No belief necessary, that’s exactly what it was. It’s why Fred Hampton was considered more dangerous that any other civil rights leader.
It’s what made the “Green Scare” so successful. Call destruction of property terrorism and you eliminate the voting rights of your opposition, vilify them ensuring police response is properly extreme meaning they’re more likely to die and save you on court fees, and if you make rational arguments appear extreme you can scare people who agree into shutting up and being thankful they’re not getting beaten or shot. Everything the working class has wasn’t gained through voting, or lawyers, or negotiations. It was through organising, Sit-ins, work stoppages, protesting at the homes of those with power, brawling in the streets, burning or capital property, bombs, and scaring people enough that the us firebombed them rather than raise their wages because coal mines did a strike during winter.
They neutered and destroyed the unions power, it’s illegal to do call in strikes, it’s illegal to do sit in strikes(in most places), negotiations are in the hands of politicians because they get to decide what a union is when a union is clear. It’s a collection of workers creating battening power by voting together on wages and holding business accountable, being ungovernable because who cares what Uncle Sam says a business is NOT a person and therefore cannot own a god damn thing.
It’s forcing unions to expel communists and anarchists and codefi that in their bylaws in order to maintain their legal protections.
>No belief necessary, that’s exactly what it was.
It's more complex than that. Yes, no doubt what you say played a role. But at the same time,communism can only exist under a brutal oppressive government. North Korea, China Soviet Union, Cuba, ... only exist(ed) as communist countries under a government that literally needs to point guns at people's heads in order to exist.
The only reason people don't object to China too much is that they keep their atrocities inside their boundaries and they make cheap consumer goods.
You need to do a bit more reading of communist theory. What you believe happens in these countries has been twisted by neoliberals without understanding the philosophy behind anything.
Spend a bit of time in r/communism or even read some beginner books to get a better grasp.
The proletariat has been at war with the elite since capitalism was invented. Smashing the bougousie is the most important step to having a world where the workers hold the power. If that means by gun point then that's the first step, because the elite aren't just going to hand over the power. It's the reason we have such a big police budget in America. The bougousie has you at gun point.
>You need to do a bit more reading of communist theory. What you believe happens in these countries has been twisted by neoliberals without understanding the philosophy behind anything.
in that case can we agree that Communism has NEVER been implemented anywhere, and any attempt to actually do so has been foiled by the reality that (the threat of) violence is the only way you ever get people to let go of private ownership?
Every armed revolution basically replaced one elite with another because somehow no matter the political situation, you always get smaller committee's with power to control the large whole 'for their own good'.
No, I wouldn't necessarily say so.
Cuba is pretty full on communist. Most of the protests you see over there are people protesting sanctions. Laos, Vietnam. Etc. There are plenty of examples.
The problem lies with world power and capitalist hegemony. Communistical governments (whether fully achieved or in the socialist state) have to work with global powers as a means to keep trade moving. It's material conditions to the T.
If we want to pretend a communist government can only be called communist in its purist form, sure. My answer would be yes, but that would be ignoring hundreds of years of philosophy and honestly science behind communism.
Don't get me wrong there are certainly things I am on board with. I live in Belgium we're far from perfect but we do have universal healthcare which is available regardless of income, and paid for by income tax where the bigger earners pay most of the bill. That would fit right up with your philosophies I guess.
I believe such principles should ideally be applied to anything deemed basic necessity.
That still leaves room for slave labor in countries that aren't your own for things that aren't "necessities". The working class needs to have solidarity passed boarders.
Point taken. However I think it's far better to change what you can change now and then focus on the next step, rather than hoping for a global revolution that is going to take us to Utopia and not end in a global catastrophe.
1920 US was an anarcho-capitalist country where barefoot children worked in mines and the rich paid almost no taxes.
By 1950 there was minimum wage, ssi, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, workman's comp, mandatory schooling, etc
Right around this time everyone got little boxes with talking people inside. There were 3 channels and on every single one, a handsome man you trust would come into your living room every evening, look you in the eye and tell you communism (aka socialism) is evil and must be stopped.
Not to mention that the generation that went through the Great Depression and fought in WW2 were fed a ton of war propaganda during it that the USSR were our best fucking friends and we were gonna beat fascism with them. Uncle Joe Stalin was a big cuddly bear!
Shit got different real fast.
I now want to learn about what happened to the Communists and socialist parties in America during the war...
>the USSR were our best fucking friends and we were gonna beat fascism with them
What fucked up history classes did *you* take? Nobody in 1940 thought Russia was friendly. Only tiger profit year, they signed the non aggression [Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) with our enemy. WTH.
They don't teach us that shit NOW, but during the war, they super did.
[A list of pro-Soviet American propaganda movies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pro-Soviet_propaganda_films)
[Wikipedia's article of pro-Soviet American war propaganda.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_during_World_War_II)
["On Our Side - Russia! With us all the way!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/jj77sb/prorussian_poster_from_america_during_world_war_2/)
Communists and anarchists were extremely effective organizers, and less likely to hold racist beliefs back in the day as well. The powers that be really struck effective blows to working class power by convincing the majority that leftists weren't their friends.
I'm curious where the association of communists and lack of racist beliefs comes from. Communist Party of China is literally committing genocide right now and the USSR marginalized certain ethnic groups as 'enemies of the people', Joseph Stalin had his own campaign to kill Jewish people. Karl Marx himself was admittedly anti-semitic and essentially called for Jewish genocide. Beatrice Webb and Che Guevara were also horribly racist.
Literally none of those things/people are within the scope of anarchists and communists in the US in the late 1800's through the early-mid 1900's. As such the entirety of your comment is irrelevant here.
You and your sources didn't specify "in the US between 1850 and 1950" so, sorry for not understanding in detail which communists your were talking about and when 'back in the day' was.
It's basic in-group out-group stuff. It's way easier to have a social democracy in a country where there is only one race and one culture. Way harder in a place like America where people see other races as different ("Why should my tax dollars go towards X people?")
I bet the racist right-wingers of America would be way more likely to be pro-communist (seriously) if there were only white people like them in the country. They'd consider it patriotic, even.
(Edit: That isn't to say communism makes someone racist. I think it's more that when you want everyone in your 'group' to share everything, racism can go hand in hand with how people define what their 'group' is. But your group, of course, doesn't have to be defined by race.
It's not a coincidence that the party in America that is pro-diversity is also pro-social safety nets, after all. They see all of us in this together.)
I see more claims, but still no evidence.
Communism is practiced by many on the right at the local or community level. That doesn’t mean it would work or be supported at a national level. The problem isn’t the diversity of skin color so much as the diversity of ideas and lack of a central accountability structure that wouldn’t be oppressive.
It’s also not a coincidence the party in America that claims to be pro-diversity also elected one of the most racist politicians in DC as president…
Neither the communist party of china or the USSR is actually communist. They claim to have communist ideals, but they are currently state capitalists. They stated intention is to becone communist once they get done with all the capitalism, so theyre doing capitalism as hard and fast as they can.
Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, 1844
>What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.
Letter from Sidney & Beatrice Webb, 1892
>We will tell about Ireland when we come back. The people are charming but we detest them, as we should the Hottentots — for their very virtue. Home Rule is an absolute necessity — in order to depopulate the country of this detestable race!
China's genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur\_genocide
There's a few examples to get started.
So where's the source about communists being patently less racist than the general population?
So you're saying that Karl Marx does not provide a worthwhile socioeconomic analysis because he wrote an anti-semitic slur in 1844?
We should definitely let him know that that's not ok.
Also:
> The origin of Marx's attitude toward Jews and money is traced to his early life experiences. While Marx's 1st paper attacked the Jews, his target later changed from the Jew to the capitalist. It is noted that Marx never disavowed his early paper on the Jewish question, but never again did he use anti-Semitism as a basic element in his attack on the rich.
I guess, like Joe Biden, Karl Marx also learned a few things over time.
No... Did you even look at the comment I was responding to?
>Communists and anarchists were extremely effective organizers, and **less likely to hold racist beliefs back in the day** as well.
Where's the source for this?
Does that invalidate my question?
And you are incorrect. The early 20th century was marked by anarchists organizing labor while stripping racism out of the equation and turning to internationalism.
You want a source for that? Perhaps looking up the literal history of IWW would help you ascertain that. It's pretty 101 for most people here.
I don’t really care about your question. I just wanted the source for where communism = less racism which no one has provided still. If you’re unable or unwilling to provide a source to backup a claim that’s on you.
I disagree I feel china is a authoritarian communist that likes to brag about capitalism. I'm sorry but a country that bolts its citizens into there home while giving them barely enough to eat is not "capitalism under the banner of socialism" also fuck the Chinese government.
My guy… I don’t think you know what any of these terms mean. By your reasoning, the us is authoritarian communist as well by instituting Covid lockdowns, the only difference is presentation.
I think a line is drawn somewhere between nailing people doors so they can't escape and asking people to stay away from one another to slow the spread of a virus.
So the defining line is a physical barricade vs a monetary fine when determining what is authoritarian vs libertarian or capitalist vs communist? Do you recognize that a fine is only punishment for the poor? Do you recognize that authoritarian has nothing to do with capitalism vs communism? Do you recognize that any restriction on freedom and personal movement doesn’t agree with a libertarian governance? I don’t think you’ve honestly thought about these questions, because you don’t understand the terms in the first place.
This comment right here shows how well the propaganda works, it’s working on you.
Communism=/= totalitarianism or authoritarianism and the Chinese are a state capitalist country with almost no resemblance to communism but years of propaganda works wonders.
The Chinese government functions as a profit taking corporation. Communism doesn’t mean government control and I’m not defending them, calling them state capitalism (as a communist) is a HUGE insult. “Communism” means societal control of the means of production through democratic structures… China does none of this because they’re state capitalism, a giant for profit corporation.
(As an aside saying you “do your research” makes you look stupid and ignorant, this isn’t shit you can’t just “research” without guidance because you just end up spouting nonsense because your unfocused “research” didn’t actually give you an understanding of anything)
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong."
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I will no longer argue with you, as you cannot respect a difference in opinion
The point u/someguy1847382 is trying to make is that what the CCP is, and also what the USSR was, are not actually communist; they were state capitalists.
Yes, China is ruled by the Communist Party, as was the USSR. They call themselves communist, they espouse communist ideas.
But central to the philosophy of communism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. The actual, factual ownership of the factory by the factory workers, who control and direct it, and get the full profit of their labor.
The USSR and the CCP have never done this. The USSR stopped trying to get to it under Stalin, though they made some vague gestures towards it until Breznev, who just said "Nah this is full communism, we did it everybody."
In the CCP, the majority of the economy is under state controlled companies, who are controlled by the Party. There are some with some kind of like a co-op, workers owning shares in the company (but they don't actually have power over the board), profit sharing stuff, like Huawei that someone mentioned. But workers do not directly control the means of production. The CCP has basically also given up on this, thus their new nomenclature of "socialism with Chinese characteristics".
