this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
262 points (89.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
1992 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That's why it became known as Lysenkoism, because it came down to one con man.

It happens all the time. Take Theranos as an example.

The famine and millions of death are a consequence of the communist doctrine of not having different ideas compete, and have market forces reward the better ideas. Instead they took Lysenko's ideas as true, implemented it nationwide, forbidding competing ideas, because it was politically agreeable. That is communist doctrine.

I'd argue it always takes ignoring reality, favouring faulty wishfull and selective thinking, to be communist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

No, you're measuring perceived deficits of "Communism" based on what you think about Stalinism (which is not the same thing). Technically Communism or "Scientific Socialism" would have used science to test various techniques of growing crops than selected the best (roughly what happened in Vietnamese Communism).

But Stalinism is called Stalinism because it's not exactly faithful to Communism as a philosophy.

But yes there are plenty example of profit driven systems of Capitalism creating starvation famines ect. Whether it be the East India Company, or the leveraged loans of the World Banks in Africa, or the effects of Climate change, when combined they have a far greater death toll than Communism.

...and you had/have genocides and gulag style systems of punishment in Capitalism as well, whether it's the workhouses of Ireland in the past century (with their mass graves of Children), Prison Labour in the US, or the blood mining and rare minerals in Africa.... Hell Capitalism has set machine guns on workers before in South Africa. Even America has things like the Battle of Blair Mountain and the Ludowlow worker massacre in its history (where mine security had a license to r*pe the wives of workers).

You're just not taught about these things. I can provide you references for any fact I give you here. Just ask.

So whilst you think I'm ignoring the ills of Communism (or it's Stalinist incarnation), which I'm not. I think you're being totally blind of the fact Capitalism has a far greater death toll, and other detriments to the world you're purposefully overlooking, or just ignorant of.

PFAs, Bisphenol A, micro plastics in fetuses, thalidomide, the military industrial complex, the wars of the banana Republics (placing them under corporate tyranny), Pinochet, the list is infinite because it's ongoing.

... and here there I'll make this point: Atleast Communism refines its practice and goals, it has progressively become less brutal as it refined its understanding of agriculture and to be VERY CLEAR that's where the greatest number of deaths associated it come from, not as an intended or desire outcome but by accident.

The same cannot be said for the stagnation and purposeful creation of sufferings under Capitalism, from the minor wage slaveries and wage theft, to union busting (CokeCola even going as far as to kill union organizers in Latin America), to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire (where as with many factory fires, workers were locked in so their pockets could be checked for stolen sewing equipment), to more major things like mining strikes, or the awareness Exxon had around climate change in the 1960s, or Phillip Morris had about causing addiction, cancer, and fatalities.

Sorry, but in reality Capitalism has caused more suffering, in a more substantial and intentional way, that's more connected to the Capitalist doctrine of profit making and wage minimization, than Communism ever has.

Even today America essentially has had its democracy usurped by Capitalist Oligarchs (Musk, Thiel, Andresseen).

You'd have to be absolutely blind to ignore all this history, all this connectedness to the doctrine, the purposes of profit and hence exploitation, and all that continues to this very day.

Without a doubt Capitalism is responsible for everything I've spoken about here, and it has within it no means, or even the suggestion of being a reformist system. Communism does and has made meaningful reforms and strides in the short periods it exists in. Which is why places like China, and Vietnam have made the strides they have, and why Americans visit Cuba for healthcare.

What I've said here, you cannot deny. Like I say, I can provide sources for all of it.

P.S Just to clarify China and Vietnam have Socialist Oriented Market Economies, Vietnam is probably the closest to a Marxist Socialism as its internal tension are mediated through giant Social Union movements that go far beyond just representing workers, there is a national union just for women, one for disabled people, one for students ect. They all have a voice/power capable of directing how the party forms policies and directs resources.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

VERY CLEAR that's where the greatest number of deaths associated it come from, not as an intended or desire outcome but by accident.

If it was an accident, the accident repeated several times. Even engineers got murdered for correctly saying you shouldn't overload trains (1).

