▲ 351 ▼ the elephant mops the room (thelemmy.club) submitted 3 days ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/politicalcartoons@lemmy.zip 68 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago (1 child) I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) You mean in the USSR? The ones the Red Army was sent to stop? The ones perpetrated by the anti-communists, conservatives, Ukranian Nationalists, and various peasant militias? The communist party did not incorporate racist pogroms into its program and actively worked against them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (2 children) So you're saying that the communist party itself was deeply racist because of stuff that might have happened but didn't? Do I have that right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 child) What about China and The Uyghurs? This idea that communism is non discriminatory is laughable _ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Attempted murder is a crime yes. Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. You say that’s worth ignoring but let me ask you this: if I built a jail in my house, buy an abduction van and began writing down all your movements, and tell people I’m planning to imprison you for no reason. Is that alarming? Is that showing where my morals lay? Is it a crime? would you want me arrested? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (1 child) You mean in the USSR? The ones the Red Army was sent to stop? The ones perpetrated by the anti-communists, conservatives, Ukranian Nationalists, and various peasant militias? The communist party did not incorporate racist pogroms into its program and actively worked against them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (2 children) So you're saying that the communist party itself was deeply racist because of stuff that might have happened but didn't? Do I have that right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 child) What about China and The Uyghurs? This idea that communism is non discriminatory is laughable _ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Attempted murder is a crime yes. Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. You say that’s worth ignoring but let me ask you this: if I built a jail in my house, buy an abduction van and began writing down all your movements, and tell people I’m planning to imprison you for no reason. Is that alarming? Is that showing where my morals lay? Is it a crime? would you want me arrested? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (2 children) So you're saying that the communist party itself was deeply racist because of stuff that might have happened but didn't? Do I have that right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 child) What about China and The Uyghurs? This idea that communism is non discriminatory is laughable _ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Attempted murder is a crime yes. Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. You say that’s worth ignoring but let me ask you this: if I built a jail in my house, buy an abduction van and began writing down all your movements, and tell people I’m planning to imprison you for no reason. Is that alarming? Is that showing where my morals lay? Is it a crime? would you want me arrested? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago (2 children) So you're saying that the communist party itself was deeply racist because of stuff that might have happened but didn't? Do I have that right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 child) What about China and The Uyghurs? This idea that communism is non discriminatory is laughable _ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Attempted murder is a crime yes. Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. You say that’s worth ignoring but let me ask you this: if I built a jail in my house, buy an abduction van and began writing down all your movements, and tell people I’m planning to imprison you for no reason. Is that alarming? Is that showing where my morals lay? Is it a crime? would you want me arrested? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -4 points 3 days ago (1 child) What about China and The Uyghurs? This idea that communism is non discriminatory is laughable _ permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago (2 children) I didn't say communism is non-discriminatory. Your willingness to jump from "racism" to "discrimination" demonstrates you don't understand the topic at all. What about China and The Uyghurs? China absolutely has a problem with Han supremacy and assimilated European racism, no doubt. But the situation with Uyghurs is not evidence of it. The situation with the Uyghurs, quite literally, is only framed as an Islamophobic "racism" problem by the white supremacist Islamophobic West. When the Arab League surveyed the entire situation, not only did they not find any evidence of Islamophobia, they actively approved of the Chinese program. Why? Because the problem in Xinjiang is the problem of manufactured extremism. Manufactured by whom? The US and UK primarily. They have a decades long history of training, arming, and even fomenting Islamic extremism in the entire region (go look at where exactly Xinjiang is on a map). Remember the Mujahideen? Remember how the US created al-Qaeda? Remember how the current president of Syria had a huge bounty on his head for being a literal head-chopper in ISIS but then it turns out he's been actively working with the US military intelligence apparatus for at least 7 years? Yeah, so the US has been continuing their 50-year program of creating terrorist extremists and they were doing it in Xinjiang with the Uyghur community. The US and UK have built a substantial program of reinterpreting Islam to justify terrorism and spreading that in isolated and economically under-developed Islamic communities to create terrorist cells, very much like what the US did with Evangelical Christians right here in the USA (and most terrorist attacks in the US are from white Christian who were radicalized, even if tangentially, by these programs). So again, why did the Arab League approve of China's program in Xinjiang? Because it was actually effective. The number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang plummeted following China's implementation of their program. Economic opportunity was expanded, education, literacy, and health outcomes all skyrocketed. Uyghur women in Xinjiang had massively expanded academic, economic, and family-planning opportunities. It's honestly a huge achievement, and one that the Arab League would be highly interested in understanding - the first ever deradicalization program aimed at Muslims radicalized by the decades-long Western radicalization program. So, what about China and the Uyghurs? Not a racism thing. Not a discrimination thing. Not a Han supremacy thing. It's an anti-terrorism program aimed at threading the needle, maintaining the Xinjiang