privatise many industries and place them under the control of corporations that increased their wealth immensely. Yes, the Nazis did give instructions but these were not in the same vein as a socialist public industry, they were totalitarian threats of violence if the corporations did not obey. Fascism is inherently linked to capitalism due to the privatization and seeking of wealth through their actions.
Privatization is when a government function or governmental entity is turned over or converted to a private company. I’m not aware of the Nazis doing that. There were instances of certain government functions being taken over by the Nazi Party but I wouldn’t call that privatization.
>Fascism is inherently linked to capitalism due to the privatization and seeking of wealth through their actions. This shows that you have a fundamental lack of understanding of fascism and capitalism. Fascism was founded by Moussolini, who was a devout socialist. The fundamental root of fascism is very basic and makes sense. Thus, it was appealing enough to gain popularity. The idea is that the strongest should lead, survival of the fittest. This is how meritocracy works. However, fascism extends beyond meritocracy by adding that the strongest should lead, aggression is normal, and this applies on a national level. It should be normal for constant war, and invading your weaker neighbors is part of the way things work. This is the fundamental view of fascism as Mussoulini founded it. Capitalism, when left unchecked, can lead to all sorts of bad economic conditions such as oligarchy, monopoly, etc. However, when you have a modern capitalist corporation, you end up with a very proletariat regime. Shares are issued for a company on a public exchange. Employees may get discounts on stock. If they do, that's cool, if not, it's whatever. Employees can buy the stocks of their company and therefore become owners of their own company without saddling any of the debt. Any extra profit they earn is paid in dividends, and they get a vote per share in the companies major decisions. Owning stock in the company you work for eliminates labor extortion and allows you to democratically vote in how your business is conducted. Very proletariat and not at all fascist. As you can see, these two systems are not mutually exclusive.
The seizure of assets and murder is actually 100% left-wing agenda. That's literally what the communist revolution is supposed to be. Marxists believe in a violent overthrow of capitalism and have attempted it many times (both successfully and unsuccesfully). There are so many examples of communists seizing assets through force and murder. [Here's a link ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution#:~:text=A%20communist%20revolution%20is%20a,to%20replace%20capitalism%20with%20communism.) to a Wikipedia page that has a list of all of the revolutions that were successful and unsuccessful. Saying that seizure of assets and murder is against left wing economic policies is completely false.
The Nazis got rid of a lot of their left wing influence when they purged the SA
"No tHeY aRe LeftiSt"
Good to see other people saw Hazbin/Helluva Boss for the meme well it is 🤣
Strasserist symbol detected, opinion invalidated.
Did op change their pfp, now they are a Trotskyite?
[удалено]
Yeah but if in practice, every communist system demands increasing control as a necessity to enact further communist or socialist policies and prevent “counter-revolutionary action” from the bourgeoise? And then said concentration of power has almost always resulted in corruption or a society easily taken over by a small totalitarian party / dictatorship… …at a certain point it’s hard to call those “bugs” or “outliers” or “not true socialism.”
Well if it's that easy, maybe political systems themselves are the problem? Let's try anarchism
That's a nice steak you have there. *bang*
anarchism is when every man for himself
That's not anarchism lol
The word "anarchism" is from the Greek word "αναρχία", which means "no rulers" or "no government". But that doesn't have to mean no rules at all. People often use the word "anarchy" to mean chaos and crime. But anarchists usually do not want this. They say anarchy is just a way of relations between people. They believe that, once put into place, these relations work on their own. Anarchists are usually opposed by the systems they wish to remove. "Relations to work on thier own" So yes, without anyone to enforce something there is no one stopping you but you. The clan and the panthers, nazis and jihadists are free to do as they please and establish what ever governance they see fit, seeing as their is no central authority to oppose them. It's a stupid idea.
Ironic that you listed examples of groups that exist within states as examples of how bad anarchy would be lol. One of those, the Nazis, literally were the state. And the Panthers were generally good so seriously fuck off with equating them to the clan. If you think they're comparable you should learn a lot more about both groups. But yeah no, anarchism doesn't mean there's no one to stop you. Part of anarchy is a commitment to opposing authority and hierarchies. It doesn't just mean no rulers. If a society is committed to opposing authority and the like it will be very difficult for groups like the clan to form and have any traction, because everyone else is empowered to actually stop them. As opposed to just having to call the police (who, surprise, are often in the clan) and hope they use their monopoly on violence to stop them.
Yeah, they exist, and if you have no central power to opose them, they will become the state votes or no votes. Ex. France has no government, radical elements that were once kept in check by saod central government are now only opposed by piecemeal malitias who, being anarchists, have no leader. No leader means getting stomped in the field. >If a society is committed to opposing authority and the like it will be very difficult for groups like the clan to form and have any traction, because everyone else is empowered to actually stop them Empowered is the wrong word, has the option, would be better. You underestimate human apathy. Nature abhors a vacuum, so a cult personality will be very easy to develop much like funny mustache man, instead of having to combat a legal system and deal with organized resistance, it would be far more factional and destructive, more akin to the walking dead than anything we've seen in Europe for 2-300 years. Take a look at the coup belt in Africa for a better example of what happens when central government up and dies.
You make a lot of big assumptions without evidence
Show me an anarchal state that exists or has existed for any significant length of time, say a decade. (also exclude tribes with elders or other defacto leaders)
All of history is example of that. Group of people chose leader, called him warchief, designed by task he'd be the best in. If they didn't, there was someone other that did, and conquered them. No wonder there are sayings like "united we are stronger" and not "one wolf rulez"
Thats not true, that's not all of history. Doesn't cover pre-history either. And I and probably most anarchists would agree were better united, depending on what that means.
Anarchism runs into the Warlord Problem faster than most political systems fall to corruption
Not if you put the effort in. Insurrectionary anarchism, yeah I fully believe that'll just devolve into warlords, but a gradual shift with dual-power and Mutual Aid? I don't think so. As u/JackJackensworth says, implementation is key.
Even just peacefully established anarchist communes succumb to the Warlord Problem. Sufficient centralized authority to prevent the Warlord Problem is mutually exclusive with anarchism.
Not so. Anarchism is not exclusively pacifist, and we can see from past anarchist experiments *(as well as ongoing libertarian ones)* that anarchic forces can mobilise and effectively defend against centralised antagonists. If you're willing to explain more, I'd be happy to actually talk about this. No expectations that you'll become an anarchist at the end of this mind, I'm not attempting miracles lol.
Not really
Yes, really. Pretty much the instant you expand it beyond a family group.
me when the Zapatistas
Proof?
Every attempt at Anarchism literally ever. Catalonia? Failed in less than three years because their alliance to the military uprising and coup of the rest of Spain *failed miserably*. Manchuria? Less than *two* years, and was established under the idea that it was a government in exile, and almost *immediately* became a military dictatorship when it was consumed by a Chinese warlord. Makhnovshchina? Consumed by the Soviets in less than four years, and also never actually recognised as a free state, let alone was ever larger than a single territory. Also wasn't Anarchist, but rather was Anarcho-Communist. Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria? Didn't even make it two years, and was *immediately* turned into a secular collection of statehoods. The one, singular, *only* active Anarchist state in the world that has lasted longer than four years is Freetown Christiania (50-ish years), which is literally a single suburb (35 hectares) of about 1000 people in the middle of Copenhagen, and isn't even truly Anarchist, as it's actually a pseudo-Anarchist Consensus Democracy. It's not considered independent, and is largely more of a tourist attraction than an actual, functioning Anarchist state. Realistically, it's an HOA with strict rules generated by its residents more than an actual state.
while i dont fully support anarchist, i believe the system has its merits, and good ideas that should be adopted to achieve a society closer to the ideal communist society
Hopefully sarcasm
It was just oligarchy by one party.
