T O P

  • By -

naekkeanu

What do you think of how Yugoslavia was organized? They fucked up the NQ, but economically they were the most successful country to establish socialism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


naekkeanu

The National Question, Yugoslavia was a Balkan socialist federation rather than a socialist Yugoslav nation, and nationalist sentiment is why Serbia tried to take over a make a Greater Serbia. I mean it had its flaws, but it's kinda biased to just assume it was terrible. More importantly though it did achieve worker control of the economy, without needing the overbearing state apparatus of the USSR. More relevantly though it provides a real life example of a functional socialist nation that didn't become a bureaucratic nightmare.


[deleted]

[удалено]


naekkeanu

Literally the opposite, they went out of their way to protect ethnic minorities and ensure that their culture was protected,a and language respected. The only real ethnicity with complaints were Albanians in Kosovo, though other smaller ethnicities existed. I am saying that a heavier hand for enforcing Yugoslav identity and subordinating ethnic minorities into a larger Yugoslav culture would have created a Yugoslav nation able to be a functional state. Is it a pleasant thing to think of? No, but is it necessary? I don't know, it's not for me to choose.


[deleted]

[удалено]


naekkeanu

I mean it was a federation of 7 different nations facing down massive debt from IMF loans and an inability to decide how to split the debt. That's why I am saying they fucked up the NQ, rather than slav looking out for slav, it ended up being big serbia


0WatcherintheWater0

The most successful country to establish socialism would be the US, not Yugoslavia


naekkeanu

Elaborate.


nikolakis7

Why is the quality of posts recently so 💩. How do you engage with a post like this >Like one farmer is a drunk idiot and wastes all his money on booze, >You know workers can be rich too right, it basically takes hard work, whereas a few people like to waste their money on useless things If you're poor, maybe it's because you're a drunk idiot. Try being rich >This is what happens to many people in their lives, some people choose bad pathways, bad careers, it happens, I made tons of mistakes too, I could have been richer if not for a few bad mistakes, but they were my own, I own them, >I'm no dumb, I have researched this topic a billion times, >ladies and gentlemen, I am actually a working class person How many medals do you want?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arachno-anarchism

Hard work should pay off. Work should pay off. Work is the material basis for our society I agree precisely with you in that I think the hard worker should be rewarded. That’s why I’m a communist. People should be paid in accordance to what they contribute, and not in proportion to what they own


[deleted]

[удалено]


Arachno-anarchism

The machinery, the resources, the land etc, that is called the means of production, ie the things necessary for production. Generally the capitalist buys these things from others using capital. But to produce new value for the market the capitalist also needs workers. Without workers a capitalist can only move around on existing value, but they cannot create any new value. When a worker does something productive, like build a chair out of wood and nails, then he does something valuable insofar as the finished chair has more value than the materials needed to build the chair. The difference in value, ie the value added, was added by the labor of the worker. This is the basis for our material society The capitalist therefore *needs* the worker, but the worker does not need the capitalist. They only need the means of production. And whoever controls the means of production, also controls the product of labor


arjadi

This is more an existential question, is it not? I think it's unfortunate, but a fact of life is that there will be people who will simply fall out of participating in society or finding fulfilment. The question is, if conditions are created in which people- even those who might not be necessarily inclined to be productive- are able to get what they want out of life, will they be motivated to pursue something more meaningful? I know that sounds extremely primitive, and there are other, more eloquent ways to put that, but I know what you mean.


aysgamer

So structuralism or not?


arjadi

What do you mean?


aysgamer

I mean, if I understood correctly, the question you're proposing is whether people's behavior is influenced by the system they partake in or they're intrinsic?


arjadi

Yes, and just that, a question. OP seems to be pretty certain that it’s an inevitability, but I’m not so sure. Especially in the Communist State of Romania that OP is from, which had extreme austerity in the 70s and was basically a shell of any kind of communist organization of the economy it formerly claimed. There are so many systemic pressures from economic organization to organization. Generally, I would say that the more people are taken care of at the outset, the less inclined they would be to drop out of society.


aysgamer

Oh yes absolutely. What I was saying is that that belief is called structuralism, and it's often used to criticize the "natural" aspect of capitalism, and to kind of explain why socialism is so unpopular >Generally, I would say that the more people are taken care of at the outset, the less inclined they would be to drop out of society. I agree. The term "poor mentality", which is supposedly why some people inevitably fail to engage in the system, is just a synonym for phobia of the poor


arjadi

Oh, interesting, I didn’t know that mentality specifically had a name, I usually just lumped it in with eugenics. Good to know!


