this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
10 points (72.7% liked)

Memes

45548 readers
1222 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This you? https://hexbear.net/comment/3889149

Typical Russian bullshit. I hope the dwindling, future generations of Russian scum know why they're pariahs, unable to travel outside of their smoldering wreck of a never-great, failed state

Cause honestly this comes off as incredibly racist and nationalist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who would have thunk the anticommunist was racist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Transphobic too? How surprising.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

What people who lived in the Soviet union and other socialist states have to say:

This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is it that people living in former Soviet states overwhelmingly wish that the USSR was still around?

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

I live in former ussr state, 90% of those people are very old, and as to why ? Nostalgia. They always overlook the bad and only bring up the good.

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

Have you considered there are other reasons besides nostalgia? Like the massive life expectancy and qol collapse under capitalism?

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/32fb41e8-a5d4-41c0-9001-b3103bb43898.png

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

I wonder why they might be nostalgic

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is more accurate: Online discussion about capitalism

People living in a third world capitalist country

14-year-old white boy living in a Western country: I know more than you

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Communism as a concept is a brilliant thing. The problem is that in the past it never worked the way it was intended, but managed to cause a lot of harm.

The problem is that the 14 year old white girl here still thinks with all her heart that countries like China are communist and in generall the perfect place to be, which is just not true.

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

This is a silly argument because actual real world communism has to be compared to other real world alternative we have available which is capitalism. By every measure capitalism has created far more horrors than communism has.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

14 year old white girl

Bravo they managed to also cram ageism and misogyny in the old "champagne socialism" meme. All in the single sentence.

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

I wonder why communist leaders are some of the most popular leaders in their former socialist republics 🧐🧐

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

Because they are not. Stalin for example was a mass murderer just like Hitler. So why would anybody like him?

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

https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory

Here is a mainstream Jewish holocaust survivor saying equating the communists and fascists is holocaust trivialization.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them. Nobody says that Stalin was as bad as Hitler, bit his death count was just as high. He killed millions of political enemies or people in the regions he conquered.

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

The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're just a straight up nazi apologist.

Which one are you?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Hey, whoever told you those numbers is lying to you. The nazis killed 11 million people in the holocaust and 26-27 million soviet citizens. High estimates for people killed by the USSR outside of defeating nazism, failures, and sabotage is in the 100,000s, which is noticeably lower than capitalist oligarchies like the US and Britain. Also killing people based on them wanting to bring back old caste systems through violence is morally distinct from racism based mass killings.

The difference is that Hitler was after one specific group of people and wanted to eradicate them.

Also this isnt true, Jewish people, Roma, nuerodivergent people, disabled people, trade unionists socialists, communists, gay people, trans people, the list goes on.

Also you're still equating the two after being told doing so is holocaust denial. You're saying "well they killed equivalent amounts of people!"

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you point us to the exact page of the Black Book you get your numbers from? I want to read along at home

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

2 things:

  1. The victors write history

  2. After Lenin the USSR was not really communist anymore but more really a totalitarian state that didn't believe in the values of communism. Just like China.

Everything would probably have been better if Lenin didn't die so fast and then Trotsky would have ruled.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trotsky would have ruled.

Mask off trot lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I’ve never met anyone who hates communism more than the colleagues of mine who grew up under communism. Their neighbours disappeared for saying the wrong things. They were hungry and cold as children every day. Sometimes they didn’t have any shoes. They weren’t allowed to leave their country for holidays. They couldn’t afford it, even if they were allowed. They couldn’t study what they wanted. Their entire educational system was political propaganda. Freedom of religion didn’t exist.

It always amazes me how the most vocal proponents of communism come from the most sheltered, most privileged people alive who would retch from learning about the atrocities committed in the name of communism. If they only spent a few minutes on Google.

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

Also adding to the list of nice things - a picture of the current dictator on all public offices and classrooms. Work and school weeks from Monday to Saturday and a Sunday in which you had to do mandatory free time activities, like go to communist youth clubs, participate in parades for the glory of the state, or plant flowers or do random maintenance work in the park.

I've noticed the arguments tend to center around the notion that 'that wasn't true communism' and that the notions presented by Marx et al. were not properly implemented.

