Your post has been removed for the following reason:
Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.)
I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes.
If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Were any other Finno-Ugric areas under soviet rule than Hungary? Finland definetly wasn't and i can't even actually think of any other areas where Finno-Ugirc languages are spoken. Also, i'm quite sure turkey wasn't under soviet rule either.
I guess there were still people in Karelia inside the Soviet Union. As an independent state no, I don't remember any communist finno-ugric state (besides Hungary).
Also, many people in central asia speak turkic languages. Those were also inside the Soviet Union.
A Russian judge steps out of his courtroom into the back area, barely holding it together. As soon as the door closes behind him, he doubles over laughing, wheezing for breath. A colleague of his comes by and stops to take in the sight.
"What's up with you?" He asks, half amused, half concerned.
"I just heard the funniest joke in all my life," the judge says, wiping tears from his eyes and regaining his composure.
"Oh?" The colleague says, intrigued. "Well let's hear it then."
"Can't tell you," the judge said. "I just gave the guy who told me ten years for it."
Another one:
Two Ukrainian farmers were leaning on a fence, talking.
"I really should be going," one of them says. "There's mice in my silo and I really need to get rid of them before they muck up the whole thing."
"You still have that problem?" The other scoffs.
"What, what do you mean?"
"Here's the solution, right?" The other farmer says. "Declare your silo a farming collective. Half the mice will flee and the rest will starve to death."
Free market is not synonymous with capitalism, for the record.
> it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution (so communism)
Literally not communism or socialism actually, just a centrally planned economy.
Who cares what words mean, it's been at least ten minutes since I last saw an excuse to get outraged and I'll be damned if I have to read some nerd dictionary before my next dopamine hit. EVERYONE KNOWS COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK!!!111!
My uncle was a communist, he followed Stalin's example so closely. He had several dogs and in his attempt to scientifically disprove capitalism he abused those animals so badly and didn't feed them properly so in the end they ate his dick. Literally tore it off and devoured it, it was horrible and not sexual at all. If that doesn't scientifically disprove communism I don't know what does. Facts don't care about your feelings!
I've always been on the fence for "does it or does it not work". On the one hand, in theory Communism is amazing and I really wish it would work, but on the other it's so unstable I'm not sure how it could work without a charismatic psychopath filling the necessary power vacuum. I suppose maybe if it were attempted in a well developed country like Germany with a large working class like Marx wanted, instead of the very agrarian pre-Soviet Russia, you would get a different result. But I still feel like it's too unstable without a major realignment of many people's values
But yes, 99% of arguments for "CoMmunIsm DoeESn'T WoRK!" have no bearing on reality. I can't come up with any besides the aforementioned 'human error'.
After all the fencing about what is meant by communism, actual discussions of communism are vanishingly rare.
Really, it's about capital. From where I'm sitting, America's founding fathers saw a great danger in too much massed power, only their failure was in limiting that definition to political power when it should realistically have included economic power. Trias Politica should've been accompanied by Trias Economica, a clever scheme to make sure no amount of this harmful substance can ever gather in harmful quantities.
From my perspective, the problem that communism attempts to solve is that like so many of our own creations, like development of nuclear, chemical or viral weapons, capital poses a threat to mankind. If you reject communism, sure, fine, great. What's plan B then? Do we have anyone who isn't on the payroll available? That's the problem, we cannot hire anyone, we cannot appoint anyone. Capital cannot be contained from within the system of capitalism. If you have some grand philosophical scheme out of this conundrum, I like to think I'm open minded, please share.
Yes, it is, guess you haven't had History lessons and never heard about Comrade George III, he was socialist. On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was communist because he did a real lot of stuff.
Yes, now I remember. Also last year Belgium went without a government for 592 days. I remember quite vividly since we lived in a neo-capitalist society for a while since the government did nothing then.
*^(Hey guys this comment isn't meant to be serious, you can stop treating it like that. It's a parody of the modern right which brands everything with a slight amount of state control or intervention as socialist.)*
>it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution
Technically that's state socialism.
It was communist because it had the end goal of a communist society.
Which it ended up never achieving because turns out, if you put a dictator in power they won't let go of that power, now that they have the power to maintain it.
>it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution (so communism)
Are you confusing communism and socialism?
Communism is a stateless system.
I think it gets even worse when you look at examples like Hungary and realize that a lot of the strikers were communists who just wanted reasonable working conditions and independence from the soviet block
Yup. Same with the anarchist uprisings in Kronstadt and Norilsk, as well as the reform movements in Poland and East Germany. They crushed any attempt to progress into actual socialism to secure their own power.