But then again, it wasn't real communism, right. DDR, not real communism. Albania, not real communism. China, not real communism. Romania, not real communism. Etc. Etc.

I think you're being totally blind of the fact Capitalism has a far greater death toll, and other detriments to the world you're purposefully overlooking, or just ignorant of.

That's because real capitalism hasn't been tried yet. All the capitalist systems still had subsidies, governments beyond enforcing property law, ...

Without a doubt Capitalism is responsible for everything I've spoken about here

No, because that was not real capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

If it was an accident, the accident repeated several times. Even engineers got murdered for correctly saying you shouldn't overload trains (1).

Wow, you mean Authoritarian Communism is still Authoritarian? Yeah no shit (and as you can read from earlier I've already mentioned many such things happening under conditions of Capitalism, directly from the doctrines practices of cost cutting and wage theft or brutalization, but fine, "I'll see your engineers there and raise you the British Bopal disaster" that killed and deformed generations of Indians in their home village and is still causing health effects today).

As you've dropped in I'm going to assume you saw me mention that Stalinism was not Communism in its ideal form, but was a Stalinist form.

Your point is thus not about Communism, but about Communism under Authoritarian leaders... And I have already shown that Capitalism is capable of mass killings and atrocities under all sorts of conditions as part of the philosophy (ingrained to it). Where as Stalin's actions here aren't specifically connected to Communist doctrine. I've already covered this point several times with the previous respondant.

That there is a written philosophy - that of Marxism, that of the Communes and the Commons, is why I can say these things. It has a primary set of writings. But we can say that about Capitalism too...

That's because real capitalism hasn't been tried yet. All the capitalist systems still had subsidies, governments beyond enforcing property law, ...

...because Marx was ALSO the person who first defined and wrote about CapitalISM, in his work DAS KAPITAL 1867.

You can look and find commentaries about other concepts in different languages and different sounding words that aren't Capitalism, such as Merchantilism, or in The Hollantse, or you can find the word Capital here and there and claim it relates, or instance around the time of Marx's first treatise on the subject, but none are systematic, focused on the right topic using the ism repeatedly and providing a widely agreed in definition of it.

Like all concepts it has these forerunners that are related but NOT it. So you have tried to be clever here without realizing that when we discuss Capitalism in the way I have - we are talking about Marx's original definition of it. Which was the phenomena of using an unearned accumulation of KAPITAL in order to purchase, own, and exploit workers for the purposes of profiting from exploiting their now alienated Labor.

No, because that was not real capitalism.

Oh yes, as you can read above, it very much is. It is in its original description as found in the criticism by Karl Marx in Das Kapital, in 1867. A description so accurate that it's widely agreed with - even among the Capitalists. He was the first and primary text on what the doctrine of "real Capitalism" is. Capitalists hitherto didn't want what they were doing to be known so openly, and intimately and for good reason. Just as any abuser doesn't want what they're doing to be described. It comes naturally to them, and that is no excuse for it, doesn't make it more moral or acceptable. Only once it's pointed out accurately described does the argument start, only then can the behaviours meet reforms. Which is why in Marx's writings we also find advocacy for labor rights.

Sorry my friend, but what I've spoken about is indeed, Real Capitalism™ - down to the origin of the term.

P.S there's also Proudhon: the capitalist's employee was "subordinated, exploited: his permanent condition is one of obedience" - so not much better. People of the era were writing things as they saw them emerge. It's still the problem of the abuser as described above.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Oh yes, as you can read above, it very much is. It is in its original description as found in the criticism by Karl Marx in Das Kapital, in 1867.

It isn't according to the earlier definition of capitalism. Real capitalism hasn't been tried yet. Show me an example of a real capitalist country? What's Marx's opinion on capitalism worth, as he hasn't ever experienced a real capitalist country?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

No, the onus of evidence is on you to show me this "early definition of Capitalism" that predates Marx. Although it seems if you're claiming such, you simply didn't read my comment.