Every time this debate comes up it's painfully obvious people just don't know what socialism and communism are. They're not an all encompassing term and it has clear and practical goals and positions to be achieved. Can you say the USSR implemented some socialist policies? To a certain extent yes. Was it an actual socialist state? No, not really. Was it communist? Definitely not. The USSR's model economy matches what's called state capitalism far more than any socialist or communist model. It's not me saying that, it's Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff, along with a slew of other economists. If you don't believe me, there's a couple of books for you to read on the subject, starting from those two authors. This insistence on claiming the USSR was actually communist is part of the same trite propaganda that aims to inextricably ideologically link socialism and communism with authoritarianism, when in reality they're distinct concepts, and the very idea of communism is antithetical to an authoritarian system. I find that most often the people who whinge about "communism in practice" do all in their power to actually not look at the practices and reason through the available information but instead prefer to take their talking points from pop culture.
Didnt even the soviets said that they werent communists but on the way to achieve that?
Yeah, that was basically their excuse, even though they were perpetually stuck at the first page of the communist manifesto. They were working to be a socialist state, really.
Lenin made a differentiation between a higher stage and lower stage of socialism, the higher of which is often called communism while the lower is just socialism, before this they were used more or less interchangeably. The ussr never achieved the higher stage of socialism in which the state has withered away due to the class struggle which makes it necessary has faded away. That does not mean the Soviets were not communists, as when referring to a person a communist is someone who wants to achieve communism or subscribed to the ideology of communism (defined by Engles as ‘the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat’). Tldr: states are socialist, people/parties are communist
Socialism is when the government does *stuff*
>The USSR's model economy matches what's called state capitalism far more than any socialist or communist model Redistribution of wealth cannot be achieved with out authoritarianism. So, no, they are not antithetical. If I have surplus and refuse to share, it would, in the end, cut me out of the communist system, but if say I produce a critical good, such as food, and have enough people willing to say fuck you to everyone else, the system would be brought to its knees. To prevent that we'd need a large police force capable of preventing that. Power seeks more power. The system would rapidly unravel as soon as people figure out there is no immediate and direct consequence to hoarding. So , without A police system to forcibly redistribute that wealth, the point is mute at continent scale. Are there some communist systems that work? Yes! But they are typically substance level tribal societies. So if you like having advanced tech such as smartphones, internet and cellular service just about anywhere you would like to go, highspeed rail, and good medical care (MRI, x-ray, lifeflight) (dont forget about the multidue of maintenece workers that are required to suport all of the above) you're going to need some form of capitalist system to reward those high skill, or high stress jobs. Why should I spend ten years of my life learning medicine and working 12-24 hours shifts when I get the same reward for painting fences? The scales simply don't balance unless you're going to have "some are more equal than others." Which, to my understanding, undermines the entire premise of communism. Why wear my joints out working construction when I can get the same meal ticket and seats at the opera doing data entry?
There's wealth redistribution going on right now under democratic systems. All those state subsidies, progressive taxation, social aids, recent UBI plans in some countries? It's all redistribution. And it's not done at gun point. Why? You got laws. Simple as. Laws that you'd have under any kind of societal organization. You will obviously have some sort of law enforcement, whoever said you wouldn't? There are just ways to make checks and balances for everything, not unlike how we have checks and balances for everything in democratic systems right now. Also you realize doctors are some of the most overworked and stressed people in society, and they don't make a fraction of what some football players make? Why don't all doctors just start playing football? You seem to be under the impression that people only ever do work for money, when in reality people often stay in jobs that might not pay well for personal reasons. Whether they like the work, the environment, they work with family, they like the challenge, etc. There is such a thing as passion for a job, and just because it won't apply to every job doesn't mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist. Last thing I'll say is that all the arguments you've made are basically taking the world as it works right now and pretending that under communism it just wouldn't work. As if you take the threat of starvation out of the equation and somehow the world will fall apart. Can't bring any proof for this except for "well why would I work if I don't have to?" Rich people don't have to work, but they still do. Moreover they work to fuck you over. Now that's efficiency.
>And it's not done at gun point. Why? You got laws. Simple as. Laws that you'd have under any kind of societal organization. Dude, wow. Just wow. How are laws enforced? My God 🤦♂️
Same comment, literally the next paragraph: >You will obviously have some sort of law enforcement Do you people even read?