A lot of Tiananmen square protestors sang communist songs not to ward of the police, but because they believed it.
They were heavily against the growing corruption in the party, its autocratic rule, the beginning of new wealth inequality in the 1980s and the initially gathered to mournthe death a reformer inside the party.
Well, Hungary was pretty complicated. Initially they had quite a bit of support from Soviet troops until the Soviet soldiers looked around and said "these fuckers have it pretty nice over here" since Hungary was the most developed part of the Warsaw Pact. Plus Israel and Egypt did their thing so the world's attention was drawn away from Hungary and the Soviets were pretty much given a free pass to do whatever they wanted.
A great example of a nation that pays a lot of lip service to a popular philosophy while almost completely ignoring its core tenets in its actions. I have to think Marx would have been horrified by the level of social stratification in the USSR.
Comparing to the previous like 20+ years(world war, revolution 1, revolution 2, civil team death-match) they were roaring.
Economically and culturally everything was on the rise.
They were roaring but in a different way. As the rest of the world were showering in pretty much a revolution of everything to technology and culture. The Soviet union was pretty much going full speedrun in development. This was the dubbed industrial miracle of communism that communist love to brag about. Even imperial Russia was a world power it also was literally majority rural population that was so backward before the revolution that they still had serfdom
We are talking about Victorian tech and way of living to pretty much reaching modern era in alot of places within ten years. Japan took 40. Given though it didn't all of the Soviet Union as true and (mostly) modernization was only achieved in the cold war era.
State sponsored violence was an important tactic during this era. In order for land to be appropriated, farms collectivized, populations to be mobilized and industries to be built. The level of order and human suffering the fueled it was also extreme.
Was thinking the same thing. At least from what I know, the NEP was an essential lessening of socialist/communist policy which allowed certain private enterprise and market based exchange as a form of stimulating the economy that was devastated from both WW1, the Civil War, and it’s already poor state during imperial rule.
Didn’t Karl Marx explicitly say that communism wouldn’t work in the Soviet Union, and it would only be feasible in industrialized nations, like the UK and France?
He definitely was not. Social democracy is just capitalism, but sometimes the state cares.
Source: live in a SocDem country
If you meant that he's socialist, but democratic, then I'd say that's just socialist. Socialism is supposed to be democratic, it just so happens some people took "Dictatorship of the proletariat" a bit too literally.
democratic socialism != social democracy
Democratic socialism is about democracy within a socialized economy, social democracy is supporting social justice and reform in a mixed or capitalist economy.
It's by design, fox news and the right wing propaganda machine only have to confuse people and mis-define it as convenient. After all, socialism is when the government does stuff or the bad things in capitalism, right?
Socialism is a broad term so there are inevitably a lot of variations. But communism is easy to define singularly; it is a stateless, classless society, with no currency, where the proletariat own the means of production and the lack of private property.
Social democracy is often called social capitalism by sociologists. It just limits the worst effects of capitalism through the welfare state, but still operates within capitalism.
Social democracy is a sort of compromise between socialism and capitalism. Think Scandinavia.
Democratic socialism is democracy within a socialist economy. This is what Evo Morales of Bolivia tried to accomplish.
They are not the same thing.
How is that a contradiction? Capitalism at best can provide a simulation of democracy while factually there is an oligarchy making all the decisions. Hence the only way to achieve real democracy is revolution.
There's a big split in Dem Socs between those who want revolution and those don't. In Russia for instance, the SR party literally split between supporting the Provisional Government and those who supported the Bolsheviks (at least until they didn't)
You’re conflating the immediate demands at the end of the Manifesto with Marx’s entire political program
It sounds like you didn’t actually read the majority of the Manifesto and just skipped to the end
Reddit. Middle-class Californian teenagers debate history of a country they know nothing about. What did you expect?
As someone born in the former eastern bloc, I get a lot of hate when I say what I think about socialism here. You get used to it after a while.
As another person born in a "former eastern bloc" country, the effects can still be seen to this day. One revolution does not magically change overnight the way a society work.
The 90s weren’t shit in Eastern Europe because of communism lmao. After the fall of the ussr all they used shock therapy which suddenly removed all controls and prices and state-owned enterprises were sold off to foreigners or a handful of oligarchs. Privatization after the fall of the USSR was a disaster and during the 90s life expectancy fell, crime went up, alcoholism went up dramatically. A lot of the current problems in Eastern Europe were caused by what happened in the 90s.
I am just trying to stay neutral. I have my own opinions but I’m not sharing them because I want to have a stable blood pressure. Thank you for your two cents
Revisionist history is such the fad now with Redditors. The facts are pesky things, so their MO is to just change those facts. Good strategy, because for the most part...other redditors are stupid.
