this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
4 points (83.3% liked)
The Democratic People's Republic of Tankiejerk
892 readers
227 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- No bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To be fair. "that wasn't true Communism" is true. The problem is dictatorships keep getting sold with its name. Ironically proving how hard it would be to actually achieve a world or country of communes.
By that stupid definition there's no true capitalism either, so what's your point?
Oh? Are there no countries with private ownership of industry?
Oh? Are there no countries with state ownership of industry?
If that's your criteria, then yes, there are both truly communist and truly capitalist countries.
Tell me which country claiming to be communist is not actually just a dictatorship with a veneer?
None? That was like 200% sarcasm. You used a single criteria to mark countries as truly capitalist, so I though I might as well do the same.
Right, the problem is they turn around and defend the dictatorship because obviously Marxism cannot survive less you continuously sanitize the marketplace of ideas.
Well their version can't at any rate. I'd say Marxism can't survive violence in the ideas market.
Communism is inherently authoritarian as it puts the needs of a social construct (in this case a "commune" or "society") over the needs, rights and freedoms of an individual. It is hard to achieve anything good with communism, because totalitarian dictatorship is the only possible outcome for any advanced enough authoritarian ideology.
Oof the individualists didn't like that. I don't think it's inevitable though. I just think it's going to take some special people and circumstances we haven't found yet. For example a George Washington like figure who refuses to become another king.
Communism is a classless, moneyless, stateless society.
Only in your imagination.
I thought that was the point. That actual communism only exists in the imagination. Until we get star trek tech as others have mentioned.
Well, that just confirms that Communists are lunatics.
This week in "didn't understand the prompt":
This week in "Nazis pretend they're not Nazis".
Whose going to take care of the utilities?
It ✨ d e p e n d s ✨ on what kind of communist answers.
Lmao, good point!
Except those people prefer the Chinese and USSR style of social autocracies to actual socialist projects. Some of them even trash worker coops, although that was more true to the InfraHaz style lolcows than the tankies of lemmy...
Social Autocracy, oh wow that's a new one on me. They're just brutal dictatorships with a shiny veneer.
I call any dictatorships that barely does anything more than the Baltic states, while calling themselves as "socialists".
I think it gives them too much credit. They might give you housing but they'll kill you in the middle of the night because someone gave your name to stop the torture.
The only kind of Communism I'm willing to accept is the Star Trek Communism. Since then I'm pro Team "Social market economy"!
Fully Automated Gay Space Communism or bust!
I'm with you there. If we get poop->food magic machines then all bets are off. Until then we need a democratic state to prevent abuse.
The bolshivek revolution made it certain that any communist nation is a dictatorship. The menshiveks would have achieved better results.
The Mensheviks wouldn't have been much more different than German and French socialdemocrats who accepted capitalism. But there were other relevant left-leaning political forces during the Russian Revolution that were neither Bolsheviks nor Mensheviks - I wonder what happened with them?
Wait until you learn whatt the SPD did to the Spartactus League.
Gulag happened to them.
That's the problem though. When you study revolutions you overwhelmingly find there is a group doing reforms in a civilized way after the previous government is removed. And they almost always get lined up against a wall by a power hungry asshole.
That's also why I think people are too quick to reject pax America. It's a locally stable region in which we can build. Reverting back to a revolutionary stance has a very real possibility of going quite far in the wrong direction before we can advance over the status quo.
Unless, of course, the path to post scarcity communism is just "21st century tech, 17th century population." Which I suppose is probably valid.
You have to remember that your slow and patient reforms can drag their feet to the point it becomes indistinguishable from malice. That's what happened to e.g. the "socialists" who allied with the Russian provisional government and kept supporting the war against the will of the people.
Well that's what the Bolsheviks claim at any rate. It's always what the dictator claims.
The masses supported the Bolsheviks in the summer and fall of 1917 because they were the most radically and consistently antiwar party, regardless of their other faults. It was the most urgent issue in politics at the time for reasons that should be obvious. This is a pretty widely accepted narrative even among right wing historians.
I agree with that but it's still just one issue that could have been solved with actual representation.