...the fall of communism wasn't violent.
odd I have to point this out here.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Communism
1713 readers
3 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Are you suggesting the people revolted against the USSR, and that's why it was dissolved?
it was very violent. not only did the anti-communists rely on violent tactics like terrorism and sabotage, as they never had the support of the people (more on that later), but their coup also lead to mass poverty, starvation, a rise in crime unprecedented in the history of the world, narcomany, prostitution amongst women and children, the restitution of religion and superstition in society, the return of wage theft and -slavery and the reignition of nationalist conflicts. these conflicts led to nearly 200,000 deaths, plus additional deaths from ethnic conflicts and pogroms. from 1990 to 1994, the male life expectancy dropped from 63.8 years to 57.7 years. how is all this not violent?
also, as i said, those "revolutions" did not have popular support and thus werent revolutions at all. they were counter-revolutionary coups directed by american intelligence agencies. the overwhelming majority of the people in former socialist countries still prefer their past governments over their current pro-western puppet regimes, even after decades of capitalist propaganda.
It was violent compared to what?
Very violent lol, jfc get a grip. The Khmer Rouge was violent. Krystalnacht was violent. The last spasms of communism died peacefully shitting it's bed in it's drunken stupor.
And you want to return to communism, but daddy Putie won't let you.
You traded a gaggle of soviet oligarchs for a tyrant oligarch and whine and moan about how things were better. Yeah well if you had built a better country you might benefit from the rest of the world, but instead Putie decided to build a petrocracy on fossil fuels.
and then doubled down on it again and again for decades.
That's just so fucking dumb in so many directions I don't even know where to begin.
'very violent' I can't tell if you're lying, uneducated, or just deluded. either way you're incorrect.
you consider the 90s fall of communism violent, yet you're fine with the purges stalin did for decades
WOW, that's deranged lol
narcomany
What is this trying to say? I am only getting as far as narcomancy, which would be the raddest category of magic.
It was forced upon the people and millions died, became homeless, lost their jobs etc. it was the largest decrease in quality of life in human history. Quite violent if you ask me.
Like Yeltsin had to bomb the Russian congress because the communist party won the elections and was going to take over again lmao
huh. and yet, Putin, a relic of that generation who openly says he longs for communism's return to greatness, doesn't.
LOL
Those silly, stupid rubes have kept a tyrant in power for 20+ years and want communism back.
Tell me you have no understanding of history…
Putin was handpicked by Yeltsin. Yeltsin was the first president of Russia. He bombed the Russian congress because the people elected the communist party to the majority of the seats and they were going to reinstate communism.
When the USSR was dissolved 80% of the people in all republics (on average) wanted to keep the union going. It was dissolved undemocratically.
Yeltsin was a US puppet. When he was too drunk to continue running the nascent mob republic of Russia, that was opening up to western capitalists to ravage the state enterprises and natural resources, he handpicked Putin to keep the show going.
Putin was very friendly with Clinton and the euro neolibs. He tried joining NATO several times.
And he does NOT long for communism? What are you talking about. He is super anti-communist. He longs more for the Russian Empire, that was toppled by the communists…
But yes you are right. Most people in Putin’s generation do long for the USSR. Because they had objectively better lives under communism.
The fall of the USSR was the single most devastating event for quality of life in human history. Life expectancy dropped by 20 years in most republics. Unemployment and homelessness (which didn’t exist at all before) skyrocketed. Inflation was the worst ever. All national services were dismantled and sold for pennies to the friends of the new regimes (all allied with the US and west).
My friend just read a bit before spewing bullshit. I know this is just the internet and it doesn’t really matter. But it’s just embarrassing to repeat the most tired bullshit anti-communist lines over and over.
Tell me you have no understanding of history…
tell me you have no understanding of the present. He's your guy! This is what you get with modern communism. A Putie, a Kim, and a Xi.
https://www.hoover.org/research/putin-stalins-mirror
Buddy, this is how communism actually works: it doesn't. lol.