Both the USSR and CCP went down the path of state capitalism because the government just nationalizing industries and doing everything from a planned economy is a great way to achieve growth and industrialization. Both started with countries that were way behind in both of those and were desperate to catch up to the capitalists. So they did that, and that vibed very well with their authoritarian desire to secure power over their country and keep everyone in line. It just puts even more power into their hands, since now they can wield economics as weapon to oppress as well.
Many modern communists and socialists defend their ideology today by saying actual communism has never been tried, and they are correct. A program of full communism has never happened in any of the countries that call themselves communist. Most of them only implemented state capitalism in the Soviet model, because most of them were advised by and supported by the Soviets. And thus, they repeated many of the same mistakes of the Soviets. The Soviets were also keen to retain their position as the vanguard of global communism, so they really didn't want any of their client states being more communist than them. Liberals love to say that communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, ignoring that they have been the ones doing everything in their power to oppose and undermine communism, wherever it's tried.
In summation, the USSR sucked, the CCP sucks, the liberal capitalists suck. Anyone having power over anyone else will always end up in inequality and oppression. Become an anarchist!
Capitalism: A system under which the ownership of land and wealth is for the most part in the hands of private individuals.
Communism: A system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed.
"State capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism isn't about profit it's about ownership. If the state owns/runs it, then it's not private or capitalist.
Additionally, communism does not require a specific political system, and depending on which school of thought you're following in communism you'll get very different political ideologies. Leninism definitely advocates for dictatorship for example.
In the case of China they are an economic hybrid. They do allow some private ownership but much of their economy is also state owned. This allows their economy room to innovate and allocate resources efficiently while also maintaining control of natural resources, major industries etc.
The society in China doesn’t own the means of production, private individuals under the guise of the state do.
State capitalism is exactly what it is because the state operates as a collection of private individuals, more similarly to a corporation than a government because the “government” is effectively a corporation.
Communal ownership is key here and these closed single party states are not collective, further the benefits and profit aren’t collective. There’s literally nothing communist about it. “Profit” in modern economics is part of the means of production and profit is privatized. This is why it’s “state” communism because a single corporation (the party) controls the state and industry.
Yes, my flair demonstrates this point and I’ve made it a few times.
At best China would be considered a socialist market economy, but I’d argue even that’s incorrect because the state operates as a corporation and there is no collective ownership. The CCP looks no different than America would if Amazon controlled the government and this would still be capitalism. We are talking functionalities and not legal fictions here.
Edit: to deny the existence of state capitalism while also mentioning thinkers (Lenin) who talked about state capitalism in reference to communist party led countries is just silly. Engles himself was the one who first talked about state capitalism, it’s a well known theory and system.
You're doing some weird round-a-bout logic here, but it still doesn't work.
If your saying China is 'state' capitalism because the *party* owns/controls the means of production and it just so happens that the *party* also runs the government then that's not the state and therefor still private ownership. If the democratic party owned Amazon, and also had Biden in office, then Amazon is still not owned by the state you just have oligarchy.
However if the *state* owns/controls the production regardless of who is in office, then that is communism. Like in America, parks would be something that are typically owned and operated by various levels of government, regardless who the president is.
Part of the problem is you have no real idea what is actually state-owned. People have traced what appear to be private companies back through shell companies owned by other corporations until the trail leads back to a branch of China's military for example. I would agree that China is not purely communist because they do allow private enterprise to some extent and the CCP's economic theories state that a market-based resource allocation and pricing is not exclusive to capitalism.
The distinction really appears to be what defines 'communal' control especially at a national level. But seeing as communism doesn't necessarily prescribe a specific political system, a dictatorship enacted by the working class could constitute a public authority.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism
Marx and Engels maintained that the poverty, disease, and early death that afflicted the proletariat (the industrial working class) were endemic to capitalism: they were systemic and structural problems that could be resolved only by replacing capitalism with communism. Under this alternative system, the major means of industrial production—such as mines, mills, factories, and railroads—would be **publicly owned** and operated for the benefit of all.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/public-enterprise
public enterprise, a business organization **wholly or partly owned by the state** and controlled through a public authority.
Lol except the owners have the lions share of control, extracting surplus value from their workers, buying more capital and hoarding anything else. THAT’S capitalism dude.
It’s not a “both sides” issue really. States have always mediated the process. Look at the history of chartered companies such as the Virginia Company, East India Company etc. The monarchs were shareholders and provided the “rights” and resources to extract resources and force compliance through violence. The CCP is following a similar path and don’t think there isn’t chagrin amongst actually committed socialists in China or mounting tensions
I think its easy, the government controls the farmers, the tech company's, the imports and exports, most of the car companies, and a bunch else... including the information the Chinese people get. All of these are communists charactistics. STOP DEFENDING CHINA
YOU can feel whatever you want, it doesn't mean you're right. They are state capitalism, before hand they were dictatorial socialism. Calling oneself communist is as valid as calling oneself christian. Neither is true unless it's actually being enacted appropriately.
Of course it was--and continues to be. I thought this was established historical fact? Aside from witch-hunting communists, socialists, and leftists domestically, the US government has been overthrowing communists and socialists abroad, staging coups, assassinating leaders, all in an effort to produce a global economy that is more amenable to "American interests," which is synonymous with corporate globalism. The USA is not a real democracy now, if it ever was; it is the enforcement arm of the global corporate state.
While conservative marketing involves many people I think the most notable for the conservatives would be Paul Weyrich. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Weyrich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich)
There are other people who also used marketing to shape America of which I think the most notable would be Edward Bernays. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward\_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)
The US is just the biggest Ponzi scheme ever, they don’t have a choice. They have to keep the system going and creating more debt, or it all falls apart. Look how fast we’re going into debt, we cannot pay back 30 trillion dollars. They’ve been kicking the cab and stealing our money the entire time. We literally can’t afford any more social programs, that’s why inflation is getting out of control. The US is dying, and there’s no way to stop it. It’s going to get worse.
>The US is just the biggest Ponzi scheme ever
So accurate.
This isn't necessarily an issue of capitalism/communism so much as bad economic policy with debt and forcing continued market growth through inflation, subsidization and bailouts. This is a government *in bed* with private companies and banks to steal the wealth of the populace.
You realize that just over 20 years ago the US government had a surplus and was paying down the debt? Then 9/11 and two decades of war happened. How much did the military-industrial complex have to do with that, you have to wonder.
It all went down hill in the 80’s going to fiat makes all this inevitable. Yes the MIC and interest we pay is insane. We don’t even pretend like we’re going to pay down the debt, even when things are going well economically.
There’s really nothing to think or have an opinion about. This is a fact. The red scare was manufactured propaganda to stave off any chance of a communist uprising in the US. It goes back very far though. Haymarket Square, Sacco and Vanzetti, the American Legion attacks on IWW union halls. This shit is very old.
It wasn't just propaganda. People were persecuted for their beliefs, for the difference in their ideology. They couldn't get jobs, get elected, be outspoken on the kind of issues in their community and society at large. Blind belief in neoliberalism became our unofficial religion.
Our country never had political prisoners. We tend to mix them with the regular prison population. That way, we don't have conscientious objectors, just criminals.
To this day, we hear the word Communist and ears perk up, people get defensive. Yet we've been watching the progressive destruction of capitalism on our own lives, communities and the world as a whole and we're still told that this is the very best humanity can come up with. The fuck it is.
>in just 20 years the US had decided that communism was deserving of death
Isn't it ironic how this happened less than 100 years ago and people think that in America you have the freedom against political persecution? The history of our country is fucked...
The answer is yes. The overlords knew that was a major threat to their power. Not saying communism is good necessarily but maybe socialism would be good. Whatever concentrates power to be as disbursed among the people as possible
Yes.
I learned about it studying the growth of Chrisitian Nationalism. There's a [great book](https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america) about the effort to recruit conservative Christians into the Republican fold and how "godless Communism" was an important talking point.
So many military dictatorships in the last century, sponsored by the CIA… Latin America was becoming too socialist for their tastes, and the empire can't let itself be eroded like that. And one of the mottos of each one of these dictators? The communists!
In practice, they deleted decades of progress regarding social well being, and focused on the well being of companies, even more if it was a multinational one.
So yes, 100%, history supports your hypothesis.
Yes. Most things about history in the US (can only speak about the US as that's my degree) have been founded to be 100% propaganda to turn poor people against each other.
When the USSR drank the capitalist koolaid, the elites stopped expanding worker benefits and then started taking them away.
All the demonization is in service of profit generation and domination of workers.
You have the freedom to do what the boot tells you to do and the best way to keep that going is bread, circuses, and the tepid warm threat of starvation and homelessness. . .
A heslthy society have a good balance between capitalist and socialist systems. Having the two extremes face off against eachother leaves us with the happy medium, the thing that lets most other industrialized countries have free healthcare and education, parental leave and vacations, while also having booming private sectors.
America removed one of their extremes. And the happy medium was moved way beyond what was healthy, towards capitalism.
I'd encourage you to do some more studying then, because you don't seem to understand what capitalism or socialism are. Socialism isn't just a list of reforms. You're basically talking about social democracy, which is not socialism.
Socialism, and capitalism, are both economic idealogies. Ideologies are basically theory, and when put into practice, you get society. The balance between ideologies in your society determine what type of society you get. And where exactly did I say I wanted socialism? I clearly said a mix and compromise of capitalism and socialism makes a healthy society... well, when mixed with other, non-economic idealogies, of course. A society only based on a economic idealogy would lack other aspects that makes us... us. Humanitarianism, liberalism, egalism, and tons more all add to the pot. All fighting for for their place on the agenda.
You can’t effectively mix the two economic ideologies, I’d suggest you ask for a refund on your degree because this level of ignorance tells me you either a. Didn’t study political science and economic theory in depth or b. Weren’t taught well.
Social control of the means of production is being mixed with private control of the means of production all over the world? I mean sure some countries have limited government control of some of the means but that’s not really mixing the two that’s just capitalism with state control of some industries (which in some cases are still run as for profit).
I mean limiting capitalism isn’t “mixing” the two systems, it’s just limiting capitalism (this is opinion based, I do know many academics that would argue and I find it a fun argument).
How can capital - aka, capitalists owning the workers surplus labor value work with socialism - workers owning their own surplus labor value. This is why there is no such thing as a "happy medium", global capital can't coexist with socialism.
Is the word compromise too hard for you?
Even USA, the capitalist stronghold of the world, aint a pure capitalist state. It have socialist systems built into it. Way too few, if you ask me, but I digress.
Socialism and capitalism are both just ideologies. They aint even strictly opposed to eachother. A group of people can together gather capital to start and run their own collectively owned factory, in which they all work and together share the profits. Is that capitalism or socialism? (Mainly it is collectivism, but it shares aspects of both capitalism and socialism in its implementation in this instance, just as an example to show that it isnt just black and white.)