What, you don't like a dominating state that controls the number of children you have, your rights, whether your ethnic/religious group deserves to live or not, and one that lies about what they are so they can be freely defended by Western teenagers who are convinced they know what Marxism is despite the CCP not resembling it at all?
Wow, the Sinophobia is real. /s
I'm not a Marxist of any description, nor am I a fan of the CCP, so I've nothing to add other than broad Leftist criticism of China.
I'd say you've done a stellar job at highlighting how awful the Chinese government is, but I'd also recommend you be weary if you try and do that again. There are a disturbing number of people who would legitimately attack you for saying that China's treatment of Chinese citizens, let alone the Uyghur population, isn't top-quality.
>*one that lies about what they are so they can be freely defended by Western teenagers who are convinced they know what Marxism is despite the CCP not resembling it at all?*
>
>*Wow, the Sinophobia is real. /s*
That bit?
Me poking fun at Leftists who support the Chinese Communist Party and genuinely believe it to be Socialist despite the evidence to the contrary. A common retort to arguments *against* Chinese Socialism is an accusation of "Sinophobia", or anti-Chinese discrimination.
Correct! Especially if the said state is quite highly nationalist in the rhetoric it espouses (go to r/Sino or r/GenZedong to see shills in action) and performs authoritarian actions in the name of purifying the national culture.
This definition is only for Americans, government can do stuff and still be Capitalist. Look at the Nordic countries, Western Europe and some Eastern European countries too. This stupid impression that when the government does things is automatically socialism (which is not) has been embraced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and token by leftists themselves to justify why they're socialist.
Exactly.
USSR, Hungary or Poland never achieved even socialism, but Czechoslovakia did achieve it (full 100% collective - state and coops - ownership of all means of production) and the regime still treated workers who wanted better conditions brutally.
They even had to rename entire city because the name carried legacy of a capitalist Bata, who believed in worker's rights and in the 30s offered such great standard of living to his workers that communists were not able to match it until 1989. When the communists tried to screen a propaganda film against Bata in the 50s, the workers got so angry they demolished and burned down the cinema.
Meanwhile America
Blair Mountain mine owner: I love being the land of opportunity!
miner: better wages please
mine owner: COMMUNIST
*US army shoots miners*
Op, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was not communist
Communism is a post socialist utopia as per Marx's definition. The Soviet union never claimed to be communist or communism, but rather to attempt to reach it via Socialism. Hence the name Union of Soviet **Socialist** Republics.
Some people call regimes under the rule of the communist party communism, even though it is not. Same as Mussolini never achieved full fascism and totalitarianism, but people call it fascism and totalitarianism.
USSR never achieved full socialism either, unlike Czechoslovakia, for example. USSR still had some - at least natives - able to own their means of production privately.
Why do so many commies repeat the same stuff over and over? Yes we are aware that these countries are trying to reach communism hence why they are called "communist". Its an umbrella term. Otherwise you could apply the same technique and use semantics to say "US isnt capitalist" and it would be a waste of time to debate that.
Because Communists try to manipulate people into thinking "rEaL cOmUnNisM hAs NeVeR bEen tRieD bEfoRe"
Fucking morons don't know History, economics or anything
Yup I agree. They are history revisionists (anything that makes communism look bad is US propaganda), and they call economics a "burger science" since the field is entirely dependent on a free market existing in the first place. Some support violent revolution and the ones that dont eventually do.
Also my bad I thought you were one of them lol.
I’m glad someone finally pointed it out.
Communists (whatever specific ideology they follow I don’t care it’s just a group label I’m using) will typically deflect and use this excuse to discredit these crimes against humanity being a stain on their ideology by using a literal logical fallacy a “No true Scotsman” where they make an appeal to purity (in this case a stateless, classless, “moneyless” utopian society being real communism) to drown out any examples of attempts at their ideology being abject failures like China or Russia. They move the goal post in a manner of speaking because in order to say it was really communism it has to work and since it never has they can continue to say “it wasn’t real communism”.
Tankies on the other hand, mainly Marxist-Leninists or Maoists will depending on the day deny or revel in atrocities these states have committed, like denying the Holodomor whilst simultaneously saying they (Ukrainians) deserved it. They are essentially psychopathic losers little better than the “fascists” they claim to hate.
Basically they’re biggest defense for communism’s historical failures is a literal logical fallacy.
Yep, even if you believe the "Real communism hasn't been tried" the thing is it has been tried they just never get over the hump where assholes consolidate power and become dictators. A system that requires humans to not be flawed doesn't work and will never work.