autonomous region while neutralizing the radicalization threat from the West. And it's working, not just well, extremely well, and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang every year are posting continued population growth, positive academic growth, positive economic growth, and they're all still practicing Islam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 child) That was some serious propaganda. China cracks down on Muslims = Good. The US = Bad. Another human rights abuser and apologist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 child) This is what we call reductionism. China is not "cracking down on Muslims". The Arab League regularly issues condemnations of the US treatment of Muslims. It has not issued a condemnation of the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs. At a certain point, you're going to have to start asking yourself why this is the case, and you're going to have own up to the fact that if you think the Arabs are motivated to stay on China's good side, look at what happens to Arab countries on the USA's bad side. There's no way around this one. The false equivalency is simply unsustainable in the face of reality permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago Oh yes China's murder, rape, and imprisonment is okay because you like them. Also, the Arab League aren't some human rights organization. Not sure why you focus on them... Other than, that is right, they are in China's influence. I get it, China does the right kind of cultural genocide. Their soft understanding hand gently holds the throat of its adversaries until they suffocate. There is no way around this, I am against human rights abuses and you act as an apologist. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. China : It's an anti-terrorism program Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Again Jewish people in Russia experienced lots of racism from the Russian people. 100%! Even members of the Red Army went rogue and did pogroms against Jews in Russia. Absolutely happened, no contest. But they were cut from the Party because the Party itself understood that antisemitism was not something that would build a healthy society. China : It’s an anti-terrorism program. Yeah so is what’s going on in Israel lol. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Stalin wasn’t cut from the party. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (2 children) LOL. I love that your picture is a tight shot, forced perspective on a single thing with absolutely zero context. We can't tell if we're inside or outside the fence in that picture. It's truly the most artful expression of your position. As for Stalin not getting cut from the party, we have someone claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died before they could do it, so I guess it's fair game to say that they would have cut him from the party but he died before they could do it. Anyway, it's kind of difficult to cut the commander-in-chief who defeated the Nazis and sacked Berlin, even if in the last 5 his progressive brain disease coupled with fighting the most insidious racist group in the world led him to take actions against Jewish institutions because he believed (correctly) that the international Zionist movement was a reactionary bourgeois movement aligned with Western super powers and hostile to communism permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago Btw you absolutely can tell in this picture you’re outside the prison. Razor wire goes on the inside. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child) “claiming that the party would have committed pogroms against the Jews except that Stalin died” No no no. You keep getting that completely wrong. There were many many pogroms in Russia. They happened. Jews were tortured and killed. The only thing Stalin DIDNT finish before he died was complete elimination of the Jewish people in Russia. The pograms happened many times. You said that wasn’t the communists faults. I replied with essentially “the Soviet people committed pograms, the Soviet leader also ordered pogroms. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (3 children) How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? You are the definition of bad faith. Listen, the porgroms you are talking about are well documented. They were NOT carried out by the Bolshevik party nor by the Communist Party. They were carried out by the White Army (the Tsarist loyalists), the Ukrainian National Army, "rogue" groups within the Red Army (I'll get to this in a second), and various Russian peasant militias. With the exception of the pogroms carried out by the Red Army, NONE of these are pogroms being committed by the communist party. If you can't admit that, then I don't know why you expect anyone to respect your positions. For the pogroms carried about by the Red Army, NONE of them were ordered by the party nor by the top military leadership within the Red Army. They were carried out by literally elements of the military that went rogue and the party, under the leadership of both Lenin and Trotsky held a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding anti-semitism and counter-revolutionary violence. They disciplined the soldiers that carried out the pogroms because they were EXPLICITLY NOT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY. The soldiers who did it were literally executed. And then Stalin took power. Not while these pogroms took place. AFTER the pogroms. Stalin took power AFTER the pogroms you're talking about. And what did Stalin do? He literally created the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. I also wouldn’t compare it to US police to prove it isn’t racism. Again, you're absolutely arguing in bad faith, deliberately choosing to ignore the actual meaning of my words, which was that the Doctors Plot was incredibly small, was predicated on a specific legal accusation of a criminal conspiracy which was initiated by a specific claim through written testimony of a witness attesting to the criminal conspiracy. It may or may not have been a real criminal conspiracy, and we can argue and debate the use of force in the prosecution of the case, but it's not like Stalin just woke up one day and said "I wish to slake my bloodlust by killing those I hate the most" nor did the party make a decision to, for example, make a specific ethnicity into a scapegoat for the purposes of creating a nationwide ethnostate, enforce ethnic purity, or rally the Russian people to a national cause. None of these things happened. There was evidence of a criminal conspiracy, of organized crime, and there was a state response. So back to your question: How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? Because communist leaders did not do pogroms. You're going to have to provide evidence for your claim. And "communist people" are not a thing. Peasants living under the Tsar that were anti-semitic were the exact same peasants that were anti-semitic when they were now governed by the communist party. The peasants that did pogroms were not "communist people". They were just anti-semites, and the communist leadership, the party, and all of their power, was used to STOP the anti-semitism and the pogroms. The communists literally executed the leaders of pogroms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) You have Herculean patience. I would have told them to fuck off after like 3 comments permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago It's all an opportunity to educate the audience (and honestly myself, I learn more and more every time these things happen, I have to do more and more research to both validate and invalidate what I believe/understand and what my opponent is claiming) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. I don’t think communism is inherently bad. I don’t even think it’s worse than capitalism. I’m just saying it hasn’t been great with racism either. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. China is a horrible police state. So is America. It doesn’t look like the problem is capitalism or communism. The problem is tyrants and oligarchs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) It’s not bad faith. Well now we have to go all the way back to your original position to see if you've been moving the goal posts. Quite a bit of overlap, especially with how much Nationalism and racism goes into the major Communist power groups. That's your original claim - Much racism goes into the major Communist power groups. I said the Communist power group (i.e. the Bolsheviks / the Communist Party) in the USSR worked against racism. You said: I think you’re forgetting quite a few pogroms Meaning that to support your claim that the Communist power group in the USSR had much racism, you bring as evidence the fact that the Communist power group in the USSR committed quite a few pogroms. I then provided, as evidence against your claim, evidence of formal, official, and structural anti-racist actions taken by the Bolsheviks right from the beginning including the punishment by death of those members of the Red Army who went against orders and committed pogroms against Jews. You then said: Stalin didn’t like Jews and was on his way to build camps himself. The doctors plot was leading up to that. Which is essentially saying that one man, who was an important but deeply fucked up leader of the party held bigoted views, which is not evidence for the party having much racism but rather evidence that people who are raised in a racist society maintain their bigotry even in the best of times. But more importantly its evidence that despite being the leader of the party and despite claims that he was going to build his own concentration camps for Jews, it never actually happened, which is evidence against your claim that there was "much racism in Communist power group". The Doctors Plot, as we've discussed, is one of the many many many violent purges driven by Stalin's schizophrenia and enabled by his war-time powers. And when someone essentially fires into a crowd and hits 10 people, 2 of whom are Jewish, it's not really evidence of antisemitism, and if 2 of them were black, it wouldn't be evidence of racism. There's PLENTY of better evidence for Stalin's antisemitism and how the party did huge damage to the Jewish community in the USSR, but you haven't raised any of it because you don't know any of it. And then you say that while the party may have cut out the antisemites before Stalin, Stalin was never cut from the party. This is your claim that the party itself was racist because they didn't cut Stalin. Whereas the historical record shows that Stalin's paranoia and progressive brain disease drove him to brutal lengths of self-preservation that no one in the party could withstand, and it lasted about 5 years. 5 years out of 70 is an aberration, not a fundamental quality. It's the exception that proves the rule. But then you go back to: There were many many pogroms in Russia. How can you say it wasn’t the fault of the communist when the communist leaders and communist people did pogroms? But you provide no evidence. I am left to believe you are talking about the pogroms I already addressed. There's the Doctors Plot and the purging of the JAC, which I contextualized in the larger pattern of paranoid purges driven by specific fear of criminal conspiracies during an aberrant period of leadership after the most brutal war in their history and part of the sundowning of a specific person with too much power. Those other pogroms I have already established WERE NOT the fault of communist leaders. But this is where the bad faith comes in. You originally said Communist power groups. Now you're saying communist leaders and communist people. The GROUP itself, that is to say, the PARTY, has a clear historical pattern of resisting, punishing, even repairing racism, despite the fact that nearly every member of the society, which includes all party members, were raised in a racist society. The power group, as you say, was actively working against racism. The Russian peasants that committed pogroms were executed by the party as punishment for doing something the party understood to be wrong. By moving from "Communist power groups have much racism" to "the peasants in communist countries did racist things", you are arguing in bad faith. By saying "a single leader did racist things and would have done more if he hadn't died" you think you're providing evidence for the whole power group having much racism when you're proving the exact opposite. Because if the power group had much racism, they would have been doing those racist things before and after that 1 leader and they didn't. I’m just saying [Communism] hasn’t been great with racism either. And yet, it was Cuban communists that fundamentally changed the material conditions of black people in the country for the first time in history. It was Cuban communists who supported the fight for black liberation in South Africa when no capitalist country would. It would take a capitalist country (Sweden) 10 years before they realized that supporting Mandela was the right thing to do. The one child policy in China explicitly targeted the ethnic super majority, not the minorities. It specifically protected and promoted the development of minorities. Unlike nearly every capitalist country in the world destroying the language and culture of ethnic minorities as part of their strategy of assimilation, China recognizes over 57 ethnic minorities and their languages and is among the handful of countries in the world that has established internal governments that give large ethnic minorities autonomy in self-governance explicitly to preserve cultural practices, religion, language, and tradition. The Communist Party of Vietnam succeeded specifically because it collaborated with and protected ethnic minorities and didn't use them as scapegoats to produce national unity. The constitution in 1946 