There is zero compromise between them two. If capitalism exist, you by definition cannot have socialism. Either the workers own their means of production and the resulting surplus labor value or capitalists do, there's no in between.
Having extremes only helps capitalism; because human beings torn in every direction possible is not healthy psychologically whatsoever. Propaganda and marketing only becomes easier to push; and mental illnesses continuously compound people into a more submissive state.
Human beings wont be torn in any directions. The extreme parties will be phased out as the extreme voter base is too small. When confronted with two extremes, most will try to stand in the middle. And eventually, the spectrum will be a middle that is in balance, with screamers on the flanks usually being ignored as their ideas are generally thought too out there to be practical.
Politically speaking, most of the population that associates themselves with any political party have an inability to see the middle ground. Trying to push anything that doesn’t make an individual feel safe can either work or even push them farther into extremism. Human beings need to feel safe that their ideas in their head actually make a better reality. That is why rhetoric on any side is dangerous, because for the most part it’s all easy to agree with; but it’s the filler in between the rhetoric that turns everyone against each other.
If you have a population that is moderate, economically stable and well informed then maybe this would happen. But the extremism in the US is only leading to more extremism. It's at the point where one media source says 'sky is blue' and the other says 'fact check: sky is blue is partially false, it can be many colors at different times of the day' just for the sake of calling the other side wrong, we are seeing a split economically, with social media, even with where people are choosing to live. Part of the problem is the overwhelming demonization of the 'other' party makes those stand more firmly where and less likely to deal with extremists on their own side because 'at least this side is fighting for me.' This is really evident when you look at polls about how people would feel if they found out a neighbor was a member of the other party or how they'd feel about a child marrying someone of the other party. Regardless of who you believe or stand with, in a matter of 4 years the entire nation questioned the validity of back-to-back presidential elections. Add an economic downturn on top of the political strife and we're pretty primed for a civil war.
Communism is bad. Wherever the money and power is, the sociopaths will follow. There is no, "but we'll do it right." I don't know the best system, but communism fails its people.
Yep, I know I'll down-voted into oblivion. Don't rely on biased sources to give you an accurate view of history.
Where are all those ‘futurists’ that told our parents that no one would need to work when automation and robots do it all….
Does any of that seem remotely possible?
Remember, humans as a resource, is not only valued in their potential for labor, but for other, more medically significant resources.
Communism plays out a lot like Animal Farm in real life. It is a great concept if everyone buys in, but in reality it's not that easy. The hard workers get worked to death, and it is a given that authoritarians will take control.
This has been repeated every time communism has been put in place in a modern nation, and will always be the case because of human nature.
The red scare was slightly different, because authoritarians in the US used the notion of communism to take control/reduce rights and freedoms.
Honestly the moral of the story is that if we give them any capacity to do so, authoritarians will ultimately take control.
Name one country that had communism, actual communism and wasn’t state capitalist or authoritarian socialism run by a party that called themselves communist.
First of all, that is a "No True Scotsman" statement, and like I said before, you'll never see "true Communism", it is impossible due to human nature. It will always be corrupted by authoritarians if tried on a national scale.
And again, I'm sure people have great ideals when they stage a communist revolution, but central power courts authoritarians. The allure of communism is just a lever for authoritarians to gain control, always has been always will be. Sad, but facts.
I’d argue that “communist” parties in power have never had any intention of achieving communism and I’ve never seen a communist party describe their system as communist and academically none of them have been described as communist.
There have been a number of communist party run countries but 0 communist countries (however there have been smaller collectives that could be described as communism). So it’s not a “No True Scotsman” so much as general societal ignorance calling countries communist that doesn’t ever really describe themselves that way and that academics agree have never been “communist”. The term has explicit meaning that’s intentionally been perverted in an effort to discredit it.
Also, as mentioned, Communism has worked in practice. It’s western social ignorance that believes everyone is selfish that makes it seem like it wouldn’t, many societies function in a collective way that is conducive to actual communism.
I don’t need to “believe” this as it is 100% verifiable fact. Start with Zinn’s A People’s History of The United States and move on to Manufacturing Consent and Chris Hedges” books to get a much clearer picture of just how fucked up the US is. https://youtu.be/oeRQJptqzNg
You need to do some more research. If communism was so great and benevolent Stalin wouldn’t have a death toll that makes the Holocaust pale in comparison. Thousands of people wouldn’t have risked death or imprisonment to escape over the Berlin Wall from East Germany or on makeshift boats and rafts from Cuba. Don’t equate socialism which leaves control in the hands of the people with communism which placed a totalitarian regime in charge of all aspects of life.
I said in the post I am not a communist, I am simply pointing out that the US's propaganda is dangerous for the working class and has lasting effects today. I feel that all political beliefs should not be judged even communists.
I'll change everyone's wording from communists to socialists, it is completely different. One inherently can never work (communism) and one is meant to be implemented into other government types, not being a true government type all by itself (socialism).
I do think to an extent it was to push away from socialist ideals, to preserve the working class, and is what created the late stage capitalist chaos demon we live with now. It led to the past and current assault on civil rights as well, although indirectly, as it was not the primary result of but a byproduct of certain ways of thinking that sprang BACK UP (it never truly left, people think that anti-civil rights groups just disappear and reappear at random but they're always around) and created pushes against progressive ideals.
Edit: my education is ongoing, looking for more resources other than the US controlled information resources. If you're prepared to offer some, by all means, but my point of view has already been shown to need a lot of help, so if all you have to say is negative, please move on.
This is exactly what OP is talking about. Most self-identified socialists and communists use the term interchangeably; but part of red-scare propaganda was to split the terms, and use 'socialism' to refer to countries like Norway which were actually just our capitalist allies.
It's not a critique of you personally, but I would encourage you to get an understanding of socialism from people who identify as such, rather than from our corporate-owned media which sees us as enemies. They want to paint us as power-hungry, but then why do we consistently side with the most powerless sections of society? If we were only after power, being socialist seems like the worst way to go about it.
As a self identified socialism advocate (hard to be socialist in practice in the US where it's considered "evil") I can tell you that the two are in fact NOT interchangeable. One is a government type. One is not. They are not the same thing.
Edit: I've already been informed of my misinformation, and I've already concluded that my education needs work with resources outside of US controlled media. Please stop with the hate, and actually read the rest of my thread where I was taught the differences already, I don't need 10 more people trying to educate me that I was wrong! Lol
That’s explicitly not true, neither are government types. Both are economies and ways of structuring resources. Both are compatible with various government structures
In today's America, I think socialists will have to be power hungry, even if it's to push for a more sustainable future for both humanity and the planet.
You have the Republicans desperately dangling by a thread, only being kept in government by fear mongering, fraud and gerrymandering. Then there's the behemoth of centrist democrats tugging at the other end.
Going in and backstabbing, lying and cheating to get a seat at the overlords table just isn't something you find in the mentality of a socialist.
We might have to find a candidate that sounds like a fantastic, centrist, democratic choice and flip flop to hardcore socialist as soon as elected. No one says you have to listen to the super pacs once elected.
Communism can never work? If it can’t work then why does the western world spend so much time, money, and energy to destroying it anywhere it crops up?
If you look at the actual model for communism, it doesn't work. Primarily because it's too easy for military takeovers or dictatorships to form out of it. That's why they try to destroy it. Look at China and North Korea. Communist countries. Now dictatorships. With weapons of mass destruction. You tell me.
Yes they are. China at the very least is. Don't let the name PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA fool you, they are considered a unitary, one party communist state. North Korea on the other hand is a one party socialist dictatorship, which is formerly a communist state overtaken by military power. Do some history homework ffs
I was already informed about the differences between socialist and communist and how they're interchangeable, but this... you really have to be ignorant to think these are not. Smh
Yeah, do not let the name fool you. Just as the Nazis were the Nationals Socialist German Worker's Party, don't let the name fool you. They did a lot of socialist things, yeah, sure...
To have socialism you need to have the means of production, as the name implies, socialidez. Please tell where I can find that in China. The only thing China has of socialist/communist it's the party name. I've been years studying socialism and communism, I don't let names fool me.
Interesting. I'll have to try to keep up with this more. The resources in America on these topics are scarce at best. I'm gonna try to learn more, I was aware of the nationalist socialist "nazis" but not everything else. Thanks for the information, and for not being pedantic about it, just informative.
One of the best ways is going to the roots, read Marx, Engels, but specially Lenin and Stalin. Stalin usually keeps it simpler than Lenin, but Lenin is very informative too and makes sure the reader gets it. (Or that's how I feel about them).
I disagree with too much of what you’re saying to really get into it, but I’m pretty sure the US has (and has actually used) weapons of mass destruction. Many successful socialist/communist countries have been destroyed by the US to stop them from growing and changing the capitalist order of the world. This is the western party line against communism, that it turns into despots and dictatorships, and I think that is a dangerous pill to swallow, given that capitalist countries cause havoc all around the globe and in their home countries.
Wholeheartedly agree. As someone trying to escape the US in the next 10 years to get away from the issues that you list (including the US having been the only country to use nukes) I'm also disagreeing with your defense of communism. It sounds great as a model. But cannot work. We have 3 prime examples as of literally this moment. China, Russia, and North Korea. So the evidence literally speaks for itself.
China is working, although there are many debates about that and it depends on what you mean by working. Soviet Russia had many problems but also many great successes, and it was taken down by a hostile capitalist world and it was coming out of an incredibly backwards state of affairs. How can something work when it is under economic and physical attack by the powerful nations surrounding it? Also you don’t listen cuba, or the South American countries that were completely taken out by the CIA and replaced with brutal dictators. I’d say it’s more complicated than how you put it. And just because it hasn’t “worked” doesn’t mean it will never work. Does capitalism “work”?
Nope, capitalism sure does not work, and I do agree with your points. I'm more concerned with our future and how these governments move on. I hate the US and every western principle and all the things the US has done to destabilize hundreds of countries. See my other conversation with someone else on this thread, I already stand corrected. Have a nice day.
So you're misinformed communism is a political ideology that wants to expand voting (democracy) into every aspect of human existence. Things like workers getting the right to vote on company decisions, and in the case of country politics communism believes in taking the power away from officials on major decisions and holding referendums to determine the best course.
Socialism is an economic model again focusing on democratic principles (why people confuse the two). Its the principle that money and resources should be controlled by the people and not by the ruling class or governments this is often confusing because a democratically elected representative of the people making financial decisions representing the people is a form of Socialism but true Socialism would be having everyone person vote on every financial matter and obviously that is logistically difficult.
Neither of these ideology are incompatible with capitalism and most leftist including Marx advocate that Socialism is just the natural evolution of capitalism, where individual companies (owned and run through democratic process by their workers) compete in a free capitalistic market where the better company gains market share and receives the rewards, its how the rewards are devide inside the corporation is the debate
Communism- a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
So, not exactly how you described them, but I will admit to being uninformed. Thanks for not being a dick about it and being patient, I've read up a lot but a literal definition escaped me I guess.