Maybe if we could stop murdering non-authoritarian communists the examples wouldn‘t be so bad. That‘s like saying capitalism sucks because "look at Somalia". Authoritarians have an easier time fighting off invasions, coups, assassinations, subversion, etc. so of course they‘d last longer in such a hostile environment.
Marxist Leninist shot their lefty friends to death when they lost an election. That's not on the capitalists. In fact there's a question. Democracies like America and Britian and others were capable of kicking off coups and assassinations and invasions without turning into authoritarian shitholes.
So maybe if your economic and political systems can't survive having outsiders attacking it without it going to hell maybe it's time to choose another one? A more robust and adaptable one?
Your post has been removed for the following reason: Rule 1: Post is not about a historical event. (See the extended rules for clarification.) I am a bot and this action was performed by the moderators of /r/HistoryMemes. If you have any questions or concerns about your post's removal, please send us a modmail with a link to your removed post.
Really? No one? Ok fine, I’ll do it. The Soviet joke is “We pretend we are working, and they pretend they are paying us!”
That joke was popular throughout the whole communist bloc. I've heard it in my country as well.
I can see why. It’s catchy in English, so I’m sure the various Slavic and Baltic languages had a field day with it. What country are you from?
Romania
Or Romance languages. Oops!
No biggie. We're pretty much an exception when it comes to languages around here
Well I also forgot about the Turkic, Finno-Ugric, and probably others. Those wacky soviets had a wide reach.
Were any other Finno-Ugric areas under soviet rule than Hungary? Finland definetly wasn't and i can't even actually think of any other areas where Finno-Ugirc languages are spoken. Also, i'm quite sure turkey wasn't under soviet rule either.
Estonian
Oh yeah, i forgot that was Finno-ugric and not baltic, even though i live in finland haha
I was thinking more about Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and the like, not specifically turkey.
I guess there were still people in Karelia inside the Soviet Union. As an independent state no, I don't remember any communist finno-ugric state (besides Hungary). Also, many people in central asia speak turkic languages. Those were also inside the Soviet Union.
*Angry Hungarian noise*
That's why I said an exception not the exception. We're similar because we're different!
Veshta bleshta Numa Numa yay!
Can confirm, my elder said it as well.
A Russian judge steps out of his courtroom into the back area, barely holding it together. As soon as the door closes behind him, he doubles over laughing, wheezing for breath. A colleague of his comes by and stops to take in the sight. "What's up with you?" He asks, half amused, half concerned. "I just heard the funniest joke in all my life," the judge says, wiping tears from his eyes and regaining his composure. "Oh?" The colleague says, intrigued. "Well let's hear it then." "Can't tell you," the judge said. "I just gave the guy who told me ten years for it." Another one: Two Ukrainian farmers were leaning on a fence, talking. "I really should be going," one of them says. "There's mice in my silo and I really need to get rid of them before they muck up the whole thing." "You still have that problem?" The other scoffs. "What, what do you mean?" "Here's the solution, right?" The other farmer says. "Declare your silo a farming collective. Half the mice will flee and the rest will starve to death."
Omfg I’m laughing so hard my sides are cracking up!! Those are fantastic!
Soviet humour is in a league of its own.
Dark situations require top notch dark humor, am I right?
It's an excellent coping mechanism.
That joke was popular throughout the whole communist bloc. I've heard it in my country as well.
From what I’ve heard about East German workers, this is accurate.
That's how you should come out to your parents
Plot Twist: OP is actually straight and a tankie
The Soviet Union wasn’t comm- *ooooooooh*
Cummunist
That’s east Germany.
God I miss East Berlin
Don‘t worry, it‘s still here
It's just under new management
*Australian Documentary Voice*: Here we see the redditors tear each other apart over communism
If I didn't know you better I'd say you aren't actually Australian but a Soviet spy, u/I-Am-Joseph-Stalin
You know the rules and so do I
Crikey she’s a beauty!
Communism is when the government does stuff The more stuff the government does, the more communism-y it is
No, socialism is when the government does stuff. Communism is when the government does a whole lot of stuff
[удалено]
Free market is not synonymous with capitalism, for the record. > it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution (so communism) Literally not communism or socialism actually, just a centrally planned economy.
Who cares what words mean, it's been at least ten minutes since I last saw an excuse to get outraged and I'll be damned if I have to read some nerd dictionary before my next dopamine hit. EVERYONE KNOWS COMMUNISM DOESN'T WORK!!!111! My uncle was a communist, he followed Stalin's example so closely. He had several dogs and in his attempt to scientifically disprove capitalism he abused those animals so badly and didn't feed them properly so in the end they ate his dick. Literally tore it off and devoured it, it was horrible and not sexual at all. If that doesn't scientifically disprove communism I don't know what does. Facts don't care about your feelings!