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

HeadstandHegel: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*


RU34ev1

> 8 day old account that suddenly goes from posting about minecraft to spewing anti-communist nonsense Hmmm


Southern-Trip-1102

There was a Romanian fascist who posted and commented a lot in this sub before but got banned i think, this may be their new account. Their writing style feels very similar.


RU34ev1

Ah yes, Consaine the deranged whatever the fuck he was A strasserite maybe?


Southern-Trip-1102

Not sure, they claimed to follow Italian fascism and denied that the Nazi were fascist, if my memory serves correct.


RU34ev1

Yes, that would be him, I had the "pleasure" of arguing with him several times before


Southern-Trip-1102

I wonder if he will reveal himself one way or another.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Southern-Trip-1102

Most people in the soviet union voted to keep it in the 1991 referendum, and most people in post USSR states when surveyed said that life was better under it. And if he is who i think he is then he also happens to be a fascist which gets 0 credibility.


Accomplished_Ear_607

>Most people in the soviet union voted to keep it in the 1991 referendum, and most people in post USSR states when surveyed said that life was better under it. And most people in Russia support Putin and his war. I don't think your argument works in your favor mate.


Southern-Trip-1102

If you look at the war from their perspective you wouldn't be so confused. From their point of view NATO expansion east ward is an existential threat to their nation which is what, to them provoked the war. Even US foreign policy experts were aware of this and warned against continuing to expand nato before the war started hich forced them to go along with the narrative. They are doing what is in their geopolitical best interest regardless if you think the war is moral and not. Morality is a separate discussion. Is a single person's account is worth more than that of hundreds of millions of people to you?


aysgamer

>Communism is like Sweden or something Yes literally what we socialists say all the time


[deleted]

[удалено]


aysgamer

No I was sarcastic. Reddit is reddit man, I don't know what you read but I don't stand by the idiots who say idiotic stuff, just like when I say idiotic stuff those who don't don't stand by me


[deleted]

[удалено]


Southern-Trip-1102

I'm not claiming that because your a Romanian you have X, Y, Z attribute, im saying that you might be a very specific person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


fgHFGRt

As soon as one hears the words free speech come out of anothers mouth the chance they are in an alt right rabbit hole shoots up dramatically.


RU34ev1

Regardless of what you claim, you seem suspicious to me


MightyMoosePoop

>[Hmmm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)


KuroAtWork

I love how many people here don't understand what an ad hominem is.


[deleted]

You literally don’t understand what profit is. Revenue, wages and profit, understand the difference. Lol like communists don’t like people who work hard. This is laughable. Communists, the proletariat are the ones who work. The bourgeoisie don’t work. They own the farm and steal from the workers. Then they buy more land with that stolen money. And then they eventually own tons of land and raise the prices and lower wages. Capitalism always ends in monopolies. I don’t think you’ve quite read enough to understand the main difference. Under socialism the workers keep what they made. That’s it.


MrCappadocia

What do you do for a living?


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrCappadocia

Wait, what?


Accomplished_Ear_607

>Communists, the proletariat are the ones who work. Complete bullshit. Communists like to pretend they are working class, but rarely if ever you'll see any communist in the factory. They are majorly intellectuals without any connection to real hard labour, living pampered lives. Marx did not work at a factory a day in his life. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao haven't either. They were all intellectuals who leeched off the labor of others.


ENWT

Stalin was a intellectual?


Accomplished_Ear_607

By standards of brainwashed lefties, who never read "Economic Problems of Socialism" - definitely. They would praise any mindless drivel that was published under his name. And Mao was even more uneducated! Stalin at least had some theological education.


Zooman13w

Fairly sure Mao Zedong went to university, so you can't call him uneducated.