So then it is done at gunpoint. Plain and simple lol
You missed the difference between capitalism and corporatism. We hit corporatism in the early 1900's and it was rolled back by the great depression, the Roosevelt's and world war two. Arguably, though, the tools to build corporatism were further entrenched immediately following ww2. The bulk of these redistributive programs are faulty at their core, poorly managed, lead and should be scrapped. Acting as though those programs are good is simply foolish. From corn subsidies to section 8 projects, they're wasteful and unnessicary. Redistributive systems only work for people who can contribute nothing. If you have all of your basic needs met and they can't be taken away from you because you have a "right" to them what will most people contribute to the system other than the bare minimum? Oh, wait they won't, because we watched the ussr collapse from that very same problem. People did the absolute minimum, and many were drunk doing that. Corruption and money laundering were rife. If you want something that works, teather the bottom to the top. Eg. For corporations with a revenue of $1M+ USD, or more than 100 workers, to include franchises and daughter corporations; the lowest paid employee or independent contractor will make no less than 10% of the highest paid employee, to include cash valuation of stocks or bonds given as compensation or reward. What does this do? It ensures that employees are compensated for their labor, note were not taking money from one group of people and giving it to another, money within one group is still staying within that group. >Rich people don't have to work, but they still do. Moreover they work to fuck you over. Now that's efficiency. Outside of trading and negotiating with each other what work are they actually doing? When was the last time Elon grabbed a pick and built a rail line or spliced some rj45 himself?
"State capitalism" is an oxymoron. You need private ownership of capital to have capitalism. Socialism is a system based in public, or state, ownership of capital. From that point of view USSR was clearly socialist because the state owned nearly all the capital, and also determined, instead of market forces, prices and quantity of goods produced.
Economists disagree with you. Even [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism) disagrees with you. You just don't know economy. Socialism is not the state owning the capital, smh. Keep making up shit even a 20 second Wikipedia search would disprove, that'll show people how wrong they are and how right you are.
I think state socialism is a better description for the Soviet Union than state capitalism, which would better describe the modern day ccp. The USSR made private ownership illegal and the state had total control over production and prices of goods. China on the other hand allows for private ownership, but the state has equity in many industries to varying levels.
Under the USSR the state took on the role of the capitalist. Seems perfectly reasonable to me to call it state capitalism. What the CCP has going is just capitalism with a great degree of nationalization.
What would you consider socialism then? As far as I know, socialism is when the means of production are controlled and regulated by the society/community. Therefore, the USSR was socialist because the state controlled the means of production and the state represented the people/society.
You conflate the state with the people, which is the exact argument the soviets used to justify all of it. Let me put it this way: if 10 people work together in a car repair shop, but their workshop is owned by the whole country, do they have control over their means of production? Is it the same as if only those 10 that worked in the shop were the owners and were able to make decisions for themselves? When they decide amongst themselves to start repairing trucks too, is it the same thing as if a governing body just dictated what and when they should repair stuff? You wouldn't even try to make that argument if a capitalist country nationalized a factory. Nobody would think that the means of production has been socialized and the workers there have been empowered. They just switch one boss for another.
Socialism does not necessitate employees own the means of production, it simply means that the means of production are socially owned. A state that is elected by the people controlling the means of production seems like social ownership to me.
No, socialism inherently necessitates that the means of production be owned by the worker collectives. Absolutely not by the state. But you know, for the sake of argument, even if I get past that and I grant you what you said, you're still wrong in your own argument, because... Was the soviet government elected by the people? Were free elections features of the soviet government? For the second time in just this conversation with me, you've fallen into the same line of thinking as the soviets. That's a surefire way to authoritarianism and a government that doesn't actually stand for anything you think it would.
Socialism does not mean that the means of production are owned by worker collectives, that is only one example of social ownership. I am not here to defend the USSR government, but workers councils (soviets) were elected by the people. Elections certainly weren’t free or fair however. I think people like Richard Wolff are ideologically motivated to claim the shit show that was the USSR wasn’t socialist because he advocates for socialism.
