this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
440 points (78.1% liked)

Memes

45202 readers
3227 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gigan@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Do you have a real-world example of a successful communist state? Because you may not like it, but those "communist" countries are humanities best attempts at enacting communism and they resulted in millions of people dying.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Millions less than the previous government forms, like Feudalism. Famines disappeared quickly and industrialization allowed for life expectancy to double in the USSR and Maoist China, despite issues like Civil War, World Wars, and so forth.

Did a lot go wrong? Absolutely. Were they massive improvements? Also yes.

[–] peterg75@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@Gigan
There are none! There's a reason pure communism is called a utopia. Because it is! While it may work for a small community of like-minded individuals, is just not scalable. The more people there are the more difference of opinion there is.
@RmDebArc_5

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Pure Communism, ie the formation of society after the contradictions within Socialism have been resolved, is not called a Utopia except by anti-communists.

[–] peterg75@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
Resolved how? Did I somehow miss a memo?

There's a reason that all past attempts at the establishment of communist states have failed. Lenin, Mao, et al, had grand ideas steeped in Marxist teachings. All of them ended up in an authoritarian state. Cuba, North Korea, China, USSR. All failed because of the human factor.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Contradiction refers to the remaining vestiges from Capitalism, ie a State, Class, and Money. I suggest reading up on Historical Materialism and Dialectics.

Secondly, failing because of "the human factor" is a purely idealistic outlook and not a materialist analysis, you're arguing off of vibes.

[–] peterg75@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee that's funny, you calling me idealist, and you proposing classless, stateless society.

Hilarious.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Yes, you are quite literally an idealist by citing "the Human Factor" as a necessary reason for issues faced by AES countries.

Idealism proposes the idea of unchanging Human characteristics, Materialism proposes the idea that environments shape ideas. The former is undoubdtedly unscientific, while the latter is scientific.

Fighting for a goal is not what I am referring to as Idealism.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Communism only works on paper because it assumes that the people in power are going to just happily share everything equally. Humans don't work that way, we're selfish, greedy, and will hurt others to get ahead. There is no difference between a capitalist and communist leader. They both live better, eat better, make more money. There's no equality there

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.

It's the sociopaths who seek power that don't work that way. The biggest success of capitalism is that the sociopaths have normalized their behavior and cast kindness as a flaw or disorder.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Humans do work that way. In the wake of disaster, and tragedy, and scarcity, we see people sharing resources and helping each other.

And also opportunists that will take the opportunity to loot and steal, then happily abandon anyone behind them still in the disaster.

If your baseline assumption is reliant on people doing… well, much if anything outside of being self serving it will break down fast.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That is exactly the sociopathic propaganda I mentioned, that simply isn't backed by evidence, but casts people with empathy as ignorant.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s not propaganda to acknowledge shitty people exist and will try to take advantage of any situation, it’s just basic reality when you’re out from behind a keyboard.

[–] PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 months ago

It's not propaganda to acknowledge they exist.

It's propaganda to normalize sociopathic behavior as the appropriate response to sociopathy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

That's an astonishingly immaterial, idealistic analysis.

Communism assumes people work in their best interests, and because ideas come from material environments and not from some idea of "spirit," Humans are more cooperative in cooperative systems and competitive in competitive systems.

A Communist leader is one that is democratically accountable and production is owned by the state, therefore all "profits" are reinvested into the economy for the benefit of all, rather than an elite few. Corruption is possible, yes, but so too is legislating protections against Corruption. In Capitalism, this corruption is required to function.

[–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No. But that doesn’t mean something like a socialist democracy couldn’t be achieved. Socialism isn’t bound to have a certain type of government and if we get rid of capitalism I would still like to have a say in what happens next