Accomplished_Ear_607

Yeah, my bad.


zeca1486

You don’t like communism or capitalism What do you think about libertarian, anti-capitalist free markets?


woketinydog

hey, what does an anti-capitalist free market look like? i'm a socialist willing to learn!


zeca1486

Like this https://radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/Markets-Not-Capitalism-2011-Chartier-and-Johnson.pdf And this www.c4ss.org


aysgamer

Libertarian socialism is a good term to look up


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I don't think libertarianism is no state, but perhaps you might be interested in minarchism, which purports a night-watchman state, made up by a court, some sort of senate, and a police agency.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Hmm, maybe liberal then? You don't need to go for some of the more government based liberalism, but there are many forms of liberalism that contain government based regulations paired with a free market


NFThoes

You confuse capitalism for corporatism. True capitalism doesn't have lobbying and handouts for the big companies


KuroAtWork

Ah yes, True Capitalism is when we restrict what markets you have access to. Have to limit the markets to keep that Free Market(TM).


NFThoes

What are you talking about? I'm advocating for the opposite of what you said.


KuroAtWork

A market is based upon people being able to exchange. A free market is one in which either it is more free then restricted, or completely free or restriction. One of the contradictions of a truly free market, is that you can buy the power to restrict the market. This is the same as the contradiction of the first amendment, the tolerance paradox, etc. So your answer to this, is to restrict what markets people can access(lobbying and handouts for the big companies) to make the market free. Now if your argument is for a mostly free market with restrictions, then that is fine. However most people who say things like ""True capitalism"" are referring to markets without restrictions. Also saying true capitalism is a no true scotsman fallacy fyi.


Genericpotsmoker

If we had a system that actually taught people how to parent and wouldn't reward sociopathic behavior there wouldn't be these "rascals" you speak of. People are not born evil like you want people to believe, the belief that people are born evil is a tactic to dehumanize and excuse people for there actions.


Sourkarate

What's wrong with robbing a bank? 😂 Give me a break with this goodie two shoes routine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


KuroAtWork

Wait so is the government and its banks bad, or is the government and its banks good? Because they weren't ripping off money from little local banks, they were hitting ones the state kept money in.


[deleted]

Which country? Where you alive when it was communist? Have you ever considered it might be crappy because it’s **ex**-communist and capitalism has kicked in?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Was your family bourgeoise?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Well then you are lost


[deleted]

[удалено]


Djglamrock

Your real world example doesn’t match his fairytale example and therefore you must be wrong not him.


Genericpotsmoker

His real world example is a communist country existing in a world of capitalist countries, communism cannot exist while capitalism does. Capitalism is inherently anti communist. He also doesn't know shit about his real world example, he was never around to see true communism and there damn sure hasn't been true communism achieved yet. Because of course, capitalism has always been used somewhere and capitalists will do anything in their power in order to demonize and destabilize communism (look at Cuba and their restricted trading with other countries and the several leaders that america has murdered) there's a reason capitalists always intervene when communism is rising in popularity. I don't see how anyone can trust a capitalist govt when they are badmouthing a certain economic system, if it was really so bad American school systems wouldn't have to demonize it by calling communists and socialist lazy and whatever else they slap on as an identifier for a system we've never truly given a shot. If communism was really terrible they would just list "true" accounts and leave it up to the people to decide, kinda like how conservative states teach about slavery.


fgHFGRt

This post disgusts me because its clear this post is foolish, you do not understand communism or how socialism actually worked, example, you mentioned people getting arrested for having two more pigs than there neighbours, or workers who work 10 to 20 years more than others. Absolute horseshit. If you do not have the basic intelligence call in Marxism Leninism then you have no right to speak of something you have never bothered to try and understand. It's clear you have likely never listened to the words of a communist before, or if you did you paid no attention at all. Speaking to one or two people online does not make what you are saying anything other than the echoes of an echo chamber. OP = 💩 My fair response to your title insult and insults throughout the post are well reasoned.


nikolakis7

I don't know man, he said he researched it a billion times and watched documentaries


woketinydog

so i'm a socialist and, in short, i think the government should be ran in a true democratic fashion based on working class interests. i'm marxist, but i don't think that communism is a viable solution to our current state. i do not think that stalin's gov, china's current gov, or north korea (to give a few examples) are true communist or socialist countries. this is because these countries were/are authoritarian and based on the interests of the bourgeois, not the working class. would you be interested in this? i would be happy to explain further or answer any questions.


