You must log in or # to comment.
I’ll never forgive Fidel for taking my grandpa’s farm and teaching his slaves how to read
my partner’s mom’s side of her family used to be slave owners in Cuba and that’s really how they think
Removed by mod
They weren’t so elusive before 1959
Say what you actually want to say, cause it just looks like you’re sticking up to Batista.
Stalin’s purge included the murder a lot of the original bolshevik revolutionaries.
I’m ofc assuming Stalin doesn’t count as a communist… Hopefully.
It’s unfortunate, but I think it was mostly capitalists and nazis.
Edit to add: fuck nazis
Yeah, the guy that lead the most successful iteration of communism isnt a real communist. Only people debating on the internet are true communists.
Your criteria for communism is essentially “if they did bad things, then it wasn’t real communism”. Leftists can learn a lot from The Soviet Union, mistakes and all. Dismissing entire nations that actually tried communism because you’re scared you’ll have to justify everything they did is silly.
Nah. I think Lenin was a communist. A reactionary asshole, a traitor to the revolution, but genuinely a communist, thought he was doing the right thing, and a hell of an administrator.
I think Castro was a communist. Not as big on democracy as he could’ve been, fucked up on queer issues until right near the end¹, but genuinely into the communism.
Stalin was a gangster in disposition. An opportunist. What Stalin believed in was power, terror, and himself. He was as much a communist as napoleon Bonaparte or al Capone.
¹and credit where due, turned hard, got basically all of it right. Later than id like, but ahead of like every other state.
Your criteria for communism is essentially “if they did bad things, then it wasn’t real communism”.
Why would you assume that’s their criteria? Communism is a stateless, classless society. USSR had both of those things.
Can a nation be considered to have achieved communism when it still has a hierarchy?
The Soviet Union didn’t even claim to have achieved socialism. Their ideology was that they were supposedly constantly working towards that.
While killing everyone who tried to move or experiment towards it.
TIL the Soviet Union only existed from 1924 to 1953. Wow, thanks, I didn’t know this at all!
You’re right. We shoukd pay more half to the other half of the time it existed, where it did exactly none of this.
State capitalists usually say that so they keep control of power.
Communists are not people that practice communism (not possible yet), they are people trying to achieve communism as an end goal.
And shitty communists go around purging other communists in kangaroo courts and show trials.
Shitty communists impose cults of personality and destroy workers democracy.
Shitty communists also refuse to learn from a century of shitty communism and still cling to old categories as if they have any meaning today. I mean you can stan Robespierre all you like but in the end of the day, the 1871 Commune was never going to be run by 1789 Jacobins much less fucking bonapartists.
The way you communicate is insufferable lol.
Well, your toothbrush is gross and your toes smell like canola oil.
Pretty telling that this is how you chose to reply to this. Just ignore everything they said I guess, huh?
Dont be an insufferable weirdo if you wanna have a discussion. Speaking to people this way doesn’t work in real life and I’d like to extend that courtesy to online spaces too.
Which requires social progress and experimentation; things Stalin didn’t allow much of.
The final goal of communism is a worldwide, stateless, classless, moneyless society.
This has obviously never been achieved, but the socialist and communist factions that use Marxism Leninism to work toward this goal are still nonetheless communist.
Communism in the Marxist sense isn’t about abolishing hierarchies. When they say they want a stateless society, there will still be oppression but executed by workers which is much besser. Source: read Das Kapital or something. I’m not a Marxist, what do I know
you actually have this backwards. communism in a marxist sense is hierarchiless as described in das kapital. however the bosheviks broke from the larger communist movement because the mensheviks (the larger of the two factions of russian communists) advocated for building a larger and larger coalition that could create durable anti-authoritarian change in russia. lenin believed in vanguard party politics, that it would be better to do the overthrow of the capital class first, and then slowly cede power to the workers. unfortunately in the first elections under bolshevik control the workers didn’t vote how lenin had assumed they would and he ceased democratic elections in soviet russia. following a series of strokes, power was not slowly ceded to the workers, rather, stalin manipulated petty beurocratic power in order to consolidate, rather than disperse, power. ultimately, much like the french revolution, what happened was the typical revolution cycle:
- things are bad
- the people revolt
- two parallel movements develop representing either a coup by power or a great societal reform
- the coup by power faction consolidates a core faster and takes over
- the great societal reform faction is purged as counter-revolutionary
- the driving force behind the coup by power faction goes mad with power and dies
- in the vaccuum of power a new cult of personality arises in which a previously mostly ignored person takes full control and re-establishes the old order with himself at the head and the only real change is the aesthetic of the imperium.
