The point being raised, I believe, is that ‘communist’ countries are generally as ‘communist’ as they are ‘the people’s’ or ‘democratic’ - it bears little resemblance to the 19th century theories which spawned the term and which are still in use amongst socialist thinkers today.
I mean, countries controlled by communist parties themselves would say that. Communist parties generally claim to run a socialist worker’s state which will lead to communism.
In reality, it’s just a power grab, with little to do with the workers.
There have been socialist polities in the past 100 years, genuinely socialist. None without their faults, but certainly not the totalitarian farce that people think of when they think of communism.
I recon the Neozapatista communes in Chiapas come pretty close. Historically, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Makhnovshina during the Russian Civil War, and a couple others also came very close to the definition of communism, although all of them, because they still had to interact with the outside economy, continued to use some form of money.
In the case of the aforementioned historic governments, they met their demise because they relied too heavily on an alliance with tankies, who then proceeded to shoot them in the back. The Neozapatistas did not ally with any authoritarian groups, which is why the sprung up in 1994 in the form of MAREZ and still exist today in the form of GALs.
No, these countries have implemented 19th century theories extremely accurately. After all, Marx manifesto is openly calling for violence and genocide and Marx was also a big fan of Taiping Rebellion which resulted in more than 20 million deaths. I bet he was dreaming about the same destiny for Europe.
an authoritarian calling his dictatorship the leftist thing doesn’t make it the leftist thing, it just makes it part of a pattern of the power hungry intentionally co-opting of leftist ideas to gain popularity.
As for the first question, if you had followed the conversation at all or bothered reading any of the information I linked you would be able to answer that yourself, and I’m done doing the work for you, if you care, make your own effort to find out.
Huge difference. While the authoritarianism stage is not the end goal of Communism, Marx himself believed it was a necessary step. It is entirely reasonable on the topic of political theory to reference Leninism as Communism because it is a defined characteristic of one of the stages of a long-term Communist plan. Even though there is an implicit dream of a utopian future where that behavior stops, the behavior is still intentionally defined in the process. As a formal part of the process, there is an explicit pursuit of authoritarianism.
That said, there may be people who think communism can be achieved without the authoritarianism stage… But I think the “ACAB” statute needs to apply. Until Communists come out in open and extreme opposition to “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, they must be judged to be at the very least complicit.
The Zapatistas have organized a net of interconnected communes in Southern Mexico that have operated independently from the Mexican state since 1994.
In these communes, productive property is held in common by the inhabitants. There are no employers or employees. Difference in wealth is negligible. Governance is achieved via participatory democracy. It is as close as you can get to communism when you’re still forced to trade with capitalists and thus use money.
By definition, socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee, depending on which brand of socialism you are interacting with.
I don’t see “totalitarian dictatorship” as a form of social ownership and I imagine most people alive wouldn’t either.
You know, if you’d opened with that line, instead of a completely fictional line about a Fascism being literally socialism, you might have made more friends from the start.
Not if you actually look at communist countries anywhere in the real world.
Hoo boy.
The point being raised, I believe, is that ‘communist’ countries are generally as ‘communist’ as they are ‘the people’s’ or ‘democratic’ - it bears little resemblance to the 19th century theories which spawned the term and which are still in use amongst socialist thinkers today.
So you’re saying there’s no actual communist countries, and this whole this is just theoretical?
I mean, countries controlled by communist parties themselves would say that. Communist parties generally claim to run a socialist worker’s state which will lead to communism.
In reality, it’s just a power grab, with little to do with the workers.
There have been socialist polities in the past 100 years, genuinely socialist. None without their faults, but certainly not the totalitarian farce that people think of when they think of communism.
Correct.
Man, that’s really convenient.
There’s also no direct democracies either, so what?
Did I say there were?
You’re arguing against something I never even said 🤣
I’m asking what your point is, or are you incapable of reading more than 6 words in a reply?