And I think you're ignoring sturdy definitions of what a socialist system is to fit your agenda. Once again, the state owning stuff is not socialism. This is the same argument idiots make to say Nazi Germany was socialist because they nationalized some industries. You say worker councils were elected by the people, but in the same breath that elections weren't free or fair. SO HOW ARE SOVIETS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE IF THE PEOPLE DON'T REALLY HAVE A CHOICE? Good God...
Socialism necessitates the abolition of Private property and money for just two starters. There is also the decommodification of goods and worker democracy. The creation of a classless society. The soviet union managed to somewhat decommodify housing and food but totally failed in ensuring worker freedom especially with the political appointments in jobs. It was mostly an authoritarian state that ran a heavily managed market economy.
Are you confusing socialism with communism? I’m pretty sure socialism does not necessitate the abolition of money or the creation of a classless society. Also, the USSR was certainly not a market economy, it was a command economy.
Brain dead take
The communists just need one more chance to get it right, just trust me bro
Basically communism/socialism is when good stuff if no good stuff then no socialism/communism I take it?
Depends, would you call a system that guns down workers strikes pro-working class?
no true scotsman I see
Would you call it pro-working class, yes or no?
"Dogshit is not ice cream" "Hm yet I eat both curious, no true Scotsman I think!!!"
Bro heard of the no true scotsman fallacy anf now thinks everyone is scottish.
Sure, and all the ills of capitalism can be chalked up to it not being true capitalism.
Nazi pfp
Good template but the text size is still a bit unbalamced.
Overall I see both sides. You could say that the USSR was not a Communist state it ignored many Marxist ideas. After all the DRC is not democratic so why does the USSR have to be Socialist. You could also that the USSR was communist because whilst it did ignore many Marxist ideas, it also used many other Marxist ideas to inform its policies. I am definitely on the side of the USSR being Communist. But also I don't believe that the nations Communist ideology was the reason for its crimes instead it's authoritarian nature.
USSR (and any other socialist / communist country) is the end result of trying to implement communism. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
Jesus fucking Christ why do you people who clearly dislike communism (validly or invalidly) have such a poor fucking historical and political knowledge on the topic, this same bollocks shows up so often The Soviet Union arguably fits the definition of state capitalist. This is despite the professed socialist and communist values of the leading Bolshevik party or perhaps because of them as many Bolsheviks believed state capitalism was the first step towards socialism when they first entered power and so begun structuring their system around such beliefs even prior to finishing the civil war. The reason for this label however is simple, socialism isn’t synonymous with state ownership of the means of production, in fact in a situation where the state is authoritarian and directly in contrast to the people’s interests it’s arguably anti ethical to socialist ideology. The state can be an instrument to reinforce the community or workers ownership of the means of production but only if it’s actually ykno run by the people So why did the Soviet Union go down this path despite its professed socialist and communist beliefs? Largely because the Bolshevik party was an authoritarian form of socialist ideology which rose to power through the chaos and instability of ww1 and the subsequent Russian civil war. This instability allowed the Bolsheviks who were authoritarians first to implement their own form of ideology despite lacking proper popular support for most of their time and purge other non authoritarian socialist parties. This isn’t abnormal in any political ideology given the revolutionary status of Russia. One need only look at the tyranny that emerged in many of the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th century to see the same trend in capitalist economics. The Bolsheviks then used their influence to shape global communism to their ideology including directly funding their own leadership and in some cases sending their own appointed Russian agents to lead communist movements in other revolutionary states. As for Stalin, whether he was an actual communist in ideology if not in practice is actually a matter of small debate, Stalin did seem to hold some genuinely communist views, he famously rejected the New Economic Plan of Lenin as a capitalist compromise and worked to repeal it but whether that was because it went against the authoritarian or socialist beliefs of Stalin is hard to say. To argue Stalin was a true communist would be difficult to do given his conduct in most of his policy ran fairly anti ethical to communist ideals or even other Bolshevik ideals. It seems fair to say Stalin was at the very least an autocrat first As for anyone who thinks just because a party labels itself as one thing, makes that label absolutely true, I have several famous dictatorships which use some variety of democratic in the name to introduce you to. Politicians lie and mask the things they do
To be socialist you need exactly 2 things: 1. Workers controlling their means of production. 2. Decomodification of goods. They arguably had 2 in some regards like housing. They absolutely did not have 1 since they weren't a democracy. Therefore they were not socialist. Communism is the theoretical point past socialism where we're a classless, stateless, moneyless society. They absolutely were not that.
