▲ 1220 ▼ Imperialism, authoritarianism and oppression is bad all around m'kay (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 281 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world 110 points 2 years ago (18 children) Remember folks: China is communist in the same way that North Korea is democratic and the Nazis were socialist. It's just a smokescreen. permalink fedilink source hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] JWayn596@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago* (5 children) A core tenant of socialism is a democratized workplace, being able to vote for your wage and company policy, like an Engineer choosing when to launch the rocket instead of some MBS degree. Last time I checked I dont think factory workers in China that make all our shit can do that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago Yes. That was the point of what they posted. None of those groups are what they claim to be beyond nominally. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Slovene@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago ThAt's jUst WeSTeRnn prOpaGAndA permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies) [–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (54 children) Eh, there's a notional aspiration to socialism at least, which is more than can be said about the US sphere of countries. In practice though? Yeah, China is hyper-captialist, without much of the social security present in wealthier countries. Why Leftist get a hard-on for the former USSR, Russia and China, or frankly any country, is beyond me. There are positive and negative outcomes in line or against socialist ideals everywhere (I think people are too black and white about China in both directions personally) I just do not understand simping for any country, just because they are "socialist". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 56 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: "Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation" - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - "and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism." But that "communism" then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bluewing@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) My money is on fusion before proper socialism. There is always someone willing to twist the rules and game the system to get more money and power than everyone else. The 1% have always existed and so have the worker class. It will always shake out to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common. And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it's basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable. Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into "The 1%" and "the worker class". Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it's material capabilities and necessities - hold true. Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me. And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago My money is on fusion before proper socialism. Utopia is literally "no place" for a reason, and anything less than a utopia will be deemed "not proper socialism" (like literally every place that has ever tried some flavor of communism/socialism) so my money is on fusion as fusion is more likely than utopia. permalink fedilink source parent [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (52 replies) load more comments (16 replies)
[–] JWayn596@lemmy.world 50 points 2 years ago* (5 children) A core tenant of socialism is a democratized workplace, being able to vote for your wage and company policy, like an Engineer choosing when to launch the rocket instead of some MBS degree. Last time I checked I dont think factory workers in China that make all our shit can do that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago Yes. That was the point of what they posted. None of those groups are what they claim to be beyond nominally. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Slovene@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago ThAt's jUst WeSTeRnn prOpaGAndA permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago Yes. That was the point of what they posted. None of those groups are what they claim to be beyond nominally. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Slovene@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago ThAt's jUst WeSTeRnn prOpaGAndA permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago (54 children) Eh, there's a notional aspiration to socialism at least, which is more than can be said about the US sphere of countries. In practice though? Yeah, China is hyper-captialist, without much of the social security present in wealthier countries. Why Leftist get a hard-on for the former USSR, Russia and China, or frankly any country, is beyond me. There are positive and negative outcomes in line or against socialist ideals everywhere (I think people are too black and white about China in both directions personally) I just do not understand simping for any country, just because they are "socialist". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 56 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: "Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation" - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - "and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism." But that "communism" then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bluewing@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) My money is on fusion before proper socialism. There is always someone willing to twist the rules and game the system to get more money and power than everyone else. The 1% have always existed and so have the worker class. It will always shake out to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common. And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it's basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable. Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into "The 1%" and "the worker class". Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it's material capabilities and necessities - hold true. Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me. And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago My money is on fusion before proper socialism. Utopia is literally "no place" for a reason, and anything less than a utopia will be deemed "not proper socialism" (like literally every place that has ever tried some flavor of communism/socialism) so my money is on fusion as fusion is more likely than utopia. permalink fedilink source parent [+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (52 replies)
[–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) That notional aspiration to socialism is basically the ideological smokescreen. It was much more effective in the Cold War era, but it condenses down to: "Suffer through our version of (state) capitalism and exploitative labour for our capital accumulation" - be it by state institutions or even state-sponsored billionaires - "and at the end of it, we promise, there will be communism." But that "communism" then tends to be like nuclear fusion - always 20 years away. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] bluewing@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) My money is on fusion before proper socialism. There is always someone willing to twist the rules and game the system to get more money and power than everyone else. The 1% have always existed and so have the worker class. It will always shake out to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common. And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it's basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable. Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into "The 1%" and "the worker class". Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it's material capabilities and necessities - hold true. Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me. And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago My money is on fusion before proper socialism. Utopia is literally "no place" for a reason, and anything less than a utopia will be deemed "not proper socialism" (like literally every place that has ever tried some flavor of communism/socialism) so my money is on fusion as fusion is more likely than utopia. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) My money is on fusion before proper socialism. There is always someone willing to twist the rules and game the system to get more money and power than everyone else. The 1% have always existed and so have the worker class. It will always shake out to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common. And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it's basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable. Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into "The 1%" and "the worker class". Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it's material capabilities and necessities - hold true. Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me. And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago My money is on fusion before proper socialism. Utopia is literally "no place" for a reason, and anything less than a utopia will be deemed "not proper socialism" (like literally every place that has ever tried some flavor of communism/socialism) so my money is on fusion as fusion is more likely than utopia. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Wxnzxn@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago Even just as a technicality, the 1% have not always existed, most tribal societies did not have class divisions like that. Both anthropological studies of existing tribal societies show examples of that, and the archaeological record, too, lays out it was common. And I understand feeling like that, but it is a pretty weak argument, tbh. It is even hard to engage with, because it's basically starting at a completely different outset of concepts and understanding. Firstly, it reduces socialism to only systems of perfect equality of power - when even Marx acknowledged that this is not only impossible but also undesirable. Then it just packs all kinds of class arrangements into "The 1%" and "the worker class". Was European feudalism like that? Ancient palace economies? Tribal gift economies? Pre-historic tribal arrangements? The Incan/Andean planned economy? Each with their own complexities, class relations and all showing that the basic idea - humanity evolving along it's material capabilities and necessities - hold true. Lastly, related to the idea that proper socialism would mean perfect equality of power - sure, corruption in some way has probably always existed. People will also always murder each other in some way. Using that as an argument to say it is impossible to establish a system that minimises murders is how your reasoning sounds to me. And the system is always what limits or enables the way this corruption and gaming the system plays out. How much property and/or power can be concentrated? Capitalism concentrates vastly more wealth and capital than the systems before it, both for good (e.g. the development of productive forces has enabled many things) and ill. Just because perfection may not be possible, does not mean a system without exchange of value and capital accumulation is impossible (has existed before for sure, yes, even for more complex economies than a small tribe), and it does not mean it has to exist in a way that is more barbarous than the current state of affairs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago My money is on fusion before proper socialism. Utopia is literally "no place" for a reason, and anything less than a utopia will be deemed "not proper socialism" (like literally every place that has ever tried some flavor of communism/socialism) so my money is on fusion as fusion is more likely than utopia. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