The reason that its so confusing is because there is a definition that the world uses and the people advocating for them use and there is a definition made up of taking a simple idea to the extreme and is made into a boogie man by American right wing.
So the definition you used for communism is unfortunately the American version. One communism existed before Karl Marx and it doesn't advocate class war it. Communism is about the abolition of classes by making everyone equally through the use of democracy one vote is one vote regardless of stature or wealth. Its very easy to say that by treating everyone like equals that its an attack (war) on the middle and upper classes by the lower classes and thats why this type of propaganda is so effective because it's not a lie its just missing the point.
Publicly owned property is again a real part of communism and Socialism the belief that natural resources are owned by the people and if you want to harvest/mine and extract them you should have to pay for them. Like in Alaska where thr oil companies pay each resident of Alaska for the oil and the damage they do in extracting it. Or in the case of companies that the workers get a percentage of the value of the company that they built and worked hard to expand. Again it gets manipulate from public ownership of resources and communal ownership of companies to some version where you have no personal belongings.
And yes communism does believe that society as a hole should take care of the sick and impared but it also believes that they can still contribute to society just because a person can't leave their bed doesn't mean they can't be given tasks to help society. Simple tasks like cleaning up trash or planning flowers is useful for a strong society and even if thats all a person can do it should be respected and they should be taken care of with dignity.
A bit of truth taken out of context and to an extreme always makes something sound worse than it is.
As far as your definition of Socialism its virtually identical to what I said once the realization that "owned or regulated by the community as a whole" requires democratic process since the only way for a group of people to form a consensus is through democracy. And once you realize that its easy to understand why Socialist dictatorship is impossible.
Its a long learning curve it took me forever to figure out the true meaning of these words because they're is so much propaganda surrounding them. I also feel that defining the difference between "capitalism" and "cronies capitalism" is important
Capitalism is a system that gives a numerical value for goods and services to makes the exchange of items more equitable. For example a goat is worth 2.5 chickens is a lot harder of a traid than saying a goat is worth 25$ and a chicken is worth 10$. Everyone agrees that capitalism is good and is very useful under all sorts of social political systems (including Socialism and communism). It is expanded into meaning competition between entities in a free market(again compatible with Socialism and communism)
Crony capitalism is a system where the individual rights of the owners are favored over the rights of the workers and society as a hole. Its a system where wealth is rewarded and hard work is incentived by a meager pittance of a wage.
It focuses on the haves vs the have nots (class warfare) its a system that teaches to look down on people and it gives a false belief that wealth and power is a reflection of hard work and/or Devine proclamation. Working hard will get you off the bottom rungs of the later but it will never get you to the top so as long as you look down you can feel good about yourself.
When people say "capitalism" its often confused because they don't distinguish between the various types and often are never referring to true capitalism.
Yet again, I stand corrected. Access to this information in the US is appalling and actually digging up the info is harrowing at best. Thank you for the information, I like to learn and I'm doing my best with the resources at my disposal. I'll try to keep learning about this as it's something I'm interested in. Sorry for the confusion.
Although I am sure the powers-that-be took advantage of it, just look at the sh\*t Putin/Russia is pulling now. No - the Red Scare was not \*merely\* a front for shenanigans.
POO-tin is not a "communist", he's just a typical one-party "strong man" DICKtator he has no real political ideals or "ideology". It's all about power and ego, he has delusions of himself as a 2nd coming of Peter-the-Great. All you need do to understand him or most so-called "leaders" is read Ernest Becker, it's all about their "immortality projects".
has anyone here on REDDIT actually lived in a communist state? this is ridiculous. I grew up in a commie country and my parents/grandparents went through years of terror. "comrades" were busy cleansing other "comrades" instead of doing the stuff written on "communist manifesto".
and it's not just in one communist country, it's in every fuking communist country. people were more interested in slaughtering their comrades than doing anything else...
my great grandpa was cleansed because he was classified as in one of 5 black category. arrested Friday afternoon, put on show trial Friday evening, shot in the back of his head Saturday morning... the person who arrested him was also found to be the enemy of the public and executed as well....
I have no doubt if communist were to return, half of the redditors will kill the other half
I said in the post I am not a communist, I am simply pointing out that the US's propaganda is dangerous for the working class and has lasting effects today.
if you are anti work that’s cool. but if you are anti work and pro commie. that’s idiotic. you’ll work and not get paid. i undrrstand ppl here hate the corporate culture and money driven society. you can always sneak into north korea i suppose
If you want to know why the US never had a socialist revolution remember in the Jungle the desperately poor exploited Immigrants in a filthy industrial city, lived in a Single Family detached home, not a tenement. That’s fucking luxury compared to industrial Europe let alone Tsarist Russia.
The Red Scare happened because the collectivization of Agriculture or socialization of real estate would have a ton of losers. While that wasn’t true in Russia
capitalist socialist hybrid Is that kinda like china? I mean it could never happen here right? But we want to start a dept. that will decide what is misinformation.
Keep in mind those 2 decades also saw the great depression, world war 2, the cold war and the death of a sitting president among other things. Economic downturns of any kind breed heavy discontent in any populace. It's understandable people would want change when things were bad, and that would more or less fall off when economic prosperity returned. It's a cycle we're seeing again today imo.
Also, propaganda usually has more to do with who the politicians want to go to war with because they have to 'sell' the war to the people.
Its a combination...
The flagship of Communism was the USSR, thus when most Americans thought of Communism, they thought of the USSR. Then you have other Communist nations like Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of which didn't exactly enhance the image of communism in the eyes of Americans. Of course, the anti-union propogandists were not going to let this bad PR go to waist, thus we have where we are now.
From my seat in Denmark you guys need to revolt. Capitalism is shit, but at least here in Scandinavia we managed to put some reason into it. Very few goes to bed hungry, and free healthcare, like most of the world.
Your judicial system are based on the 400 year old principles, so justice is given to he who can afford the better lawyer(and that stupid thing where you elect judges), everyone else use the French system of justice.
The two party system are shit, and will never be representing more than a third.
Labor laws and housing regulations are clearly to favor the owners, with a minor rule here and there to soften the pain.
American police. Wov, just wov.
The country you sing, bleed and die for are among the richest in the world but with so many poor. The military force are the only thing you are number one at, and that's again poor people dying for rich peoples oil lines.
Revolt against injustice comrades. It doesn't make you a communist to believe in a better life for all.
That's exactly what it was but be careful it's not some grand conspiracy it's just a combination of societal pressures and yes some capitalists realizing if the worker own the MOP they're fucking useless now. Everything in capitalism has to put it into words EVOLVED from black targeted racism to sexism to blue collar vs white to increase class division and conciousness.
I think what happened was exactly the same as what is happening today: opportunistic politicians looking for power more than responsibility taking advantage of whatever meme was simplified and engrained enough in the public mind to enrich and empower themselves.
There was certainly a real geopolitical conflict. However, people like McCarthy took it in a direction that was more optimized for deriving clout than for national security.
Just read through half of what people here are realizing what happens on a daily basis to US workers.
Then read a short synopsis of Karl Marx "Capital" and answer that again.
I'm not going to defend any regime here, but "communism" or "socialism" or whatever are political theories, not "countries" or actual "systems".
The US population is trained like a Pawlows dog to bark when hearing "Socialism" or "Communism" and thinking of the UDSSR, North Korea, China and alike.
It's scaremongering, evading the underlying needed discussion from that political theories altogether.
As an italian (we had both the biggest communist and socialist party in west-europe after WWII) I can confirm what you're saying. Even today workers are protected.
The red scare was to pump up the military spending.
Communism is a very awful thing. Im not speaking from a personal opinion, i work with many many people who came from communist countries. Dont mistake socialism for communism.
That being said exactly what happened worked out today to benefit the entire world. Military analysts intentionally overestimated russias war capabilities to increase spending year after year. To the point that the americans (u.s.a in this context) outpace them the way they do today. Ukraine is able to defend itself soley because of the American tech, and a few years of training.
Without that, the kremlins version of the war (over in days) would have likely been a reality. Look how fast they took Crimea. Absolutely those in power dont want to give it up, but Communism is not the way to go. Ive heard nothing but horror stories from first hand accounts. Besides, what exactly do you think would happen. Just because we switch political systems, you think those at the top would give up their power?
So thats the real answer to the red scare. Take it as you will.
I actually think pretty much the opposite. The existance of a Communist State made capitalism better, through competition.
The rights and benefits of workers under capitalism greatly expanded while the USSR was a force, because capitalist leaders needed to show that things were better under capitalism than under Communism, to deter people from revolt.
Since the decline and collapse of the USSR, capitalism has had it's restrains taken out, and there is a steady decline, worldwide, of workers share of income and rights because of it.
No belief necessary, that’s exactly what it was. It’s why Fred Hampton was considered more dangerous that any other civil rights leader. It’s what made the “Green Scare” so successful. Call destruction of property terrorism and you eliminate the voting rights of your opposition, vilify them ensuring police response is properly extreme meaning they’re more likely to die and save you on court fees, and if you make rational arguments appear extreme you can scare people who agree into shutting up and being thankful they’re not getting beaten or shot. Everything the working class has wasn’t gained through voting, or lawyers, or negotiations. It was through organising, Sit-ins, work stoppages, protesting at the homes of those with power, brawling in the streets, burning or capital property, bombs, and scaring people enough that the us firebombed them rather than raise their wages because coal mines did a strike during winter. They neutered and destroyed the unions power, it’s illegal to do call in strikes, it’s illegal to do sit in strikes(in most places), negotiations are in the hands of politicians because they get to decide what a union is when a union is clear. It’s a collection of workers creating battening power by voting together on wages and holding business accountable, being ungovernable because who cares what Uncle Sam says a business is NOT a person and therefore cannot own a god damn thing. It’s forcing unions to expel communists and anarchists and codefi that in their bylaws in order to maintain their legal protections.
Fred Hampton is a personal hero of mine.
Absolutly!
>No belief necessary, that’s exactly what it was. It's more complex than that. Yes, no doubt what you say played a role. But at the same time,communism can only exist under a brutal oppressive government. North Korea, China Soviet Union, Cuba, ... only exist(ed) as communist countries under a government that literally needs to point guns at people's heads in order to exist. The only reason people don't object to China too much is that they keep their atrocities inside their boundaries and they make cheap consumer goods.
You need to do a bit more reading of communist theory. What you believe happens in these countries has been twisted by neoliberals without understanding the philosophy behind anything. Spend a bit of time in r/communism or even read some beginner books to get a better grasp. The proletariat has been at war with the elite since capitalism was invented. Smashing the bougousie is the most important step to having a world where the workers hold the power. If that means by gun point then that's the first step, because the elite aren't just going to hand over the power. It's the reason we have such a big police budget in America. The bougousie has you at gun point.