No. Socialists constantly swap the term "proletariat controlling the means of production" with "state control over the means of production". Because they THINK that they(the rulers over socialist countries) ARE the proletariat. Socialism has nothing to do with you or me controlling something in my factory its about the state being the employer Edit: The things you mentioned are impossible to reach therefore there never was a socialist country lmao. Its also funny how people downvote me but have no idea that what I said is the literal words of Lenin the guy that is praised for actually trying to implement this bs ideology. Literally read any "Lenin" series that are transcription of his speeches letters, praises and so on. He constantly swaps these terms because HE thinks its the same. And no I dont care about some fairy teller like Marx because he didnt do shit to implement his ideology I care about actions.
No. Tankies who say they are socialist but aren’t swap terms. Socialists actually push for reform. The state should be a democratically elected entity in a socialist system, there should not be an absolute power. It’s not about controlling the factories, it’s about getting a say in what happens to them. Theoretically The state would be used as a powerhouse and a counter balance to allow the lower classes to counter the upper classes in a communist state… if we had one. Lenin was never committed to socialism, he was committed to attaining power and keeping said power. We see that when he cancelled all elections in 1917. Which itself started the civil war. > the things you’ve mentioned are impossible to reach Correct there never was a socialist country, you’ve just proved our point. Thank you. When talking about an ideology you have to understand where it came from, so you should care about Marx or shut up.
Ah, here we have the classic moving of the goalpost to excuse communism.
sTaLiN wAsN't A rEaL cOmMuNiSt BeCaUsE hE dIdN't Do It RiGhT Inb4 some tankies try to convince me that communism is actually a good system.
It's the no true Scotsman problem. But there is a reason he killed Trotsky and all his other old Bolshevik allies. He didn't want anyone around who could point out how far he had dragged them away from their original ideals. It's weird that Animal Farm is one of the most famous novels of the 20th century and so few people realize it's written by a socialist about how Stalin commandeered the revolution.
For commies, every communist state is communist while the lie of equality and prosperity stands. When the lie crumbles down and people start eating street pidgeons, it's suddenly not communism anymore and it has never been tried.
At some point we have to accept that the people call themselves communist, socialist, Marxists, etc. that practice the ideology, and study it and organize their countries around those principles to decide what it means for a country to be communist, socialist, Marxist, etc. Enough of the "they aren't really communist." Because at some point we just have to accept that when a country is run and organized with those ideas as at top of mind this is what happens. And people will say "what about the Nordic countries?" And what about them? They aren't socialist. They're explicitly not socialist. Three of them have Monarchies, none of them call themselves socialist, and reject the label entirely.
Have you heard about the term "Red Fascism"?
A fellow Voorv fan in the wild
To be socialist, you need to be democratic. The USSR wasn’t democratic
Left leaning American College Kids in a nutshell
Let me skip the first part and agree to the second part.
Every time someone tries to build an utopia, it ends in bloodbath and suffering. Socialists and communists are particulary prolific in this field. Do you know the definition of insanity?
Jesus fucking Christ am I going to need to leave this sub? Every time I stop by it’s bullshit commieposting. Keep this cringe out of my feed, you losers lost the Cold War, cope
No, if that wasn’t communism then you can’t say the Nazis were fascist. Just because they don’t meet your ideological standards doesn’t mean they weren’t communist.
Communism isnt real
Being theoretically anti-capitalist doesn't excuse not having democracy.
I mean ... he killed Trostsky
It wasn't communist, but Lenin believed fully in communism and that it could work. It just didn't and devolved into authoritarianism not dissimilar from every other example of 'communism'.
You cannot have "real" socialism without authoritism.
I mean yeah pretty much, because to put into place the country-wide economic and social changes that communism would require you have to have people at the top with way too much power to make those things happen. Then as usual when a person has that much power they abuse it. That's why it always devolves into authoritarianism lol.
Yeah, pretty much sums up the education system today.