I'm not your friend, you're a tool for something you don't even understand, while living in post soviet PUTIN russia. A real communist would be fighting a Putin, your paying him taxes.
The fall of the USSR was the single most devastating event for quality of life in human history
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
oh yeah black death ain't got nothing on a bunch of drunks shitting their collective (kolkhoz? lol) bed after ramming their economy into the ground for decades with useless 5 year plans that made things worse, then capping it off with an invasion of Afghanistan.
How can you be this deluded and still type? Man for someone who claims to understand history you draw all the wrong conclusions so consistently, I almost believe you're brainwashed. Or just a liar.
Whatever the source of the delusions, you're wrong, you know it, you're think you're a communist die-hard but really a putin-bitch paying him to rape ukrainians because... COMMUNISM IS GREAT lol.
good luck in your kakistocracy, it's literally the best russia can aspire to. pfft.
I’m not Russian lol
consider relocating, they'll love you.
Diversity of tactics, yo. Different situations call for different actions. I would say you won't find any revolutions that were wholly either violent or nonviolent. Strikes and work stoppages are not inherently violent, but are powerful revolutionary tools all the same. Yes, capitalism will almost invariably react with violence, which the people must absolutely be prepared to defend themselves against.
Wouldn't that be a backslide and not a revolution?
No doubt it's a backslide, but it's still a revolution where the entire country stood up and said "fuck this, let's change things" and no one got hurt. It's possible if people want to change the system.
The goal of the link was to show the possibility of change without violence. It's absolutely possible. For now, skip past the details of what flag fell and what rose up - Capitalism can be stopped when people see another way and are tired of what they are going through. Right now they only see details of history and miss the potential for what happened and how it started.
I dont think that's an accurate portrayal of history, also this just proves that communist states can peacefully transition not capitalist ones if we take what you said as given
please explain why you banned me from world news. i broke no rules whatsoever.
You can look at the modlog at the bottom of the web page
I see it, I'm asking you to explain specifically which rules I broke because your modulo comments do not cite any rules.
"Wars/personal violence equivocation"
lol. firstly, you don't know what "equivocation" means. I guess you mean equivalence? Secondly, it's called an analogy used for the purpose of discussion.
And since when is advocating for self-defense "pro war"? By your logic anything other than absolute pacifism is "pro war". Is there no scenario in your mind where the use of force may be necessary? That was the entire point of the conversation I was having which you unilitarerally decided to nuke, and which broke absolutely no community or Lemmy rules whatsoever.
Go ahead and disagree with me in the comments if you like, but removing them and banning me is a ridiculous overuse of mod powers. you are just censoring comments you disagree with.
Secondly, it’s called an analogy used for the purpose of discussion.
It is an inaccurate analogy that serves to justify war.
And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”?
It isn't self defense when you've been bombarding civilians and using nazi paramilitaries in the oblasts the Russians want to occupy for years before the war started.
And since when is advocating for self-defense “pro war”? By your logic anything other than absolute pacifism is “pro war”. Is there no scenario in your mind where the use of force may be necessary?
Well, let me say it like this. You're argument is based on the ideal of self defense, and not the actual historical conditions or the outcomes of that war continuing to be prosecuted. What good is an ideal to a dead conscript or civilian? If you want to go around justifying war use less obviously disingenuous rhetoric.
I think Ghandi led a non-violent revolution, to be fair
Ghandi's revolution succeeded through mass noncompliance.
Nonviolence was a luxury Ghandi could afford during the revolution because Indians outnumbered British soldiers by something like 20k to 1. There was no world where the recently weakened UK (after WW2) could hold India once it decided to become independent.
Point seems to have been that it was a succesful non-violent revolution
The article I posted above gets into this, but it was not. The British did not quit India because some guy went on a hunger strike, and they actively propagate pacifist myths like his because they are completely unthreatening.