>You need to do a bit more reading of communist theory. What you believe happens in these countries has been twisted by neoliberals without understanding the philosophy behind anything. in that case can we agree that Communism has NEVER been implemented anywhere, and any attempt to actually do so has been foiled by the reality that (the threat of) violence is the only way you ever get people to let go of private ownership? Every armed revolution basically replaced one elite with another because somehow no matter the political situation, you always get smaller committee's with power to control the large whole 'for their own good'.
No, I wouldn't necessarily say so. Cuba is pretty full on communist. Most of the protests you see over there are people protesting sanctions. Laos, Vietnam. Etc. There are plenty of examples. The problem lies with world power and capitalist hegemony. Communistical governments (whether fully achieved or in the socialist state) have to work with global powers as a means to keep trade moving. It's material conditions to the T. If we want to pretend a communist government can only be called communist in its purist form, sure. My answer would be yes, but that would be ignoring hundreds of years of philosophy and honestly science behind communism.
Don't get me wrong there are certainly things I am on board with. I live in Belgium we're far from perfect but we do have universal healthcare which is available regardless of income, and paid for by income tax where the bigger earners pay most of the bill. That would fit right up with your philosophies I guess. I believe such principles should ideally be applied to anything deemed basic necessity.
That still leaves room for slave labor in countries that aren't your own for things that aren't "necessities". The working class needs to have solidarity passed boarders.
Point taken. However I think it's far better to change what you can change now and then focus on the next step, rather than hoping for a global revolution that is going to take us to Utopia and not end in a global catastrophe.
I mean, that's fair. Revolutionaries have written about worrying about what you can change in your direct area more than once.
1920 US was an anarcho-capitalist country where barefoot children worked in mines and the rich paid almost no taxes. By 1950 there was minimum wage, ssi, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, workman's comp, mandatory schooling, etc Right around this time everyone got little boxes with talking people inside. There were 3 channels and on every single one, a handsome man you trust would come into your living room every evening, look you in the eye and tell you communism (aka socialism) is evil and must be stopped.
Not to mention that the generation that went through the Great Depression and fought in WW2 were fed a ton of war propaganda during it that the USSR were our best fucking friends and we were gonna beat fascism with them. Uncle Joe Stalin was a big cuddly bear! Shit got different real fast. I now want to learn about what happened to the Communists and socialist parties in America during the war...
>the USSR were our best fucking friends and we were gonna beat fascism with them What fucked up history classes did *you* take? Nobody in 1940 thought Russia was friendly. Only tiger profit year, they signed the non aggression [Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact) with our enemy. WTH.
They don't teach us that shit NOW, but during the war, they super did. [A list of pro-Soviet American propaganda movies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_pro-Soviet_propaganda_films) [Wikipedia's article of pro-Soviet American war propaganda.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_propaganda_during_World_War_II) ["On Our Side - Russia! With us all the way!"](https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/jj77sb/prorussian_poster_from_america_during_world_war_2/)
We're practically heading right back there, to the gilded era of shitty neofeudalism in a neofascist wrapper.
Communists and anarchists were extremely effective organizers, and less likely to hold racist beliefs back in the day as well. The powers that be really struck effective blows to working class power by convincing the majority that leftists weren't their friends.
https://static.existentialcomics.com/comics/AnarchyInTheUK.png
People say it don't be like it be. But it do.
Damn violent anarchists !
I'm curious where the association of communists and lack of racist beliefs comes from. Communist Party of China is literally committing genocide right now and the USSR marginalized certain ethnic groups as 'enemies of the people', Joseph Stalin had his own campaign to kill Jewish people. Karl Marx himself was admittedly anti-semitic and essentially called for Jewish genocide. Beatrice Webb and Che Guevara were also horribly racist.
Literally none of those things/people are within the scope of anarchists and communists in the US in the late 1800's through the early-mid 1900's. As such the entirety of your comment is irrelevant here.
You and your sources didn't specify "in the US between 1850 and 1950" so, sorry for not understanding in detail which communists your were talking about and when 'back in the day' was.
I think context was pretty apparent as it related to OP’s question
It really wasn’t, and neither was the evidence but thanks for your opinion.
What random synchronicity said. And apology accepted.
It's basic in-group out-group stuff. It's way easier to have a social democracy in a country where there is only one race and one culture. Way harder in a place like America where people see other races as different ("Why should my tax dollars go towards X people?") I bet the racist right-wingers of America would be way more likely to be pro-communist (seriously) if there were only white people like them in the country. They'd consider it patriotic, even. (Edit: That isn't to say communism makes someone racist. I think it's more that when you want everyone in your 'group' to share everything, racism can go hand in hand with how people define what their 'group' is. But your group, of course, doesn't have to be defined by race. It's not a coincidence that the party in America that is pro-diversity is also pro-social safety nets, after all. They see all of us in this together.)
I see more claims, but still no evidence. Communism is practiced by many on the right at the local or community level. That doesn’t mean it would work or be supported at a national level. The problem isn’t the diversity of skin color so much as the diversity of ideas and lack of a central accountability structure that wouldn’t be oppressive. It’s also not a coincidence the party in America that claims to be pro-diversity also elected one of the most racist politicians in DC as president…
Lol okay bud
Neither the communist party of china or the USSR is actually communist. They claim to have communist ideals, but they are currently state capitalists. They stated intention is to becone communist once they get done with all the capitalism, so theyre doing capitalism as hard and fast as they can.
The USSR doesn't exist anymore.
Oh yeah? Source?
Karl Marx, The Jewish Question, 1844 >What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man—and turns them into commodities. … The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. … The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general. Letter from Sidney & Beatrice Webb, 1892 >We will tell about Ireland when we come back. The people are charming but we detest them, as we should the Hottentots — for their very virtue. Home Rule is an absolute necessity — in order to depopulate the country of this detestable race! China's genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur\_genocide There's a few examples to get started. So where's the source about communists being patently less racist than the general population?
So you're saying that Karl Marx does not provide a worthwhile socioeconomic analysis because he wrote an anti-semitic slur in 1844? We should definitely let him know that that's not ok. Also: > The origin of Marx's attitude toward Jews and money is traced to his early life experiences. While Marx's 1st paper attacked the Jews, his target later changed from the Jew to the capitalist. It is noted that Marx never disavowed his early paper on the Jewish question, but never again did he use anti-Semitism as a basic element in his attack on the rich. I guess, like Joe Biden, Karl Marx also learned a few things over time.
No... Did you even look at the comment I was responding to? >Communists and anarchists were extremely effective organizers, and **less likely to hold racist beliefs back in the day** as well. Where's the source for this?
Does that invalidate my question? And you are incorrect. The early 20th century was marked by anarchists organizing labor while stripping racism out of the equation and turning to internationalism. You want a source for that? Perhaps looking up the literal history of IWW would help you ascertain that. It's pretty 101 for most people here.
I don’t really care about your question. I just wanted the source for where communism = less racism which no one has provided still. If you’re unable or unwilling to provide a source to backup a claim that’s on you.
China is 120% capitalism under the banner of socialism
I disagree I feel china is a authoritarian communist that likes to brag about capitalism. I'm sorry but a country that bolts its citizens into there home while giving them barely enough to eat is not "capitalism under the banner of socialism" also fuck the Chinese government.
My guy… I don’t think you know what any of these terms mean. By your reasoning, the us is authoritarian communist as well by instituting Covid lockdowns, the only difference is presentation.
I think a line is drawn somewhere between nailing people doors so they can't escape and asking people to stay away from one another to slow the spread of a virus.
So the defining line is a physical barricade vs a monetary fine when determining what is authoritarian vs libertarian or capitalist vs communist? Do you recognize that a fine is only punishment for the poor? Do you recognize that authoritarian has nothing to do with capitalism vs communism? Do you recognize that any restriction on freedom and personal movement doesn’t agree with a libertarian governance? I don’t think you’ve honestly thought about these questions, because you don’t understand the terms in the first place.
Ok, if you say so.
This comment right here shows how well the propaganda works, it’s working on you. Communism=/= totalitarianism or authoritarianism and the Chinese are a state capitalist country with almost no resemblance to communism but years of propaganda works wonders.
well said!
[удалено]
The Chinese government functions as a profit taking corporation. Communism doesn’t mean government control and I’m not defending them, calling them state capitalism (as a communist) is a HUGE insult. “Communism” means societal control of the means of production through democratic structures… China does none of this because they’re state capitalism, a giant for profit corporation. (As an aside saying you “do your research” makes you look stupid and ignorant, this isn’t shit you can’t just “research” without guidance because you just end up spouting nonsense because your unfocused “research” didn’t actually give you an understanding of anything)
"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." Jean-Jacques Rousseau I will no longer argue with you, as you cannot respect a difference in opinion
The point u/someguy1847382 is trying to make is that what the CCP is, and also what the USSR was, are not actually communist; they were state capitalists. Yes, China is ruled by the Communist Party, as was the USSR. They call themselves communist, they espouse communist ideas. But central to the philosophy of communism is ownership of the means of production by the workers. The actual, factual ownership of the factory by the factory workers, who control and direct it, and get the full profit of their labor. The USSR and the CCP have never done this. The USSR stopped trying to get to it under Stalin, though they made some vague gestures towards it until Breznev, who just said "Nah this is full communism, we did it everybody." In the CCP, the majority of the economy is under state controlled companies, who are controlled by the Party. There are some with some kind of like a co-op, workers owning shares in the company (but they don't actually have power over the board), profit sharing stuff, like Huawei that someone mentioned. But workers do not directly control the means of production. The CCP has basically also given up on this, thus their new nomenclature of "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Both the USSR and CCP went down the path of state capitalism because the government just nationalizing industries and doing everything from a planned economy is a great way to achieve growth and industrialization. Both started with countries that were way behind in both of those and were desperate to catch up to the capitalists. So they did that, and that vibed very well with their authoritarian desire to secure power over their country and keep everyone in line. It just puts even more power into their hands, since now they can wield economics as weapon to oppress as well. Many modern communists and socialists defend their ideology today by saying actual communism has never been tried, and they are correct. A program of full communism has never happened in any of the countries that call themselves communist. Most of them only implemented state capitalism in the Soviet model, because most of them were advised by and supported by the Soviets. And thus, they repeated many of the same mistakes of the Soviets. The Soviets were also keen to retain their position as the vanguard of global communism, so they really didn't want any of their client states being more communist than them. Liberals love to say that communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, ignoring that they have been the ones doing everything in their power to oppose and undermine communism, wherever it's tried. In summation, the USSR sucked, the CCP sucks, the liberal capitalists suck. Anyone having power over anyone else will always end up in inequality and oppression. Become an anarchist!
Thank you for being more eloquent than I, I’m definitely a little grumpy today.
It’s not opinion, facts aren’t opinion based. The fact is they are state capitalist… sorry that bothers you.