Fair enough, I can agree with that, but I'd wonder what makes us think that we would do it better next time? How do you actually prevent consolidation of power in the hands of the select few (in any system, for that matter, not just the ideal communism)?

Obligatory capitalism is bad too (but at least I'm in less danger of getting vanned in the middle of the night for insulting random great leader - attemtping to undermine the social order or whatever they called thoughtcrimes).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't think anyone is advocating for literal communism. They are advocating for social programs like, you know, universal healthcare and good public schools. Which the Gop and Fox have to scream is communism to scare people.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

This take comes from a place of assuming there will be a government of the state that wields all the power and controls everything.

That is totalitarianism, not communism.

The capital owners don’t want to you take the means of production from them. They don’t want you to have a fair wage, they want you to slave away to keep them rich.

They want totalitarianism for them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are definitely people advocating for actual communism. Social programs in a democracy are worlds away from communism. We have universal healthcare in Europe without communism.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You're technically describing the downsides of authoritarianism, bordering on dictatorship, not communism. That being said, I don't believe communism would work either. Communism isn't the only system at play in those scenarios. Again, not defending communism as a good thing, just that the given reasons aren't actually due to communism but other parallel systems that were implemented at those times.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you burn a pastry, you don't just give up baking pastries. You declare that the burnt one isn't a real pastry and start over.

Likewise with communism. Oh a few million people died? No biggie just try again 😚

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only way communism can work is if it's not run by people.

You'd need something like a benevolent AI overlord.

The problem with all forms of government and economy is that it involves human beings.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If communism devolves into authoritarianism every time it is attempted, I don’t see the practical distinction.

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

You act as if it's been tried any amount of time that would be statistically significant. Sometimes it's not even communism other than in name and folks still count it.

And it doesn't devolve into it. It's simply always been done at the same time. When you have essentially a dictatorship, absolute power will corrupt absolutely.

A practical distinction historically speaking, but not philosophically speaking. If you're unable to differentiate between concepts in history, I don't know how you can ever effectively discuss them objectively. Though, this should have been evident with your comment initially. Communism doesn't devolve into authoritarianism. They're not even the same types of philosophies. One is about governing and one is about commerce. It's like claiming capitalism devolves into a plutocracy. It does help to produce a plutocracy, but it didn't devolve into one. They're not the same thing.

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

How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists? Yet we continue to do it.

Not to mention all those attempts have died in the socialism phase, because surprise surprise consolidation of power doesn’t lead to it being distributed.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

“WhAtAbOuT!”

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

How many times has capitalism become dictatorships or fascists?

A handful of times. Most capitalist nations are not authoritarian. Purely by the numbers, it has a much better track record. Of course, “it’s not real capitalism/communism” always derails this discussion.

I think you outline why communism inevitably fails. Marx advocated for violent revolution to overthrow the “bourgeois” democracy. The moment democracy is gone, the strong take and retain power. This is why, no matter the system, democracy must be the bottom line. It ensures that power is distributed. It’s not perfect, but it’s much better than the alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It turns out it's every time as we're seeing with late-stage capitalism. Purely by the numbers it's like 17 times vs 300 and of those 17 they were in a cold war with half the world. And that's not even the same argument? It's not up for debate that these were socialist countries, fuck the second S in USSR is for socialist.

And once again that's a miss. You're conflating capitalism with democracy, that's not the same thing at all. You can have democratic or authoritarian capitalist or socialist countries.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It turns out it's every time as we're seeing with late-stage capitalism.

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you’re arguing. Are you claiming that all Western nations are authoritarian? I emphatically disagree.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Basing your opinions on socialism on how Russia implemented it makes about as much sense as basing an opinion on Democracy on how Putin has implemented it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Income share isn't actually a good indicator of anything on its own. One would at the very least need to provide some sort of inflation chart and some sort of equivalent to a consumer price index. Like, it wouldn't mean much if they all had the same income if that income couldn't buy bread for example. not saying that was or was not the case, just using an example of how the given charts are meaningless on their own. That you provided them without even trying to provide context means you're unaware of this and are ignorant to the issue or you're actively misleading people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Considering that the USSR only claimed to be socialist and used propaganda (in accord with the US) to convince the people that state control is the same as worker's control over the means of production (it isn't), the girl is probably correct.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sir we are not doing reasons here, this is a meme sub.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Memes can still be incoherent.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›