this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
27 points (59.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

30546 readers
1746 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I fled Reddit due to the authoritarian mod craziness, but Lemmy.world seems infested with too much Communist craziness. I'm leftist, but communism is idiocy. Is there an instance that leans more democratic socialist but refrains from going off the deep end?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm not an academically trained scholar regarding left-wing theory, but I'd assume that communists and social democrats are still part of the same group, with one naming themselves after a shorter-term goal-state, and the other naming themselves after a longer-term goal-state.

When we talk about state models such as republic, democracy, autocracy, we're either describing a current status, or a model we might want to follow or avoid. When we talk about ideologies (conservatism, liberalism, communism, feminism, etc.) they assert specific values and presumptions that might or might not be true or workable. For instance, in the communist ideal, every participant has exactly the same amount of political and material power; influence is perfectly distributed. But we have no idea how a state like that would look, or work, or if we could ever get there.

Every model and every ideology has problems and concessions we don't understand and have to correct for. The one-person = one-vote thing seems intuitive for democracy, but has terrible side effects, and we're still sorting out alternative election models that might work better.

All this is to say it's a really bad idea to treat any one of them as a racehorse or football team or a banner under which to rally and consolidate political power. None of the models or ideals we have are perfect or absolute, and we have to be prepared to adjust them on the fly, especially as we contend with corruption and bad actors who exploit vulnerabilities.

I suspect everyone on the left ultimately seeks a society in which everyone is materially provided for, in which liberties are as extensive as possible while providing for protections and considering human biases towards certain abberant behavior (e.g. drunk driving) in which there are as few social strata as possible and power is as well distributed as possible. The models that accommodate all these, even to partial degrees, are still very fuzzy. (Western civilization has been working on them for only three hundred years or so.)

So we're at least in the same book, if not on the same page.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Lemmy.world is actively opposed to Marxism and Communism (from moderator and admin POV).

As a side-note, all Communists support democracy, "democratic socialism" is usually ill-defined and meaningless, to one person it means the Nordics and to others it means Marxism without revolution, it only really hurts description.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They're not opposed to communism. Just tankies like yourself.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago

“Tankie” is a caricature. The idea of a tankie is the ideal vision of a McCarthyian Communist. In reality, the overwhelming majority of people labeled as such don’t actually fit that label, it’s more of a way to cast an image of someone’s positions based on, say, support for AES countries, and twist that into the evil Commie Pinko that haunts the dreams of 1960s children in the US.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Lol Cowbee is a well known Tankie, .world is anti-tankie, which are authoritarian "communists"

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

i'd like to hear your take on "communism is idiocy".

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

OP didn't respond so I will take a shot. My understanding is that under communism, the economy has to be planned by the government. Under capitalism, the price of shoes (for example) is usually determined by the demand for shoes and the amount of shoes that can be manufactured. If demand falls, the price falls. If manufacturing capacity increases, the price falls more, etc. This mechanism has feedback loops that make it efficient. In theory, companies never make more shoes than they can sell, because if they do make too many, they can sell the excess by cutting prices. Under communism there is no free market, so the mechanics of supply and demand don't work. Some communist bureaucrat conducts a study and estimates that the country will need 100k pairs of shoes next quarter. The government then makes those shoes in a state-owned factory. Suppose, though, that it turns out that the country needed more. With no free market, there is no competitor to step in and meet the demand for shoes - now you have a shortage. Similarly, you can have considerable waste if you grow too many apples or whatever. In true communism, there is no price to adjust - you either have an apple voucher or you don't. Thus there is generally more problems meeting demand efficiently. This is, in fact, exactly what we saw under the Soviet Union - the stores were often stuffed with unwanted items while long lines developed for items that were in high demand. Without any consideration of authoritarianism etc., this is an often-cited reason for the failure of communism.