formally codified that all ethnic minorities were to have equal rights and privileges. Compare this to the US in 1946 and it's OBVIOUS that the Communist Party of Vietnam was literally decades further along in anti-racism than the US was. Laos started off on the right foot, but I agree that they're replicating a lot of the ethnic exploitation that Western capitalists do. Communist countries also kinda suck all the time too. Communist countries have literally ended colonial rule by foreign powers, lifted over a 800M people out of abject poverty, invented new medicines and vaccines that they released to the world entirely for free, improved outcomes in health, education, nutrition, and violence for the majority of their people. The quality of life for the majority of people in every single country that had a communist revolution was greatly improved. China is a horrible police state. So is America. And yet, China's incarceration rate is 120 per 100k and the USA's incarceration rate is 580 per 100k. The USA also has a parole and probation system that is literally 200% bigger than it's prison system (by headcount). China doesn't have anything like that. So the USA's police state is actively managing about 1700 people per 100k, while China's police state is actively managing about 120 per 100k. Saying that both China and the USA are horrible police states is like saying that both China and the USA have a gun violence problem (the USA has a gun violence problem about 1000x larger than China does). So yeah. I would say you're arguing in bad faith. You have no real understanding of history, let alone racism or communist parties. You cherry pick facts to benefit your narrative. You make broad generalized claims and then try to claim you don't have the time to provide anything else. You move your goal posts without admitting it. And you make false equivalencies that fit your world view without any regard to facts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) The communist people hated Jews and killed Jews for being Jews, the communist leaders hated Jews and killed them for being Jews. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is “Stalin was deeply paranoid” his motivation doesn’t concern mean. He disliked Jews. He was vocal about that. He thought jews were coming to overthrow him. Hitler thought Jews were destroying the economy. Being crazy doesn’t make you less racist. He was very vocal about his hatred of Jews and shortly before he died he was planning to exterminate them. You say I’m cherry picking? I said there was multiple examples. I named one and you said that didn’t count, so I named another and you said that didn’t count either. It’s not cherry picking I flat out said I wasn’t going to keep naming examples because you just keep saying they don’t count because Stalin was crazy. So was Hitler, so is every racist. The leaders, the people, hated and killed Jews. China is a terrifying police state as well. They have their own internet, limit freedom of speech, have capital punishment bans, and concentration camps. You can’t even say your leader looks like Pooh bear. I can say trump looks like a slug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) You're just unabashedly bad faith, aren't you. The communist people Do not exist. There's no such thing as "the communist people". Communism is not a nation, it's a doctrine, a political movement. When a state becomes communist, its people do not become communist people any more than when a state becomes capitalist do its people suddenly become capitalist people. Now if you want to say that wasn’t the communist being racist then nothing is racist. Yeah, that doesn't even logically follow. At this point you're just trying to avoid giving any ground at all in any way and you're willing to say foolish things to ensure you don't have to face reality. I don't have to keep doing this with you. You can stop any time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago I’m having fun listening to your mental gymnastics. The people of the state and the leaders of the state killed Jews for being Jews. It’s a racist state. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) Joseph Stalin systematically destroyed the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. He killed them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago Yes, among the many purges Stalin ordered, the purge of the JAC was another one of the terrible things Stalin did. I would say that, considering Stalin was deeply paranoid and had many such groups purged and killed that it's a tall order to say he killed the members of the JAC for racist reasons. Again, he created the JAC in the first place. His reasons for killing the members of the JAC was not "they're Jews and I hate Jews". His reasons for killing the JAC were the same reasons he had for killing many other leaders and groups in the USSR - he believed they were conspiring against him and the communist revolution. I know it's easy to cherry pick facts and then make a story about them, Stalin did not actually single out Jews for purging. They were just one of the many political factions that Stalin attacked. He was legitimately insane by the end of his life and he did horrible things. But none of that actually supports your original goal posts that the communist party of the USSR was a racist power structure that executed pogroms. Again, all the evidence points to the party working against the historical racism that were in the people and power structures and correcting course when inevitably there were failures. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago* (1 child) Attempted murder is a crime yes. Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. You say that’s worth ignoring but let me ask you this: if I built a jail in my house, buy an abduction van and began writing down all your movements, and tell people I’m planning to imprison you for no reason. Is that alarming? Is that showing where my morals lay? Is it a crime? would you want me arrested? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago (2 children) Stalin was fine with the many pogroms immediately after the communists took over And yet, the communists actively worked to end the pogroms. Almost as though Stalin's personal opinions didn't actually matter and the party was in charge. They briefly used the Jews to help them with thier agenda then immediately turned on them. Starting during the war and continuing on. Yeah, so it's time for you to go get sources that document how the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party actively planned and executed porgroms against the Jews, because that didn't actually happen and your claim is going to require some evidence. He was gearing up to put them all in gulags but he died first. That's cool. So your claim is that the Communist Party itself was actively racist except for the fact that the Communist Party didn't follow through with supposed plans against Jews. So... you're saying that the party itself was not racist in this way, but rather that perhaps Stalin personally was, but never got to steer the party to act on his racism. You realize that's what you're saying right? You're undermining your first point by trying to appeal to Stalin's personal character and stating that it didn't happen. Is that showing where my morals lay? Yeah, this is the problem. You're trying to say that the Communist Party was itself deeply racist, but instead you're trying to transfer stories about a specific person who was elected by the Communist Party to establish a moral judgment that then is supposed to transfer back to the party, despite you being completely unable to point to actual events that support your claim. It's not even guilt by association, it's guilt by association with a thought-crime. You're grasping at straws. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Thank you. Education can save lives, especially in this world where we are relentlessly bombarded with disinformation. To many people, "communism" is a label that means something different from what was intended. "Some communists did some racist things," sure. "Communism is racist," no. Capitalism is not inherently racist either, but it is easier to exploit. The people with power use their power to help themselves get even more power. In our timeline, it's mostly white dudes. A response I often hear is "look how many people died under communism." I'm looking. Now let's count deaths under capitalism. Now let's look at the specific causes, etc. Remove the labels and trace the underlying wires. Debug humanity so we can make a better future for all. Or perhaps more aptly as climate change accelerates, defuse the bomb before we all fucking die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not inherently racist either I would disagree with you here. Capitalism is not an abstract ideal. Neither is racism. They are both specific historical processes. Historians generally seat the origins of capitalism in the invention of common stock in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company. Historians also seat the origins of the racism to the mid-1400s in Portugal when Prince Henry sponsored mass slave catching in Africa and commissioned the author Gomes Eanes de Zurara to write a positive account of his exploits. This writing, "The Chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea", established a moral basis for violent human trafficking, subjugation, and mass theft. By the time the Dutch East India Company invented common stock, what investors were investing in for the initial IPO was the massive expansion of a private militarized merchant company that had racialized human trafficking and slavery as a core pillar of the company's operations and profit. There was literally never a time in human history that capitalism existed separately from racism. Capitalism was built on the foundations of racism and integrated all aspects of racism into its mechanics. In an academic setting of pure abstract theory you could potentially invent a theoretical form of capitalism that isn't racist, which could be useful for thought experiments or maybe some creative fiction. But Capitalism as you and I know it has always been fundamentally enmeshed with racism as we know it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) Right, which is why I said "in our timeline." The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. Kind of like how the fact that communist countries have failed historically does not mean that communism itself is always doomed to fail. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 child) Only one communist country "failed" and that was the USSR. Every other communist revolution is still in existence. And even when we say the USSR "failed" we mean that it succeeded in so many ways, including successfully overthrowing an empire, poverty alleviation, famine alleviation, military victory over the Third Reich, educational advancement, medical advancement, space exploration advancement, and on and on. Right, which is why I said “in our timeline.” The concept of capitalism is not inherently racist, but historically racism has always been part of it. What you said was "In our timeline, it’s mostly white dudes." What I said was that the foundation of capitalism rested on violent human trafficking, violent slavery, and violent extraction. While we could potentially develop a concept of capitalism that isn't racist, I don't know that we've proven that. It's obviously possible to talk about capitalism and ignore racism, just like it's possible to talk about the US and ignore indigenous genocide, but I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. Capitalism required substantial accumulation of extreme wealth, which seems like it may have only been possible through extreme exploitation and it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago (1 child) I don't think we can develop a concept of the US that doesn't inherently have indigenous genocide in it. The US is a physical place. Capitalism is not a physical thing. it's unclear whether such extreme exploitation is possible without something like racism to divide the world's people into those that can be exploited without limit and those that reap the benefits. ...in our timeline. Either way, thank you for the history lessons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 child) Capitalism is not a physical thing. On this we disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 child) It literally is not a physical thing. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism The fuck is wrong with you? Define "capitalism,", please. (ETA strikethrough to unwarranted rudeness. Sorry for losing my patience.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 child) Capitalism is a historical process that emerged from specific physical conditions on the planet we call earth and is the physical and logical relationship between real physical things in real physical human society. Again, academically we can try to abstract it into a concept and then mentally divorce it from its history, but physically speaking it's a physical phenomenon, just as history is a physical phenomenon. That's why I said it's more like being able to talk about the USA while ignoring genocide but can't truly conceptualize a USA without genocide. We can talk about capitalism as though it's abstract but what we're really doing is ignoring history when we do that. I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I don't think it's possible to conceive of capitalism without racism, I think it's only possible to talk about capitalism without racism. The reason I'm pushing back so much on this is that people do the exact same thing with communism. It has a history that includes violence and suffering, so they assume it inherently must lead to violence and suffering. That is not the case. Nor is it the case that capitalism must lead to racism, or that it must