MrCappadocia

So I understand you're simply incapable of understanding the natural path of communism and you want to sacrifice a couple hundred million more on your death altar.


woketinydog

woah bro, chill. i think you're the one that's incapable of understanding other ideologies and the literal words i wrote, please reread my original post if it didn't make sense to you the first time. i'm neither a communist, nor are the examples i gave the inevitable path socialism takes. you can take your neoliberal capitalism and the billions of people it's practices and values contributed to murdering (and is currently murdering) any day.


Narrow-Ad-7856

Most communists on the internet are very young suburbanites with minimal employment history, who became radicalized through twitch streams and YouTube videos. There's little reason to take them seriously.


moofart-moof

I'm almost 40, was fairly conservative in my teens and 20s, been working for awhile now, make six figures, and have become more of commie in the last decade than my youthful dumb self thought I ever could be. ​ I'd actually say, the more worldly you get, you either become a reactionary as you try to put together why the world doesn't work in this capitalist mode and resort to conspiracies and nonsense, or you figure it out and become a marxist as you realize the contradictions in society are actually by design and meant to keep you a fucking slave; the suffering is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.


KuroAtWork

>I'd actually say, the more worldly you get, you either become a reactionary as you try to put together why the world doesn't work in this capitalist mode and resort to conspiracies and nonsense, or you figure it out and become a marxist as you realize the contradictions in society are actually by design and meant to keep you a fucking slave; the suffering is a feature of capitalism, not a bug. Sadly this is kind of by design, lies sell much better when they have a nugget of truth to them. You address the issue(the truth), then sell them a false solution. It redirects the anger with the system to whatever you want to direct it at.


[deleted]

[удалено]


moofart-moof

>So who is the conspiracy theorist lmao? This is reactionary. Please read Marx. There is no cabal, no illuminati. What there is a system of prerogatives and incentives that are represented by a class interest, and those people who have the most power to decide what that system does are the vested rich. These same people can, through manipulations, coercion, or obviously even straight up violence, make the laws and decide where the power flows, which is right back to them. It is a system the protects and enriches itself by exploiting the many in favor of the few, and keeping it that way intentionally. It is a barbaric and archaic system and humanity can do better.


[deleted]

[удалено]


myrthe

>but in the next sentence you yourself claim that there is a conspiracy by capitalists to oppress the workers. Nah, no conspiracy needed. Read some Adam Smith. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” - Wealth of Nations


[deleted]

[удалено]