I am not a political theorist or an economist, so please correct me if I am wrong.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

You've got the general critique from Mises right, but that's an extremely outdated critique that has long been debunked. The article Prices in a Planned Economy helps show how prices in a fully publicly owned economy could be planned, including what you are describing as "price signals." The fact is, the USSR's economy did work, and worked rather well, but issues like having to spend a huge portion of GDP on the defense industry just to keep up with the US starved the rest of the economy for growth, and the Soviets planned by hand rather than by computer. Neither of these issues need to be taken by any Socialist state going forward.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Thanks for the reply! The article you linked was very interesting. I am aware that western propaganda emphasizes the challenges and failures of communism while sweeping the manifold problems with capitalism under the rug, and it is nice to consider a different viewpoint. There is also an unfair tendency among western philosophers to link authoritarianism with communism when there is no philosophical connection. My personal belief is that authoritarianism was already pervasive in imperial Russia and China, and that better explains the brutality that has been unfairly associated with communism.

I would also like to say that capitalism is way less efficient than people are led to believe - take fast fashion, for example. Excess shoes and clothes are constantly being dumped on developing countries because the manufacturers failed to find a buyer at any price.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

No problem!

I do disagree on the notion of "authoritarianism." Claims as such usually come from the ruling class in Capitalist countries who saw their class-allies oppressed in Russia and China. For the working class, society became more democratic.

That's a decent point for fast fashion, though it is designed as a "churn and burn" system and is built on the backs of Imperialism, creation in the Global South for poverty wages to sell in the Global North for dirt cheap.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

if all humans could plan for the future and wished inherently to make world into better place for others too instead of just themselves communism might work. But as it is, the idea needs some heavy reworking to adjust for human defiencies to be worth even considering. I dont understand how they even came up with something like this and thought its good idea as it is. And naively thought no one would abuse their power or even could manage it all efficiently. Maybe it wasnt idea born out of wanting to make better world but instead just counter reaction to capitalism.

its so annoying, i have this vague idea of something like world without exploitative private property. Like, money would be replaced with actual value of work you have done, you could reasonably use tools and resources without being gatekept by private ownership while still being allowed to have your own things as long as it doesnt cause harm to others. When someone wants more than they can have, its solved instead by working towards improving things for everyone instead of just yourself.

but its just that, a vague idea; mostly fit to taunt me like dangling bottle of water out of reach of someone dying of thirst. And its seeming more and more like wishing one could do magic. It doesnt seem like humans could ever be capable of having a world like that or even want to .

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

I also believe that the human element might be a problem with communism. One of the ingenious things about capitalism is that it takes a terrible vice - greed - and yokes it for everyone's benefit. I believe that our system is out of whack, though. The degree of inequality that we tolerate is outrageous - these days, the richest scoop up all the benefits and leave the workers only enough to survive (or less). The fact that 3 men control more wealth than the poorest 175,000,000 other Americans is offensive - especially when you consider that the poorest have no homes or food. It's even worse when you look beyond American borders.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't really know what your problem with Communism is, nor why you think it requires humans to want to make the world a better place. I recommend reading Marx's actual words on the subject.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

only thing that inherently has worth to me is making world better place. Communism is just a tool, if it doesnt work correctly then it ought to be fixed or abandoned for something else that works better. And evidently it doesnt work correctly considering how china or soviet union turned out to be for those not in power.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Marxism is just a tool, sure, though I think doubling life expectancy, over trippling literacy rates to 99.9%, lowering wealth disparity while increasing GDP dramatically, and democratization of society and the economy prove that Socialism does work. I think you have a very narrow view of the history of AES states and need to do more research, as it seems like you just have the default western viewpoint.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No i just think it has its benefits and flaws. The flaws should be fixed and if they cant then something new should be came up with that that works better. Socialism is going in correct direction, possibly the only direction for worthwhile society. We just need to learn from the mistakes of the past.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Sure, nobody disagrees with that though.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're almost certainly conflating communism with the authoritarian flavor so enjoyed by the tankies of .ml/hex/grad

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

it's either that, or attributing anything related to social welfare to communism or at least a slippery slope to communism.

load more comments
view more: next ›