You’re showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker’s councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker’s councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
So-called “dictatorship of proletariat” was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren’t compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn’t even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad.
I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor’s kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn’t get education because they were “children of the enemy of the people”. Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were “pests” or “enemies of the people”, so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
My point is about the flawed argument : “communism is bad because the attempts have failed”. Well, there are more capitalist attempts that failed than communist ones, so the argument doesn’t hold.
My argument is not “look how many attempts have failed” but “look, of all of these many attempts, every single one has turned into a kafkaesque nightmare”. At this point it is not even clear that “successful communism” is something that can exist in our world
On the other hand, while many (depending on your perspective you might even say most) capitalist systems fail, there are absolutely some that work ok. Of course nothing is perfect in the real world. But the life of say a danish person is not only materially well off, but also free and full of dignity, which was true of none of the experiments in communism
I’m pretty sure many Chinese are well off, free and full of dignity.
It’s also easier to be a successful country when you’re not under ambargo just because you’re not sold to capitalist companies. Did the US left even one communist country live normally?
But more importantly, how many successful capitalist countries, today, aren’t going fascist at full speed?
It’s so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
They didn’t fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
which were sabotaged by capitalists
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can’t even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
the need to rebel is the problem
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of “tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM”
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence
Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say “that’s not communism” for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism
The two concepts are antithetical
Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism
USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism
I know of two common definitions of capitalism: “a system mostly organized around a profit-motive” and “a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts”. I don’t see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences
“Nothing will ever meet this standard” ~CHINESEBOTTROLL
If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.
The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.
You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn’t have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
You misunderstand. That is not capitalism but CRONY-capitalism. The two concepts are anrithetical. In REAL capitalism everyone respects the non-agression principle and therefore everyone is free. Crony capitalism is actually the LEAST capitalist system and is closer to socialism, because the government does stuff. I am very smart
I didn’t say that communism hasn’t happened. It happens everywhere there’s more than one person present, until it is stopped by a fascist who starts building a hierarchy, demanding that one person be in control and set the agenda. Fear is the fertile ground in which ignorance blossoms. The reason that all governments are based in fascism is because they all ultimately believe in their own authority to enact violence on individuals. When the ignorance INEVITABLY collapses into violence, communism rises from the ashes in the form of mutual aide, community, schools, and basic infrastructure.
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they’re hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform…
No, I’m just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
That’s objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn’t be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.
That’s just such an intellectually dishonest comment to make, the fact that you have to go back to 1933 really shows says everything we need to know here. The fact you’ve conveniently omitted is that famines were a common occurrence before the revolution, and one of the major factors driving the revolution. During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul’chyts’kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, yet even he is forced to acknowledge that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
The reality is that USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 period while having better nutrition:
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian “communists”.
Unless you’re an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
You’re showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.
When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker’s councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker’s councils.
Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.
So-called “dictatorship of proletariat” was simply a terror. Lots of philosophers and religious elite was killed just because they weren’t compatible with communist ideology. Rich peasants who didn’t even use others labor were either robbed or killed. Peasants lost their land and had to work for the country. People got killed just because some anonyms told they did something bad. I know this because it happened to my ancestors. My grand-grandfather lost his house, communists left only one room for his family. His friends, all good people, dissapeared. His daughters never played with neighbor’s kids because of fear. My other grand-grandfather lost land and two horses. His brother was killed for not agreeing to give away his house. And my another grand-grandfather was killed because an anonymous letter. He was communist and thought he was safe as he did nothing wrong. His kids couldn’t get education because they were “children of the enemy of the people”. Much later my grandfather got a paper concluding that execution of his father was a mistake. It was horrible time, and lots of people thought the ones who were killed were “pests” or “enemies of the people”, so killing them was good and beneficial for the society.
deleted by creator
Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.
What about all these capitalist places that fell into fascism? What about the successful capitalist states that are currently falling into fascism?
What about them? The choices here are not “what we have now” vs “trust the people that want to try communism again”
My point is about the flawed argument : “communism is bad because the attempts have failed”. Well, there are more capitalist attempts that failed than communist ones, so the argument doesn’t hold.