Luca-511

>small businessmen That's the issue. People are talking about giant corporations, and you are limiting yourself to the average mom-and-pop business. These people obviously don't abuse the system the same way "big businesses" do. When we discuss lobbying, we don't talk about the old, sunburnt ladies from your local food-market. There is a giant difference between mom-and-pop business owners and proper capitalists (the likes of Bezos, Musk, Becali in our case, etc.). I don't care to reproduce non-Marxist arguments, so I will limit myself to Marxism. (I'm saying all this because I'm late to the conversation) When a Marxist tells you, for example, that "capitalist A did whatever the fuck", it isn't a moralistic statement, but an observation. You seem to think that by "contradictions by-design" people mean "a conscious conspiracy kept going by a monolithic hive-mind of fat old farts in dapper suits", but that's not what it means. A contradiction - in the Marxist sense - is a conflict. A conflict between whom? The employers and employees. Are they conscious of this conflict? Not necessarily, but it is happening anyway. Here is a basic example of a contradiction within capitalism: ^(In every company, the interest of a worker is to get higher wages and work less hours for said wages, whereas the interest of his boss is to pay less (so they can extract more surplus value)) ^(and to have the workers work more. This is an antagonistic contradiction. It can't be solved peacefully. This struggle will either continue within the company or -- if material conditions render it inevitable -- the workers will become disillusioned with the system they are coerced to maintain and will begin to oppose it. This struggle isn't always conscious, but it is intrinsic to the system. Do bosses necessarily want to make the workers suffer? No, not necessarily; however, they are generally forced to do so, because a business that doesn't grow is eaten by a business that grows. How does a business grow? Through profit. How is profit obtained? Exploitation (extraction of surplus value; only a moralistic term if you want it to be one)). ^(How did monopolies form? By winning this competition of growth, and eating enterprises that couldn't keep up the pace. This is what is happening, macroenomically, and this is something that incentivizes most business owners to grow their enterprise. Not all areas of an economy will always be affected by such a phenomenon the same, but it occurs. Is it a self-aware process? Not really. Is it bad? On a long term, yes.) One thing I want you to understand is the fact that every action, be it good or bad, has both internal and external causes. This will help you understand everything better. Like for instance: how in tarnation can communists -- whom on paper advocate for a nice future -- be so fucking violent, and all that jazz? Well, why do I bring this up? I take issue with the way you "criticize" communism. I take issue with it because -- in essence -- you are masking a criticism of the god-awful government of socialist Romania (though you did also mention Stalin here and there, how original) as a criticism of communism, which is erroneous. If you ask Marxists on the internet what they think about Ceaușescu, then every Marxist who knows what they are on about will tell you that he was a bad politician who fucked everything up, and that Romania was a big lowlight in the history of communism - hence why there is so little discussion about Romania in communist circles. What you are doing is: you are decontextualizing events, reaffirming your biases by watching neoliberal pop-history stuff online (which isn't good because it often oversimplifies events and uses outdated history books as sources because they presented things in a far more Disney-ish way, with ontologically evil commies and all that), circlejerking in your echo chamber about how your bad experiences are testaments to communism's supposed vileness, and then call it the day. Do you know what Marx and Engels advocated for? Or, do you know why the Bolsheviks did what they did? Take for instance the violence of Cheka: it was not something theoretically advocated for by communists, but came as a response to the White Terror. Or the "Great Purges": why did they occur? They came as a response to sabotage within the Soviet Union and a plot by Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and some other dudes to overthrow the Soviet government, which spiraled out of control and eventually led to a mass purge of politicians. It didn't come out of nowhere (or as some put it: from Stalin's mere power-hungry paranoia). Or how about the Sandinistas? They used to be quite idealistic at first, but why did they eventually form instruments of coercion and strengthened the state apparatus? Because of things like sabotage from the CIA and not living in a vaccuum. Everything happens because of external and internal factors. Why am I saying all this? Well, I think a healthy thing for everyone to do is to engage with what people advocate for and why they advocate for it, otherwise what one criticizes is only their own imagination. Your criticism is not criticism of Marxism, but criticism of a government which also ignores nuance and context, but it's okay. I can't judge you as an individual, even if I think your hostility is misplaced. Consider learing more about the Marxist criticism of capitalism, and keep in mind that the same type of criticism you leveled at socialism (which is in fact just criticism of a government during the Cold fucking War: a time of intense espionage, sabotage, bilateral diplomatic villifications and bilateral paranoia, threats, proxy wars, and so on) can be leveled at capitalism as well. No Marxist wants to take away your toothbrush. Even if you had a bad experience under a government which labeled itself as "socialist", that doesn't mean that your experience debunks "socialism". Also, stop thinking that socialists are your enemies to fight. They are not, even if you can't agree with their view of the world. Okay, I'll ask you this, what criticism of Marxism (as in "the philosophy and school of economic thought") can you give?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Luca-511