in france, the result was a totalitarian authoritarian regime “liberating” europe. in russia it was a totalitarian authoritarian regime “liberating” the workers.
to get an idea of who the bolsheviks really were look at how quickly they abandoned leftist unity to purge the anarchocommunists from eastern europe. these were people they, allegedly, shared ideals with and had been fighting to free the serfs alongside up until the moment they could purge the anarchocommunists in order to consolidate personal power at the top of the hierarchy.
tl;dr marxism is without hierarchy, marxist-leninism is very much with hierarchy
Another day on lemmy another sectarian struggle session relitigating history people have at most listened to a podcast on.
Hell yeah.
Yes, nobody has ever read a book. Books are a myth.
On lemmy? It’s harry potter or mein kampff I’m afraid.
Nosorry, books do not exist.
Holy shit this community went tankie reallly quickly.
How many Nazis were executed in Kronstadt?
Eastern Europeans: 👁👄👁
Removed by mod
And this excuses your grandfather being a Nazi… how?
Well, that’s not the important part. The important part is that he was murdered by damn dirty commies¹.
¹for running a concentration camp
Removed by mod
Saying that Stalin was a communist is like saying Trump is altruistic.
Call it like it is: he was a dictator and the following regimes were dressed in the same cloth.
Communism (correction - Socialism) is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Resources must be usurped from the ruling class by force, as they cannot be reasoned with. There is nothing wrong with that.
Communism is a dictatorship of the proletariat.
no, the dictatorship of the proletariat is supposed to be a transitional phase. once you get to communism, it’s not supposed to be a dictatorship of anyone. even Marx allowed that it was possible that in a country with a strong democratic system, that the dictatorship of the proletariat might not even be needed. ironically, one of the countries where he said it might be possible was the United States and Great Britain.
clearly, times have changed.
You’re correct. Thank you for clarifying.
My point about “dictatorship” being “not real communism” still holds though. The dictatorship is required to achieve communism.
There’s nothing wrong with usurping resources from the ruling class, but there is a lot wrong with imposing tyranny on the proletariat.
Removed by mod
For many westerners, communism is just a fantasy. They have no material grasp on what happens when you try to do it. They think you just magically redistribute resources while the ruling class stands by without interference.
Removed by mod
And of course everyone who disagrees with you even a little is part of that class.
Removed by mod
MF Bought reciepts
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
They literally didn’t bring any recipes though. Just unsubstantiated claims. Anyone can do that.
are you saying holomodor didn’t happen, and that stalin wasn’t an authoritarian bastard?
Removed by mod
Yeah, your kind can never engage with disagreement without running away like Satres anti-semite
fair
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Are you saying that you’re a child molester who supports the KKK?
nope. what’s that got to do with the chain of reasoning that we are discussing?
Forester : Holomodor was a famine that caused deaths
Me : Damn, Forester brought up many examples of deaths being caused by communists (NB : not communism, particular communists) that were not right wing assholes.
you : he provided propaganda (unsubstantiated claims)
me : are you saying that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor didn’t happen?
you: are you a child molestor
What’s the deal my man?
So you make an obviously bad faith “are you saying [obvious strawman that is not at all what I said]?” comment, but then have a tantrum when I do the same back to you? Fuck off. How about you actually read and respond to what people actually fucking say, rather than literally making up your own bullshit quotes that noone said: literally manufacturing fictional conversations whole cloth. Until you actually respond to what actually said, without making up fake quotes or other bad faith bullshit, I’m going to keep treating you the same.
So you’re saying that you’re actually a neo nazi who loves child porn?
why is holomodor an “unsubstantiated claim”?
Funny watching the so called “leftists” bringing out their pre-prepared lists of anti-communist cold war talking points.
Or the fact the ussr was first fighting with the nazis before switching side when germany said “lets gooooo”