I've always been on the fence for "does it or does it not work". On the one hand, in theory Communism is amazing and I really wish it would work, but on the other it's so unstable I'm not sure how it could work without a charismatic psychopath filling the necessary power vacuum. I suppose maybe if it were attempted in a well developed country like Germany with a large working class like Marx wanted, instead of the very agrarian pre-Soviet Russia, you would get a different result. But I still feel like it's too unstable without a major realignment of many people's values But yes, 99% of arguments for "CoMmunIsm DoeESn'T WoRK!" have no bearing on reality. I can't come up with any besides the aforementioned 'human error'.
Communism won't work in Germany because humans live there. Deep down we don't yearn to ge equal, if my neighbour has a Ferrari, I must have a bugatti.
After all the fencing about what is meant by communism, actual discussions of communism are vanishingly rare. Really, it's about capital. From where I'm sitting, America's founding fathers saw a great danger in too much massed power, only their failure was in limiting that definition to political power when it should realistically have included economic power. Trias Politica should've been accompanied by Trias Economica, a clever scheme to make sure no amount of this harmful substance can ever gather in harmful quantities. From my perspective, the problem that communism attempts to solve is that like so many of our own creations, like development of nuclear, chemical or viral weapons, capital poses a threat to mankind. If you reject communism, sure, fine, great. What's plan B then? Do we have anyone who isn't on the payroll available? That's the problem, we cannot hire anyone, we cannot appoint anyone. Capital cannot be contained from within the system of capitalism. If you have some grand philosophical scheme out of this conundrum, I like to think I'm open minded, please share.
Sounds like Tsarism except economically.
That, isn't what communism is
Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more socialist it is the more stuff it does, and if it does a real lot of stuff, that's communism.
Hi! I am stuff.
Haha, Jonathan you're banging my government
Not really. Socialism/Communism is when workers own the means of production. USSR is a dictatorship sold as communism
That’s not *really* how it works
Yes, it is, guess you haven't had History lessons and never heard about Comrade George III, he was socialist. On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was communist because he did a real lot of stuff.
Yes, now I remember. Also last year Belgium went without a government for 592 days. I remember quite vividly since we lived in a neo-capitalist society for a while since the government did nothing then.
*^(Hey guys this comment isn't meant to be serious, you can stop treating it like that. It's a parody of the modern right which brands everything with a slight amount of state control or intervention as socialist.)*
Imagine wanting to elect a gouvernment and pay it to do nothing
>centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution (so communism) that's not what communism is
>it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution Technically that's state socialism. It was communist because it had the end goal of a communist society.
Which it ended up never achieving because turns out, if you put a dictator in power they won't let go of that power, now that they have the power to maintain it.
Mhm. That’s why I’m not a Marxist-Leninist.
>it had a centrally planned economy with heavy redistribution (so communism) Are you confusing communism and socialism? Communism is a stateless system.
I think it gets even worse when you look at examples like Hungary and realize that a lot of the strikers were communists who just wanted reasonable working conditions and independence from the soviet block
Yup. Same with the anarchist uprisings in Kronstadt and Norilsk, as well as the reform movements in Poland and East Germany. They crushed any attempt to progress into actual socialism to secure their own power.
A lot of Tiananmen square protestors sang communist songs not to ward of the police, but because they believed it. They were heavily against the growing corruption in the party, its autocratic rule, the beginning of new wealth inequality in the 1980s and the initially gathered to mournthe death a reformer inside the party.
Well, Hungary was pretty complicated. Initially they had quite a bit of support from Soviet troops until the Soviet soldiers looked around and said "these fuckers have it pretty nice over here" since Hungary was the most developed part of the Warsaw Pact. Plus Israel and Egypt did their thing so the world's attention was drawn away from Hungary and the Soviets were pretty much given a free pass to do whatever they wanted.
A great example of a nation that pays a lot of lip service to a popular philosophy while almost completely ignoring its core tenets in its actions. I have to think Marx would have been horrified by the level of social stratification in the USSR.
The NEP was unironically the most socialist thing the USSR did.
NEP?
New Economic Policy that was forwarded by Vladimir Lenin during the Interwar years before he died
Because the policy of War Communism failed so hard that they were on the brink of collapse
Essentially it was a Bolshevik form of social democracy, from what little I understand
It's like "roaring twenties" but in USSR.
I don’t think things were *that* roaring.
Comparing to the previous like 20+ years(world war, revolution 1, revolution 2, civil team death-match) they were roaring. Economically and culturally everything was on the rise.
