"Historians" when atrocities happen under "Communism" >:c
"Historians" when atrocities happen under capitalism :3
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
180 points (96.9% liked)
Communism
1586 readers
177 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
funny how one autocratic regime pretending to be communistic/socialistic made masses believe that communism and socialism will be the same as ussr. there never was any true socialism or communism
What counts as "True Socialism?" What metric would AES states have to pass to be considered a genuine and authentic movement that isn't completely arbitrary and vibes-based?
Does a drastic improvement in life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, educational access, healthcare access, diminishing wealth disparity, and decreasing hours worked not count as "true and authentic?"
"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
- Critique of the Gotha Programme, Karl Marx
It is anti-Marxist to disparage Socialist movements for not being an immediate Communist utopia without recognizing the context and Material Conditions said Socialist Movements took place in.
What metric would AES states have to pass to be considered a genuine and authentic movement that isn’t completely arbitrary and vibes-based?
Did the workers own their means of production? No. In fact, a lot of worker's cooperatives were not only nationalized, but turned into the same kind of exploitative enterprises they were made to escape the corporate world, but this time it was in the hands of the state, and the factory had "this factory belongs to the workers" written on it.
Does a drastic improvement in life expectancy, literacy rates, housing rates, educational access, healthcare access, diminishing wealth disparity, and decreasing hours worked not count as “true and authentic?
Those are often done under more "human-faced" capitalist states. These states are just social-autocracies: all the social benefits of social democracies, without any democracy, unless you call liking a dictator and their pet projects at gunpoint a "democracy".
Would my far-right government be considered a socialist country, because it boasts about record-high employment boosted by emmigration and the humiliating public employment program (work full 8+ hours at a state institute or street cleaner for half the minimum wage, so car makers don't have to pay taxes), and about higher and higher wages that are nearly completely offset by inflation? Is stuffing the prime minister's childhood friend with so much money he became a billionaire at the cost of smaller businesses going bankrupt a socialist move, just because he happens to be Hungarian (and also doesn't have "berg" in his family name, nor has a "suspiciously large nose" as some insiders told me why a Hungarian business needed to go)? I guess critical support for Viktor Orbán then, since he hates the west and its human rights...
Did the workers own their means of production? No. In fact, a lot of worker's cooperatives were not only nationalized, but turned into the same kind of exploitative enterprises they were made to escape the corporate world, but this time it was in the hands of the state, and the factory had "this factory belongs to the workers" written on it.
The Workers did own the Means of Production via a Worker State. It was fundamentally not "the same kind of exploitative enterprises" because production was not done in service of profit and accumulation in the hands of the few, but for and by the workers. We see the effects of this with high housing rates, free healthcare, education, and extremely low poverty rates.
Those are often done under more "human-faced" capitalist states. These states are just social-autocracies: all the social benefits of social democracies, without any democracy, unless you call liking a dictator and their pet projects at gunpoint a "democracy".
Every Socialist state has been democratic to some degree, believing the state is simply structuted entirely due to the whims of "powerful people" is laughably oversimplified. Social Democracies should be analyzed based on how they gained their resources. Social Democracy in the Global North is Imperialist, Social Democracy in the Global South is progressive, though not sufficient.
Running a worker state takes many cogs and many democratic movements, as compared with Capitalism where the bourgeoisie and the managers they employ have absolute say. It is a given that Capitalist employment is antidemocratic, when you measure only the State in Capitalism with the entirety of the economy and state in Socialism, without also acknowledging the utter lack of any democracy in the Capitalist economy, you are cherry picking.
Would my far-right government be considered a socialist country, because it boasts about record-high employment boosted by emmigration and the humiliating public employment program (work full 8+ hours at a state institute or street cleaner for half the minimum wage, so car makers don't have to pay taxes), and about higher and higher wages that are nearly completely offset by inflation? Is stuffing the prime minister's childhood friend with so much money he became a billionaire at the cost of smaller businesses going bankrupt a socialist move, just because he happens to be Hungarian (and also doesn't have "berg" in his family name, nor has a "suspiciously large nose" as some insiders told me why a Hungarian business needed to go)? I guess critical support for Viktor Orbán then, since he hates the west and its human rights...
Unsure of what this tangent has to do with the topic at hand.