My argument is not “look how many attempts have failed” but “look, of all of these many attempts, every single one has turned into a kafkaesque nightmare”. At this point it is not even clear that “successful communism” is something that can exist in our world
On the other hand, while many (depending on your perspective you might even say most) capitalist systems fail, there are absolutely some that work ok. Of course nothing is perfect in the real world. But the life of say a danish person is not only materially well off, but also free and full of dignity, which was true of none of the experiments in communism
I’m pretty sure many Chinese are well off, free and full of dignity.
It’s also easier to be a successful country when you’re not under ambargo just because you’re not sold to capitalist companies. Did the US left even one communist country live normally?
But more importantly, how many successful capitalist countries, today, aren’t going fascist at full speed?
It’s so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.
They didn’t fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist
What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can’t even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit
I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of “tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM”
Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.
How do you prevent people from trading and owning property without violence?
Education. The reason that fascists are raising hell about wokeness is that Capitalism depends on ignorance.
Ok, can you “educate” me why I need to get rid of my private property?
And fascists practiced economic policies of “corporatism”, not capitalism
You don’t have private property. You have personal property. https://allthedifferences.com/personal-vs-private-property-whats-the-difference/
Fascism and corporatism is just end stage capitalism. Every time capitalism fails it is bailed out by socialism or it devolves into genocide.
Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say “that’s not communism” for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism
Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism
I know of two common definitions of capitalism: “a system mostly organized around a profit-motive” and “a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts”. I don’t see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences
“Nothing will ever meet this standard” ~CHINESEBOTTROLL
If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.
The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.
You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn’t have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.
You misunderstand. That is not capitalism but CRONY-capitalism. The two concepts are anrithetical. In REAL capitalism everyone respects the non-agression principle and therefore everyone is free. Crony capitalism is actually the LEAST capitalist system and is closer to socialism, because the government does stuff. I am very smart
I didn’t say that communism hasn’t happened. It happens everywhere there’s more than one person present, until it is stopped by a fascist who starts building a hierarchy, demanding that one person be in control and set the agenda. Fear is the fertile ground in which ignorance blossoms. The reason that all governments are based in fascism is because they all ultimately believe in their own authority to enact violence on individuals. When the ignorance INEVITABLY collapses into violence, communism rises from the ashes in the form of mutual aide, community, schools, and basic infrastructure.
LOOOOOL
Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they’re hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform…
Are Leftists advocating for the exact same actions as the USSR, or are Capitalists gaslighting the ignorant into believing they are?
No, I’m just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.
Victim blaming.
Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?
Poorly, but not worse than a dictatorship(such as the USSR).
What’s your point?
That’s objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn’t be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.
“USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs”
the victims of the holodomor would like a word
That’s just such an intellectually dishonest comment to make, the fact that you have to go back to 1933 really shows says everything we need to know here. The fact you’ve conveniently omitted is that famines were a common occurrence before the revolution, and one of the major factors driving the revolution. During the 1932 Holodomor Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
Tauger is not a communist, yet even he is forced to acknowledge that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2500600
The reality is that USSR doubled life expectancy in just 20 years. A newborn child in 1926-27 had a life expectancy of 44.4 years, up from 32.3 years thirty years before. In 1958-59 the life expectancy for newborns went up to 68.6 years. the Semashko system of the USSR increased lifespan by 50% in 20 years. By the 1960’s, lifespans in the USSR were comparable to those in the USA:
Quality of nutrition improved after the Soviet revolution, and the last time USSR had a famine was in 1940s. CIA data suggests they ate just as much as Americans after WW2 period while having better nutrition:
Try harder with your trolling.
You might want to turn that incredibly critical eye you’ve got for communism back in on capitalism, that’s all.
I… am?
What is this, I am against dictatorial abominations, so that means I am in favor of capitalist abuse? I am literally saying that opposition to capitalism is shooting itself in the foot by tolerating the existence of authoritarian “communists”.
Unless you’re an actual tankie, your words towards me make no sense.
Misunderstanding on my end then, I made some clearly unfair assumptions. I agree with you there and apologize for the mischaracterization.