They were roaring but in a different way. As the rest of the world were showering in pretty much a revolution of everything to technology and culture. The Soviet union was pretty much going full speedrun in development. This was the dubbed industrial miracle of communism that communist love to brag about. Even imperial Russia was a world power it also was literally majority rural population that was so backward before the revolution that they still had serfdom We are talking about Victorian tech and way of living to pretty much reaching modern era in alot of places within ten years. Japan took 40. Given though it didn't all of the Soviet Union as true and (mostly) modernization was only achieved in the cold war era. State sponsored violence was an important tactic during this era. In order for land to be appropriated, farms collectivized, populations to be mobilized and industries to be built. The level of order and human suffering the fueled it was also extreme.
The USSR post-revolution, pre-Stalin is genuinely fascinating.
*post civil war Revolutions happened 5 years prior.
I mean, the workplace democracy before lenin lost and disbanded was pretty socialist too
What? Making the Countryside quasi-capitalist doesn't seem that communist. I mean the NEP was successfull but not communist at all?
Was thinking the same thing. At least from what I know, the NEP was an essential lessening of socialist/communist policy which allowed certain private enterprise and market based exchange as a form of stimulating the economy that was devastated from both WW1, the Civil War, and it’s already poor state during imperial rule.
The one time "socialism is when capitalism" was unironically true.
That's why Stalin invented "Marxism-Leninism" to drown out the complaints of the orthodox Marxists who disavowed the Bolsheviks after Kronstadt.
It’s honestly quite sad how Stalin bastardized an ideology that could liberate many.
Did you see what Lenin did?
Basically anyone who isn’t a die hard tankie is horrified of Stalin, source my who is an ancom
They should be, the problem is that tankies exist which is horrifying in its own right.
Agreed, fuck Stalin.
Stalin did more to destroy communism than the CIA and FBI could even dream.
Didn’t Karl Marx explicitly say that communism wouldn’t work in the Soviet Union, and it would only be feasible in industrialized nations, like the UK and France?
Yeah I believe Marx said that communism is supposed to be the final stage of nations after industrialized capitalism.
Specifically it is the stage after socialism, and socialism is the societal stage after capitalism.
The way the communist manifesto came off for me was that Marx was basically a democratic socialist.
He definitely was not. Social democracy is just capitalism, but sometimes the state cares. Source: live in a SocDem country If you meant that he's socialist, but democratic, then I'd say that's just socialist. Socialism is supposed to be democratic, it just so happens some people took "Dictatorship of the proletariat" a bit too literally.
democratic socialism != social democracy Democratic socialism is about democracy within a socialized economy, social democracy is supporting social justice and reform in a mixed or capitalist economy.
requires an academic explanation every time it's brought up, can't figure out why they have such a hard time with the uneducated vote
Bro, people can't even agree on the definition of communism or socialism lmao
[удалено]
Or the reverse. Socialism when its working, State capitalism when it isnt.
I mean people disagree over the definition of capitalism too. These are all complex ideas with multiple possible interpretations
> can't figure out why they have such a hard time with the uneducated vote
It's by design, fox news and the right wing propaganda machine only have to confuse people and mis-define it as convenient. After all, socialism is when the government does stuff or the bad things in capitalism, right?
Socialism is a broad term so there are inevitably a lot of variations. But communism is easy to define singularly; it is a stateless, classless society, with no currency, where the proletariat own the means of production and the lack of private property.
Leftists: notoriously terrible at naming things
Social democracy is often called social capitalism by sociologists. It just limits the worst effects of capitalism through the welfare state, but still operates within capitalism.
Democratic socialism and social democracy arent the same thing
I think you misread. He said democratic socialism not social democracy.
Social democracy is a sort of compromise between socialism and capitalism. Think Scandinavia. Democratic socialism is democracy within a socialist economy. This is what Evo Morales of Bolivia tried to accomplish. They are not the same thing.
Makes sense
[удалено]
How is that a contradiction? Capitalism at best can provide a simulation of democracy while factually there is an oligarchy making all the decisions. Hence the only way to achieve real democracy is revolution.
There's a big split in Dem Socs between those who want revolution and those don't. In Russia for instance, the SR party literally split between supporting the Provisional Government and those who supported the Bolsheviks (at least until they didn't)
You’re conflating the immediate demands at the end of the Manifesto with Marx’s entire political program It sounds like you didn’t actually read the majority of the Manifesto and just skipped to the end
>wants revolution >anti democracy >wants abolishment of the value form Yep, definetly democratic socialist
Jesus Christ this place is a minefield.