utilize racism, even though I agree that's how it has happened in our world. We can acknowledge our shitty history while also leaving room to imagine a better future. Capital is a physical thing. The people who engage in capitalism, the products bought and sold, typically are physical things. Capitalism itself is not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 child) That's a good challenge. I think there's a difference. You're challenge will force me to wrestle with it. I am grateful for the dialog. Let's start with capitalism as a totalizing system versus communism as a non-totalizing system. Attempt 1 The Chinese movement for communism is historically posterior to Russian communism. That is true. However, Russian communism and Chinese communism did not become a single Communism, they maintained a boundary and eventually had a formal break. Capitalism, on the other hand, is international. It started in Holland, but the superstructural components (usually laws) were easily to replicate and harmonize, and the concentrative nature of capitalism meant that a single dominant capitalist regime induced harmonization in every other polity attempting to participate in the wealth distribution. There is one capitalism in the world today, but there are 5 communisms (China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Cuba). These 5 communisms do not compose a single system, they are 5 distinct historical processes. There is only one historical process of capitalism in the world today. And even the communisms are deeply integrated into that global process of capitalism, because it is a totalizing global process that controls incentives across all global commodities. Attempt 2 Capitalism emerged in physics (or in practice) first and later was described by theory. In contrast, communism starts from theory and later emerges in physics (in practice). That is to say the theory of capitalism is descriptive, and the theory of communism is prescriptive. This explains why it's possible for multiple communisms to exist but not multiple capitalisms. Capitalism happened. It took over the world. And then people described it in the abstract. Communism was described in the abstract. It was described by people analyzing capitalism and prescribing an alternative. Then people tried to put it into practice. In this way, communisms can independently emerge whereas capitalisms cannot. In the future when communism has taken over the world, we can agree that the specific communism that exists at that time will be inextricable from the historical processes that produced it. But Cuban communism was not produced by nor produced Vietnamese communism. They are distinct historical processes that share a common ideological history but do not share a material history. By contrast, the capitalism in China is 100% the same capitalism as the rest of the world, which is why it needs to be subservient to the party. If the party didn't dominate the capitalism in China. Then the incentives in total would be set by the West. With the party dominant, incentives set by the West can be counteracted. I believe this demonstrates how there is materially only one capitalism but materially multiple communisms. Attempt 3 Even if we grant that capitalism can be fully abstracted into a theoretical construct, I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Capitalism requires capital in the form of hoarded liquidity. Without hoarded liquidity, capitalism can never materialize. If that's the case, the question becomes "how can such a hoard be amassed?". I would contend that the empirical record shows that the only way to amass that much wealth concentration is the exploitation of a huge portion of the world's population - specifically a larger portion of the world's population than any single nation contains. That means that capitalism requires transnational exploitation, which is exactly what we see with the East India Company. If that's the case, a given that humans are imbued with empathy by virtue of their neurology, it would seem that, to produce capitalism it becomes necessary to create some system that overrides innate empathy for other human beings. In this formulation, I can concede that abstract capitalism doesn't rely on concrete EuroRacism, but from a functional perspective, it will always require something functionally equivalent to EuroRacism as long as we're talking about Planet Earth, with all of its various starting conditions. Maybe there's another physics where capitalism doesn't require it, but I am unaware of any theory along these lines. Done So that's all I got. Thanks again for the challenge. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 1 day ago (1 child) I am grateful for the dialog. I apologize for losing my patience yesterday. You seem very knowledgeable and I like what you're trying to do. I think that capitalism theoretically can only happen with a massive concentration of wealth held by an ultraminority that the supermajority relies on but does not control. Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? Currently, the rich are able to use their resources to influence laws that keep the wealth gap growing. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation, or if technology was somehow applied to create a currency that reports every transaction (like a non-mineable cryptocurrency) where each person is allotted a certain amount and is not allowed to exceed a certain cap? The purchasing power could be adjusted based on the population size. Something where every person could afford a home, but no one can purchase a mansion, for example. Downsides might include a lack of privacy, every transaction would have to be on record. And if you purchase a house and it counts as part of your wealth, what happens if it gets destroyed in a storm? Maybe the government would appraise the damage and either reclaim the materials and refund the owner, or restore the house to its valued amount. I don't have a clear vision, just some scattered ideas. Thanks again for the challenge. You are welcome. Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I'm not entirely satisfied with my response, but it's an initial set of approaches that I think point in the direction I'm facing. The part that has me thinking is the distinction between capitalism as descriptive and communism as prescriptive. But history is complicated, sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between the start and end of events or processes. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Personally, I wonder whether we could develop a society with no need for money. If the average person could understand that cooperation is better for us all, we could share workloads and resources with no currency to hoard. We already have sufficient technology to track need and production, the internet allows humans all over the world to communicate almost instantly with each other. We would want to be very careful about how we quantify needs and deeds, but maybe something like that could work. Thank you for your patience. You don't have to dive too deeply into my hypotheticals, they might not hold any weight and I don't want to waste your time. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child) Out of curiosity, could a version of capitalism with limits potentially prevent exploitation? It really depends on how you define terms. "Exploitation" as communists use it is not a moral hazard as much as it is the name of a relationship between two components in a system. Step out of economics and morality and look at an ecosystem. The reason any given species thrives in an ecosystem is because it occupies a "niche". That niche is predicated on exploitation of specific source of energy (or whatever needs the organism has) which is exists in sufficient abundance as a result of some other ecological component. Bees do not make flowers, but they require flowers for their energy source. The flowers produce that energy in abundance, so the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist. If flowers did not produce available energy, or if they suddenly stopped, the niche would essentially close and the bees would cease to exist. When we bring it back to economics, exploitation is a the mechanism by which a "species" (i.e. a specialization of a broader category e.g. bees are a speciation of animals or life) maintains its existence. In the Marxian analysis, human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. So can capitalism exist without exploitation? That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Generally speaking, I don't think there's a way to frame capitalism without an owning class that does not need to work. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. But what if the laws were written to prevent grotesque wealth accumulation If you mean that the state could appropriate surplus and redistribute it, you've essentially truncated the right to private property and limited it to a centrally planned definition of what "enough personal property" is. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. I think of communalism as being similar to communism, and multiple tribes from around the world naturally discovered it. Is communism a new phenomenon, or a return to what we had before? Maybe humanity is undoing a long-standing mistake. Yes. 100% However, it's important to distinguish between types of continuity and types of rupture. For example, if the Europeans had genocided all of indigenous cultures in all parts of the world, and the world was 100% white people, eventually we might re-evolve darker skin around the equator, but this would not be the same as saying that we have returned to what we had before. It would be a new instance of immanent phenomenon. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. This distinction is hard for me to articulate well. Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Two armies in two totally different parts of the ancient world fighting for completely different territories are two discontiguous processes, even if they both informed their strategies by reading Sun Tzu. If those two armies formed an alliance and captured territory together, their discontiguous histories would merge at some point, and the present would be contiguous with each of their histories independently, but the histories would not become contiguous retroactively. If the armies, instead of forming alliance, entered into combat and one destroyed the other, then the history of loser would continue only in so far as the victor failed to completely terminate every subprocess of the loser's history. It's an area I don't honestly have a full grasp on. There's a book on it I've been meaning to read, "Continuity and Rupture" by JMP, but it's on my list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today 1 point 6 hours ago the niche that bees occupy entails exploitation of the excess energy from flowers in order for bees to exist Right, I would probably avoid the word "exploitation" if the one being "exploited" isn't actually losing anything. Flowers benefit from bees and bees benefit from flowers. human society specialized into classes and the mechanism by which the owning class maintains its existence is by exploitation of the abundance of commodities produced by the working class. I would say it is only exploitation if the commodities are coerced out of the working class instead of freely given. If the working class did not produce a surplus, or if it suddenly stopped producing a surplus the owning class would cease to exist. What if, hypothetically, the owning class used their vast resources to replace the working class. Then the owning class owns the automated workers and all production, not just surplus. That depends on whether you think capitalism can exist without an owning class that does not work. Theoretically it can. But maybe not realistically, I don't know. Once you have the concept of surplus and combine it with private property, you have the ability for private persons to accumulate surplus and cease to work. If you eliminate the right to private property, I would think most theorists would agree, you no longer have capitalism. I think this is a good point. Capital only makes sense if the system permits investing in and reaping rewards for work you yourself do not perform. With that surplus appropriated, you then need a central planning function to determine how to redistribute it. I think you immediately leave capitalism as soon as you suggest this. Good point. Even if indigenous forms of communism existed, it would be inaccurate to say that the Russian revolution was a part of that historical process. The ideas transferred and produced a new instance of the phenomenon, but they do not share a continuity in the same way that Dutch and American capitalism share a continuity. I agree, although I would probably also agree if someone said "communalism has come and gone throughout history. Here is how it found resurgence in Russia." Because if the ideas transferred, then clearly there is some sort of continuity at play here. Yes. Everything is connected. Nature doesn't provide neat lines for us to categorize things between. We do our best, but it's never perfect. Useful, though! Thank you again for your in-depth responses. Mt main takeaways are that labels can be reductive and misleading, capitalism on Earth has always been racist, and reasonable cooperation has always been part of human history. I hope it is also part of human future. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? A man who kept his personal beliefs from influencing the government as a whole? Look I don’t even hate communism no more than I hate capitalism. “Real (insert your view) had never been tried! These problems aren’t a problem with the system, the leaders aren’t really trying to be pure (blank)” I get it. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream. Racism, exploitation, corruption… it’s the same everywhere. You’re eating cereal and believing the blue bits aren’t the same flavor as the red bits. It’s an illusion. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (2 children) I see so you’re saying Stalin was more of a figurehead and not some sort of person “in charge” of the operation of the party and thus his leadership is irrelevant to what the party was doing? No, I'm saying that just because you can point to Stalin's personal racism doesn't mean that the party itself integrated racism into the party platform. You claimed that the Communist Party was racist, and then used pogroms as an example, but none of the pogroms in the region were executed by the Community Party and the ONE retreat you have presented is that Stalin wanted to harm the Jews but ultimately the party did not. That's not evidence for your position. It's evidence against your position. Don’t get fooled into thinking communism around the world is some great utopian dream You don't have to protect me. I promise. I'm a big kid now. I wear big kid pants and I almost never wet my bed anymore. Racism, … it’s the same everywhere No. It's not. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of racism, and you really need to educate yourself. Racism as you and I know it is European racism. It is a distinct historical process. It has a starting point, it has a historical development driven by historical material conditions, and it spread around the world via the European empire. It is not some kind of platonic ideal, it is a specific construction. exploitation, corruption … it’s the same everywhere Absolutely. These are words we use to describe the behavior of systems. The systems exhibit these behaviors to a greater or lesser extent and they have different reactions to these behaviors. For example, when business leaders in China cut corners and sold tainted baby formula to make more money, and it resulted in sick and dead babies, the state executed them. Meanwhile, Nestle kills babies all over the world and the US calls it "shareholder supremacy". So yes, exploitation and corruption ARE the same everywhere, but different systems stand in different relation to these phenomena. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 days ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child) You seem to be confused. The doctors plot happened. Many Jewish people were rounded up tortured and executed by the regime! People died for being Jewish. Stalin died before rounding up all the Jews but the communist party rounded up and killed Jews for being Jews. That happened. “And this wasn’t an isolated incident. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin, including the campaign against supposed “cosmopolitans” and the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee” Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 child) The doctors plot happened Yes, several hundred people were arrested and interrogated for a suspected plot against the country's leadership. I wouldn't exactly call that a pogrom. Fewer people died than the US police kill in a month. That happened. Yes, it did. I don't deny it. I just don't think your characterization of it matches the reality. the destruction of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee The JAC was created by the Communist Party at the order of Joseph Stalin. It wasn't something separate that the Communist Party then attacked. Stalin convinced the leadership to disband the formation because he believed that their international connections with England and the US vis-a-vis Israel was actually problematic. What do you think? Was he perhaps right about this? Did he see in the structural formation of the international Zionist movement something that maybe wasn't the best thing to be part of a communist party? I think perhaps he was correct in this regard, given everything we've seen coming out of Israel. It came after several years of increasingly antisemitic repression under Stalin Yes, Stalin did in fact do this. He ordered it, he organized it, he oversaw it. For 5 years. Out of 70. So your claim that the communist party was a racist organization because of 7.2% of their existence under a single 5-year term of a single leader is really grasping. I don't disagree with you about Stalin's particular 5-year anti-semitism spree. Oh I see all the racism in Russia is actually everyone else’s fault not Russia. Got it. Yeah, obviously you don't got it. You have a specific rhetorical goal and everything that supports it is grand narrative and everything against it is specious. Sorry. I don't respect your way of processing history. The Han Chinese were already racist before communism so it doesn’t count either. Yeah, that's not what I said. I said that the specific ways in which the Han were Han supremacist prior to the communist party emerging were not only distinct from the communist party itself, which as all theory and practice shows incorporates the material conditions of its founding but that the CPC specifically has taken explicit action against Han supremacy because it recognizes it and acknowledges it as something that needs to be addressed. Something that is fundamentally different from liberal power structures around the world. Wow I’m so glad communists regimes can’t be racist because nothing counts. You really need to read more. You say I have “one” example. The truth is I just don’t have all day to list the many many examples You literally cited "pogroms" that never happened and then you cited The Doctor's Plot, which was not a pogrom, and I think I've thoroughly addressed it here. You can pretend you have so many examples that you're too busy to share, but I don't believe you, and I don't think anyone else does either. Especially since after each example I give you’ll only stomp your feet and say “that doesn’t count!” Every time. What’s the point. I mean, you can pretend that me providing historical context is stomping my feet, but what is in fact happening is you are stamping you're feet saying THE PARTY IS EVIL because a specific 5-year period of a party led by a single person acted against Jews and killed a relatively small number of them (although it did really do a lot of damage to Jewish institutions throughout the USSR, and it is a real black mark against Stalin and the Communist Party). You're not convincing. You make overly broad claims, and then challenged you narrow your evidence but you don't narrow your claims. It's quite problematic for your position. But I promise, I won't stamp my feet at you. I will only bring evidence and analysis. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aeao@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child) “Interrogated” lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frisbird@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago You're a very serious person with well reasoned opinions and are well informed of history and you are clearly seeking after truth and understanding. permalink fedilink source parent