this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
38 points (75.7% liked)

Memes

45546 readers
1248 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] onionbaggage@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well we're not praising fascism and corruption.

[–] HRDS_654@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The main issue is that they communism is economic policy, NOT social policy. While they do go hand in hand people often conflate the two. Many dictatorships use communism as a way to control the people but that doesn't mean that communism leads directly to dictatorships.

[–] Spinnyl@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

Communism is an economic fairy tale, not policy.
It would be nice if it were possible but with the current state of the world, it is not.

Social democracy is a reasonable compromise.

[–] HeurtisticAlgorithm9@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they're using "communism" to control the people, then they're not really using communism

[–] Sharkwellington@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is true Communism even possible if it's being attempted by flawed humans? Seems like it doesn't matter the economic system so much as the fact that people will ruin anything given enough time.

[–] tara@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It’s about incentives. Worker oppression in Monarchy requires a bad King, in Feudalism bad lords, in Capitalism bad shareholders, and in Socialism self-hating workers. If you shared your workplace, would you push to remove your rights? Or to screw over your customers? And then argue for that against everyone else you share power with? The incentives are plainly better in a worker owned economy.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the main issue is with the government having absolute control over the economy. I would not want the most prominent politicians in my country having control of the economy. No matter how much I dislike capitalism.
Just put the people who work for a company in charge of the company. Have them elect who calls the shots. Also have them directly benefit from the company doing well. I guess that is like end-stage unions or smth. All power to the workers. Should be doable within capitalism, maybe, probably.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"All power to the workers" is a communist principle, though. It's the main political slogan of the communist manifest by Marx and Engels.

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can’t have a communist economic policy without being authoritarian. It’s human nature - once money is removed as a motivator, society breaks down unless you motivate people some other way (not being sent to the gulag).

[–] Hexadecimalkink@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The only thing that motivates you in life is money? How do you feel about that?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eeehhhh there are plenty of Tankies around here that unironically simp for Stalin and Mao, (never Pol Pot for some reason though), and those regimes were frought with corruption and are often called "red fascism," so I wouldn't be so quick to say "we" here. "You" maybe, "me" definitely, but "we" is too strong of a word when there are plenty of people doing just that on lemmygrad right now, and lemmy.ml being a marxist instance some there as well (though the refugees mostly drowned them out now).

[–] SpookyBogMonster@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mao and Stalin (though to a noticably lesser extent) actually had insightful things to say though. Mao's essays on epistemology are genuinely really fantastic. And that can be true alongside all of the show trials and sparrow murder which was genuinely really fucking bad.

Pol Pot meanwhile admitted to never having really ever read Marx, and his faction of the Communist Party of Cambodia was more concerned about Khmer ultranationalism and anti-Vietmamese sentiment that had been brewing over the course of French colonialism, then with anything to do with building socialism.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that we ought to take a nuanced, grounded view of historic socialisms that accounts for their success and failures, and doesn't fall into either mindless exoneration of awful shit, nor reflexively screeching "TANKIE TANKIE!!!" Every time anything vaguely socialist oriented comes up in discussion.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Stalin botched Marxism into an authoritarian system that suited him. It was successful and he sponsored other authoritarians that liked his ideas. Those are all about the concentration of power and have fuck all to do with Marxs ideas.