this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
259 points (92.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43598 readers
1162 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because my country, Ukraine, was under communists and it was not good time with all genocides, holodomor, repressions, red terrors and other things. Because good life under communists had only people from nomenclature. And I didn't say nothing about censorship. Under censorship you'll not create good music, good meals, good products, good communities. All things will be under control of old guys from communist party
Yes, but none of that is unique to communism, that's just corrupt government. Anywhere that develops systemic inadequacies and a culture of impunity can instantly become such. That's just something that is independent of the underlying system of economics. Like many capitalist systems like to point out that bourgeoisie who are after their own interest act as some check on the government who is usually in a power struggle for control. And that power struggle is what ensures no one side wins out.
But there's nothing technically stopping the rich from becoming the actors of the government and when we as a society excuse profiteering in office, well then there's no barrier from the rich just becoming the government. Which that's just the French ancien rΓ©gime that ultimately lead to the French Revolution.
So it's NOT specific to just communism. It's just that's the most recent and easiest one to point out because of how blatant/brazen that system had become with it's corruption. Even with all of the "nay-saying" that might happen with United States detractors with their usual hum of "Oh well they're all corrupt!" Even with how passive some are with it, the corruption is nowhere near the level of being out in the open that was with the USSR. Politicians still weasel their way around because they know that there's still some bottom level of ensuring checks on that corruption that exist. And we have those checks not because we are a capitalist society.
I think the idea that some economic system promotes some civic purity or prevents some form of government corruption is a bad linking of things that ought not be linked, because a pure capitalist society doesn't magically inherit some barrier of corruption. That barrier has to be formed independent of the underlying economic system.
I'm not trying to detract from what happened under the USSR but that has way more to do with how power got consolidated post World War I and everything that lead to the toppling of the Russian Monarchy. The system of communism played a role in that consolidation of power, yes, but literally any tool could have been used if you have someone with the mindset of Vladimir Lenin who wanted to rapidly consolidate power during the Bolshevik revolution. I mean look at the current Myanmar Civil War and some of the ideas of General Min Aung Hlaing, no need for implementation of communist ideology there, he just wants to be in power, doesn't believe that the current transfer of power is legitimate, and is willing to get a lot of people killed in proving that point.
I think given the current situation in the United States, the belief that you NEED communism to have totalitarianism is a dangerous linking of things that can actually happen independent of each other. You just need someone to wear down government legitimacy enough to start a civil war, that's all you need. Everything else is just tools at your disposal to get that goal done.
So you have to understand the nuance here I'm trying level. I'm not saying it WASN'T COMMUNISM, what I'm saying is that it can be communism, but ultimately you just need someone who wants to consolidate power rapidly and exists in a society that will forgive abuses of power enough, sometimes that's done by de-legitimizing the current system enough. That's it, that's all that's required. Communism can play a role in that somewhere, but it doesn't have to.
Are you saying that the Soviet censored recipes?
Yes. Food in the shop had a bad quality with a permanent deficit. Big amount of good food in modern country is making by a small business
This could be a language barrier thing, but it sounds like you're talking about a production issue, not a censorship issue.
okay, despite the cultural and resource diversity, what prevented then in the Soviet Union from making normal food en masse for people like sushi or even shawarma? Why was there only sausage and chebureks, buns, vodka, beer everywhere? Because there is an order to do so and there is a chain of manufacturers, there was no initiative from below, although the country was supposed to be for the people. Due to the size of the state apparatus for serving the population, any initiative was lost. In the end, everything was done only when the old grandfather wanted to show off in front of the West :) there is nothing made of high quality in the Soviet Union, except for missiles that were sold to other countries to shoot at people :) and everything that served the military industry.
I'm going to avoid touching the rest of that and say that a centralized production not making sushi or shawarma is not the same as censoring those things. You can still make them at home, it's not like fish, rice, and seaweed were beyond the reach of the existing production. Again, it sounds like a production issue.
and the main reason for the deficit was preparation for the war, not the desire to make people's lives in the country better. Nothing prevented the Soviet Union with the Communists at its head from being an ally before the war with the Germans, attacking Poland together and attacking Finland, suppressing protests in Czechoslovakia and Hungary
I'm really struggling to follow some of this. Are you saying the Soviets didn't need to fight Germany and didn't need to take as much time as they could manage to prepare to do so?
The problem is that they were allies of Germany until Germany attacked them :) and they also wanted to conquer all of Europe, not just preparing to defend their own territory
I chose to avoid most of the bait so far, even with those cloying :)s that you like adding so much, but this one is too disgusting. It's historical revisionism pure and simple that they were ever "allies" with Germany. They had a treaty to try and stall German invasion, but they never imagined things would go otherwise than one party defeating the other (though they did underestimate how soon the Germans would attack).