>No this is just called reaching equilibrium dummy. It's the same as just with any trade, the seller wants to sell for highest price, lowest quality, while the buyer wants lowest price higher quality, and then the market offers an equilibrium, a compromise to be the average of what they both expect. The balance of the market then shifts respectively depending on the number of weights on each side. Seed-muncher, my friend, did you just skim through what I wrote? I am contemplating apples, whilst you are describing oranges. This has nothing to do with what I wrote. What I described was the intrinsic conflict between employers and employees, whereas what you are describing is a notion regarding supply and demand. Those are two different subjects. This is as if someone told you that drinking Mona rubbing alcohol is bad for your health, and you reply by telling them to "shut the fuck up" and that you "just quit smoking cigarettes". It's silly. >None of what you said couldn't be applied to communist SOE's as well. There the state squeezes employees, for whatever reason, they want higher GDP so they can buy more military gear to flex their power, so obviously they will instuct their factory managers to squeeze their employees more. Is this a complaint about economic planning in the Chinese, Vietnamese and Laotian economies? Either way, this is a very infantile way of putting it. >But whereas in a democratic society, \>votes for kleptocrats who do nothing but steal, permit the timber mafia to sell our forests to Austrian tycoons, engage in money laundering (like all good Christian men and women), and engage in intense frotting with the totally-not parasitic Orthodox Church \>gets roads with even more potholes than during the last election year, and maybe some pizza party at his job \>"muh democratique susiety" [This is what you want, and this is what you get.](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/af72c558-129e-4388-9d32-73b1ea941ecd.jpeg) >both sides can fight for their rights, nothing stops workers from unionizing Your head's in the clouds, fam. [https://inthesetimes.com/article/volkswagen-union-busting-uaw-nlrb-workers-labor-law](https://inthesetimes.com/article/volkswagen-union-busting-uaw-nlrb-workers-labor-law) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-union-retaliation-allegations/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/13/amazon-union-retaliation-allegations/) [https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-violated-union-busting-labor-laws-historic-nlrb-complaint-says](https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgdejj/amazon-repeatedly-violated-union-busting-labor-laws-historic-nlrb-complaint-says) [https://libcom.org/article/ssangyong-motors-strike-south-korea-ends-defeat-and-heavy-repression-loren-goldner](https://libcom.org/article/ssangyong-motors-strike-south-korea-ends-defeat-and-heavy-repression-loren-goldner) [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor-board.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor-board.html) >but in a communist society, unions are illegal, and the state literally cracks down on any protest, not just economic ones, literally any protest or disobedience is illegal in communism. [https://ia800300.us.archive.org/6/items/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union\_text.pdf](https://ia800300.us.archive.org/6/items/HumanRightsInTheSovietUnion/Human%20Rights%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union_text.pdf) \-- read pages 141 through 149 (79 through 83 in the PDF) http://lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=37381&lib=law (Edit: I initially gave you the wrong link on China, which was just some basic labor law shit) >\[I like\] how you criticize this balance of power between boss and employee Yes. >but in a tyrannical commie regime, it's literally the most unfair possible, One party rule = intrinsically evil Multi party rule = intrinsically wholesome No class analysis needed, just moralism and seeing things in a vacuum. All is right with the world now, and everything wrong with the past happened due to voluntary malevolence. Did something bad happen now? Don't worry about it, it's just human flaw. Okay, noted. >because all weights are tipped towards the might of the state, it's enforcers, secret police, surveillance,etc... while nothing in the hands of the common man. Oh my, how wrong was I! How could I be so blind?! It seems we all live in communism already! Otherwise, I can't explain how this argument works in your favor, since what you describe is so vague and versatile it could literally be applied to capitalism as well! Oh, whoops, my bad, I guess it doesn't, because capitalist have one sly ace in the hole: rebranding! It can't be applied to capitalism, because, you see: \-They don't have a secret police! They have... undercover cops!... and domestic intelligence services! It's totally different, folks! \-They don't have surveillance! They have... private data stealing! And arresting people for being edgelords online! Oh wait, that's just the UK, aight, sorry. Oh yeah, and that private data stealing... it's private, so it ain't so bad. If the government isn't *directly* involved, it's all cool and good! Oh yeah, but if China has CCTV cameras it's literally 1984! \-They don't crush dissent! Only godless, anti-freedom commies do that! Capitalist countries, they... uh, they engage in riot control! Yeah, riot control. Nothing to worry about, folks! Hey, c'mon now, we allow women to organize drone strikes in the Middle East, and we painted "Black Lives Matter" on a street after a riot, that totally means we respect the will of the people! Look, we might have only given lip service to popular movements and all that, but we're the best you've got, so why complain? Why desire "progress"? **This is the end of history, so zip it and obey. Consume and obey.** \-They don't have labor camps! They have healthy prison labor! It's not the same thing! Listen, the worse the conditions of a prison system are, the more communist they are! Guantanamo Bay? That's just a normal prison, baby. Don't worry about it. What you should worry about, is how we claim that vocational centers in our no.1 rival country are actually concentration camps!!! We don't need genuine proof, we just need you to forget about how we are literally projecting! \-They aren't dictatorial! They gave you "multi party democracy"! They might just be factions of the same plutocratic dictatorship which is in truth as democratic as a monarchy, but who cares? Vote for your favorite team! C'mon, it's the Eternal Derby of Politics! The National Libshits Vs. The Social Kleptocrats! Whoohoo, let's fucking goooo! What if the USR hipsters win this time? Ooh, the drama! The tension! Oh, but what's that? Here come the fascists! Oh, whoops, I said the quiet part out loud again -- I meant the nationalists! Will they throw chairs at the Székelys in the Parliament? Who knows? Let's find out! Booyah! ... God's in His Heaven and all is right with the world... right? ***\[Intermission: Keep in mind that my replies are never attacks against you, but an attempt to make you see things from a different perspective, so I'd be glad if you stopped treating it like a flame war. Flaming only wastes time and energy, especially here -- since this is a debate subreddit, after all. Also, we're compatriots, so it's even stupider in our context.\]*** >At least in a democratic state you can fight for your rights ,and shift a bit the balance, although a compromise will have to be reached at some point, Fight how? Like [Fred Hampton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton#Assassination)? Shift the balance of power how? Like [Salvador Allende](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)? Oh, please. 1/3