My point is:
"Shit like this is why I don’t get (some of) the LGBTQ community’s fascination with communism and tankies.
They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists."
I recon the Neozapatista communes in Chiapas come pretty close. Historically, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Makhnovshina during the Russian Civil War, and a couple others also came very close to the definition of communism, although all of them, because they still had to interact with the outside economy, continued to use some form of money.
In the case of the aforementioned historic governments, they met their demise because they relied too heavily on an alliance with tankies, who then proceeded to shoot them in the back. The Neozapatistas did not ally with any authoritarian groups, which is why the sprung up in 1994 in the form of MAREZ and still exist today in the form of GALs.
No, these countries have implemented 19th century theories extremely accurately. After all, Marx manifesto is openly calling for violence and genocide and Marx was also a big fan of Taiping Rebellion which resulted in more than 20 million deaths. I bet he was dreaming about the same destiny for Europe.
Not even close to true
What do you mean? These are the facts. How can they not be true? Are you a lunatic?
Yes, when you actually understand what communism is, and don’t play the “the nazis were actually socialists it’s in the name” card
https://medium.com/international-workers-press/misconceptions-about-communism-2e366f1ef51f
Okay, so give me an actual real communist country where LGBTQ people are treated well and as equals.
What the fuck
They’re mocking that idea about the Nazis, not endorsing it.
that’s exactly what you’re doing.
an authoritarian calling his dictatorship the leftist thing doesn’t make it the leftist thing, it just makes it part of a pattern of the power hungry intentionally co-opting of leftist ideas to gain popularity.
As for the first question, if you had followed the conversation at all or bothered reading any of the information I linked you would be able to answer that yourself, and I’m done doing the work for you, if you care, make your own effort to find out.
Huge difference. While the authoritarianism stage is not the end goal of Communism, Marx himself believed it was a necessary step. It is entirely reasonable on the topic of political theory to reference Leninism as Communism because it is a defined characteristic of one of the stages of a long-term Communist plan. Even though there is an implicit dream of a utopian future where that behavior stops, the behavior is still intentionally defined in the process. As a formal part of the process, there is an explicit pursuit of authoritarianism.
That said, there may be people who think communism can be achieved without the authoritarianism stage… But I think the “ACAB” statute needs to apply. Until Communists come out in open and extreme opposition to “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”, they must be judged to be at the very least complicit.
Really? Point it out to me where I said nazis are socialist. I’ll wait.
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/zapatistas-gay-rights-let-those-who-persecute-be-ashamed
The Zapatistas have organized a net of interconnected communes in Southern Mexico that have operated independently from the Mexican state since 1994. In these communes, productive property is held in common by the inhabitants. There are no employers or employees. Difference in wealth is negligible. Governance is achieved via participatory democracy. It is as close as you can get to communism when you’re still forced to trade with capitalists and thus use money.
Removed by mod
It’s better than most, but conversion therapy is not banned, and non-binary individuals are not legally recognised, so still not equal.
At least they’re trying however.
Removed by mod
Unfortunately, there always are.
But credit to Cuba, they really are doing well on all other LGBTQ issues.
Nazis were socialist. It’s not a card, it’s a fact.
By definition, socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Social ownership can be public, community, collective, cooperative, or employee, depending on which brand of socialism you are interacting with.
I don’t see “totalitarian dictatorship” as a form of social ownership and I imagine most people alive wouldn’t either.
He’s just a full-on troll. He told me in another reply that socialism is “things like Holocaust”.
And north korea is a democratic republic?
Nazism was a fascist regime. They were not “socialist” in any real way.
Here is an unbiased explanation of the facts of the discussion. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
They were full on socialists. Things like Holocaust are bread and butter of that kind.
So basically you’re just making shit up.
Only tankies are making shit up.
You know, if you’d opened with that line, instead of a completely fictional line about a Fascism being literally socialism, you might have made more friends from the start.
I don’t need tankies and Nazis as friends.