Okay :) but everything was in deficit :) and this is not a production problem :) this is a problem of sick heads in power and a complete lack of empathy for the country's citizens :) in relations between people, the deficit created corruption, with which Ukraine still has big problems. A habit was created to solve all cases not according to the law. People could not travel abroad without a large number of certificates and the personal permission of the local head of the party. Soviet engineers, having good talents, proposed different concepts of cars that were very modern, but the local leadership said no to any initiative from below. It was easier for them to simply copy Western equipment, or buy Western equipment and pass it off as their own, as Russia is doing now under sanctions. Now, under capitalism, you can protest and at most they will give you something like a fine for hooliganism. Under the Soviet Union and the Communists, there were no protests, or if there were, people were sent to Siberia, and their families were dismissed from their positions, and they had a label in front of state bodies that their family was unreliable. And the journalists did not say anything about it under the pressure of censorship, not even a hint. People learned all the information about the protests only after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And something similar happens in any country that wants to build communism. People become communists in their eyes, often not for the sake of making the world better, but for the sake of getting back at a system in which they are marginalized and losers
In Ireland we suffered under British Imperialism and capitalism for hundreds of years and we had our own famine and repressions.
Wow but under communists you will be killed by Irish person, not British :) and not for a reason that you are Irish, but for a reason that you are listening songs from another country or reading books, that was not accepted by censorship ;)
Again, authoritarian, not communism.
You really to get yourself educated my friend
If censorship in Soviet Ukraine is your reason for defending capitalism, don't let it go over your head that such things happened and continue to happen in capitalist countries and colonies too.
Man are you going to have a wild time reading the First Act of Supremacy of 1534 from the United Kingdom. Couple of follow up bangers from it like the Act of Supremacy in Ireland of 1560. All that happening distinctly before communism was even invented.
Typical communists still criticize me for my opinion, but give them power, they would shoot me on the spot without a trial, as in the times of the Red Terror :) in a typical communist country there can be no protests, which is confirmed by the case of China and Tiananmen Square
Buddy im not even communist, i am still for capitalism.
Your criticism is given to you because of how ridiculous you sound when you regurgitate the same old propaganda that you watch on social media.
Its so obvious that these thoughts were not formed by you
Echo chambers suck, I'm sorry. It's assbackwards when people dismiss real, lived experiences that don't align with what they optimistically imagine those experiences would be like.
Fact that us often ignored in Anglo world... Or when it is brought up... This oppression is different π€‘
So your describing surveillance capitalism
Not sure why you've got downvoted, but that's the reason why all Baltic states had such a reaction when the invasion started.
That said, I would say that most of those states are highly socialistic despite having pretty much allergy to anything red and while preferring a capitalist system that doesn't mean they want or support billionaires.
It could be because they arent even describing communism. These problems are easily found right now.
The problem here is that people dont even know what communism is and they end up giving these kinds of answers. Makes you think thats probably why they made a new account
Theres no genuine convo of why communism is bad.
It's more because it's a bunch of random assertions, falsehoods, misunderstandings, half-truths, and more with no substance to tackle and respond to without starting a lengthy struggle session.
The USSR absolutely was guided by Communist ideology, and was Socialist, that's true. It's also true that it wasn't perfect. A good article to read is Why do Marxists Fail to Bring the "Worker's Paradise?" because many people don't understand Marxism and interpret it through an idealist, anti-Marxist lens.
Centralization = corruption
Explain. You cannot achieve democratic control without centralization, because you can't have inputs with no output.
Issue of centralization is regime and politics agnostic. More centralization just results in more corruption.
I am not sure how to run the society any other way but we know that current systems are corrupted by the ruling elites at our expense.
Legal system is unwilling to deal with it because the judiciary are just regime lapdogs used against working people when they get out of line.
Again, please explain. This doesn't logically follow.
Capitalism is, Socialism isn't.
In Capitalism, yes.
Have you read Marx?
If you are big daddy owner, centralized state permits you to have access to the top guy who can do anything.
It is a lot easier to corrupt one guy, then it is to do one guy in every state for example is the logic here.
This is inherent defect of centralization. Sure we can get a lot of shit done effectively if everybody is good faith actor. And progress has been made but it was done with a ton of grift that we just accept
Capitalism and socialism are economic system for property. We are talking about the state in of itself here.
I would posit the issue not economic system choice but rather corruptions of the ruling class.
I bet any properly set up system would work as long as it was designed to work properly.
If you notice the best systems we currently have are actually a mix of both.
There is a strong correlation between quality of life of the working class and corruption.
Countries with low corruption are able to deliver high quality of life because they don't a lot of blatant looting.
I bet this will be the down fall of the US empire, the parasite class taking too much and it is causing serious social issues for Americans. They know something is wrong bit they jerk politics without realizing it is a futile exercise.
This isn't really accurate, though, this is just an argument against democracy. Recall elections are standard Marxist practice, which pretty much eliminates this problem outright. It seems like you haven't engaged with Marxist organizational theory.
They are always present linked. You can't divorce them, the Base creates and supports the Superstructure.
This is generally unfounded.
You can't "design" a system, that's utopianism.
No, the best systems currently are Socialist. There are no "mixes." Or, at least, everything is a mix, no system has made it to Communism yet, but the best systems are run along Marxist lines.
This is more correlation and not causation.