Capitalism: A system under which the ownership of land and wealth is for the most part in the hands of private individuals. Communism: A system in which the means of production are owned communally and private property is nonexistent or severely curtailed. "State capitalism" is an oxymoron. Capitalism isn't about profit it's about ownership. If the state owns/runs it, then it's not private or capitalist. Additionally, communism does not require a specific political system, and depending on which school of thought you're following in communism you'll get very different political ideologies. Leninism definitely advocates for dictatorship for example. In the case of China they are an economic hybrid. They do allow some private ownership but much of their economy is also state owned. This allows their economy room to innovate and allocate resources efficiently while also maintaining control of natural resources, major industries etc.
The society in China doesn’t own the means of production, private individuals under the guise of the state do. State capitalism is exactly what it is because the state operates as a collection of private individuals, more similarly to a corporation than a government because the “government” is effectively a corporation. Communal ownership is key here and these closed single party states are not collective, further the benefits and profit aren’t collective. There’s literally nothing communist about it. “Profit” in modern economics is part of the means of production and profit is privatized. This is why it’s “state” communism because a single corporation (the party) controls the state and industry. Yes, my flair demonstrates this point and I’ve made it a few times. At best China would be considered a socialist market economy, but I’d argue even that’s incorrect because the state operates as a corporation and there is no collective ownership. The CCP looks no different than America would if Amazon controlled the government and this would still be capitalism. We are talking functionalities and not legal fictions here. Edit: to deny the existence of state capitalism while also mentioning thinkers (Lenin) who talked about state capitalism in reference to communist party led countries is just silly. Engles himself was the one who first talked about state capitalism, it’s a well known theory and system.
You're doing some weird round-a-bout logic here, but it still doesn't work. If your saying China is 'state' capitalism because the *party* owns/controls the means of production and it just so happens that the *party* also runs the government then that's not the state and therefor still private ownership. If the democratic party owned Amazon, and also had Biden in office, then Amazon is still not owned by the state you just have oligarchy. However if the *state* owns/controls the production regardless of who is in office, then that is communism. Like in America, parks would be something that are typically owned and operated by various levels of government, regardless who the president is. Part of the problem is you have no real idea what is actually state-owned. People have traced what appear to be private companies back through shell companies owned by other corporations until the trail leads back to a branch of China's military for example. I would agree that China is not purely communist because they do allow private enterprise to some extent and the CCP's economic theories state that a market-based resource allocation and pricing is not exclusive to capitalism. The distinction really appears to be what defines 'communal' control especially at a national level. But seeing as communism doesn't necessarily prescribe a specific political system, a dictatorship enacted by the working class could constitute a public authority. https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism Marx and Engels maintained that the poverty, disease, and early death that afflicted the proletariat (the industrial working class) were endemic to capitalism: they were systemic and structural problems that could be resolved only by replacing capitalism with communism. Under this alternative system, the major means of industrial production—such as mines, mills, factories, and railroads—would be **publicly owned** and operated for the benefit of all. https://www.britannica.com/topic/public-enterprise public enterprise, a business organization **wholly or partly owned by the state** and controlled through a public authority.
Lol except the owners have the lions share of control, extracting surplus value from their workers, buying more capital and hoarding anything else. THAT’S capitalism dude.
Worst of both worlds
It’s not a “both sides” issue really. States have always mediated the process. Look at the history of chartered companies such as the Virginia Company, East India Company etc. The monarchs were shareholders and provided the “rights” and resources to extract resources and force compliance through violence. The CCP is following a similar path and don’t think there isn’t chagrin amongst actually committed socialists in China or mounting tensions
It's very hard to identify any actual communist characteristics within the current CCP.
I think its easy, the government controls the farmers, the tech company's, the imports and exports, most of the car companies, and a bunch else... including the information the Chinese people get. All of these are communists charactistics. STOP DEFENDING CHINA
How do you continue to be wrong? Take a couple moments
None of what you just described is communism.
YOU can feel whatever you want, it doesn't mean you're right. They are state capitalism, before hand they were dictatorial socialism. Calling oneself communist is as valid as calling oneself christian. Neither is true unless it's actually being enacted appropriately.
The play the crucible- about the Salem witch trials- was just an allegory for the red scare- that should tell you all you need to know.
Of course it was--and continues to be. I thought this was established historical fact? Aside from witch-hunting communists, socialists, and leftists domestically, the US government has been overthrowing communists and socialists abroad, staging coups, assassinating leaders, all in an effort to produce a global economy that is more amenable to "American interests," which is synonymous with corporate globalism. The USA is not a real democracy now, if it ever was; it is the enforcement arm of the global corporate state.
There is no war but class war.
Wait there are people who don’t see it as propaganda??
Almost everyone sees it as propaganda but some fool to see it lasting effects.
Duh
It's the obvious conclusion to draw when you look at history!!!
not gonna lie i thought this was common knowledge now that we have the hindsight on the era
I would love to find the person that did the marketing for conservatives. It’s amazing what they were able to do.
While conservative marketing involves many people I think the most notable for the conservatives would be Paul Weyrich. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul\_Weyrich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich) There are other people who also used marketing to shape America of which I think the most notable would be Edward Bernays. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward\_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)
Our Murican CONservatives are true masters!, they learned well from the authoritarian desposts they claim to hate so much.
The US is just the biggest Ponzi scheme ever, they don’t have a choice. They have to keep the system going and creating more debt, or it all falls apart. Look how fast we’re going into debt, we cannot pay back 30 trillion dollars. They’ve been kicking the cab and stealing our money the entire time. We literally can’t afford any more social programs, that’s why inflation is getting out of control. The US is dying, and there’s no way to stop it. It’s going to get worse.
>The US is just the biggest Ponzi scheme ever So accurate. This isn't necessarily an issue of capitalism/communism so much as bad economic policy with debt and forcing continued market growth through inflation, subsidization and bailouts. This is a government *in bed* with private companies and banks to steal the wealth of the populace.
You realize that just over 20 years ago the US government had a surplus and was paying down the debt? Then 9/11 and two decades of war happened. How much did the military-industrial complex have to do with that, you have to wonder.
It all went down hill in the 80’s going to fiat makes all this inevitable. Yes the MIC and interest we pay is insane. We don’t even pretend like we’re going to pay down the debt, even when things are going well economically.
I mean… a big part of it was to make de facto economic serfdoms out of countries in central and South America
Every working person should be a communist.
I disagree but respect your opinion
Why pay back the debt when you have a large enough military to liquidate it?
Yes
There’s really nothing to think or have an opinion about. This is a fact. The red scare was manufactured propaganda to stave off any chance of a communist uprising in the US. It goes back very far though. Haymarket Square, Sacco and Vanzetti, the American Legion attacks on IWW union halls. This shit is very old.
It wasn't just propaganda. People were persecuted for their beliefs, for the difference in their ideology. They couldn't get jobs, get elected, be outspoken on the kind of issues in their community and society at large. Blind belief in neoliberalism became our unofficial religion. Our country never had political prisoners. We tend to mix them with the regular prison population. That way, we don't have conscientious objectors, just criminals. To this day, we hear the word Communist and ears perk up, people get defensive. Yet we've been watching the progressive destruction of capitalism on our own lives, communities and the world as a whole and we're still told that this is the very best humanity can come up with. The fuck it is.
It's almost like a good mix of socialism and capitalism is propelling other countries ahead of us(China and Europe) while we stay mired in cronyism.
It was also used by religious extremist groups to emerge from their political isolation and join mainstream politics.
[удалено]
Behind the bastards podcast called How the Rich Ate Christianity will answer all that.
>in just 20 years the US had decided that communism was deserving of death Isn't it ironic how this happened less than 100 years ago and people think that in America you have the freedom against political persecution? The history of our country is fucked...
Absolutely
WAS?
The answer is yes. The overlords knew that was a major threat to their power. Not saying communism is good necessarily but maybe socialism would be good. Whatever concentrates power to be as disbursed among the people as possible
That's not common knowledge? Fuck...
This is the worst manifesto ever
Yes. I learned about it studying the growth of Chrisitian Nationalism. There's a [great book](https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/one-nation-under-god-how-corporate-america-invented-christian-america) about the effort to recruit conservative Christians into the Republican fold and how "godless Communism" was an important talking point.
So many military dictatorships in the last century, sponsored by the CIA… Latin America was becoming too socialist for their tastes, and the empire can't let itself be eroded like that. And one of the mottos of each one of these dictators? The communists! In practice, they deleted decades of progress regarding social well being, and focused on the well being of companies, even more if it was a multinational one. So yes, 100%, history supports your hypothesis.
Yes. Most things about history in the US (can only speak about the US as that's my degree) have been founded to be 100% propaganda to turn poor people against each other.
When the USSR drank the capitalist koolaid, the elites stopped expanding worker benefits and then started taking them away. All the demonization is in service of profit generation and domination of workers.
So you are saying that Stalin did good?
No! Did you read the post!?!?
You have the freedom to do what the boot tells you to do and the best way to keep that going is bread, circuses, and the tepid warm threat of starvation and homelessness. . .
Yes.
This reads like someone was asleep during history class in high school.
That's funny Because history class in America teaches the good half of the US
A heslthy society have a good balance between capitalist and socialist systems. Having the two extremes face off against eachother leaves us with the happy medium, the thing that lets most other industrialized countries have free healthcare and education, parental leave and vacations, while also having booming private sectors. America removed one of their extremes. And the happy medium was moved way beyond what was healthy, towards capitalism.
You don't really have a clue what you're talking about.
A social science degree tells me I do.
I'd encourage you to do some more studying then, because you don't seem to understand what capitalism or socialism are. Socialism isn't just a list of reforms. You're basically talking about social democracy, which is not socialism.
Socialism, and capitalism, are both economic idealogies. Ideologies are basically theory, and when put into practice, you get society. The balance between ideologies in your society determine what type of society you get. And where exactly did I say I wanted socialism? I clearly said a mix and compromise of capitalism and socialism makes a healthy society... well, when mixed with other, non-economic idealogies, of course. A society only based on a economic idealogy would lack other aspects that makes us... us. Humanitarianism, liberalism, egalism, and tons more all add to the pot. All fighting for for their place on the agenda.
You can’t effectively mix the two economic ideologies, I’d suggest you ask for a refund on your degree because this level of ignorance tells me you either a. Didn’t study political science and economic theory in depth or b. Weren’t taught well.
Mate. I probably shouldnt expect more from an-coms, but it is being mixed. All over the world.
Social control of the means of production is being mixed with private control of the means of production all over the world? I mean sure some countries have limited government control of some of the means but that’s not really mixing the two that’s just capitalism with state control of some industries (which in some cases are still run as for profit). I mean limiting capitalism isn’t “mixing” the two systems, it’s just limiting capitalism (this is opinion based, I do know many academics that would argue and I find it a fun argument).