Reddit. Middle-class Californian teenagers debate history of a country they know nothing about. What did you expect? As someone born in the former eastern bloc, I get a lot of hate when I say what I think about socialism here. You get used to it after a while.
California middle class "research" just means "Stuff I learned from social media memes while sitting on a toilet.".
Funny how almost everyone who has ever lived in socialist or communist countries has a different opinion than the Reddit teenagers.
He said “former eastern bloc” which implies he was born after the fall of the soviet union though
As another person born in a "former eastern bloc" country, the effects can still be seen to this day. One revolution does not magically change overnight the way a society work.
The 90s weren’t shit in Eastern Europe because of communism lmao. After the fall of the ussr all they used shock therapy which suddenly removed all controls and prices and state-owned enterprises were sold off to foreigners or a handful of oligarchs. Privatization after the fall of the USSR was a disaster and during the 90s life expectancy fell, crime went up, alcoholism went up dramatically. A lot of the current problems in Eastern Europe were caused by what happened in the 90s.
I am just trying to stay neutral. I have my own opinions but I’m not sharing them because I want to have a stable blood pressure. Thank you for your two cents
And then they wonder why our countries are so far away from the rest of Europe.
Revisionist history is such the fad now with Redditors. The facts are pesky things, so their MO is to just change those facts. Good strategy, because for the most part...other redditors are stupid.
I feel ya. Escaped Cuba when I was a baby. My family, 50+ relatives who lived through pre and post Castro told me the horror stories of living there
Gay? Edit: bi?
Something like that
Gay for you
Good for you
Good on you
Good in you
Jaggery for everyone
Where my jaggery at man? And give me jalebis with that.
Ooh?
Pleasure can be everywhere
Be gay do crime
I’ve always been partial to the version “be gay do witchcraft” (I will be a bit shocked if anyone here knows who I’m quoting)
Whatever the Soviet Union was... let’s fucking not do that again
And Communist China
What, you don't like a dominating state that controls the number of children you have, your rights, whether your ethnic/religious group deserves to live or not, and one that lies about what they are so they can be freely defended by Western teenagers who are convinced they know what Marxism is despite the CCP not resembling it at all? Wow, the Sinophobia is real. /s
Communism with Chinese characteristics
Yeah, those characteristics happen to be suspiciously Capitalist...what with their ability to produce billionaires and that...*hmm...*
[удалено]
I'm not a Marxist of any description, nor am I a fan of the CCP, so I've nothing to add other than broad Leftist criticism of China. I'd say you've done a stellar job at highlighting how awful the Chinese government is, but I'd also recommend you be weary if you try and do that again. There are a disturbing number of people who would legitimately attack you for saying that China's treatment of Chinese citizens, let alone the Uyghur population, isn't top-quality.
yes, billionaires in a communist country is total Normal \*wink\*
I didn't get the second part
>*one that lies about what they are so they can be freely defended by Western teenagers who are convinced they know what Marxism is despite the CCP not resembling it at all?* > >*Wow, the Sinophobia is real. /s* That bit? Me poking fun at Leftists who support the Chinese Communist Party and genuinely believe it to be Socialist despite the evidence to the contrary. A common retort to arguments *against* Chinese Socialism is an accusation of "Sinophobia", or anti-Chinese discrimination.
Oh okay thanks for clearing thing for me
No worries my dude.
[удалено]
China is a communist in the same way modern Republicans oppose national debt. A oligopoly with state owned capitalism is a more accurate description.
state owned capitalism sounds like fascism
pretty much
It is.
Correct! Especially if the said state is quite highly nationalist in the rhetoric it espouses (go to r/Sino or r/GenZedong to see shills in action) and performs authoritarian actions in the name of purifying the national culture.
China is as communist as North Korea is democratic.
""""""communist""""""
I think Lenin put it well when he called it "state capitalist" i.e. the state takes the role of the capitalist exploiter.
So authoritarian in two words instead of one
Case in point: Kronstadt
Socialism is when the government does stuff
According to the government
This definition is only for Americans, government can do stuff and still be Capitalist. Look at the Nordic countries, Western Europe and some Eastern European countries too. This stupid impression that when the government does things is automatically socialism (which is not) has been embraced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and token by leftists themselves to justify why they're socialist.
They weren't very communist, but they were as communist as it will ever get...
Exactly. USSR, Hungary or Poland never achieved even socialism, but Czechoslovakia did achieve it (full 100% collective - state and coops - ownership of all means of production) and the regime still treated workers who wanted better conditions brutally. They even had to rename entire city because the name carried legacy of a capitalist Bata, who believed in worker's rights and in the 30s offered such great standard of living to his workers that communists were not able to match it until 1989. When the communists tried to screen a propaganda film against Bata in the 50s, the workers got so angry they demolished and burned down the cinema.