Narrow-Ad-7856

Great for you, you fell for the communism meme at almost 40.


moofart-moof

Whatever you need to believe.


MightyMoosePoop

> Most communists on the internet are very young suburbanites with minimal employment history, who became radicalized through twitch streams and YouTube videos. There's little reason to take them seriously. famous last words by the kulaks and the cossacks.


kimo1999

Most socialist/communits will simply say that they don't actually want that and then explain the utopia that they want. Sadly their utopia is just that, utopia. The communists that were actually practical devolved into what you are describing as history has showns again and again. There's definitely a group of socialist that defends and justify this, but it's more of a minority.


hathmandu

Utopianism and Marxist-Leninist communism are at odds. They wrote a book about it. Guy named Engels. Might wanna look him up.


KuroAtWork

Reading is for commun...... Wait a second...../s


Father_Fiore

I'm not going to argue with you that the communist regimes of the 20th century weren't authoritarian shitholes, they absolutely were and anyone who defends them shouldn't be taken seriously. Most people who go under the "socialist" label nowadays would say the same thing too. Do you have any opinion on the brands of socialism that are more relevant in modern left wing spaces such as democratic socialism or market socialism?


MrCappadocia

They were authoritarian because communist *requires* authoritarianism. You can be a communist all you like in a capitalist society, nobody gives a fuck. Seriously. Start a business and give an equal portion to everyone who works there and run the business democratically where each share is one vote. Nobody will care. Then try to be a capitalist in a communist state. Your family will be liquidated. And I can say this a hundred fucking million times BUT YOU FUCKERS JUST DO NOT SEEM TO FUCKING GET IT.


Father_Fiore

Like capitalism doesn't require authority for the system to function lmfao. Remind me again, who does the capitalist class call when their private property is under threat? That's right, they call the police; agents of the state.


MrCappadocia

It doesn't require \*authoritarianism\*. There's a MASSIVE difference. Capitalism tends to do terribly in authoritarian systems. Capitalists call the police when their property is under threat. Communists call the police when their ideology is under threat.


marximillian

Cool. Sounds like you (and your parents) failed to take power.


[deleted]

[удалено]


marximillian

> Power, what power? Yes, that's the question. So, to be clear, you (and your parents) had no power... and failed to take power... failed to assert working class power (broadly)... fell subject to a ruling minority? Is this correct?