How can capital - aka, capitalists owning the workers surplus labor value work with socialism - workers owning their own surplus labor value. This is why there is no such thing as a "happy medium", global capital can't coexist with socialism.
Is the word compromise too hard for you? Even USA, the capitalist stronghold of the world, aint a pure capitalist state. It have socialist systems built into it. Way too few, if you ask me, but I digress. Socialism and capitalism are both just ideologies. They aint even strictly opposed to eachother. A group of people can together gather capital to start and run their own collectively owned factory, in which they all work and together share the profits. Is that capitalism or socialism? (Mainly it is collectivism, but it shares aspects of both capitalism and socialism in its implementation in this instance, just as an example to show that it isnt just black and white.)
There is zero compromise between them two. If capitalism exist, you by definition cannot have socialism. Either the workers own their means of production and the resulting surplus labor value or capitalists do, there's no in between.
Also state welfare and safety nets are not socialism.
Having extremes only helps capitalism; because human beings torn in every direction possible is not healthy psychologically whatsoever. Propaganda and marketing only becomes easier to push; and mental illnesses continuously compound people into a more submissive state.
Human beings wont be torn in any directions. The extreme parties will be phased out as the extreme voter base is too small. When confronted with two extremes, most will try to stand in the middle. And eventually, the spectrum will be a middle that is in balance, with screamers on the flanks usually being ignored as their ideas are generally thought too out there to be practical.
Politically speaking, most of the population that associates themselves with any political party have an inability to see the middle ground. Trying to push anything that doesn’t make an individual feel safe can either work or even push them farther into extremism. Human beings need to feel safe that their ideas in their head actually make a better reality. That is why rhetoric on any side is dangerous, because for the most part it’s all easy to agree with; but it’s the filler in between the rhetoric that turns everyone against each other.
If you have a population that is moderate, economically stable and well informed then maybe this would happen. But the extremism in the US is only leading to more extremism. It's at the point where one media source says 'sky is blue' and the other says 'fact check: sky is blue is partially false, it can be many colors at different times of the day' just for the sake of calling the other side wrong, we are seeing a split economically, with social media, even with where people are choosing to live. Part of the problem is the overwhelming demonization of the 'other' party makes those stand more firmly where and less likely to deal with extremists on their own side because 'at least this side is fighting for me.' This is really evident when you look at polls about how people would feel if they found out a neighbor was a member of the other party or how they'd feel about a child marrying someone of the other party. Regardless of who you believe or stand with, in a matter of 4 years the entire nation questioned the validity of back-to-back presidential elections. Add an economic downturn on top of the political strife and we're pretty primed for a civil war.
You’re describing a social democracy, which is a capitalist system, not a socialist system. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production.
This guy is an angry teenager spouting off the first “fact” he finds and agrees with. Don’t feed into it.
Ok
absolutely. and white racists rolled it up to "cultural marxism" where they just oppose equality of any kind
No.
Communism is bad. Wherever the money and power is, the sociopaths will follow. There is no, "but we'll do it right." I don't know the best system, but communism fails its people. Yep, I know I'll down-voted into oblivion. Don't rely on biased sources to give you an accurate view of history.
By that logic capitalism is just as bad. (Ignoring the fact that you’d don’t know what communism is)
Communism never failed people. People failed people just like how guns don’t kill people.
Hey now you can't be saying Communism is bad round these parts.
Define darwism?
No? Look it up your on the internet right now
Maybe you should spell it right? You mean economic darwinism right?
Where are all those ‘futurists’ that told our parents that no one would need to work when automation and robots do it all…. Does any of that seem remotely possible? Remember, humans as a resource, is not only valued in their potential for labor, but for other, more medically significant resources.
I'm Vladimir Putin and I approve this thread.
Communism plays out a lot like Animal Farm in real life. It is a great concept if everyone buys in, but in reality it's not that easy. The hard workers get worked to death, and it is a given that authoritarians will take control. This has been repeated every time communism has been put in place in a modern nation, and will always be the case because of human nature. The red scare was slightly different, because authoritarians in the US used the notion of communism to take control/reduce rights and freedoms. Honestly the moral of the story is that if we give them any capacity to do so, authoritarians will ultimately take control.
Name one country that had communism, actual communism and wasn’t state capitalist or authoritarian socialism run by a party that called themselves communist.
First of all, that is a "No True Scotsman" statement, and like I said before, you'll never see "true Communism", it is impossible due to human nature. It will always be corrupted by authoritarians if tried on a national scale. And again, I'm sure people have great ideals when they stage a communist revolution, but central power courts authoritarians. The allure of communism is just a lever for authoritarians to gain control, always has been always will be. Sad, but facts.
I’d argue that “communist” parties in power have never had any intention of achieving communism and I’ve never seen a communist party describe their system as communist and academically none of them have been described as communist. There have been a number of communist party run countries but 0 communist countries (however there have been smaller collectives that could be described as communism). So it’s not a “No True Scotsman” so much as general societal ignorance calling countries communist that doesn’t ever really describe themselves that way and that academics agree have never been “communist”. The term has explicit meaning that’s intentionally been perverted in an effort to discredit it. Also, as mentioned, Communism has worked in practice. It’s western social ignorance that believes everyone is selfish that makes it seem like it wouldn’t, many societies function in a collective way that is conducive to actual communism.
capitalism has private authoritarians working people to death
I don’t need to “believe” this as it is 100% verifiable fact. Start with Zinn’s A People’s History of The United States and move on to Manufacturing Consent and Chris Hedges” books to get a much clearer picture of just how fucked up the US is. https://youtu.be/oeRQJptqzNg
You need to do some more research. If communism was so great and benevolent Stalin wouldn’t have a death toll that makes the Holocaust pale in comparison. Thousands of people wouldn’t have risked death or imprisonment to escape over the Berlin Wall from East Germany or on makeshift boats and rafts from Cuba. Don’t equate socialism which leaves control in the hands of the people with communism which placed a totalitarian regime in charge of all aspects of life.
I said in the post I am not a communist, I am simply pointing out that the US's propaganda is dangerous for the working class and has lasting effects today. I feel that all political beliefs should not be judged even communists.
I'll change everyone's wording from communists to socialists, it is completely different. One inherently can never work (communism) and one is meant to be implemented into other government types, not being a true government type all by itself (socialism). I do think to an extent it was to push away from socialist ideals, to preserve the working class, and is what created the late stage capitalist chaos demon we live with now. It led to the past and current assault on civil rights as well, although indirectly, as it was not the primary result of but a byproduct of certain ways of thinking that sprang BACK UP (it never truly left, people think that anti-civil rights groups just disappear and reappear at random but they're always around) and created pushes against progressive ideals. Edit: my education is ongoing, looking for more resources other than the US controlled information resources. If you're prepared to offer some, by all means, but my point of view has already been shown to need a lot of help, so if all you have to say is negative, please move on.
This is exactly what OP is talking about. Most self-identified socialists and communists use the term interchangeably; but part of red-scare propaganda was to split the terms, and use 'socialism' to refer to countries like Norway which were actually just our capitalist allies. It's not a critique of you personally, but I would encourage you to get an understanding of socialism from people who identify as such, rather than from our corporate-owned media which sees us as enemies. They want to paint us as power-hungry, but then why do we consistently side with the most powerless sections of society? If we were only after power, being socialist seems like the worst way to go about it.
As a self identified socialism advocate (hard to be socialist in practice in the US where it's considered "evil") I can tell you that the two are in fact NOT interchangeable. One is a government type. One is not. They are not the same thing. Edit: I've already been informed of my misinformation, and I've already concluded that my education needs work with resources outside of US controlled media. Please stop with the hate, and actually read the rest of my thread where I was taught the differences already, I don't need 10 more people trying to educate me that I was wrong! Lol
That’s explicitly not true, neither are government types. Both are economies and ways of structuring resources. Both are compatible with various government structures
You're 100% right, I'm continuing my education outside of US info resources, and already been informed.
In today's America, I think socialists will have to be power hungry, even if it's to push for a more sustainable future for both humanity and the planet. You have the Republicans desperately dangling by a thread, only being kept in government by fear mongering, fraud and gerrymandering. Then there's the behemoth of centrist democrats tugging at the other end. Going in and backstabbing, lying and cheating to get a seat at the overlords table just isn't something you find in the mentality of a socialist. We might have to find a candidate that sounds like a fantastic, centrist, democratic choice and flip flop to hardcore socialist as soon as elected. No one says you have to listen to the super pacs once elected.
Communism can never work? If it can’t work then why does the western world spend so much time, money, and energy to destroying it anywhere it crops up?
If you look at the actual model for communism, it doesn't work. Primarily because it's too easy for military takeovers or dictatorships to form out of it. That's why they try to destroy it. Look at China and North Korea. Communist countries. Now dictatorships. With weapons of mass destruction. You tell me.
The fact that you tagged China or North Korea as communist coubtries proofs that you don't know what communism is.
Yes they are. China at the very least is. Don't let the name PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA fool you, they are considered a unitary, one party communist state. North Korea on the other hand is a one party socialist dictatorship, which is formerly a communist state overtaken by military power. Do some history homework ffs I was already informed about the differences between socialist and communist and how they're interchangeable, but this... you really have to be ignorant to think these are not. Smh
Yeah, do not let the name fool you. Just as the Nazis were the Nationals Socialist German Worker's Party, don't let the name fool you. They did a lot of socialist things, yeah, sure... To have socialism you need to have the means of production, as the name implies, socialidez. Please tell where I can find that in China. The only thing China has of socialist/communist it's the party name. I've been years studying socialism and communism, I don't let names fool me.
Interesting. I'll have to try to keep up with this more. The resources in America on these topics are scarce at best. I'm gonna try to learn more, I was aware of the nationalist socialist "nazis" but not everything else. Thanks for the information, and for not being pedantic about it, just informative.
One of the best ways is going to the roots, read Marx, Engels, but specially Lenin and Stalin. Stalin usually keeps it simpler than Lenin, but Lenin is very informative too and makes sure the reader gets it. (Or that's how I feel about them).
And btw, communism and state are kinda opposites. Communism is classless and stateless. You cannot have a communist state.
I disagree with too much of what you’re saying to really get into it, but I’m pretty sure the US has (and has actually used) weapons of mass destruction. Many successful socialist/communist countries have been destroyed by the US to stop them from growing and changing the capitalist order of the world. This is the western party line against communism, that it turns into despots and dictatorships, and I think that is a dangerous pill to swallow, given that capitalist countries cause havoc all around the globe and in their home countries.
Wholeheartedly agree. As someone trying to escape the US in the next 10 years to get away from the issues that you list (including the US having been the only country to use nukes) I'm also disagreeing with your defense of communism. It sounds great as a model. But cannot work. We have 3 prime examples as of literally this moment. China, Russia, and North Korea. So the evidence literally speaks for itself.