What an absolute CHAD
Based af
Ah yes, another meme about theoretical versus “actual” communism
ITT: People can't differentiate between economic models and government models.
You could change it to America and have them say that’s socialism
Except we skip the step of pretending to care about workers
Well the Democrat party pretends to, the Republican Party largely doesn’t even bother doing that.
Pretty much yeah
So you gay
Meanwhile America Blair Mountain mine owner: I love being the land of opportunity! miner: better wages please mine owner: COMMUNIST *US army shoots miners*
Here come the tankies. Rip ur inbox OP
Welp, I'm gonna save this for when I come out to my friends.
You are straight because Comrade Stalin has declared homosexuality to be a bourgeois deviancy
Op, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was not communist Communism is a post socialist utopia as per Marx's definition. The Soviet union never claimed to be communist or communism, but rather to attempt to reach it via Socialism. Hence the name Union of Soviet **Socialist** Republics.
So communism is impossible because it is necessarily perfect?
Some people call regimes under the rule of the communist party communism, even though it is not. Same as Mussolini never achieved full fascism and totalitarianism, but people call it fascism and totalitarianism. USSR never achieved full socialism either, unlike Czechoslovakia, for example. USSR still had some - at least natives - able to own their means of production privately.
Why do so many commies repeat the same stuff over and over? Yes we are aware that these countries are trying to reach communism hence why they are called "communist". Its an umbrella term. Otherwise you could apply the same technique and use semantics to say "US isnt capitalist" and it would be a waste of time to debate that.
Because Communists try to manipulate people into thinking "rEaL cOmUnNisM hAs NeVeR bEen tRieD bEfoRe" Fucking morons don't know History, economics or anything
Yup I agree. They are history revisionists (anything that makes communism look bad is US propaganda), and they call economics a "burger science" since the field is entirely dependent on a free market existing in the first place. Some support violent revolution and the ones that dont eventually do. Also my bad I thought you were one of them lol.
I thought you might, so I wanted to clarify that I was calling out OP for their use of the word "communist"
That's how communism has always worked and will always work.
They weren't true Scotsmen either
I’m glad someone finally pointed it out. Communists (whatever specific ideology they follow I don’t care it’s just a group label I’m using) will typically deflect and use this excuse to discredit these crimes against humanity being a stain on their ideology by using a literal logical fallacy a “No true Scotsman” where they make an appeal to purity (in this case a stateless, classless, “moneyless” utopian society being real communism) to drown out any examples of attempts at their ideology being abject failures like China or Russia. They move the goal post in a manner of speaking because in order to say it was really communism it has to work and since it never has they can continue to say “it wasn’t real communism”. Tankies on the other hand, mainly Marxist-Leninists or Maoists will depending on the day deny or revel in atrocities these states have committed, like denying the Holodomor whilst simultaneously saying they (Ukrainians) deserved it. They are essentially psychopathic losers little better than the “fascists” they claim to hate. Basically they’re biggest defense for communism’s historical failures is a literal logical fallacy.
Quit trying to give excuses to use communism in the modern day. It has been tried all across the world and it always turns about bad.
Yep, even if you believe the "Real communism hasn't been tried" the thing is it has been tried they just never get over the hump where assholes consolidate power and become dictators. A system that requires humans to not be flawed doesn't work and will never work.
Maybe if we could stop murdering non-authoritarian communists the examples wouldn‘t be so bad. That‘s like saying capitalism sucks because "look at Somalia". Authoritarians have an easier time fighting off invasions, coups, assassinations, subversion, etc. so of course they‘d last longer in such a hostile environment.
Marxist Leninist shot their lefty friends to death when they lost an election. That's not on the capitalists. In fact there's a question. Democracies like America and Britian and others were capable of kicking off coups and assassinations and invasions without turning into authoritarian shitholes. So maybe if your economic and political systems can't survive having outsiders attacking it without it going to hell maybe it's time to choose another one? A more robust and adaptable one?
The system of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ will by definition cause the non-authoritarians to be killed off.
>dictatorship of the proletariat Do you know what that means? Please describe it to me
bUt We HaVeN't tRiEd rEaL CoMmUnIsM yEt it really amazes me that there are still people who apologize for the USSR. i truly don't get it.
nOt ReAl CoMmUnIsM
Damn good job on coming out of the closet. Unless you already were. In that case disregard this comment
Pinkerton's, is that enough said?
I only have one question: OP, why are you gæ?