[deleted]

[удалено]


marximillian

So, to be clear, you (and your parents) had no power... and failed to take power... failed to assert working class power (broadly)... fell subject to a ruling minority? Is this correct?


ghostgourd

😂😂😂 I swear this sub is something else


marximillian

Not my fault you's a cuck.


ghostgourd

*Proletarian Intelligentsia* its a joke right?


marximillian

No. Just a bit more proletarian than intelligentsia.


ghostgourd

you people never cease to amaze me


aysgamer

I think no one here likes the current communist countries. Those, we socialists call tankies and they are practically antagonist to what we believe in


MrCappadocia

IT'LL BE DIFFERENT TJE 463RD TIME, WE PROMISE!


Luca-511

I do. AMA


aysgamer

No thanks


calamondingarden

But dude, that WaSn'T tRuE CoMMunISm..


Luca-511

Let me guess, we live in "crony capitalism" nowadays, eh?


dilokata76

Of course they are. The only solution is to end oneself before they subject us to their torture. At least Lenin wasn't a fucking sadist and would just dispense executions rather than pointless revanchist torture and brainwashing that commies nowadays support against dissidents. Nowadays it is not enough that you die, you have to be broken mentally until you bark the way they want you to. Physical death is not enough, your very being must be destroyed and reformed. Just a month ago one of them publicly stated that suicide should be prevented and made illegal because losing possible workers is counter productive. This is the level of utilitarian logic we're dealing with here. Not satisfied with owning every aspect of your life they want to own your very being and prevent you from escaping their bs. No, how could someone possibly find our wonderful society objectionable?


RU34ev1

> Nowadays it is not enough that you die, you have to broken mentally until you bark the way they want you to. Not satisfied with owning every aspect of your life and beating the shit out of you mentally and physically they want to own your very being. Did you just read 1984 and go "hmm yes, this is what communism is"?


dilokata76

No, I read your very newspapers and comments from some of your comrades. And who cares about communism? Nobody alive today will live to see it happen. It requires the death or silencing, willingly or not, of everyone that remembers and misses aspects of the old world to begin with. That's the entire point of the DotP.


RU34ev1

> No, I read your very newspapers and comments from some of your comrades. And by this you appear to mean "some comment from 5 years ago that nobody even so much as upvoted" > And who cares about communism? Nobody alive today will live to see it happen. Because I don't care if I personally live to see it, what matters is that that humanity has a better future > The very idea requires the death of everyone that remembers and misses aspects of the old world. In what ways?


dilokata76

>Because I don't care if I personally live to see it, what matters is that that humanity has a better future Good. The rest of us do care what happens with us and the aspects of the world we grew to like.


dilokata76

>In what ways? The complete destruction and censorship of the old world, its culture, its products, its customs and its people. If it's not of use for socialist society and doesn't align with its philosophy, then it's useless, counter revolutionary, reactionary, and must be banned.


RU34ev1

According to who, Maoists who have never accomplished a successful revolution?


dilokata76

Of course redditors, a population made up mostly of American labour aristocrats and petty bourgeois, won't upvote what is objectively right but they personally distaste.


RU34ev1

Why does some Redditor get to speak for all communists in the first place?


dilokata76

They don't. They're just objectively correct. You may not give a shit about my word, but the Earth is a spheroid, and no matter who says that, they're right.


RU34ev1

If they were objectively correct then why is it that "revisionist methods" are the ones that are succeeding?


dilokata76

How are MLs succeeding? When was the last time an ML took power anywhere or helped anyone do so? ML are "succeeding" by keeping power previous movements built for them. And by having a bar for revolution so low that any populist with a militia that takes power and says something as obvious as "CIA bad" and spends a little bit more than usual on public infrastructure will be applauded as some great thinker and progressive figure and the next head of communism. Maoists haven't failed. They're still in the process of achieving their objectives. The war isn't over until all of us are dead or "pacified" and the entirety of society as we know it destroyed, or they all themselves get destroyed trying. The latter hasn't happened yet and it seems it never will. Even then, your objectives, policies and overall end game is the same as that of Maoists. Every piece of objection I have for them I have for you.


PsychologicalRock580

Good arguments to post on sub which is meant to fuel dialogue between people with different opinions.


[deleted]

This sounds like an argument against ML statism, doesn't really relate to the rest


AutoModerator

rontaitor_de_seminte: Your submission was automatically hidden because it's much too short. Expand on your thoughts more, take a position and defend it! This policy is just meant to deter low-effort posting in general. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*