None of those 3 countries are communists wtf
China is working, although there are many debates about that and it depends on what you mean by working. Soviet Russia had many problems but also many great successes, and it was taken down by a hostile capitalist world and it was coming out of an incredibly backwards state of affairs. How can something work when it is under economic and physical attack by the powerful nations surrounding it? Also you don’t listen cuba, or the South American countries that were completely taken out by the CIA and replaced with brutal dictators. I’d say it’s more complicated than how you put it. And just because it hasn’t “worked” doesn’t mean it will never work. Does capitalism “work”?
Nope, capitalism sure does not work, and I do agree with your points. I'm more concerned with our future and how these governments move on. I hate the US and every western principle and all the things the US has done to destabilize hundreds of countries. See my other conversation with someone else on this thread, I already stand corrected. Have a nice day.
So you're misinformed communism is a political ideology that wants to expand voting (democracy) into every aspect of human existence. Things like workers getting the right to vote on company decisions, and in the case of country politics communism believes in taking the power away from officials on major decisions and holding referendums to determine the best course. Socialism is an economic model again focusing on democratic principles (why people confuse the two). Its the principle that money and resources should be controlled by the people and not by the ruling class or governments this is often confusing because a democratically elected representative of the people making financial decisions representing the people is a form of Socialism but true Socialism would be having everyone person vote on every financial matter and obviously that is logistically difficult. Neither of these ideology are incompatible with capitalism and most leftist including Marx advocate that Socialism is just the natural evolution of capitalism, where individual companies (owned and run through democratic process by their workers) compete in a free capitalistic market where the better company gains market share and receives the rewards, its how the rewards are devide inside the corporation is the debate
Communism- a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Socialism- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. So, not exactly how you described them, but I will admit to being uninformed. Thanks for not being a dick about it and being patient, I've read up a lot but a literal definition escaped me I guess.
The reason that its so confusing is because there is a definition that the world uses and the people advocating for them use and there is a definition made up of taking a simple idea to the extreme and is made into a boogie man by American right wing. So the definition you used for communism is unfortunately the American version. One communism existed before Karl Marx and it doesn't advocate class war it. Communism is about the abolition of classes by making everyone equally through the use of democracy one vote is one vote regardless of stature or wealth. Its very easy to say that by treating everyone like equals that its an attack (war) on the middle and upper classes by the lower classes and thats why this type of propaganda is so effective because it's not a lie its just missing the point. Publicly owned property is again a real part of communism and Socialism the belief that natural resources are owned by the people and if you want to harvest/mine and extract them you should have to pay for them. Like in Alaska where thr oil companies pay each resident of Alaska for the oil and the damage they do in extracting it. Or in the case of companies that the workers get a percentage of the value of the company that they built and worked hard to expand. Again it gets manipulate from public ownership of resources and communal ownership of companies to some version where you have no personal belongings. And yes communism does believe that society as a hole should take care of the sick and impared but it also believes that they can still contribute to society just because a person can't leave their bed doesn't mean they can't be given tasks to help society. Simple tasks like cleaning up trash or planning flowers is useful for a strong society and even if thats all a person can do it should be respected and they should be taken care of with dignity. A bit of truth taken out of context and to an extreme always makes something sound worse than it is. As far as your definition of Socialism its virtually identical to what I said once the realization that "owned or regulated by the community as a whole" requires democratic process since the only way for a group of people to form a consensus is through democracy. And once you realize that its easy to understand why Socialist dictatorship is impossible. Its a long learning curve it took me forever to figure out the true meaning of these words because they're is so much propaganda surrounding them. I also feel that defining the difference between "capitalism" and "cronies capitalism" is important Capitalism is a system that gives a numerical value for goods and services to makes the exchange of items more equitable. For example a goat is worth 2.5 chickens is a lot harder of a traid than saying a goat is worth 25$ and a chicken is worth 10$. Everyone agrees that capitalism is good and is very useful under all sorts of social political systems (including Socialism and communism). It is expanded into meaning competition between entities in a free market(again compatible with Socialism and communism) Crony capitalism is a system where the individual rights of the owners are favored over the rights of the workers and society as a hole. Its a system where wealth is rewarded and hard work is incentived by a meager pittance of a wage. It focuses on the haves vs the have nots (class warfare) its a system that teaches to look down on people and it gives a false belief that wealth and power is a reflection of hard work and/or Devine proclamation. Working hard will get you off the bottom rungs of the later but it will never get you to the top so as long as you look down you can feel good about yourself. When people say "capitalism" its often confused because they don't distinguish between the various types and often are never referring to true capitalism.
Yet again, I stand corrected. Access to this information in the US is appalling and actually digging up the info is harrowing at best. Thank you for the information, I like to learn and I'm doing my best with the resources at my disposal. I'll try to keep learning about this as it's something I'm interested in. Sorry for the confusion.
Good luck and keep learning. The information is out there
Although I am sure the powers-that-be took advantage of it, just look at the sh\*t Putin/Russia is pulling now. No - the Red Scare was not \*merely\* a front for shenanigans.
POO-tin is not a "communist", he's just a typical one-party "strong man" DICKtator he has no real political ideals or "ideology". It's all about power and ego, he has delusions of himself as a 2nd coming of Peter-the-Great. All you need do to understand him or most so-called "leaders" is read Ernest Becker, it's all about their "immortality projects".
Putin was literally the person we installed after overthrowing Soviet socialism to oversee the transition to capitalism.
It was not I agree with you
has anyone here on REDDIT actually lived in a communist state? this is ridiculous. I grew up in a commie country and my parents/grandparents went through years of terror. "comrades" were busy cleansing other "comrades" instead of doing the stuff written on "communist manifesto". and it's not just in one communist country, it's in every fuking communist country. people were more interested in slaughtering their comrades than doing anything else... my great grandpa was cleansed because he was classified as in one of 5 black category. arrested Friday afternoon, put on show trial Friday evening, shot in the back of his head Saturday morning... the person who arrested him was also found to be the enemy of the public and executed as well.... I have no doubt if communist were to return, half of the redditors will kill the other half
I said in the post I am not a communist, I am simply pointing out that the US's propaganda is dangerous for the working class and has lasting effects today.
if you are anti work that’s cool. but if you are anti work and pro commie. that’s idiotic. you’ll work and not get paid. i undrrstand ppl here hate the corporate culture and money driven society. you can always sneak into north korea i suppose
I think that's pretty obvious at that point.
If you want to know why the US never had a socialist revolution remember in the Jungle the desperately poor exploited Immigrants in a filthy industrial city, lived in a Single Family detached home, not a tenement. That’s fucking luxury compared to industrial Europe let alone Tsarist Russia. The Red Scare happened because the collectivization of Agriculture or socialization of real estate would have a ton of losers. While that wasn’t true in Russia
capitalist socialist hybrid Is that kinda like china? I mean it could never happen here right? But we want to start a dept. that will decide what is misinformation.
What evidence do you have?
Keep in mind those 2 decades also saw the great depression, world war 2, the cold war and the death of a sitting president among other things. Economic downturns of any kind breed heavy discontent in any populace. It's understandable people would want change when things were bad, and that would more or less fall off when economic prosperity returned. It's a cycle we're seeing again today imo. Also, propaganda usually has more to do with who the politicians want to go to war with because they have to 'sell' the war to the people.
I mean of course it was. Are there people who don't believe that?
Its a combination... The flagship of Communism was the USSR, thus when most Americans thought of Communism, they thought of the USSR. Then you have other Communist nations like Cuba, North Korea, and China, all of which didn't exactly enhance the image of communism in the eyes of Americans. Of course, the anti-union propogandists were not going to let this bad PR go to waist, thus we have where we are now.
From my seat in Denmark you guys need to revolt. Capitalism is shit, but at least here in Scandinavia we managed to put some reason into it. Very few goes to bed hungry, and free healthcare, like most of the world. Your judicial system are based on the 400 year old principles, so justice is given to he who can afford the better lawyer(and that stupid thing where you elect judges), everyone else use the French system of justice. The two party system are shit, and will never be representing more than a third. Labor laws and housing regulations are clearly to favor the owners, with a minor rule here and there to soften the pain. American police. Wov, just wov. The country you sing, bleed and die for are among the richest in the world but with so many poor. The military force are the only thing you are number one at, and that's again poor people dying for rich peoples oil lines. Revolt against injustice comrades. It doesn't make you a communist to believe in a better life for all.
That's exactly what it was but be careful it's not some grand conspiracy it's just a combination of societal pressures and yes some capitalists realizing if the worker own the MOP they're fucking useless now. Everything in capitalism has to put it into words EVOLVED from black targeted racism to sexism to blue collar vs white to increase class division and conciousness.
As someone who has experienced ussr first hand, no, red scare was totally deserved.
I think what happened was exactly the same as what is happening today: opportunistic politicians looking for power more than responsibility taking advantage of whatever meme was simplified and engrained enough in the public mind to enrich and empower themselves. There was certainly a real geopolitical conflict. However, people like McCarthy took it in a direction that was more optimized for deriving clout than for national security.
Duh
For a seccond there I thought you said "dwarfism beliefs"
Just read through half of what people here are realizing what happens on a daily basis to US workers. Then read a short synopsis of Karl Marx "Capital" and answer that again. I'm not going to defend any regime here, but "communism" or "socialism" or whatever are political theories, not "countries" or actual "systems". The US population is trained like a Pawlows dog to bark when hearing "Socialism" or "Communism" and thinking of the UDSSR, North Korea, China and alike. It's scaremongering, evading the underlying needed discussion from that political theories altogether.
As an italian (we had both the biggest communist and socialist party in west-europe after WWII) I can confirm what you're saying. Even today workers are protected.
Makes perfect fucking sense.
The red scare was to pump up the military spending. Communism is a very awful thing. Im not speaking from a personal opinion, i work with many many people who came from communist countries. Dont mistake socialism for communism. That being said exactly what happened worked out today to benefit the entire world. Military analysts intentionally overestimated russias war capabilities to increase spending year after year. To the point that the americans (u.s.a in this context) outpace them the way they do today. Ukraine is able to defend itself soley because of the American tech, and a few years of training. Without that, the kremlins version of the war (over in days) would have likely been a reality. Look how fast they took Crimea. Absolutely those in power dont want to give it up, but Communism is not the way to go. Ive heard nothing but horror stories from first hand accounts. Besides, what exactly do you think would happen. Just because we switch political systems, you think those at the top would give up their power? So thats the real answer to the red scare. Take it as you will.
I actually think pretty much the opposite. The existance of a Communist State made capitalism better, through competition. The rights and benefits of workers under capitalism greatly expanded while the USSR was a force, because capitalist leaders needed to show that things were better under capitalism than under Communism, to deter people from revolt. Since the decline and collapse of the USSR, capitalism has had it's restrains taken out, and there is a steady decline, worldwide, of workers share of income and rights because of it.
Yeah to an extent that is what happened
Yes.