93
This is gold (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/historymemes@piefed.social
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I think you can.

I think what happened was exactly what will always happen when people try real communism.

Like any political system it will be brought down by the aspects of human nature it misunderstands or misrepresents.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    You have to compare what went before it as well. China is a success compared to the utter slavery and poverty of the common folk before the communist revolution. It's not freedom exactly, but even the US isn't free either by many measures. China has guaranteed vacation days, at least. It has near universal health insurance, and while not free, is heavily subsidized by the government.

    I'd say that a perfect form of government doesn't exist, but communism isn't necessarily the worst. At least in every regard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    That comparison is absolutely essential when looking at history and reality, I agree.

    If you're looking at abstract theory, maybe less relevant.

    But then, is there any meaningful discussion of political theory in the abstract? Maybe it should always be grounded in real history since that's the highest quality evidence.

    The trouble with theories is they only work theoretically!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    when people try real communism

    human nature it misunderstands

    "Real" communism understands "human nature" in that human nature is not essential but historically and socially contingent. When communism is thought of and implemented abstractly, which you are doing but also in cases where social movements have "tried" it, then it fails to understand that society is made of people and their activity, and can not be thought of abstractly in separating people from the society we create. This is a key insight of Marx.

    Unfortunately, usually when people talk about "human nature" they are also being too abstract and can't define exactly what they mean, because in order for something to be essential to humanity it has to be found in virtually every culture in every time. Human nature is always cultural, and culture is shaped by who rules over society.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Well, I can see this is addressed to a general case but I'll try a reply anyway.

    When I talk about human nature I'm talking about the essential nature of who and what it means to be human.

    True, this is always tied to the context and environment. Part that human essentialism is our adaptability, our plasticity.

    Had Marx access to the research and theory we have today, I imagine he could have produced a more accurate and refined theory!

    As a thousand men can make a thousand shapes with clay their finished product will always be clay, though with a thousand uses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent